User talk:BrandonYusufToropov

Welcome!

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

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! --Flockmeal 04:30, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)

This goes double for me also. I can tell that you are going to be quite a good editor, you seem to have a firm grasp of NPOV already! I'm an admin on this site, so if you need help with articles or admin tasks, please, leave a message on my talk page :-) Ta bu shi da yu 04:53, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Since you asked what to do if Jihad was locked... you can try putting your edits in a "sandbox" article, like, say, User:BrandonYusufToropov/Jihad, and copying it into the article later when it does get unlocked. Good luck - God knows the page needs work... - Mustafaa 00:59, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Zain

Can you vote for merge for article Claims of hate speech or hate acts against holocaust deniers it is for deletion here at vote for deletion

Zain 01:52, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, don't know enough about the topic to vote either way. 13:12, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Big Bang

Thanks so much for your contribution to this article. Joshuaschroeder 18:09, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

My pleasure! BrandonYusufToropov 12:59, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Islamophobia again

Your last edit changed "the west" to Europe and America.. Probably better (more precise) but you should be aware that the term is apparently in use in Australia [1] and that the phenomenon also happens elsewhere, (e.g. India is mentioned in the article). I'm wondering if this shouldn't be reflected.

Oh, and on reverts, it's considered good policy to revert less often (except for vandalism), e.g. maximum once a day for one page. If you can come up with a good NPOV text which is obviously being made POV by another's changes (show this on the talk page if it's difficult for others to follow the topic) then you won't need to revert yourself, the rest of us will help you. Mozzerati 16:00, 2005 Jan 29 (UTC)

Many thanks! BrandonYusufToropov 16:57, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Fadak

If you think this article is badly written POV apologetics. Vote for deletion by following the link on this page: The land of Fadak and the Prophets inheritance OneGuy 04:14, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Edit summary

Greetings. This is just a reminder to fill out the Edit Summary when you alter articles, so that other contributors can more easily keep track of the changes. If it is a small change, like spelling or wiki links, you can check the minor edit checkbox. Thanks.--A. S. A. 02:50, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

template

template:Islam OneGuy 17:03, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Good edits on hadith

Thanks for edits on the hadith article. The section reads much more smoothly now. Zora 19:33, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Islamofacism" VfD

The VfD had run it's course. The VfD had more votes for keep than any other action. Therefore either no action, or a keep action seemed appropriate, which amount to the same thing. Therefore I closed off the VfD and removed the VfD note. Incidentally it seems that the article is about the term itself rather than the object. What would make it better would be a replacement of a lot of the "Some say" with at least particular instances. An alternative that might also benefit the wikipedia would be a move to "Islamofascism (term)" and replacement with a disambigution page. Rich Farmbrough 21:18, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point. Could it have gone the other way? I suspect that the majority of admins would have been reluctant to tackle the VfD at all (perhaps I would, had I looked in more depth), I also suspect that any that had would have figured "no consensus". Again it seems that the article was improved as the VfD progressed, which perhaps is why the later votes tended to be "keep". I also think the article is mostly harmless. Rich Farmbrough 21:52, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes indeed people may do that, just as they may refer to The Protocols of the Elders of Zion or childlove movement, or refer to their pyramid schemes "as seen on TV". The presence or absence of articles from Wikipedia is not going to make much difference to those sloppy enough to promulgate or (more to the point) accept such arguments without further thought or investigation. Rich Farmbrough 22:12, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Title issues

I am not exactly sure specifically what you were inquiring about but I see at least 2 issues. The first issue is that many of the 9/11 controversy articles just need a general clean up to conform to a high standard of article quality. The second issue is more general (applies to other articles outside the 9/11 category too), namely the appropriateness of "conspiracy theory" or "conspiracy theories" in an encyclopedia article's title given the fact the phrase has multiple definitions and one of the definitions is often used to discredit a subject by connoting that the subject is unworthy of being taken seriously (even if that subject is literally about people conspiring). If something is worthy of inclusion on an encyclopedia is should be taken seriously, any factual conclusion of "dubiousness" should come from the content of an article, not from its title. Basically, the phrase "conspiracy theory" is not neutral enough for use in a title I believe. Relatedly, I may have found a title inconsistency between unrelated articles on WP (arguablly equivalently dubious). For example, I have been informed on a talk page that there is a WP policy that article titles should be straightforward, so even the arguably very dubious article "Allegations of links between Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda" was renamed to Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda, but "conspiracy theory" articles do not seem to follow this straightforward title policy. To clear up this inconsistency, I have proposed a title change of 9/11 domestic conspiracy theory to 9/11 domestic complicity theories which is also separately more clear I believe and definitely an improvement (because it avoids a potentially non-neutral phrase), though the new title still is less straightforward than ideal. What do you think and is this what you were inquiring about? See Wikipedia:Conspiracy theory and many other "conspiracy theory" titled articles' talk pages for a discussion. Also at issue is the Misinformation and rumors about the September 11, 2001 attacks title. zen master T 20:06, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the Talk:9/11 domestic conspiracy theory page has a title change vote in progress, currently 6 in favor of 9/11 domestic complicty theories and 4 support the original 9/11 domestic conspiracy theory. There are however over half a dozen other "conspiracy theory" or "conspiracy theories" titled articles on wikipedia (I exclude the generic Conspiracy theory article from my title criticism of course, it's only an issue when there exists the potential to discredit a separate subject though the use of a potentially non-neutral phrase). I agree with you that it should be WP policy to immediately remove "conspiracy theory" from an article's title because of NPOV concerns but there are at least a handful of WP users that disagree. More debate and voting will have to take place I suppose. zen master T 20:41, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There are 2 other title change votes in progress (though less active) Talk:9/11 conspiracy theories and Talk:AIDS conspiracy theories, there is also a debate on Wikipedia:Conspiracy theory and Talk:AIDS conspiracy theories. A couple of people are claiming there is no support for declaring "conspiracy theories" too POV for use in a title across all of WP, which is likely not true given the 7 people voting for 9/11 domestic complicity theories. I think this issue needs to be exposed to a larger set of people in order to work toward a larger consensus. zen master T 21:02, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals factionalization

