User talk:VirtualEye/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Haroon] is universal name for all people who know arabic and is in [Quran] and hundreds of million people in Arab world know Haroon was the name of prophet of [Allah]. He was the person for all ages. More universal. Aron or Aaron is just the word used in english for the people who dont know Arabic or urdu etc. What about the rest of people? should they also call Aaron?

You should change the link of this singer of temporary popularity in current age. Haroon_Singer or Singer_Haroon will be better.

>>Article Haroon is for singer. The Haroon you are talking is Aaron, brother of >>>>>>>>>>Musa. --Spasage 06:26, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Haroon (Singer) is better. I am moving it. We'll have disambiguation for Haroon, and for singer, Haroon (Singer). Y0u can make separate page for Haroon/Haaroon the brother of prophet Moses. The reason I reverted was you were changing existing article, which was unfair [1] , but I think matter is resolve now. We'll have similar page as Musa. --Spasage 05:00, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Your recent edit to Nazanin was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // Tawkerbot2 21:02, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 Dhimmi Article 2 License tagging for Image:Mango Chaunsa.jpg 3 Song of Solomon 4 Islamic view of the Bibile 5 About the Jyllands Posten Cartoons 6 Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy 7 Adding spurious web sites to Faith_Freedom_International article 8 Your edits to Ibn Warraq 9 You deleted a WorldNetDaily link from Faith Freedom International 10 Stop adding your generic cut-and-pasted anti-Christian propaganda tirade to "Song of Solomon" 11 Christian terrorism 12 Vandalism to Talk:Islamist terrorism 13 Regarding your recent edits 14 Nonsense edit in Zionism 15 Israeli flag 16 How are you doing? 17 Seriously man 18 Your userpage 19 Your user page 20 Eh... 21 Repeat WP:USER violations 22 15 Minute Block 23 Longer block 24 Longer block Why 25 Autoblocked 26 Terrorism 27 Christian Terrorism Redux 28 Regarding your hostility 29 Re Moon God 30 please don't do this again 31 Minor edits 32 McHenry quote 33 Your edit summary in Zaynab bint Jahsh 34 Stupid 35 Trolling on Talk:Muhammad 36 re: 37 Userpage Vandalism

[edit] Dhimmi Article

You have made good changes in Dhimmi article. I will need your help in correcting it. Please continue visiting the article and add it in your watch list. I will support you good changes. We will need to do good research and find good references to make the article better. I hope to see your lots of edits in Dhimmi article. Feel free to contact me. --- Faisal 22:50, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] License tagging for Image:Mango Chaunsa.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Mango Chaunsa.jpg. Wikipedia gets hundreds of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 12:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Song of Solomon

Your cut-and-pasted Muslim anti-Christian propaganda tirade is completely out of place on Song of Solomon. In any case, some Christians would say that there is nothing in the "Song of Songs" which is as obscene as Qur'an verse 33:50. Not to mention المتبرجة خير من الإرهابي المنتحر ... AnonMoos 20:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Islamic view of the Bibile

Let's keep our ugly little screeds to ourselves, shall we? You've been warned about this sort of disruption before. Do it again and you're off the site. - Lucky 6.9 18:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, Lets keep our ugly little screeds to ourselves. How about the ugly little 10001 anti-islamic articles on wikipedia? Do you think I am a Islamofascist jerk? I could not find the material about islamic view on bible so I used some open source material 'with reference'. Whats wrong? If an antiIslamic goon does such things then there come hundreds of arguments about whether to delete that article or not. Are you really secular?\ Also, I would respectfully say, if you have authority of removing someone from the site, then it does not mean you keep threatening every other person. I hope you understand. VirtualEye 07:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I understand perfectly and I agree that a few bad eggs are giving the entire Muslim nation a black eye and if someone comes on this site with an anti-Islamic attitude, I guarantee that that someone would get clobbered for bigotry. I'll concede the fact that the King James Bible was written and rewritten to suit the politics of its day; the exclusion of the Gnostic Gospels is a prime example. There is a lot of questionable translation as well. However, the opening statement is what caused me to delete the article because of its very anti-Christian tone, not to mention its "original research" type of layout. If that's not what you meant to do, then please accept my apologies for jumping to conclusions and threatening to block your account. - Lucky 6.9 09:07, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I appretiate your stance now. The matter with that article about islamic view on bible is that: I could not find an article on that at the moment, so I added a starter while I or someone else would modify it continuously. While I understand that my starter for the topic was too specific instead of looking like a research work. My excuse for that.

I have put some comment on your talk page about Islamic extremists terrorism. I have some reservations about the addition of highly controversial references such as Rober Spencer. Yes, he is best selling in America, but there is more to the World than America. This person owns the website called Jihad Watch which is 99% opposite to the definition of Jihad on this 'reliable' wikipedia.

I also understand the real bad part of Muslims using the name of Jihad, but that is not the all one sided story which is being depicted in Robert Spencer's disinformation.

Please accept my pardon upon any of my fault. Thanks. VirtualEye 09:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] About the Jyllands Posten Cartoons

I just reverted vandalism to the page by a user adding a POV essay. That's the limit of my interest and involvement on this page. Thanks, Kitzke 19:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy

Wat are you talking about? My sole edit to this article was to correct a link to Sarawak Tribune! While I have ideas of my own on this issue, I have preferred to avoid being involved in the debate, and would appreciate others NOT making efforts to drag me into it. Circeus 21:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Adding spurious web sites to Faith_Freedom_International article

Your edit to the article Faith_Freedom_International, [2] was reverted as it added too many spam or non-notable sites to the article. Please discuss any web site before it is added on the articles talk page. Ttiotsw 05:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your edits to Ibn Warraq

I have reverted your edit, [3] as it added many non-notable web sites to the article links section without a clear understanding as to the relevance of each link. This gives undue weight to an opposing view and thus makes the article non-neutral. Please use the talk page on the article and allow us to discuss each link to verify, through consensus, how notable and how relevant it is. Ttiotsw 05:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

VirtualEye, do you see a list of opposing websites for Muhammad? Why then a list of opposing websites for Ibn Warraq? This answers your question. --Matt57 03:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] You deleted a WorldNetDaily link from Faith Freedom International

VirtualEye , why did you delete the WorldNetDaily link from FFI's page on your edit here? Here is the link you deleted:

WorldNetDaily: Ex-Muslim's site trashes Muhammad

You also deleted:

Coverage of Faith Freedom by Jim Ball of Sydney's radio station 2GB

These are justified links about FFI. Please explain why you deleted these links. --Matt57 14:00, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stop adding your generic cut-and-pasted anti-Christian propaganda tirade to "Song of Solomon"

Please do not add nonsense to Wikipedia, as you did to Song of Solomon. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. AnonMoos 14:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

And don't forget -- المتبرجة خير من الإرهابي المنتحر !

[edit] Christian terrorism

If you are going to so radically edit the article, you need to start a discussion on the talk page. If you had checked the talk page, you would have seen that all of your additions had been ruled out. Please do not continue this, or I will be forced to contact a moderator. Please leave something on the discussion page.--MarcusAnniusCatiliusSeverus 19:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism to Talk:Islamist terrorism

Your vandalism to the Quranic Quotes section of this page has been undone. If you have a comment you'd like to say about these verses or about someone elses comment, say it at the end of the comment. And make sure to sign your name at the end of your comments.--Sefringle 06:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding your recent edits

After finding your comments on Talk:Islamist terrorism, I proceeded to read several of your edits and have noticed a very biased style of writing. While strong opinions are essential to building a solid encyclopedia, your writing is far across the thin line of Wikipedia's NPOV policy. Additionally, I would dispute the credibility of one of your frequently cited sources, Answering-Christianity.com [[4]. From the limited previewing I did of the site, I noticed a point of view that was disturbingly (to me, at least) extreme.

One of your common arguments is that there is a large amount of anti-Islam bias in Wikipedia, which is an example of systemic bias. There are many more people with anti-Islam sentiment editing the English Wikipedia than there are people with pro-Islam viewpoints.

I guess the main point I am trying to make is that you have been asked time and time again to adhere to the Wikipedia guidelines, you still refuse to do so. Also, some of your comments on discussion pages are downright inflammatory to a large number of people. Reading and familiarizing yourself with the Wikipedia Policies and Guidelines and the Guide to Writing Better Articles. I know that while this comment may seen Megalomaniacal, that is in no way my intention. My goal is purely to help you contribute the best way you can, and these comments might be able to help you. Regards, Hojimachong 05:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nonsense edit in Zionism

Please do not add nonsense to Wikipedia, as you did to the Zionism page. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 11:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:NPA ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 09:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I am being insulted by you. What is the point to first remove my added references and then calling them 'nonsense'? Anything which is related to Zionism that will come under the topic Zionism. Those Jews referenced have their organizations negating the cause of Zionims even being Jews themselves. What is the point to call that nonsese? Either you are a Zionist that you dont like those Jews who are against Zionism or their is some other problem with you. VirtualEye 09:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Israeli flag

Dude, cutting out random chunks of article Israeli Flag without giving any good reason, or explaining yourself on the article talk page, is not going to cut it. AnonMoos 08:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How are you doing?