I can remove the extraneous proposals but Kelly Martin would likely revert. Shouldn't the person or people bringing a policy change proposal have a say in how their proposal is presented? Either "conspiracy theory" in a title is NPOV or it isn't. Either a phrase used as an adjective is loaded or it isn't. If it is loaded then wikipedia policy should change, if it isn't loaded then the status quo is ok. At the very least Kelly Martin and Slim Virgin can no longer be considered neutral on this issue. How do we go about finding a truly neutral arbiter for the "conspiracy theory" title issue? zen master T 21:04, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You will rapidly find that there are, by your standards, no neutral arbitrators, if you continue in your practice of alienating everyone who attempts to serve in that role. I stand by my neutrality in this matter, whether or not you accept it. Kelly Martin 21:36, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

Kelly Martin, you have repeatedly hinted at accusations against me without providing citations. 3 users disagreed with your inclusion of additional proposals, who is alienating whom? I will now consider it factual to say that you are not neutral until you prove your allegations against me. Everyone should ask themselves why are only pro status quo users agreeing with the way you've organized the policy change debate page? zen master T 21:47, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As I recall I merely suggested this organization; it was you who chose to implement it. So tell me, why did you choose to use that approach? Kelly Martin 22:01, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

Huh? I do not support your third proposal or the need for more than two proposals, I think you should merge the bottom most with SlimVirgin's first proposal especially considering you created the third proposal as a criticism of the first proposal. Instead of creating a new section, please clean up the keep argument. If "conspiracy theory" is not POV and is ok for use in a title then we *do* need to define it properly, this of course fits under the scope of first proposal (pro status quo + end definition ambiguity by reaching on when and where "conspiracy theory" can be used as an adjective). zen master T 22:07, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is quite normal for a mediator to suggest compromise proposals for consideration during a discussion. Frankly, your contention that it is impossible for me to offer compromise proposals while serving as a mediator borders on the outrageous. Kelly Martin 22:11, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

Brandon and I disagree that you are neutral or a mediator. Carbonite also disagreed with your extra proposal additions. Everyone should ask themselves why do only pro status quo users agree with what you (Kelly Martin) are doing to the page. I think I was quite right to initially label what you are doing as divide and conquer, I will add now that you ironically do this under the claimed auspicies of being "neutral" or a "mediator". zen master T 22:20, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You have successfully convinced me not to bother having anything to do with that discussion. It is painfully obvious that you are not interested in mediation or in fact anything at all except getting your desired outcome. That's fine, but it's not going to lead to consensus, and I suspect you will find that you are going to lose this particular battle. This is a truly sad thing, because you are almost certainly right, but your approach to convincing others of that is so lacking that you actually hurt your position every time you try to advance it. Truly a shame. Kelly Martin 01:40, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

Votes are evil

I don't think votes resolve anything. They certainly don't help create a consensus. My view is that "conspiracy theories" are what we call theories about conspiracies. This is true regardless who's doing the theorising. I don't agree that it's necessarily pejorative. That depends on the context.

The editors in question should make their cases and try to persuade one another. If they cannot, they must accept it and move on. There are lots of things in a wiki you can't put right. Grace Note 03:18, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Future

What articles/subjects not covered in enough detail did you have in mind exactly? zen master T 21:40, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

POV pushing on Jizyah

Even after a number of compromises, the usual people are trying to push POVs on the jizyah article.Yuber^(talk) 05:16, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

9/11 domestic conspiracy theories page moving

Would it be possible for you to please stop moving this page until consensus is reached? It makes the situation much more confusing when there are redirects getting created all over the place. Thanks. Carbonite | Talk 15:20, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Islam-bashing

Brandon, you have every right to remove Islam-bashing statements. This is not the issue. We were discussing whether a section on apostasy is admissible on the Islam article, in principle, obviously without the bashing statements. Certainly you think that Apostasy in Islam can in principle be a legitimate article? Certianly you admit it is pertinent to Islam? The, I argue, it is admissible to have a short paragraph summarizing it or referring to it on the main article. The exact phrasing or length of this paragraph will still be open to discussion, of course. The same goes for Christianity. We won't put "Christian Crusaders killed Arab babies!" on the Christianity article. But there should be a matter-of-fact reference to the Crusades, the Inquisition and related topics on the Christianity article. Call a spade a spade, remove the biased bashing, but leave the informative content intact. dab (ᛏ) 06:48, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

of course, I don't think we disagree. The editor in question has a very visible anti-Islamic bias, no doubt. I just don't let my judgement of what should be in the article be informed by that fact. And I am of course very open to suggestions for compromise and improved wording. regards, dab (ᛏ) 12:40, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Changes to Qur'an

Brandon, I agree that the changes are in many ways unfortunate. The author can't be all that familiar with Quranic scholarship. I'm a Quranic sceptic, as you probably know -- I think that the Qur'an is a human document, originally spoken by Muhammad based on his spiritual experiences (which I think genuine) and his own cultural background and biases, and put together in a very ad-hoc manner under Uthman. (Donner's book on Islamic historical writing convinced me that the Wanbrough school is wrong.) It is not a unified or coherent text, IMHO ... but it really can't be usefully compared to the Torah, which evolved over many centuries. The various traditions (memorized or written down) assembled in the Qur'an had only had a few decades to diverge. They are much more of a piece than the Biblical texts. There hasn't been the same degree of editing, either. Uthman and his editors were collectors -- they took everything that the early Muslims had remembered and put it together, variant versions and all. That's my viewpoint, and I think it's fairly close to that of many contemporary scholars. The "multiple authorship" schtick is irritating.

I don't want to revert -- the original treatment of textual criticism was somewhat sketchy and disorganized. But I don't like what's there now, either. I'll try to find time to edit it in the next few days. I'm in a rush, because my daughter is coming home from the summer, after her first year of college, and I have to clean house, cook, fix up her room, AND work on my zendo website.