Hiya,
I just wanted to stop by and briefly chat with you, as you seem to be bit stressed lately. Have you considered taking a short breather? Sometimes people or events here on Wikipedia can stress quite much - a couple of months ago I was really bad under the weather (stress and temper wise) and my edits were less than civil until I decided to quit (I thought I was gone for good back then, it was that much stress) but a couple of days later I came back; that break really refreshed me. So, I'll offer you a bit of advice: If you feel stressed, take a breather before you are pushed too far. A couple of hours break can really make the difference. Don't let the stress get to ya! Best wishes. CharonX/talk 02:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Seriously man

Dude, I don't know what your problem is, but you need to stop. Now. You come to Wikipedia, troll around, and argue with people over things that the Wikipedia community has already deemed to be fine. If you want to make constructive edits, go ahead, but dont be dumb. We don't want to hear your opinions about "collateral damage" and stuff in the Zionism article. Maybe this arrogance is why you get bombed, idiot. Go hump a camel, islamofascist.Cheesemonger2250 22:03, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

And by the way, you mention on the administrators board that the USA is not the "master of coutries." It sure isnt, but Wikipedia is headquartered in Florida (that's a state in the US), and therefore abides by US laws. If you arent allowed to view the cartoons in Pakistan, don't access the article.Cheesemonger2250 22:10, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

what the %%$# you are pouring on my talk page? "Go hum a camel"? this is your truth of secularism and your talks about wikipedia community? keep your Filth to yourself and dont abuse others. VirtualEye 14:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked that user, since the only contribution they made was to your page. Feel free to remove this section from your talk page. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your userpage

That "I blow myself up" kind of poetry is highly inappropriate here. Please remove it yourself before some else did. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 10:15, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

These people abuse everthing and give us WP:Not. How can they object it? --- ALM 14:16, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

However, dear brother cool down. Work hard and create Islamic state because secularism is now against all religion. Enjoy and listen music like this one |Damir Niksic: "If I wasn't muslim".  :) --- ALM 14:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I thought you might find this extremely funny. It shows the ignorance of the disgusting Zionist scum and the propoganda used to brainwash them. [5](Ssd175 06:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)) (by the way, i think your poetry is fine and humus sapien is just being a little oversensitive and ignorant)

[edit] Your user page

I have blanked your user page. Wikipedia is not a soapbox - user pages are there to assist in the project, not for political arguments. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

You can read more about our userpage policies at WP:USER, and more about what Wikipedia is not at WP:NOT. Thanks. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

you cleared my page just because 'you' dont like it. If a christian has the right to give any refereces of Islam hatered websites, and a Jews has complexly built rubbish user page then whats the problem with my page? My page means "MY USER PAGE" and that will reflect what I think and not what your president says. I did not use any fetish sexual terms nor I named any of christianity or Jewish relgions. Mind it please. VirtualEye 14:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

No. I cleared your user page because it is a violation of our guidelines on user pages, located at WP:USER. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:00, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read WP:OWN, no part of Wikipedia is yours, not even your user page. This has nothing to do with religion. This is about policy. Please do not use Wikipedia to campaign beliefs. Also, I don't have a president, I am Canadian. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh really? not using wikipedia for campaign of beliefs? | This user's page looks to you exactly according to WP:USER Policy????? Why your all cannons are directed towards me? This page I mentioned is secular in your definitions? (No offense)VirtualEye 15:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Take it to ANI and we will discuss there. There is nothing wrong with his user page. Firstly there is nothing wrong with the user page and secondly even if it is against policy then I give your 100s of other user pages with similar stuff. Apply policy equally everywhere. There are user pages saying that "Quran support terrorism" but you allow them. How the hell someone object this. --- ALM 15:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

We try to apply policy fairly, if another user has a userpage against policy bring it up at WP:ANI. I don't think we allow statements like "Quran support terrorism", at least I wouldn't. This userpage has already been brought up on AN/I before I got here. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

It was on ANI and after discussion they allow him to keep it. Wait and I try to find it for you again. Even my page was on ANI and discussed in detailed. It is his views and as long as he do not edit pushing his POV, wikipedia should leave them there (as normally they have done in past). --- ALM 15:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

We need more opinion on this then, please post your concerns at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Query_inappropriate_user_page where this was first brought up. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Show me where it was on ANI? I want to see people comments that how they can support double standards. Give the URL please. --- ALM 15:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

What is all I did is I talked only about my point of view as an observer and editor. Ofcourse I should not violate the policy, but then others also should not. And ofcourse user page is not a wikipedia article page As to be mentioned on the user page "This is not an encyclopedia article.". I hope you understand, thanks VirtualEye 15:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I fully agree that others should also follow policy. You can post problem userpages at WP:AN/I. If you wish to discuss your userpage a discussion is already at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Query_inappropriate_user_page, if the consensus of the others finds me wrong then I will accept that. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Until the discussion is over there is no reason to blank it. --- ALM 15:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Wow, a content dispute on a userpage... (I'm trying to stay neutral, please don't flame me) --science4sail ^talkcon 03:52, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Eh...

VirtualEye, I would like to apologize for some of the comments made while we were discussing on Talk:Islamist terrorism. Some of my comments were highly offensive, and I see now that they may have hurt you. I still do stand by my opinions, but realized that I could express them without so much... anger. Please accept my apologies. Hojimachong 05:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Its ok. Its better If people keep on digging about truth, instead of what media pours in their brains, then there is no need of apology. If you want some further eye-openers about media and hypocricy then personally let me know. A person who thinks that he knows everything is actually an ignorant person. And since in the current case, since we Muslims are the object and others are accusing so we can claim to know better about our concepts and ideologies instead of other people like these and theseexplaining them for us and still claiming that they know all.

Anyway, I welcome your any fair comment. VirtualEye 05:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I thought you might find it interesting that Americans also find this kind of humor extremely funny. One very popular late-night TV show (The Tonight Show with Jay Leno) features a weekly segment of "ordinary" Americans being interviewed on the street about current events by the host of the show, Jay Leno. Most of the answers are... a bit off, to say the least. While it in no way reflects all Americans and is a gross stereotype, it is fun to laugh at some people's misconceptions or downright ignorance. Just thought you might enjoy that bit of humor. Hojimachong 06:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I dont mean to disgrace Americans but to give examples that everything is not fine. I personally give respect to many many Americans for their being fair and decent and not being brainwashed. Just to clarify I give you an example. Where did Mr. Bush get most of votes from? From Texas and other states where more people are illiterate or extremists, while Bush could not win from those areas where people are more aware about how stupid he is. It is an example of how people vary. That is why, when I mention about hypocrisy of Americans then it does not mean all of them but some of them who are in power unfortunately and have taken over the media and financial institutes. That is why I many times used the word 'American Regime" and not Americans always. Ofcourse their are many people who do not know the complete facts and just start to sport the scums such as war on terror etc. But then there are many people who know the truth about hypocrisies too (but most of such people are not in power unfortunately and are not interested in policts etc.). When I refered about Professor Noam Chomsky, he was infered as one of the most finest minds of 20th century by a reputed American Magazine, but he himself told that he is not given the due coverage in the newspapers just because media owners do not like people to be influenced. Had there been fair owners of media, Professor Noam Chomsky as well as many others would have told Americans much more about the truth as compared to what they know now. Fortunately this is not the case of media in Eastern Countries, in Eastern countries all the media can not pour same rubbish into minds of people, and the reason is that there are different owners for different media orgs, everyone is speaking his chirp, so it is much easier to get all point of views and this increases the possibilities to identify the truth in that is also more easier, but this is not possible when you dont have many options but only the Hypocrite scum of 2 or 3 Zionist media owners.

I hope you liberate more yourself and do not feel disgraced, as I do not consider all people foolish and ignorant but many of them. VirtualEye 07:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Repeat WP:USER violations

This has nothing to do with our opinion of your ideas, or your poem. It is a blanket policy that does not allow using Wikipedia for campaigning a point of view. I have removed your poem again, and I have protected your userpage from editing for 2 days.

After the 2 days are over you are welcome to create a userpage within the bounds of WP:USER. Please to not return your poem, there are many websites out there where such things are welcome, but this website is for making an encyclopedia.

Please know that simply being persistent will more likely result in you being blocked from editing than changing things. If you disagree with the WP:USER policy, you are welcome to go to it's talk page and propose a change. Thank you, peace. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 05:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

It is his userpage, I think he should be a able to say what he wants on it. If it lets people know that is who he is then why not? (Ssd175 06:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC))

You did not answer my most obvious question. Are the Policies only for me? There are dozens of wikipedians with religious and personal content on their user pages? how many of you have blanked and threatened?

Anonmoos should this user page be blanked? Not think so because it is very much acceptable for you, then why would you even think about Policies while looking at his page, right? While at the same time his user page is purely a bunddle of religious scum to me. If he can claim all the thingy what 'he' believes about christianity, then why cant I claim the matter 'I' believe aboutMuslims? I am simply not selling anything here but giving the Muslims' as well as Many Atheists' as well as some Christian's point of view. And if you find it trouble to look for such source of christians and atheists who think Muslims are facing the situations as depicted in my poem, then please let me know, I will give you a bunddle of sources about that. VirtualEye 06:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

He's writing an encyclopedia article on his user page. There are no polemics there that I saw. Hipocrite - «Talk» 11:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Does that thing make you 'hipocrite'? He is talking about Christiany and trinities blaa blaa on his page. And for you kind info, believing in trinity is abuse to the the God which is believed in Islam to be Only One God. And please keep in mind, association of anyone to the One God is considered The Biggest Abuse/Disgrace in Islam. Does that mean I should shut all the Christianity by force? NO. It means the I let him believe what he believes and let him face his fate. and I expect others also dont ban my content about what I believe. If you think that my poem is offensive then please keep in mind that belief in trinity is much more offensive abuse to our God (so as to me also). But as a matter of fact, we Muslims are told not to force anyone about Islam but even do not disgrace their sacred personalities or symbols. But unfortunately we Muslims dont get the similar decent response except the civilized hypocrisy under the so called policies.

VirtualEye 12:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

You are welcome to work on articles in your userspace. You are not welcome to write polemics. Hipocrite - «Talk» 12:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, the reason User:AnonMoos can have what he has on his userpage, is that he is working on an article for the encyclopedia. He is collecting information from previously published sources, with references, and writing about it in an encyclopedic style. Eventually this article may be moved into the encyclopedia space for use in academics. You are welcome to write an article for Wikipedia, but it will be held to the standards found here: Wikipedia:Five_pillars.

I assure you we are not holding a double standard, at least we are trying not too. I will gladly address any other concerns you have. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

>>encyclopedia space for use in academics.

Hmm, nice. Can you please tell me one thing? All the killings done by Islamists are to be included in the wikipedia articles about terrorism. While on the Christian terrorism page few incidents such as abortion and others are discussed. Where do you fit the killing of hundreds of thousands of Muslims by the invasion of many countries? I am asking this because, the view of you wikipedians, the mass murder and invasions done by American Regime, niether fits int he articles about America, nor does it fit in Christian terrorism (thoug President bush says he is told by God whatever he is doing) nor does it fit in any other article. Where is that cited in so called "Academic" articles in wikipedia?

While you can see the detailed "Scholastic"(so called) reference to each and every nonmuslim's killing incident. Is there any prominent article about that terrorism and sick thinking which is bringing invasions and mass murders of Muslims and 20000 pound bombs which had been banned by UN, and chemical and radioactive bombs which had been banned by UN. And name you give to that terrorism which inspired US to invade Iraq even it was opposed by many other powers and UN too?

Can you refer me an prominent article to tell 'what kind of terrorism is that?' I am sure, there is no such article and if I wrote that will be trashed away, becuase 'why would 90% of wikipedians who are American Patriots would like even single such referece?'.

My only complaint is about the hypocrisy. When there is some Islamic organizatio to accuse then the article becomes very "Academic". When there is other opinion needed then even a single reference is trashed immediately by the army of editors. It is same as, you bring 100 academic wrestlers at one side in front of 1 or 2 at the opposite side, and then you ask both of the team to fight under policty and under law and wresling ethics. Who will win? Same way, Muslim members of wikipedia are just told to follow policy and keep on getting slaps at their face from the rest of 90 or 95%. Thats all yourhonor. VirtualEye 05:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, regarding Christian Terrorism, there are much fewer examples and generally less information because in terms of world affairs, Islamic terrorism is much more prominent. I'm not saying that there are more incidents of Islamic terrorism than Christian terrorism, but you can't argue that every single news agency in the world is much more likely to gain popularity if they discuss Islamic terrorism. Therefore, the concern of most Wikipedians is probably going to be Islamic terrorism. As a Christian, I know that every true Christian (those who call themselves that and those who are truly that in the eyes of the Christian God) denounces these attacks as terrible. Eric Robert Rudolph is the name that comes to mind when any average American is asked about Christian terrorism. To a lesser extent, people may have heard of the bastard found at that link.

Islam and Christianity are both seen by the world as religions of peace. However, the perverted (IMHO) form of Islam followed by Islamic political soldiers/mujahideen/terrorists (take your pick) is inherently violent. This form is preached as being violent and hateful, such as the WBC. I think it might be fair to say that the Westboro Baptist Church is to Christianity as Al-Qaeda is to Islam, with AQ being a bit more violent and widespread. Take a look at the WBC article; it is about somebody who calls themselves a Christian, and is comprehensive in its description of his evil ways. Thanks for your time, Hojimachong^talk_con 03:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I agree to to many points you made. But the thing about Al-Qaeda you mentioned is totally wrong. Any violent act comitted by some muslim individuals or organizations is just named as Al-Qaeda. Al-Qaeda has become a trash backyard. Wherever bomb blasts or some persons are killed, the first name which comes to the minds of Americans (or westner people) is Al-Qaeda. My point to make is that, there is more to the world than Al-Qaeda. In this age, hundreds of thousands of people have access to the information of how to make bombs. What do you think, if a person learns to make bomb or makes a bomb then first of all he goes to Al-Qaeda to bet membership? Al-Qaeda is the name of very very few violent people and a bunch of videos. Thats all.

P.S. When I ask you to unlearn the things which American media has poured into your mind, I am in no means to insult you, because I think you are honest in presenting your stance but just you have been overlearnt by the one sided media. Pardon me if you still feel offended.

VirtualEye 11:11, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

The only response I made was that in world politics, there is a much bigger concentration and in general much more concern about Islamic militant organizations. I compared Al-Qaeda to the WBC, which is a freak organization of radical "Christian" bigots. I was saying that I am assuming that most Muslims do not agree with the actions of Al-Qaeda, and that they are a very small part of the Muslim community, if they are considered Muslims by the Muslim community at all. I just wanted to let you know that I do recognize the difference between the rocket attacks in Israel (which can be justified as freedom fighting) and the cowardly bombings of Al-Qaeda (which is just one of many Islamic terrorist movements, and definitely the most extreme). Hojimachong^talk_con 15:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 15 Minute Block

You have been blocked for 15 minutes for disruption. Talk:Muhammad is very contentious and it does not help for you to call others names and interrupt the discussion on the page. You are welcome to participate but you cannot call other users hypocrites or be so confrontational about it. We all have our views and I can tell you that the solutions we are coming up with are far from ideal--however, you must work with others in collaboration. Again--you are welcome to participate but you cannot do it in a rage. You must follow the discussion and civilly comment on it. If you have any questions feel free to ask me. gren グレン 13:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Simple is that, I only called hypocrites as hypocrites and not to all people.

And by the way, its very strange that my all reasoning is just nothing for you, but you come out with one word to discuss and that is 'hypocrite'. Nothing else? VirtualEye 14:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Virtual Eye, I blocked you and only commented on 'hyprocrites' because to write a collaborative encyclopedia you must work under certain protocols where we do not allow users to outright insult and disparage others. I perfectly understand that we can "tear people with civilized sweet KNIVES" and I am by no means saying that you are uncivilized and others are because they stay calm. We have had some vehemently anti-Muslim editors over time who do use nice language to help try to incorporate content that they believe will insult Islam. But we do need ground rules because if we let everyone argue in such a way nothing will get done. We understand that just because some users are quiet does not mean that they are more respectful or considerate than others--they can have venemous intent but I hope you understand that there are certain aspects we can control such as the language we use to address others and we will make sure that remains respectful.

I also want to posit this idea to you. For Muslims there is Islam--God's religion. For academics writing an encyclopedia there are many Islams that have been practiced over time. You have the classical Sunnijurists, you have the Ahmadis which many Muslims do not believe are Muslim, you have the Shia. All of these groups call themselves Muslim and as an academic we will not deny that any group is Muslim. In this sense Muslims drew many images depicting their view of Muhammad and put them in texts. You may not believe this is proper but they did and they have a right to articulate Islam as they see fit. You must be able to separate how you view Islam from the multitude of ways people believed they were practiciing Islam throughout history. gren グレン 17:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I thank you for your time spent in writing. I have never tried to vandalize any article but I had been aggressive on the talk pages that I accept. But I gave the last example of goat, that we are being abused, we are the victim and at the same time we have to be our own advocate. If you have privilege to view the statistics the you might better know that in case of religious articles most of Muslim wikipedians here are busy in defending the articles related to Islam while most of the nonmuslim (christians, atheists, jews, hindus) wikipedians are not much busy in defending their own articles but they are busy in offending the Islamic articles in a so called civilized way. And you know the reason (if you dont, then let me know please). Those very small number of Mulsims will only spend their scholastic energies in other religious articles IF and only IF they get some time from stopping the massive attacks in Islamic articles. Thats all. Sorry if I offended any fair person VirtualEye 05:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

VirtualEye 05:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Longer block

I have blocked you for your threatening language, disruptive personal attacks, and incivility at Talk:Muhammad. This is a collaborative effort. If you are not prepared to work with others, you will not be able to work here. To request a review of this block put {{unblock|Reason why}} on this page. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that second block was little too harsh. He is very new here and it will be a good gesture to let him settled down. Remember we also have policy WP:BITE. I am not encouraging him at all and his behavior was indeed wrong. However, he think everyone is biased which I agree is very wrong thinking. Infact I also have that thinking on very first day. They have written on OBL page that he is guilty and I want to change it to "allegedly carried out attacks" because it is not proven guilty in court. Hence on my very first day on very first edit I earn a WP:3RR warnings (my first and only offical warning). However, after some discussions on talk page finally they agreed to change it to "allegedly" and then I realize that wikipedia is cool. He just needs some similar kind of change to realize that there are "mostly" fair people around. He will never reach to the point where I reached on my very first day if you keep banning him. Please take him as a new comer. He might be a valuable assert to wikipedia if you give him some free air to breath. Just like I can be if I can spend more time here (which I cannot because of my personal commitments). --- ALM 09:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Mr. ALM, thanks for your motive for being positive. Actually I have to clear again and again, that my stance is not the disgrace all people nor do I think all wikipedians are biased. The problem comes with only the articles about religion. Many many people have been brainwashed by the hypocrisy of the very few western media channels. Even there are some people who are intentionally not biased but have been nutred in typical environment. While there are many people who are not muslim but they have been very fair in their intension as well as participations. I appreciate them. The problem comes when people dont understand that there are black sheeps who have gathered just to throw hatered about Islam related Articles.