If you'd like to work over the section yourself, and you feel that you can be FAIR to the sceptical/academic viewpoint, please do. Zora 17:37, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Put the whole section on a new separate page for Quranic criticism , with a link on Quran page , & leave Quran page for Quran Farhansher 21:31, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Because when we start a war of reverts on the main page , the whole article looks like a remenant of war , not giving any coherent view of anything .Farhansher 21:33, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Farhansher, I'll have to disagree with you here. While it might well be a good idea to have an article on Quranic textual criticism, we do need to touch on the subject in the main article. We can't just tidy it away into its own little article and pretend it doesn't exist. I don't agree with the anon's edits -- they don't really represent the academic history well -- but I don't want the subject removed. At the moment, I don't think it's too long. IF it gets too long, then we'll write a summary and move it out. Zora 03:17, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus, again

Please comment on Jguk's most recent actions [2], [3]. It seems to me that he is destroying what I thought was a carefully constructed (though not, of course perfect) NPOV article. Frankly, I think we may have reached the point where arbitration or at least mediation is required. I honestly do not believe Jguk understands or cares about NPOV. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:14, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Islamofascism

Seems to me that the paragraph you've added to Talk:Islamofascism about Klonimus is on the wrong side of the "no personal attacks"; at any rate, it's certainly not helping the level of discourse there. --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 16:18, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, y'know, when people are acting like dicks, the best way to deal with them is to act differently. And I'm a lot more likely to gently chastise generally pleasant people than generally unpleasant ones, under the assumption that the unpleasant people WANT to be unpleasant and there's no fixing them. --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 00:05, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV

Please check out Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/BCE-CE Debate, Slrubenstein | Talk 23:58, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

AOA

See your mail

An apology

I am a complete idiot. And I need your guidance. (And no, this is not sarcasm, I mean it.)

Your suggestion that I "sympathize with the terrorists and their aims" because I push back on an issue that YOU raised is deeply insulting to me.

I'm sorry, I should not have implied that you sympathize with terrorists. Please forgive my awkward English. I can't even remember WHAT point I was trying to make at the time, but I guarantee you it was abstract and rhetorical - and had nothing to do with you.

I'd like to remain (or get back to being) on good terms with you, sir. Please give me another chance.

Respectfully,

-- Uncle Ed (talk) 21:35, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

"Koran" dicussion

Hello, I just read the "Koran" dicussion on Ed Poor's talk page. Without going into the specific issues, I would just like to say that whenever someone brings up the argument "anti-americanism" in debate, a little bell rings; it is a sign to me that their critical cognitive functions have been switched off and they are, intellectually speaking, flying on autopilot. Accrediting motives to "anti-americanism", as though it were a formal belief system, is a canard. Speaking as an American who has lived abroad for many years, I am well aware that there are people in the world (myself included) who don't like aspects of America; the culture (or lack thereof), foreign policy of the government, the food, the popular culture, etc, but generally speaking it is a mixture of admiration and dislike; it is not monolithic but complex; it is not a movement or a philosophy but simply a response to certain issues. For me, dismissing criticism of the US as simply a manifestation of "anti-americanism" is intellectual laziness of the highest order. In Europe, people don't accuse each other of "anti-Frenchism" or "anti-Germanism"; it would be considered ludicrous; the concepts don't even exist. I admire your articulate and well-reasoned commentary and wish you all the luck here; Wikipedia needs more people like you. -- Viajero | Talk 19:22, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, thanks for the link to the TO article. Reading it reminded me to bring this article to your attention, if you have not already seen it: Extraordinary rendition. I reworked and substantially expanded it earlier this year, but additional work, such as on the specific cases (which possibly deserve separate articles) is always welcome. If you haven't already seen it, be sure to read the "Terror by Proxy" article on the New Yorker site; long but essential reading. -- Viajero | Talk 19:56, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ahhh, I thought I had supplied a link to it at the bottom of the article, but it was a link to an interview with Mayer. Fixed. Here is the correct link: [4] -- Viajero | Talk 10:06, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please add Unlawful combatant to your watchlist. As you may know, this is the quasi-legal doctrine that is used to justify the Guantánamo gulag. I did some work on this topic a few months, in a separate article (Illegal enemy combatant), which has now been merged. -- Viajero | Talk 14:21, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: "Pentagon admits to Guantanamo abuse" So, we are moving from the realm of "allegations" to acknowledged occurences. -- Viajero | Talk 12:07, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hi again, I wanted to draw your attention to this blog entry by Michael Bérubé: "Amnesty International Hits A Nerve", in particular this statement:

Hannah Arendt was very clear that evils done to humans in the modern world -- which is organized politically around the form of the nation-state -- begin by rendering people “stateless,” by moving them outside of any legal structure in which they are recognized as citizens with certain rights or have access to a legal system in which to contest their treatment. The US has headed down that path, not on the scale of 20th century evils, but making use of the same forms.

-- Viajero | Talk 13:46, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Here is another article that you might be interested in: "One Muslim's Odyssey to Guantánamo". It will be interesting to see whether European countries like Germany start exerting pressure on the US to release their nationals. -- Viajero | Talk 14:09, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You asked: Do you suppose there is a current-events-driven article to be developed regarding AI's description of Gitmo as the "gulag of our times"? Or the Bush human rights record in general? Possibly, but I would take tactical considerations into mind. An article like "Bush human rights record" would serve as a POV-magnet and be very hard to maintain in a neutral state. It might be more satisfying and effective to devote your time to incorporating this information in existing articles, such as for example War on terror and Criticisms of War on terrorism. -- Viajero | Talk 14:24, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! Stylistically, I don't think it is a good to begin an article with "x confirmed" because it presumes too much from the reader; it assmes he/she has been following the matter and knows what happened previously, and that is not a safe assumption. I would like an article like that to be not only relevent today but also intelligible and informative over fifteen years. Do you know what I mean? -- Viajero | Talk 22:46, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Some more background information for that article you have simming in the back of your mind: "Stripping Rumsfeld and Bush of Impunity". It addresses the some of the legal ramifications of the Bush adminstration's human rights violations. -- Viajero | Talk 17:55, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