To make a topic as NPOV both point of views have to be included. And I agree that somebody can not be blamed just because he is in disagreement with me. But we have to look for the balanced point of view then. In any article against Islam, you will find 5 or 6 nonmuslim users totally dominant and equiped with some moderator too, reverting the edits done by muslim wikipedians repeatedly and name our edits to be vandalism or irrelevant references. How do you give equal weight to the few muslims and a lot of nonmulims about such a topic? Ofcourse votes against the muslims' edits will be counted and considered as concensus.

And I am not too youg at this website. I am just sick at the bias. VirtualEye 10:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Even the things you have said above are not totally true. I think there are many Muslim editors around. I am not active but see for example User:Aminz, User:Bless sins, User:Itaqallah and see the long list at Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam. There is few biased editors but many people around are good. I feel in fact majority is good. I do not have time but if you have then go to library get books and start editing with good refrences. If they revert your well-referenced material then come to me and I will tell you what to do next. If you just want to give your straight talks then you will blocked again and again. We Muslim will lose a potential good contributer. Do you think that will be your service to Islam (getting blocked for nothing)? Hence my borther, you can make more difference by keeping your thoughts to yourself and contribute positively. You cannot tell them to change themselves and not listen to their media (even if what you are saying is right). If you concern about Muhammad pictures then give your input at on going mediation. Because that mediation can change things, I strongly encourage your to contribute there. Its URL is Talk:Muhammad/Mediation. I hope to see a new changed User:VirtualEye. Okay you are like my brother hence do not take me wrongly. Wassalam. --- ALM 11:00, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your encouraging words indeed, but I cant edit any article including Talk:Muhammad/Mediation, I can just edit my talk page. Wassalaam VirtualEye 11:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Use {{unblock|Reason why}} and explain to them that you will respact to others and was new here so block was harsh. Tell them to give you second chance. I know they will immediately revoke the block (because they are not bad people ... believe me). Then you can contribute in good manner and make real difference here. Wassalam --- ALM 11:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

We have a technical problem, then, as his block was supposed to end many hours ago; as you'll see, Mr. harrison had attempted to reduce it even before this conversation began.[6]Proabivouac 11:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I first blocked for 31 hours. After thinking about it and talking to some people, I thought that was too harsh, and I reduced it to 3 hours. Then I did not place the second block correctly, and caused the autoblocker to block your ip address when you tried to edit. So you were blocked longer than you should have been and longer than I intended. You should be able to edit now. I am sorry for the inconvenience. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Its ok Mr. Harrison, you need not feel sorry. The matter is that I only feel offended upon wrong intensions and neither disagreements nor mistakes. Thanks for the unblock.VirtualEye 02:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Longer block Why

I was blocked for 15 minutes, then why does come one more penalty? I did not give any comment since last 16 hours I think. And I think you did not learn a single reason from my comments except my few harsh words. If there are sweet and sour candies in jar then you dont throw them all just because you dont like sour candies. In using your athority, please try not to lash me sometimes and listen to the logic too (despite my so called rudeness). Then you can start using your right of penalizig me again. VirtualEye 05:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Please take the time you are blocked to review wikipedia policies; WP:NPA WP:NOT WP:COI WP:NPOV WP:AGF are probably all good starting places for you. I've noticed you tend to say what wikipedia policy is, while actually being far off the real policy. Hopefully reading and reviewing these will improve the quality of your edits, and help you understand where other editors are coming from -- feb^talk 06:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

As I said, I dont have objection on the policies but its biased use. If a sheriff has the license to kill a robber, then thinking that there is a robber who is actully a friend of sherif, then he does not use the license to kill but arrests him, but when there is some robber from his enemies, he immediately uses his totally legal right to kill and declaring that what he did is under the law. Bother actions are under the law, yet there is a bias which nonbody can object and nobody can ask the sheriff was why did he arrest the first robber but killed the second one. Why? because he followed the law in both ways. Simple is that. And I hope you are wise enough to understand what does it have relation with Policy matters. I do NOT disagree with policy statements. VirtualEye 08:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Autoblocked

VirtualEye, your block was lifted so you are likely being autoblocked. Follow the instructions here so that this autoblock can be lifted. (→Netscott) 12:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

It was the autoblocker. I did not set up the second block correctly. You should be able to edit now. I am sorry for the inconvenience. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Terrorism

Politicians and linguists are not researchers in the field of terrorism, and therefore are not reliable sources on the subject. Jayjg ^(talk) 13:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

So you mean to say a linguist or politician can never be researcher in the field of terrorism? You only consider a researcher in terrorism who is certified by CIA or SKY news or CNN? What kind of lame excuses are these. VirtualEye 16:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I have posted it on admin notice board. He abuse other people and reject any source by choice. He lable each source presented to him as cherry picked. He even do not answer other people simple questions and lable them as personal attacks. Please go to admin-notice board and the URL is Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Personal_attack_or_Not.3F --- 16:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Christian Terrorism Redux

We had a long and thorough discussion about the IRA. If you have any new evidence to the point that Posse Comitatus, the IRA (or other various unionist/nationalist paramilitary groups), or the nagaland rebels have ever claimed to be Christian holy warriors, or fighting for God, Jesus, etc. please do bring them forward, otherwise do not vandalize a Wikipedia page. Also note that "Neo-conservatism" and Christianity are 2 very different ideaologies. Many "neoconservatives" like Karl Rove are atheists who privately mock religion.--MarcusAnniusCatiliusSeverus 22:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

ooo, thanks for info that neocons are differenct from christianity. All neocons are atheists? All muslims countries are axes-of-evil and yet neocons are not religious? When Mr. Bush being a christian says that what he is doing in Iraq is told to him by God (and which God? God of christians) then does anybody mention him as a very prominent chritian terrorist?

you would trash my opinion, but the articles I refered, do mention the crusade of neocons, and this is not only my opion.

VirtualEye 05:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding your hostility

Perhaps it would be best if you moved to another encyclopedia. A lot of your criticism seems to be based in the fact that you think almost all wikipedians are american, which would not be the case in most other languages. Moving to a wikipedia with people who you think are more in line with your beliefs might be better for you, since you don't have to deal with people reverting your edits and calling you a troll. -- feb^talk 00:59, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

This is never the right approach. Either tag VirtualEye with warnings regarding specific edits, or abstain from the discussion. Users should always be invited to stay, but we need to make it clear that posting long, drawn-out, POV-motivated rants will never change anything; at best, it will gain him a bad reputation amongst other users. While he is always welcome (unless he becomes permabanned), his current tactics will not change anything. We need to help VirtualEye realize what are and arent reliable sources, and how to go about writing in an NPOV style. VirtualEye, please to not be offended by this text and post an indignant response. It isn't going to change anything, because at this point in time you seem to have alienated yourself from the user community. Just open up to other ideas; not all Wikipedians are Americans, and many of those who are hold personal beliefs, not those "force-fed" to them by "rubbish" media. --Hojimachong^talk_con 01:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

So I am not going to make any change. Absolutely right. Kindly have a look at this User Page. Although this user is abusive, but that does not make his arguments invalid too.