EnviroKainKabong

It's actually quite funny watching him claim that he's not Enviroknot. I especially liked when he said "none of us are enviroknot". He refers to himself as "us" now, guess he has a case of multiple personality disorder ;).Yuber^(talk) 19:11, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I edited out the personal components of your comment/section. Please refrain from overly sardonic comments that can be interperted as a personal attack. In light of my comments yesterday on that talk page, I should try to heed that advice myself, it's worth noting. Regards, El_C 01:01, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

ends and means

I just had this conversation with someone else, a young man who calls me "Uncle Ed" in real life. We were discussing abuses performed in the course of church mission work. I told him that I do NOT believe that the end justifies the means.

that the ultimate ends (you believe) an interrogator is pursuing justifies the means (desecrating a Qur'an) he or she uses to pursue that

Perhaps due to my idioticly poor writing skills I inadvertently gave the impression that I am espousing or defending a military policy which would do "bad" things to achieve "good" results. You could do me a favor and quote the the words I wrote from which you gleaned that impression. Then I can amend my remarks - because that's not what I intended.

How could I, after having written Deception in the Unification Church. I may be a doddering old fart, but I'm not that inconsistent. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 19:01, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

...and thanks for fixing the disambig page at Allegations of Qur'an desecration. I was groping for the right word - I knew guards was too specific - but I had writer's block. When I saw the change te military it felt right. It fit so seamlessly I didn't even realize a change had been made, it was like it was there all the time.

That's the ideal I'm looking for, in Wikipedia writing: timeless prose. Which everyone can look at and say, yep, that pretty much says it all. And fairly.

Cheers. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 02:03, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Department of miscommunication

You wrote:

Considering that what you were engaging in was clearly disruptive, that you have offered neither an explanation nor an apology for your surrealistically high number of page moves, and that you falsely claimed that you and I were collaborating on your final disruptive page move, I'd say no, it's not nearly long enough.

Regarded the parts I've underlined:

I told Ta Bu on my talk page that I was trying to make the title of the page correspond to the scope of the article topic. []
I'm sorry if I gave the impression that you approved of any of these moves: I hereby absolve you of any "colloborative intent", and you may tell the legal authorities I said so. You did tweak US guards to US military at one point, but I would have been wrong to imply that this constituted an endorsement. I suggest we vote on a permanent page title. Fizzle seems a good man to set up that vote, okay?
As for apologies, well, if you'd stop misconstruing half my remarks and would ask for clarification more often, there'd be less grounds for you to demand them. Surely a published author knows how hard it is to make complex points clear. Haven't you written a series of Complete Idiot's Guide books? (One is about getting along with difficult people. Surely bashing them publicly and stirring up sentiment against them is not advised in the latter book.)

-- Uncle Ed (talk) 13:36, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

Formal action as an obstacle to cooperation

You wrote:

If you think I'm atttributing false motives to you, straighten me out. Tell me why you moved the page so frequently with no discussion. I'm listening.

I think you've attributed false motives to me. I think you're trying to get me in trouble. Evidence? You've initiated formal action against me. Does "request for de-admin" ring a bell?

You are either:

trying to get me to change the way I work around here - so that we can cooperate better on

issues

trying to trap me into an admission that will facilitate your quest to keep me from working on

issue at all, so you can make it say only what YOU want.

I am not trying to trap you into anything. I've never done that to anyone here. Ask around.

I'm trying to make a good article. Please stop thwarting me. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 14:48, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

An afterthought

By moved the page so frequently with no discussion did you mean "moved the page without getting your consent first" or "moved the page first, explained later" or what? -- Uncle Ed (talk) 14:51, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

Admin Noticeboard

My apologies for distorting your comment. I mis-read it as an erroneous database duplication. I've attempted to repair the damage. Please review my correction and make sure I didn't accidentally change the intent of you original comment. Again, my apologies. Rossami (talk) 20:35, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Still want me to go away?

Personally I believe -- Uncle Ed's admin status should be revoked, or at the very least, that he should be prohibited from working on this article, to which he clearly wants to return.

Me, too, I wish they'd take away my admin status. Only they'd have to take back my bureaucrat status too, or I could just re-sysop myself! Ha, ha. (Yes, I think I'm hilarious. ;-)

And I HAVE BEEN prohibited from working on this article. Ta Bu said to take a break. It's been like two whole days now; I'm confined to talk pages. Okay, it's more like house arrest than an ArbCom Ruling, but it's just as effective. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 00:10, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Regarding your request for mediation regarding a conflict with Ed Poor

I have asked Ed Poor if he will accept mediation with me as the mediator. If he accepts, we'll all take this to email. --Improv 06:48, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yusuf, I think we've concluded our mediation successfully. Agreed? -- Uncle Ed (talk) 19:58, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Pages: user vs. talk

I only just now realized that I was on you USER page. There was so much talk on it that I failed to notice that it was the USER page and not the TALK page.

I was replying to TALK - but without paying attention to where that talk was. The custom is that people may control their own USER pages with few limits. Now that I realize you don't want replies to talk on your user page, I can respect that.