And I know that not all of wikipedians are Americans, but most of them are, for english wikipedia. When I refer to American patriot wikipedians then it does not mean all wikipedians are those but 99 out of 100 times American patriots never like to have a reference or text in the wikipedia articles which is clashing with their superbia. All the people of the world know that the 'war on terror' is a prank of neocons yet many many Americans themselves oppose. An MIT professor who has been declared one of the most finest brains of 20th century, and is one of the highest cited resource about critique on war on terror, His reference edited and is simply trashed within half and hour on wikipedia. Giving such kind of lame arguments:

Politicians and linguists/political activists are not researchers in the field of terrorism, and are therefore not reliable sources when it comes to terrorism. Polemics and political speeches are fine for propaganda tracts, but not for Wikipedia. Jayjg (talk) 14:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[7]

This is not reliable? just because it opposes America? That is why I mention Americans. I dont mention Americans for all the resources but where they attack with thier civil poison. VirtualEye 05:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

VirtualEye, if there is one point I want to communicate to you, this is it: I love the fact that you are here at Wikipedia, and I love the fact that you hold your beliefs so near, and with such a conviction. You have an abundance of potential, but you are channeling your editing to fight what has been established. Your arguments are not going to change anything at the time being. Even if they were, this page is not the place for it. I truly believe that you are here to make Wikipedia a better place, or else you would have left by now. The fact is that right now, you have been spending too much time arguing to contribute to the encyclopedia. Please, contribute what you know to articles you know things about, and use reliable sources to back them up. You have awesome potential to be a great editor, and keep the anti-Islam editors in check, making sure the edits they make are NPOV. Please consider this, VitualEye. --Hojimachong^talk_con 07:59, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

UPDATE: I completely agree that Noam Chomsky is a reliable resource in pretty much any topic. The reference and content should have been kept. However, most of the sources you cite continuously don't adhere to the extremely specific guidelines laid out there. Additionally, many of your edits contain somewhat poor grammar, and other editors will likely take this into account when reverting your edits, either stereotyping you or believing the edit to be hastily written. While this is certainly not fair in any way, shape, or form, it is something that will remain here. I'm not saying all of your sources are heavily biased/extremist, I'm saying a large amount of your sources are biased/extremist. Read those guidelines to refresh your memory. --Hojimachong^talk_con 08:18, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, Thanks for taking the help from your conscience. Perhaps my grammer and vocab is not so artistic, I will try to find some good grammer and heav vocabulary from dictionary so that it can stop the moanings of extremists on the other side, while given the sense of satisfaction to the neutral editors. Thanks again.VirtualEye 08:53, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

And one more thing, This for your interest if you have not yet seen. 5/5 rating. Please carefully listen the first few sentenses. So thats what I follow and I am being criticized the same way the chomsky is being criticized by noeconservative thinkers. The only difference is that, I am not so genius and perhaps cant express in pearly words well, but my conscience for the support for truth is not sleeping.

Thanks,

VirtualEye 09:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

VirtualEye, I'm quite excited that you've realized your potential. I do think the vocab/grammar barrier was probably a big problem. I'm going to assume that you aren't a native english speaker, which might pose some challenges, but your participation is definitely encouraged. I would now suggest taking a few days "off" from controversial topics, find some pages you don't harbor strong feelings for, and fix them up the best you can. I'd like to point you towards some articles you may want to read: I think lots of user feel you are trying a Breaching experiment and Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. --Hojimachong^talk_{con</su==b> 17:31, 10 February 2007 (UTC)}

_{Hello, I think I am already gonna reduce my activity for some time and might have some break. I will try to modify some articles instead of wasting all time in the talk, as you woul agree. The only exception was the talk page about Muhammad (SAW) where it needed exclusive commments about a disputed issue. And BTW thanks for your supportive comments. VirtualEye 04:51, 11 February 2007 (UTC)}

_{I would like to say that while my other comments may seem to be contradictory to my statements in this section, they are not. I do want you to stay, but I personally do not follow the same path as you, and I'm not going to put aside by beliefs for the sake of ending a debate. I think our continued dialogue is essential to our development as Wikipedians and human beings. --Hojimachong^talkcon 06:03, 11 February 2007 (UTC)}

As long as you take help from your conscience and you are sincere then you are ok for me. You do not have to follow the same path but have to be sincere and fair. I hope you will be. VirtualEye 06:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re Moon God

You have the wrong editor: I deleted the material about which you rightly complain.[8] You can help keep this nonsense out of the article by removing it when it appears again.Proabivouac 06:13, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] please don't do this again

Please be more civil than this[9]. Mediation is a place to debate the merits of ideas, but you are clearly losing your temper. Please read our WP:CIVILITY policy, it something we expect from our editors. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:57, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I am still scratching my head over WHAT you're trying to say here and if you're being incivil to me deliberately: [10] - but you're certainly being incivil to somebody, and dragging my name into it in a disgustingly offensive manner. This will stop now. - Merzbow 17:58, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

VirtualEye, this edit[11] is completely unacceptable. This would be true no matter who it was aimed at; however, the fact that Merzbow has been arguing against the inclusion of depictions only makes it more puzzling.Proabivouac 18:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

VirtualEye, I don't think you were trying to be offensive and I believe you were trying to throw the hypothetical back at Merzbow but, I really can't go out on a limb to defend you in light of many of your other comments: using "A$$" was more inappropriate to my mind. Whether we are just or not in asking you to abide by certain civility standards and whether or not we are uncivil in quiter ways is not the point. This is how Wikipedia works and you're headed towards a ban if you don't work on it. You an make the same arguments--just do them civilly and you will be fine. gren グレン 18:53, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

It was just a point to ponder, and I gave the name of a user as an example. That user thinks that he is offended? really? then how about I am being offended by his big heading and assumed question? And when I am giving example about nudity then I would have to say that a prominent artist does not mean he has right over the people's private parts no matter how welknown he is. (please be patient this time as I only used the term "private parts" this time and not #$%). this

If I would make assumption about someone's sister being naked then it is offense, but if that person makes assumption about our 'Prophet' then it is just an argument? Please try to place yourself in my position too. You dont have to ban me, I will leave before you want to do so.

My arguments cant be trashed just because I use direct word and tough language. When 10 people are advocating at one side then its very much natural to be aggressive and come to the point. :If not then I will depart soon so that the editors at other side can enjoy bombing their POVs and hence making wikipedia more miserable. (Sorry if I offended you people again in my current reply)

VirtualEye 19:53, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah and one last thing, I again used the Merzbow's example as an argument to say if it was offense. I did not mean to offend Merzbow in my post on Muhammad/Talk page nor do I want to offend here. Just I wanted to prove that my argument is just open as the original question.

VirtualEye 20:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

VirtualEye, when you write, "if that person makes assumption about our 'Prophet' then it is just an argument?" I think you are missing the point of what we are trying to do here. On Wikipedia, Muhammad is a historical figure whose life and impact we are trying to document. He doesn't belong to any of us, and we shouldn't be taking reasoned discussions about him personally, as if we were talking about members of your family. This would even be true if your sister were notable enough to have her own article, and editors were discussing her there. There are actually many people in that situation, yet they have to follow the same rules as anybody else. If you can't do that, I sympathize, but this is probably not the place for you. Most (if not all) editors do try to be respectful of one another's religious beliefs, but when demands for respect begin to hinder the course of civil discussion, there's a problem. You have to likewise be respectful of the fact that many others around you don't believe as you do, and have the right to speak their mind accordingly, without being met with incivility.Proabivouac 01:30, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok agreed, but personality of Muhammad is not to be taken just not belonging to anyone. Almost all Muslims be offended by the fake picture of him and at the same time many nonmuslims will aslo not like to be deceived by fake picture. The only problem is with those nonmuslims who expect to see a picture in every article of wikipedia OR those who intentionally want to play pranks (please let me assume that there are few blacksheeps too). So here question is about offense and offense to huge number of people does not make the article neutral. And I know you understand that too. Anyway, sorry for my mistakes. VirtualEye 04:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

The picture on the Muhammad page is NOT a "fake". It is a Facsimile, and the community has generally agreed that it is accurate enough to be included, and to illustrate the subject in question. Keep in mind that had this been the William Shakespeare article, you would not have argued that the drawing shown is a "fake", though it is a facsimile. Your logic dictates that every painting, drawing, or lithograph of a person would have to be deleted, because nobody can "prove" that they are accurate. Nobody knows exactly what Muhammad looks like, but most people agree that the image shown is close enough to what Muhammad is percieved to have looked like. Wikipedia will show Muhammad as a historical figure, and will be treated accordingly. The truth can be offending, but that does not make it non-neutral. --Hojimachong^talk_con 04:59, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Thats not my point. Nobody gets offended by the pictures of William Shakespeare (not in millions at least, like in case of Muhammad). People dont consider Shakespeare as Prophet nor do they have 'Faith' in that. So they will not be offended. But in the case of Muhammad(SAW) they get shock for their life. And point here is not that someone is always offended, the point is that how huge is the offense, what is the type of offese and how many people are being offended (which is in hundreds of millions).

And as I said, it is not always neccessary to add some wounds to a healthy articles so that it neither looks good nor looks very bad. It is not always required to add some trash to an article if you dont find the opposite POV. If you like tea as sweet then its not neccessary to add salt too to make it puking object. And I think nobody is getting offended by removing fake picture or maybe few people, but million times more people are getting offended by including the fake picture, is it what you call NPOV??? VirtualEye 05:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

You're not getting the fact that its not a fake. It's an artists representation of a person who does not have a more reliable source. This would be akin to calling the Mona Lisa a fake.

as to the content being offensive, yes, it is definitely offensive to some users. Not a majority, I would assure you. I think a person visiting the pornography (proceed at own risk) article would expect to find some objectionable content. Yes, I am offended by a picture of a penis. However, the picture illustrates the subject matter, and therefore should stay. Likewise, I am sure that somebody who is visiting the Muhammad page would expect to find a picture of him, and if they were offended enough by this then would not visit the page. Also, I really think you are overstating the "shock" a Muslim would feel when seeing the picture. Do you have any familiarity with the South Park episodes that were supposed to picture Muhammad, but didn't because of the Jyllands-Posten Cartoons? In fact, South Park had shown offensive images of Muhammad several times before this happened, and nobody cared. At all. This Islamic law is somewhat trivial in the whole scheme of things. Is it offensive to lay your eyes upon a picture of Muhammad, or just to create or forward the image?