It wasn't deliberate. I simply didn't realize where i was. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 22:01, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

renamed

I restored the article to its original location. Although I was reluctant to protect it, I will do so if it is moved again without discussion. -- Viajero | Talk 18:48, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Some disturbing news: "The US war with Iran has already begun" -- Viajero | Talk 00:01, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

your RFA

hm, can you comment on how Ed's nomination came about? Were you discussing this off-site? I have been supporting you, and I do think both you and Ed Poor are good editors, so that I took the nomination as an impressive show of good faith, but I am unsure if I am missing something, and people with even less context will be left completely in the air. thanks, dab (ᛏ) 17:41, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Can you say Quid Pro Quo? We need a Senate investigation! Just kidding :) I think BYT will be a fine admin NoSeptember^{20:00, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)}

I hope you don't mind, in your response to one of the questions on your RfA you linked to Improv which I changed to User:Improv. Tomer ^TALK 16:05, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

sorry man but considering all the facts I had to vote oppose to your RFA, please note that this is nothing personal, it's just that I feel uncomfortable voting support with you having unresolved issues with other users. As stated in the RFA vote I think that someday you'll make a great administrator but now is just not the time. You have potential, never doubt that. Jtkiefer 00:13, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

hi BYT — seem by comment on RFA. I do think now that it may be better to have you settle your dispute first, and let the dust settle. Feel free to ask me anytime if you want to be nominated again. Regards, dab (ᛏ) 09:22, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hey BYT. Sorry, I had to go mild oppose this month. See my comments connected to my vote. In another couple months, I have little doubt I'll be happy to vote "support". That said, if your VfA ends up failing, I think there's a lot of valuable information there for you: things to look into improving, if you're interested, prior to your next RfA. Good luck, and I look forward to more of your good work. Tomer ^TALK 19:36, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

theology

btw, re your website, it may well be that Islam is compatible with the teachings of Jesus, but I have my doubts whether the teachings of Jesus could have been compatible with Islam, i.e. the assertion that the archangel Gabriel would descend to a member of the Ismaelites with urgent messages from yhwh Himself. But clearly, of course, the trinity thing so scoffed at by Muhammad is 4th century stuff, and hardly integral to Christianity at all. dab (ᛏ) 17:47, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

well, ex silentio you can pretty much claim Jesus was compatible with Sai Baba or Rael. I do think Q suggests J is the messiah, only is the notion that messiah=God not present at that time. But the messiah would have been a Jewish matter, and whatever the Arabs were up to, I do not think Jesus could have been bothered. I'm not trying to start a dispute with you, btw, this is just meant as a friendly comment in passing. regards, dab (ᛏ) 18:14, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

subpages in user namespace

You wrote in the RfA:

I was not sure how to post a separate page in my own archive that would point to this material.

If I understand this correctly, you would have liked to created a separate page in your user namespace for that material. If so, it is quite easy. Just append a slash to your username and create a file, like this:

User:BrandonYusufToropov/My stuff

Alternately, you can type it in the navigator bar of your web browser:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BrandonYusufToropov/My_stuff

For example, when your Talk page gets too big, you will want to archive it. So, add this to the top of the page:

User talk:BrandonYusufToropov/archive 1

or just this:

/archive 1

hit page preview, then open that red link in a new window. Then you can move text from your talk page there. The slash is a kind of shorthand; the system knows it should be a subpage of the current page. This applies to all pages in Wikipedia.

HTH, -- Viajero | Talk 16:32, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You're welcome (barnstar)

You're welcome. I also think you'd make a good admin, lets see how that turns out. --Anonymous editor 21:04, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Poll at Talk:Terrorism

I've put together a little poll at Talk:Terrorism regarding the "lone wolf" section. Your input would be appreciated. Thx. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:21, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Human Rights Record of the United States

I think this is an article that you might be interested in working on. Cheers! -- BDAbramson ^talk 03:54, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)

==

Hey, I just realized I haven't seen you around gitmo lately. I think I better hold off editing (or even discussing) there, until you've had a chance to weigh in. I need your perspective on Islamic culture, Muslim values, and so on. Otherwise I'm liable to skew the perspective of the article accidentally. Sincerely -- Uncle Ed (talk) 19:22, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

Jihad

Brandon, why are you crossing out stuff in your talk:Jihad discussion? Just wondering. Yours, Anonymous editor June 29, 2005 15:35 (UTC)

Oh, sorry it was user:Kurita77. I reverted this. You have every right to report this vandalism of your comment if it continues. Once again, thanks. --Anonymous editor June 29, 2005 15:41 (UTC)

RfA

Sorry that it didn't work out this time; I'm sure that it will at some point in the future. You can take some satisfaction in knowing that a durprising number of those voting against were known vandals, sock-puppets, trolls, and edit-warriors — so you've obviously been doing something right in order to get them so scared. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 29 June 2005 17:48 (UTC)

Mel's absolutely right. The voting becomes unfair when people (including socks and vandals) start voting against a credible editor simply because he wanted to advocate neutrality and remove extreme POVs that are against wiki policy. Good job running, though, and hopefully in the near future you will run for admin again. Peace, Anonymous editor June 29, 2005 18:01 (UTC)

You are absolutely welcome, Brandon. I agree with what you said and I will think about the email thing. P.S. I hid your email address off my talk page because there are some out there who might abuse that. Thanks and Salaam --Anonymous editor June 29, 2005 19:14 (UTC)

Edip Yuksel

Hey Brandon,

You seem to be one of the more even-headed editors in the discussion on the Edip Yuksel article. If you feel this individual is noteworthy, may I suggest posting it at Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion? As it is, since there was a VfD discussion, any posted content will be speedily deleted by an admin under the deletion policies. If you do decide to post it for undeletion, let me know and I'd be glad to add my vote to support it. As I'm not familiar with the individual's work, though, I'm uncomfortable nominating it myself. --MikeJ9919 30 June 2005 18:43 (UTC)

I voted for undeltion. I had planned to do it but I wanted to wait until the editors stopped continuously recreating it or lost interest so that maybe those who vote wouldn't vote out of bias because they feel (which it may be) self promotion. But, hopefully we can get a decent article out of this. gren 30 June 2005 19:19 (UTC)

No the flamewar has nothing to do with Edip, I was just requesting some help from Gren. Anyways, yes, I have listed some conditions on Talk: Edip Yuksel that the "authors" of the page should realize before I actually report it. I am sure that we can all agree on those and hope that Edip/Khizar will obey so I don't have to report. Thanks--Anonymous editor June 30, 2005 19:22 (UTC)

Alright, I moved the undeletion into the proper date section (unlike VfD, it should be at the top of the page, not the bottom...easy mistake to make, don't worry about it) and added my vote. I also posted it to VfD, as per proper procedure for articles having received a discussion. While I was doing all that, our friend 84.130.57.122 decided to remove the speedy tag, which I promptly replaced. I also left a message on his Talk page. I think that's all for now...I'll keep an eye on the issue at least until the undeletion vote is resolved. --MikeJ9919 30 June 2005 19:28 (UTC)