I do think that the arguments brought up by you are of a purely religious nature. Your logic comes to the conclusion that all non-photographic representations of a human being should be deleted, because in essence they are all "fake". If you would like to nominate an alternative picture, use the article's talk page. --Hojimachong^talk_con 05:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

If the images are fake then they are not Muhammad and so there is no offence. Muhammad's concern was that people would idolise religious leaders; I say is not possible for someone to idolise Muhammad based on the current images. What were the readers expecting to be shocked by ? They know that there are no contemporaneous images of Muhammad thus they know that the images are artists interpretations created later. As long as the artists are notable then the image is relevant as a study in how Muhammad is represented in art and this is an important aspect of study of a person. Ttiotsw 05:33, 11 February 2007 (UTC) (one of the bacteria !).

Ttiotsw brings up a good point. You are contradicting yourself, either way you look at it. --Hojimachong^talk_con 05:39, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Ttiotsw said: >>Muhammad is represented in art and this is an important aspect of study of a person.

The go represent Muhammad in art and not on that page. Secondly, who told you that only those people will come to read the article who already know about Muhammad? The problem is that a person comes to read article to know about Muhammad, and he is show a fake picture of Muhammad if it were real picture. And at the same time degrading/insulting Muhammad in the eyes of Muslims who consider is a severe offense to portray the picture. Since you are not a Muslims, you can never be able to comprehend the feelings of Muslims as why they are being offended. Thirdly, you say Muhammad is not idol, right, but Muhammad not only prohibitted portraying pictures of humans but all the animals too. The ONLY exception is the real Image, the reflection of a person, the snapshot as infered by the Islamic jurisprudence.

So if you are still in doubt then let me clear two points:

Muslims are offended and consider it offense and they dont have to give you justifications as in what what sense they are offended, but the fact is that they ARE offended, and offended in millions and not few.

And, 99% of nonmulsims will also get no additional information from image as well as they will not be offended if the image is not included. Not including image will not block people to know who was Muhammad.

Even now you insist to show picture, then let me tell you that the man shown in that picture titled "Muhammad" is neighter wearing the dress like Muhammad nor he is wearing the turban like Muhammad, nor his seat is similar, nor the wood carvings have any relation with the real seat of Muhammad, nor the dresses of the audience in the picture match his companions' dresses in the history. What is the thing resembling to Muhammad here? That chinese looking man is not Muhammad.

ITS a FAKE over FAKE.

You are arguing with people for hours but did you even spend half an hour to read how Muhammad looked like and what did he wear etc???? A lost mind drew a picture in ignorance according to 'his' imaginations and people are fighting like its hot chocolate to eat and somebody will die if he will not get it.

VirtualEye 06:24, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

By the looks of the discussion on the page Talk:Muhammad, the caption will be changed to say "an artists representation of Muhammad". That doesn't mislead anybody, but merely gives a visual depiction of a historical figure, and nobody knows what Muhammad looks like. It looks to me like the supposed Muhammad is wearing a turban in the Maome image.

You also say "who told you that only those people will come to read the article who already know about Muhammad?" If somebody doesn't already know about Muhammad, it would be impossible for them to be a Muslim, and also impossible for them to be offended by the picture.

Thirdly, please note the difference between a facsimile and a fake. I highly doubt the artist who created this image set out to deliberately mislead people into thinking that this was the true image of Muhammad.

It has been proven that when humans have an image to associate with a subject, they tend to retain that information better. Also, Wikipedia dictates that if there is a picture to illustrate the subject, It should be included. Like I said, if you are offended by the specific picture shown on the article right now, use the articles talk page to propose a different one. But Wikipedia has an abundance of images portaying Muhammad, and one of them will be used on the article. The point you bring up is valid, but the logic you use to prove it is not. --Hojimachong^talk_con 07:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

You people are imposing one artist's perception over the perception of hundreds of million? Hijacking the thoughts and imaginations of millions and enclosing them into the bubble thought of one artist? Who the hell is that artist to hijack millions? I did not even know his name and from which hole he came out. VirtualEye 07:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

just going to throw out WP:CIV. Getting angry is just going to make it harder for you. The inclusion of this image is the disputed topic on the talk page. I don't think it is the best, but it is what is on their now. If you want to talk about which picture should be used, go to the Muhammad talk page. Though I highly doubt there is an image that you would be happy with. If there is, find it, post a link, and discuss why it should be added. Thanks, --Hojimachong^talk_con 07:51, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

My message did not address you personally, its an argument against those argument supporting the image. As I mentioned, it is not neccessary to have image for each and every article. As I said there can be articles without images also. It is not the question of being so crazy that we bring some picture to put on some article somehow, through any means over the dead body. Relax and let the article be without fake pictures. And as I mentioned in my questions, that picture is in no means similar to the Prophet Muhammad, and I mentioned each feature of that picture.

And according to the wikipedia's criticism, people who object on something, are forced to bring the alternative. Thats no fair. Saying, "Kill me otherwise I will kill you". Is there a third way? VirtualEye 08:24, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

That would be compromise. There's really no compromise I can think of in this situation, you don't want images, they do. There's not much of an in-between. Personally, I feel you're putting way too much energy into this, it might help you to just edit other articles while this whole thing boils over. Avoid conflict, and contribute to wikipedia, if a situation gets hot, either get away from it, or try to cool it down. Realize that none of us are correct all the time, and sometimes what you think is right isn't, although i'm not saying that's the case here. I know i've been wrong before, nominated things for deletion when they had a bit of notability. Removed text as vandalism that turned out to be true.

While you might take one side in an argument, if the consensus lies in something unfavorable for you, the important thing is being able to move on, and not distance yourself from the community by being overly hostile. Having your beliefs in what policy means is good, but making relationships with editors harder because of a specific case is not going to help you in the long one. I've had debates with people over article content before, and while I might not have agreed with them, I tried not to get angry or take it personally- when you associate people's actions on wikipedia with emotions, it tends to get nasty.

What is usually helpful to me, when I get into a real debate, is to stop editing, stop reading, calm down for about a minute, then think about what THEY are probably thinking. Most people on wikipedia who will actually talk to you are making an effort to improve wikipedia, not detract from it, and getting angry at them and insulting them won't help anyone. If you find yourself angry at a group of people, or wikipedia's policies in general, it might be worthwhile to consider a wikibreak. Personally I did earlier tonight, because I was upset with some people using WP policies as an excuse to butcher articles (in a way rather similar to how you feel on the image issue in one case), but I realized it wasn't that they didn't value my opinion, or that wikipedia was horribly flawed, but rather something which was created to keep problems arising in improper places, even if it might slightly detract from another article. Even though it pissed me off, it's far more useful for me (And I mean this as a person, not a contributor to an encyclopedia) to put up with an annoyance for a WP policy which might be a bit overpowerful, and just deal with it, than to stop editing wikipedia -- feb^talk 08:52, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Fake. Facsimile. Two different things. Its not a fake picture. It is an artists depiction. You say that it is not necessary for every article to have an image. While this may be true, an article with so many available pictures cries for a picture. It would be censorship in the worst form to keep the picture from the article, even though it does offend many people. Things can be offensive, but still illustrate a point. --Hojimachong^talk_con 08:38, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Hahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa, hohoho, Pardon me I had to laugh at the images you refered. Those are surely handicapped images of some people but not Muhammad. I think those artists wanted to show everything but Muhammad. Showing him in Royal dresses. I am 100% sure that these pictures were painted by some kind of Marijuana drinker Muslims who dont have any relation to Islam except that they claim to be Muslims. Their pictures are telling that they did not know a single bit of knowledge about Muhamamd, and hence there imagination is also a trash and has no value.

FYI, our Prophet Muhammad (SAW) did not wear any luxarious clothes but ordinary clothes having patches. He did not use such kind of seat made of carved woods, insead the Mosque he built in Madinah had the roof made of the leafs of "date trees" and the pillars were the stock of the "date trees" and the floor of the mosque was not paved. Prophet Muhammad (SAW) as well as his companions used have very little amount of food and were in very weak condition financially. They had to suffer a lot of hardships but only bowed in front of Allah.

Please read some biography of Muhammad (SAW). The time you are spending on wikipeida, you could have read a book about him in a couple of days. I can recommend you some good book, but since you would not like a book about the Prophet written by a Muslims, so I will recommend you books written by nonmuslim historians. But it will require some dedication and after that you will be in a much greater position to talk about the articles related to Muhammad (SAW).

Interested?

VirtualEye 11:51, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

If you have a fair use image of Muhammad you would like to see on the Muhammad page, please upload it. Until then, one of those pictures will be used to show Muhammad. People can interpret Muhammad in many different ways, and somebody else may have a different mental image than yours. None of the images are 100% accurate, but one needs to be chosen to be displayed on this page.

"there imagination is also a trash and has no value." Calling anybody's imagination "trash" is wrong. It's imagination, and cannot be judged. If you didn't agree with Richard Dawkins interpretations of things, you might call his imagination "trash", though he is one of the most prominent and smart scientific thinkers of our time.

As is true with every depiction of a person in the pre-photographic era, nobody will ever know exactly what they look like. Once again, I will refer to William Shakespeare; None of the descriptions of Shakespeare match up with the painting most often used to represent him, though most people agree that the representation is more important than what the person actually looked like. What is important in this article is finding a fair use version of the most famous picture of Muhammad, and using it on the article.

Also, where are you getting your description of Muhammad from? If the words are coming from the Qu'ran, please direct me to some verses, as my Qu'ran is sitting on my desk. If the words are coming from anything other than the Qu'ran, then they are somebody else's opinion about Muhammad, and are no more valid than any of the pictures I directed you to. --Hojimachong^talk_con 17:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

So this tells your knowledge about Islam is pretty small. Ahadith are the way to interpret and understand Qur'an, as well as the life of our Prophet (SAW). And the outlook of Prophet (SAW) is told by the companions of the Prophet in his time, yet they did not draw him nor other Muslims even dare to do so. The reason I called those people's thought to be trash because they claimed to be Muslims and yet dared to do what is not allowed in Islam. Otherwise I dont care what nonmuslim artist do with their holy figures or whatever they do with shakspere's picture. Shakspere is not someone's faith or religion but a considerable writer. What I care is I will not disgrace someone else's holy figures nor I will let others abuse me or my faith VirtualEye 19:59, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Please don't disregard my opinion merely because I am not a Muslim. Compared to the average American, I consider myself well-versed in many of the laws laid out in Shari'a.

You still don't seem to understand that in the context of Wikipedia, Muhammad is not a holy prophet. He is a historical figure. Your "disgracing" argument is invalid, because we cannot disgrace somebody who, in the context of Wikipedia, is not disgraceable. It is not an abuse of your faith for us to display an image of Muhammad, because those who are displaying the pictures will most likely be non-Muslim. We can respect religions on Wikipedia, but censoring anything to cater to a certain religious or ethnic group would open a floodgate of censorship, making Wikipedia lose all credibility. --Hojimachong^talk_con 20:21, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipeida is not higher than humanity. And the humanity tells us to respect others beliefs and faith and tells not to torture the minds of people just to win an argument.

And I please be patient with my arguments. I mentioned that I do not consider you low as you think. I just said that you might not have known enough about what I wanted to tell. My critical thinking is not so positive, but is a very big blessing for me also, because due to this thinking I am not fooled by the general stupidity around me , specially in the media. So I just expect you to be rational and guard yourself from the sick influence of the thing called "Mainstream". Mainstream does not inspire me, whether it is media or people. VirtualEye 03:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC) VirtualEye 03:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't humanity. Wikipedia never promises it will say what you want it to, or that it's family friendly. You should read Wikipedia:Content disclaimer and WP:CENSOR -- feb^talk 03:32, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I still would like the Qu'ranic verses you say describe Muhammad. I have my Qu'ran sitting here right next to me and would like to be given my own opportunity to interpret its word. --Hojimachong^talk_con 04:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Hojimachong: >>I still would like the Qu'ranic verses you say describe Muhammad.

Can you please mention my text where I said that there are verses in Quran describing the physical appearance of the Last Prophet Muhammad (PBUH)??? VirtualEye 06:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

And to 'feb'. If wikipedia is not about humanity then its not about humans I guess? Is it for donkeys? or Zebras?. If humanity does not get benefit then some space creatures maybe? right? UFOs?

The qestion is not what 'I' want but the question is about including 'fake' picture in an article just to solace the itching of 'including a picture in the article SOMEHOW'. And as mentioned by some editors, if the exclude the picture then it will justify Christians to exclude may pictures. So the matter is the moaning of Christains and not the need of including a picture. And BTW, I will be more than happy if Christains ask to remove the pictures of Jesus from articles of Christianity. Because I dont believe in mashrooming pictures if the real ones ar not available. VirtualEye 06:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

WP is definitely for Zebras. Seriously, WP goes against christian ideals too. There's plenty of stuff at abortion and Homosexuality that i'm sure drives some christians insane. But we don't edit it out, just to appeal to them. There are some things on wikipedia which probably disgusts most of the people who work on the article themselves. But they keep it POV. Such as Zoophila. While WP editors try to remain humane, WP articles do not, weither we find them incredibly obscene or overwhelmingly useless. A good WP editor distances themselves from the content and dispute, like in WP:FUCK. While I don't understand the Jewish faith very well, I have to imagine we have articles that offend jewish editors. Anything can be offensive to anyone, it's not WP's job to make everyone happy, just to be as informative as we can be -- feb^talk 09:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

"FYI, our Prophet Muhammad (SAW) did not wear any luxarious clothes but ordinary clothes having patches. He did not use such kind of seat made of carved woods, insead the Mosque he built in Madinah had the roof made of the leafs of "date trees" and the pillars were the stock of the "date trees" and the floor of the mosque was not paved. Prophet Muhammad (SAW) as well as his companions used have very little amount of food and were in very weak condition financially. They had to suffer a lot of hardships but only bowed in front of Allah." Your words. If the physical description of Muhammad is not Allah's holy word from the Qu'ran, then how is the description any more reliable than the images on the Wikimedia Commons? --Hojimachong^talk_con 06:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Did I mention here anywhere that it is from Quran?

And talking about reliability? I thought you would have read the article hadith till now but you are still asking me? It would be better off to read a source I refer instead of utilizing that time in asking me and arguing. Here again, it is called : Hadith and there are very strict principles to rely on Hadith. Those principles are called "AsooleFiqh" or "AsooleAhadith" usually. VirtualEye 08:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

OK. Hadith is a clarification of the Qu'ran, and a history of the life of Muhammad, existing since Muhammad was alive. I think I understand, thanks for the link.

Why don't you go about finding a picture that would display Muhammad in the manner described in the Hadith? Would you be happy with a picture that would display Muhammad in the way in which he is described? --Hojimachong^talk_con 18:34, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

NO sir, This picture, not similar to the Muhammad (SAW) does not imply that there exists a picture of Muhammad (converse is not true). why? Has anybody seen Muhammad and drew his picture? NO. Does any picture drawn by 'any' artist similar to even the basic characteristics of Muhamamd? NO. Why is that? Because Islam forbids drawing pictures of the alive, so those painters were those lost deserters who did not have knowledge about Islam except the vague one.

Had they been knowing how Muhamamd looked like had they been aware of the fact that Islam does not allow painting the living things yet painting the picture of Muhammad was the gross Sin. Simple is that, those people claimed to be painting Muhamamd's picture were not even aware of the knowledge of Islam nor about the order of Islam about not to draw the pictures of the alive nor about how Muhammad looked like except they knew very basics such as : Muhammad had beard and he used to address people as prophet etc. (I have seen many painted pictures which are associated to Muhammad, no picture even resembles a single bit, except that the person has beard and our prophet also had.). If I hear that a person called John who was clean shaved and was addressing the people in the church, that does not mean I draw any picture of a person addressing people and put in the article about this person and claim that picture to be his. Any cleanshaved person is addressubg the people in the church is NOT John. Any person having beard and addressing some people is NOT Muhammad. Same applies to the paintings of Jesus, but people idolize the painters and do not think the otherway. The falsehood and the possibility of abuse to the sacred Jesus is not important to the people but what is important is that the painter like davinci painted him. Davinci is greater than Jesus? I wonder what kind of self deceptions people are advocating and are forcing others to be self decepted to.

Any picture drawing to depict Muhammad (SAW) will always remain disputed, as every person has the right to disagree 100% rightly that the picture depicted does not reflect Muhamamd. There is not even 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% probability of an imaginary picture to match the real one if we have not seen the real person.

The coming of the idea that a picture should be depicted because Christians and other religions do that, is absured. If other religions depict, we are not offended because its their headache, so no problem in wikipedia too. But why forcefully dumb this idea of depiction and making it a rule that there is a need of picture in every article? Just generalizing everyone?

Also , I would like to know if you are Christian, Atheist or some other.

It is just simple. Wikipedians say: Hey, Muslims follow our policy or atheism and keep on accepting whatever good or trash we add as "Main Stream", otherwise move around.

If above is the case the please put a notice on the wikipedia that it is only for nonmuslims.