I don't think that undeltion will go well unless we have better support of his notability... and I don't think his site will do that and I can't really read anything on him in Turkish... it seems like some are voting on the fact that it started out as self-promotion which I was hoping to avoid... because that's a bad reason. Oh well. gren 30 June 2005 21:47 (UTC)

ARTICLE IS DELETED????? Uh oh, Edip/Khizar won't like this. --Anonymous editor June 30, 2005 21:49 (UTC)

Striver

I have kept Striver in check on the Aisha article, but just from lack of time and energy I have been letting him have his head on the articles on Umar, Uthman, and Muawiya (sp? -- first Umayyad). He has apparently also done a lot of work on articles re the various Sahaba and I haven't had the courage to look.

I agree with GNU4eva that his edits don't show Shi'a in a good light. He makes them seem motivated only by self-pity, spite, and hate, willing to believe any bazaar gossip. There's got to be more to it than that!

Mustafaa suggests setting up a group watchlist for people interested in early Islamic history, just like the one that is apparently operating now for Palestine-related articles. I just haven't had the time or energy. Zora 2 July 2005 02:20 (UTC)

No, Mustafa isn't going to set up the page, he wants me to do it. I've copied the text of the Palestine page, I just need to adapt it to History of early Islam. Yes, Striver's writing is atrocious. Zora 2 July 2005 10:52 (UTC)

Sahaba

Brandon, that's an immense improvement. Of course, there are still the subsidiary articles to do ... they're still full of Striver's Shi'a scorecards <g>. Thank you very much for the work.

I think I have to learn to let go of some of my feeling of responsibility for Wikipedia. I can't single-handedly make sure that it's all well-written and accurate. Not even in small areas. I just have to take the attitude that I do the best I can and the result is beyond my control (or in your terms, it's up to Allah). Zora 3 July 2005 10:15 (UTC)

The looooong weekend

Yes, the Islamic articles are a mess, aren't they? Striver has apparently been working nine hours at a stretch to Shiafy and garble as many articles as possible, and Zeno has been reverting madly at Muhammad so that he can sneak in the usual accusations re Muhammad murdered the Banu Qurayza, had sex with a minor, blah blah blah.

I used to think that Striver was just writing English as a second language, but I'm starting to wonder if he is either extremely young or just "not all there" in some way. I spent hours completely rewriting the Ali ibn Abi Talib article and he promptly filled it with garbage again. Please take a look.

As for Zeno -- yes, I think it might be Pename back under another guise. Dunno how many he's had so far. I remember arguing with Pename about something and citing Ibn Ishaq. He dismissed the source as useless, and I said that he'd probably like it, since it was full of embarrassing material. If Zeno is Pename, he has bought a copy of Ibn Ishaq and is mining it for everything embarrassing he can find. Now it's the all-Ibn-Ishaq-all-the-time channel, and there are no other credible sources at all!

I can't revert any more at Muhammad, I think, and I am somewhat reluctant to be too strident about protecting that section, since I wrote it. I don't want to be one of the people who protect their prose like the crown jewels. But anything you could do would be appreciated. Zora 4 July 2005 19:33 (UTC)

Heya

Will have a look if I get a chance... flat out at the moment :( Ta bu shi da yu 5 July 2005 00:01 (UTC)

Edip

Edip Yuksel has been restored and immediately VfDed, which I think is idiotic, but is their right. I've begun cleanup and NPOV. Take a look at the Talk page for one particularly egregious paragraph that I'm unsure about. --MikeJ9919 5 July 2005 15:35 (UTC)

Hey...like most of your edits on Edip Yuksel. I think you may have gone overboard with removing stuff in the interest of NPOV. I readded the small bio paragraph at the end and the self-bio from "Yes, I am a Kurd." It's a little self-congratulatory, but if it's a direct quote and we list it as such, that's fine with me. Do you have any info on his Islamic beliefs / commentary before Qur'an Alone? It would be good to flesh out the article. Also, we might want to include information about how his new revision of the Qur'an differs from current texts. --MikeJ9919 5 July 2005 19:48 (UTC)

What can I say? I felt bad. After cutting that whole long ridiculously self-congratulatory "he stands up to evil" paragraph, I had to draw the line somewhere. ;-) --MikeJ9919 5 July 2005 19:58 (UTC)

Khizar- What is wrong with this partagraph: Yuksel promotes monotheism and freedom, protection of the environment, peace, critical thinking, scientific method, and philosophical inquiry. As an individual and as a member of the Islamic reform movement, he stands against what he sees as evil, such as hero-worship, injustice, racism, violence, imperialism, unreasonable discrimination, oppression, torture, apathy, arrogance, greed, corruption, waste, misogyny, xenophobia, jingoism, sexual promiscuity, alcohol, drugs, gambling, economic exploitation, fraud, usury, condensation of wealth in the hands of few, and manipulation of masses via nationalistic and religious hormones. All these are statements of fact as regards to Edips beliefs and is stated in an unbiased and neutral manner.

It would be inappropriately POV for an entry on George W. Bush to include the "fact" that he opposed all of those things, because the passage would be (rightly) seen as boosterism by Bush partisans. It's a political speech, not a neutral discussion of Bush's career.

If that's so for an article on Bush, it's true for an article about Edip, too. Some material belongs on a person's user page; some belongs in an encyclopedia. BrandonYusufToropov 5 July 2005 22:31 (UTC)

To apply it in a more general context (since this is your Talk page, feel free to correct me, Brandon), the great majority of these things are vices/sins acknowledged by civilization as a whole, without regard to religion or country. Should we put a similar paragraph in articles about all religious and political leaders? At the very least, all will claim to support these ideals. If Edip does (and I'm not saying he doesn't), then that's fantastic...but that doesn't make it encyclopedic. --MikeJ9919 6 July 2005 04:38 (UTC)

Have you given up on the Muhammad article?