I hope you did not agree to any point. Danke schoen VirtualEye 14:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't have ample time to answer your questions right now, I will be back in several hours (schooltime). I see you took note of my German speaking :-) --Hojimachong^talk_con 15:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Most questions can be answered by my userboxes. A more detailed response:

I am a Christian, an American, and a Teenager. All three are capitalized for a reason. I identify as a Christian, but when it comes to Wikipedia, I follow the Bible in saying "obey the laws of the land". In Wikipedia, I try to obey the rules and strive for a NPOV. Danke Schön, --Hojimachong^talk_con 23:00, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

this is not acceptable. I put my signature on the words I wrote, and changing "stupid" to "obsessed" is akin to forgery. If you do it again, please replace my signature with your own. --Hojimachong^talk_con 06:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I did this upon the order of some admins, please see the end of this page,He told me that I must edit it by myself. But then people would ask where is that word "stupid" for which you are objecting, so I just modified that word not your point. Anyway, if you feel offended then sorry from my side. VirtualEye 06:59, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Noted, thanks. I'm going to bed, and I look forward to reading your comments in the morning. --Hojimachong^talk_con 07:01, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Minor edits

Hi VirtualEye,

You seem to mark all of your edits as minor. The convention is that minor edits are edits that do not change the content of the article but only change the formatting (for example, correcting spelling, fixing a link, etc.) Please see WP:MINOR for more information. GabrielF 17:58, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, understood, VirtualEye 21:24, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] McHenry quote

You claimed that McHenry's quote was "being gathered for the article criticism of wikipedia". But the quote is already in the article, so it isn't "being gathered". Andjam 02:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

 :), OK I give up, I am not gatherig, but planning to re-arrange. Ok now? :) VirtualEye 03:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your edit summary in Zaynab bint Jahsh

In this edit to the article on Zaynab bint Jahsh, you said in your edit summary "(rv. Removed Vandalism)" to delete allegations that she was daughter-in-law to Muhammad. The edit you reverted, even though it was an uncited assertion, wouldn't normally be considered vandalism. Thanks, Andjam 01:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stupid

You are going to get into trouble. This edit where you insinuate other editors are stupid is going to get admins angry at you. I tend to encourage respect but I do not take things that can be construed as personal attacks to hurt unless they are obvious. However, I think it would be wise on your part to show good faith and remove those comments wording them in a more respectful manner. No need to debate this and you don't have to take my advice--but, it is a recommendation. gren グレン 17:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

i would echo gren's sentiment VE. always try to keep your cool and express yourself in a calm and civil manner, even when tempers may escalate. the topic is extremely sensitive, so it's even more important that the issue is addressed with patience and wisdom. ITAQALLAH 01:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I came here for the same purpose. I know you are aware of our civility policies, and you will find yourself being blocked for incivility if it continues. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trolling on Talk:Muhammad

VirtualEye, I must say that I've had it with this mode of discussion.[12] Quit it, will you?.Proabivouac 05:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

 ????? What????? I answered their comments by quoting each person exactly and asnwering their argument. Otherwise how do I point out to a specific argument? Did you even read my answers and their context? or just saw the format and came to me??

I would respecfully ask you to observe what kind of lame oneliners I, and others are recieving from the people like Arrow740. Do they want to answer our points or just they are there to throw their names to give illusions that there are many supporters of picture??? Can you please ask them if they dont want to participate in the discussion then better move around instead of throwing oneliners and running away? VirtualEye 06:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

The "oneliner" thrown out by Arrow740 was in response to this silly vandalism of my talk page. I must say, it was quite humorous. --Hojimachong^talk_con 06:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Thats the point. He only reads what he want to read, and what he wants to read is just jokes and the comments which give him some margin. He does not like to talk about the comment where he has some slaps at his face, does he? If you consider the person like Arrow740 to be a fair person then I doubt about you also being fair.VirtualEye 06:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

No, that's not the point. Thinking that every single edit he makes must be in response to your comments is sort of... just weird. He was trying to lighten the mood in a discussion which sucks. Hgold2000 and anonymous editors have brought some headaches to us in the form of incivility and vandalism (telling us all to go to hell), and every small instance of humor must be appreciated. He can make a different post to address your comments. --Hojimachong^talk_con 06:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

VirtualEye, comments "where he has some slaps at his face" are precisely what are not allowed; see WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL. Additionally, post your comments only once. Do not flood talk pages with word-for-word reiterations of previous posts; this constitutes disruption and will not be tolerated.Proabivouac 09:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] re:

no, he's not an admin. you'll generally know if someone is an admin by looking at their userpage. they will either indicate they are an admin, or you will see Category:Wikipedia administrators at the bottom of their page. ITAQALLAH 11:15, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Some people are pretty cheap here. Try to avoid as much as you can. Because if you are banned then me, ITAQALLAH all will lose a potentially good contributer. Wikipedia is very strick on those thing and rightly so. :) :) --- ALM 11:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Hay. Your altered image is not fully altered. One can still see Muhammad face and also the clothes are not Islamic so is their colors etc. --- ALM 14:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore they are much more better images as compare to what you wish to have in blue dress and visible Muhammad face. For example look at Image:Muhammad_on_Mount_Hira.jpg, Image:Miraj2.jpg. --- ALM 14:56, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Userpage Vandalism

this edit is completely inappropriate, and you definitely are aware of it. Since Alecmconroy hasn't responded yet, I thought I should warn you against this behavior in the future. --Hojimachong^talk_con 17:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Who the hell are you to warn me kid! If I did vandalism then let that user object. Why are you moaning? Do you have anything else to do despite chasing my contributions and reverting or intruding them?

How many places you have betrayed about me by complaining here and there? I have commented with my username. You dont need to cry on his behalf. VirtualEye 17:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Your reply here though has failed to assume the good faith of Hojimachong in raising this with you. It's not the first time you have added ridiculous statements to peoples pages and I too now agree with Hojimachong that your comment, though it appeared in jest, is uncivil. Ttiotsw 18:10, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I have warned you about civility time after time, you have been very uncivil again. WP:CIVILITY is a policy and you cannot choose to ignore it if you wish to edit here. I am blocking you for 24 hours. Things like "Who the hell are you to warn me kid!" and "And this shows that there is something wrong with you, that is why people judge you as evil most of the time. Haha" are completely inappropriate. When this block expires, please be civil. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:17, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Good faith of Hojimachong? He has been busy in complaining about me at every other usertalk. And the comment I gave at other user's page was 'with' my username and was in a light mood. At max, that user could object about that and not this kid called Hojimachong. But anyway, how can I justify myself when I have reservations about your fair use of power. VirtualEye 18:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

If you question the fairness of this block you can use the {{unblock|reason}} template. It does not matter what the events surrounding your statement are, civility is not something we excuse when you feel it is justified. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

You mean betraying is better than incivility? What language should I use about a user who is ill talking about me and complaining about me at many places? I consider it worse. And as I mentioned I would rather talk on face instead of cunningly creating negative impressions about other users at their back.

And I am sure you will still not understand me. VirtualEye 18:32, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

It's not the "good faith" of the editor but that you "assume the good faith" of the editor. Some say you should also "assume the assumption of the good faith..." and so on. Where it doesn't really apply is when one person gives in and warns another. Then it's the betrayal of the night of the long knives. Take this edit of yours, [13], which I like as it implies Islam-haters are bacteria. Technically all living things on the world would not be here if it wasn't for bacteria so bacteria are extremely important. The biomass of bacteria outnumbers all other creatures (if you include the sub-surface). More or less humans are irrelevant to Earth, which is humbling. You probably will say that I do not understand what you have said; but is that an example of "...cunningly creating negative impressions about other users" ?. Ttiotsw 19:02, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I have decided to respond to this. How am I "betraying" anybody? Betraying would be telling you one thing, then doing something completely different. Civility is a rule, but there is nothing against having an opinion. Besides, you made an edit to a User Page, not a User Talk Page. Dont Chewbacca this. And I'm not "following you around reverting and complaining", in fact, I find that many pages I add comments to are soon visited by you. For example, I commented on Alecmconroy's page at 00:25, and less than three hours later (2:56), your vandalism appeared on his userpage [14]. I'm fully within my rights to contribute to any page I feel like, as long as the edits are appropriate. Also, I would ask you not to disregard my opinion ("Who the hell are you to warn me kid!") just because I am a teenager. I find that this argument is commonly used by those who lack an appropriate response. --Hojimachong^talk_con 20:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

If a person has right to comment at any page then it does not mean he starts torturing others under the umbrella of policy and legality. There is something called 'Ethics' and 'Conscience' to motivate you to be fair. And the allegation you are conversely making against me that I visit those user pages which you visit? I only visited those user pages who were participating in the mediation and talk pages related to the article of Muhammad (SAW). So I happened to see your comments there too. But I did not do exclusive chase and throw a lame comment at the end of your every post, like you did.

Calling you a kid? Thats rightly justified, because I infered about your mindset so I refered you some video documentaries made by your own American fellows, but you simply rejected and alleged that I am trying to convert you? If I would like to show you the truth about your religion then I had better videos of comparative religious debates between christian and muslim scholars, which I did not refer you just because of the allegations you could make against me, but you made allegations anyway. VirtualEye 03:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. I'm not "torturing" you under an "umbrella" policy. I'm abiding by the rules. Considering this is your 4th block, I would highly advise you to do so as well. --Hojimachong^talk_con 05:23, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

And as for 'Ethics' and 'Conscience', some people don't have them, or theirs are substantially different than the norm. It's wrong to assume that everybody will be abiding by the same morals as yourself. --Hojimachong^talk_con 07:08, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

# Agreed that everyone has his own conscience, and the scale of morals can differ bue sense of ethics and moral does not differ. Simple truth does not need to have different scales of morals because 'Truth Prevails'. That was my point. If something is obvious wrong and cruel then you dont need a 'meter rod' to measure and then compromise for it but one needs to speak from his spirit and give his witness, no matter how much someone dislikes his voice. VirtualEye 11:38, 18 February 2007 (UTC)