The section on sources is still there, with Zeno's laundry list of accusations against Muhammad. It's not academically sound and it's transparently POV. I've reverted twice and given up. Has everyone else abandoned the article? Zora 6 July 2005 06:22 (UTC)

Well I guess it need a complete revision , & since Zora U were the one who wrote the first article ( & well a very nice one ) , I guese U should do it again . Wait for 4-5 more days when there is enough Zeno/Urchid stuff on that page , then we shall se what is important/relevant/authentic , & what isnt . Btw people dont know it , but Ibn Ishaq & Tabari are both more like a compilation of every information that was available . There is no filtering out of weak information in these books , as done by Bukhari or Muslim . So both books are , not all authentic . So in muslim countries mostly scholars with 3-7 years of education in Islam read these books . In the west people think since they are the oldest ones , so they are most authentic , which isnt the case . Farhansher 6 July 2005 09:08 (UTC)

Farhansher, I disagree with you about Ibn Ishaq, but let's not go into it here.

Brandon, what to do about disruptive sockpuppets? Myself, having nearly reached the point of saying "to heck with it", I'd want a gradual tightening of entry requirements for editors. At the moment, there's none, which I'm starting to consider a deplorable bit of cyberhippie idealism. Open source software projects have leaders who can OK or reject code. Distributed Proofreaders just went to a system of requiring permission -- passing a test and getting approval -- before doing second round editing and formatting. Wikipedia should first of all disallow edits from anon IPs. All editors must be registered. Registration under two usernames, blam, that's it, you're out for a year. If that's not enough to stem idiocy, then we have tests of English skills -- short, small ones. If that's not enough, general info tests.

It wouldn't need to be a hard test to stop many of the fugheads. Someone on Usenet was reminiscing about the good ol' days of BBSes, and said that he'd been on one that had an entry test with questions like "Who is the current president of the US?" and suchlike. Very short, very easy. But somehow it weeded out enough idiots that the BBS was full of cultivated, interesting people.

It is very discouraging to spend many hours working on an article, making sure that the academic references are correct and all the bases are covered, and then someone like Str.... replaces it with gibberish. Zora 6 July 2005 13:54 (UTC)

More on sockpuppets

I have limited experience with sockpuppets. If someone is willing to resort to deception in order to evade a ban, I do not suppose that gentle reasoning would be be enough to deter him/her. The only thing to do, it seems to me, is to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the banned user and the new user are one and the same. How this is done I do not know. I can read Usenet and email headers, track down IPs, that kind of thing -- I've been hunting spammers since 1994. But I don't know how to pull up the same sort of info for Wikipedia entries. You may need admin status to do it. Inquire. Another indicator is writing style, which is notoriously hard to "prove". Here's where the computer analysis of word frequency trick that Rashad Khalifa cockaroached could actually come in handy. Run computer analyses of edits by both users you suspect of being one and the same, and show the stylistic signature. I can't think of anything else. Zora 6 July 2005 14:08 (UTC)

Striver

I am so darn TIRED of chasing him around to correct the damage he's causing. He seems to be tireless. Is there something administrative we could do to slow him down? Start with an RfC? Go straight to arbitration? Ask to have him blocked for the reverts? Zora 8 July 2005 14:58 (UTC)

Brandon, I would very much appreciate it if you could take the lead on this. I may find myself in the arb com over my problems with Southern Comfort (he reverts me on sight and will not allow me to link my History of Khuzestan article to any Iranian history articles) and I do not want to become known as a quarrelsome person. Mebbe I am <g>, due to my stubborness in defending what I see as NPOV and academic soundness, but I trying not to act like it. Zora 9 July 2005 03:05 (UTC)

Brandon, Zora has an obvious anti-Iranian bias (this goes all the way back to late April of this year) and the article she is referring to was filled with so many errors and inaccuracies that it is just a mess (she has admitted as much). Contrary to her claims, she used no "academic" sources, but political propaganda websites as her primary sources, while attacking our sources (all academic) as being "not impressive" and "nationalistic." She did all this while also deleting almost the entire Khuzestan article which Zereshk and myself have worked so hard on. If she wants to drudge this conflict up again, then ArbCom is the only solution that I can see, because she is impossible to deal with (and I find her anti-Iranian attitude to be acutely offensive). If you want to get involved, I would hope that you can stay neutral. She has opened a number of RfC's to this end, accusing both Zereshk and myself of nationalism, and involved other editors like Mustafaa (all of which did not satisfy her apparently), and yet she still seems to want to engage both of us in conflict. Best regards, SouthernComfort 9 July 2005 09:46 (UTC)

RfC. Let's cross all the Ts and dot all the Is. Besides, it may be enough to get Striver down from his manic high <g>.

I may be offline for a while. I'm going to reconfigure my computer desk, troubleshoot Bluetooth and my backup hard drive, and possibly give my Windoze box a new case. Starting tomorrow morning. Hope it won't be more than a day. Zora 9 July 2005 09:30 (UTC)

Jihad

No problem. I had thought myself that whatever dispute she had was over, but I guess not. If she wants to involve others, I want to make sure that they see the whole picture, rather than relying on a one-sided perspective. I'm tired of this sort of behavior on WP. BTW, what I originally wanted to mention to you here was that on Talk:Jihad I've suggested clarifying the usage of "liberal" Muslims in regards to "offensive jihad," since orthodox Muslims, in general, do not accept this line of thought, and that Jihad in the Qur'an be added. I was going to make the edits myself, but I think you are better qualified to do so (and you have been far more involved with that article than I, and I don't want to end up being reverted needlessly). Best regards, SouthernComfort 9 July 2005 10:17 (UTC)

Slavery in Islam

Hi. I just slapped a POV tag on Slavery in Islam, which appears to me to express an anti-Islamic bias. I would like for someone with more knowledge of Islam to look it over. Cheers! -- BDAbramson ^talk 13:42, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

Actually, it appears to have been speedily deleted. -- BDAbramson ^talk 16:26, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
So it is not the same article as Islam and slavery ? Neither of you have edited this one, were you aware of it? NoSeptember^{- 16:32, 11 July 2005 (UTC)}[reply]

No, I did not have that on my radar screen, watching it now. Many thanks. BrandonYusufToropov 16:38, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

- My mistake - Slavery and Islam is the article I was talking about. -- BDAbramson ^talk 16:41, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
  - It may indeed be an effort to evade the block, particularly considering that the editor is brand new, and his only edits were to spit out this fully formed article. I'd suggest that what little information is both verifiable and NPOV should be merged with Islam and slavery, and the title should be redirected. -- BDAbramson ^talk 16:53, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
    - Anyone can do a merge and redirect - just be sure to leave a note on the talk page of the article to which the information is merged, crediting the author for the material merged in (per the GFDL). -- BDAbramson ^talk 17:03, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
      - Just as with the merge and redirect, anyone can nominate a page for deletion. I'll do it, though, as I picked up on it in the first place. -- BDAbramson ^talk 03:16, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

US HR record article

Hi, I thought the information you added was useful, but I would try to find a more suitable location for it further down in the article. In its current state, the intro isn't very good; "room for improvement" sound particularly banal in this context. What I would do is rewrite it and place the revised version on the Talk page for comments. Try to hash out a version there that people will agree on. This way, you will avoid a revert war. HTH. -- Viajero | Talk 19:27, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Striver at it again

Striver has unilaterally decided to correct all Arabic names with ul to al, and has moved Ahlul Bayt to Ahl al-Bayt. No discussion. He also added a huge clump of hadith purporting to prove that wives and widows are not part of households. It took me a while to figure out what he was trying to get at. I rewrote the article, summarizing the Sunni-Shi'a controversy and leaving out the hadith, and he has -- REVERTED. I am ready to bang my head on the wall. Time for arbitration? Can you at least revert the article? I've done it once and I am tired of playing revert war with Striver. Zora 06:30, 13 July 2005 (UTC) (exasperated)[reply]

Yuksel VfD

Timeframe is a week, but technically it's not final until it's closed. While any user can close a Keep VfD, given the craziness of this one, I suggest we just wait until an admin takes care of it. --MikeJ9919 15:06, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Striver

Salam Aleikom wa rahmatullah wa barakato!

Brother i just took a short look at http://www.jesusthemuslim.com/

This makes it clear that you have an open mind and hart, that due to this you found the truth i Islam. Now, i would like to hope that you have the same attiute, and will inshallah never loose it.

i would like to bring you attention to this:

WHO TAMPERED WITH THE GOSPELS?

Do you belive Islam is free from that? Do you belive Muslim are imune to tampering the hadith?

Please, take a 10 seconds to think an answer, befor reading on.

Now, of course no. As you know, Hadith are tampered with.

You now have two alternatives:

1: Trust the sunni school, and belive that all hadith in Sahi Bukhari and Sahi Muslim are authentic. 2: Asume that no hadith is authentic unless you get a clear reason for it being authentic.

I would be greatfull if you would give me the answer to that question on my talk page.

As you know, even if we would have a authentic collection, even then there is no guaratee for people to obey them.

Ill give you one hadith and one Quran verse, and hope for a answer as soon as you have time:

The Prophet said, "You (the sahaba, the muslims) will follow the ways of those nations who were before you, span by span and cubit by cubit (i.e., inch by inch) so much so that even if they entered a hole of a mastigure, you would follow them." We said, "O Allah's Apostle! (Do you mean) the Jews and the Christians?" He said, "Whom else?"

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/092.sbt.html#009.092.422

[10.92] ... and most surely the majority of the people are heedless to Our communications.

Ma salam my brother in Islam

--Striver 22:22, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wa aleikom salam!

Manny former christian people i have meet have hade the sharpness to see that the Bible is not 100% authetic and that they cant trust what the mainstream religion teaches. They also realise that being the bigest religion in earth have no merit in it self. Im sure that you will not loose track of those insights.

peace!

--Striver 17:34, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ibn Taymiya

The article on Ibn Taymiya **seeeeeems** to be nothing but wahabbist/Salafi'ist propaganda.. and I don't like these groups (and they don't like me!). I have no idea how to start fixing it thogh, and was looking for help! --Irishpunktom\^talk 23:22, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Making RfC for Germen

I'm putting together an RfC for Germen's behaviour on the Islamophobia article and associated pages. Since you have been involved in disputes with this user before I was hoping you might be able to contribute to the draft before I publish it on WP:RFC. I also need a user to second the RfC and confirm that attempts to mediate with Germen have been attempted. I'm not sure if you qualify for this, but if you do your contributions would be most welcome. Axon 12:19, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I did link to the draft in the above but didn't make the link clear: User:Axon/Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Germen Axon 13:24, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all, my fault I am sure :) What I do need is a second editor to confirm that more than one attempt has been made to mediate with Germen. If you have done so, adding evidence with links to diffs and you signature to the appropriate section would be really helpful. Axon 13:39, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's good you are attempting to mediate with Germen, but I think you misunderstand: attempts to mediate the dispute should occur before the RfC is written and there should be futher evidence that these have been ignored. Do not worry if you have not attempted to mediate the dispute (but check the history of the talk page anyway in case you have), I'm sure I'll be able to find some other editors who have. Axon 14:15, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think you make a valid attempt to diffuse the dispute here[5] so, quoting this, you could probably certify this RfC as well. Axon 15:03, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RFC

Salam!

Care to comment on this? Wikipedia:Requests for comment/London bombing

--Striver 15:42, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Islamophobia

Brandon, agreed, on one condition. We must both agree to follow logic and verifiable sources. --Germen 22:25, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jihad

Hi BYT, I didn't look at the version before I protected it, as we're not supposed to choose which version to protect, except where there's been a 3RR violation or vandalism. I'll take a look now, but I'll only be able to change it if it's clearly very offensive. I'll get back to you. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:06, July 19, 2005 (UTC)