User talk:Pecher

Archive 1

Meshed/Mashhad

Did I ever think how offensive must be the spelling of "Warsaw" to the Poles? Frankly no; I am oblivious to lots of things. I was astonished the other day to realize that Bison and Wisent are cognates.

It reminds me of a situation I avoided becoming involved in: There is apparently an identifiable ethnic/religious/linguistic group of people, who have no name that one or another group does not find offensive. How shall we refer to them? I have no idea. It's a good thing that the spelling of Meshed/Mashad is not something we need to resolve on Talk:Dhimmi. We seem to have enough to do already. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:43, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Heh, I get it;) Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:23, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Mediation

"Another point to bear in mind is, if you can cite verses from the Quran, so can all the other editors, Muslim or not." I think the Quran in this context should be treated like a primary source. We should not try to interpret it ourselves, or even try to identify which passages are relavent. It seems to me that would be original research.

If we want to know about Islam, we should cite the opinion of reptuable scholars, not cite the Quran directly. In my comment, I hoped to point out to Aminz(?) that if we are to be allowed to interpret the Quran directly for ourselves, and say what it requires of Muslims, then we are all going to be doing that, not just the Muslim editors. I do not expect that Farhansher, for example, would find that acceptable. Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:54, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Edit conflicts

Please refrain from editing the article while while I am trying to work on them , to avoid edit conflicts. Thanks. F.a.y.^{تبادله خيال /c} 20:22, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

My Rfc

Please comment on my Rfc. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jersey Devil--Jersey Devil 02:07, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Alberuni

Yes, but I don't bother doing it each time, since he edits so regularly. When the time is appropriate, it will be re-set. Jayjg ^(talk) 08:39, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for pointing it out. I have blocked the user. Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:16, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Trolling on [Abdul Rahman] talk page

Hello, thanks so much for your help with the article. Is there anything that can be done to prevent the trolling on the talk page? ThanksWanda5088 22:48, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Islamic Human Rights Commission Nikah Rumbula Rachel's Tomb Hukm Thomas McElwain Alternative Judaism The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (And the Crusades) Iran and weapons of mass destruction Har Homa Islam in the Bible Paradise Now Dzhidi language Germany and weapons of mass destruction Rahman (Islamic term) John Esposito Jewish languages Dnipropetrovsk Oblast Islam Unveiled (book)

Cleanup Seyyed Razi Riots in Palestine of 1929 Sawm Merge Muslim Jew Javed Ahmed Ghamdi Nazi Nuremberg Laws Add Sources Offensive jihad Jewish ethnic divisions Din (Arabic term) Wikify Similarities between Judaism, Islam, and Christianity Mutaween Ottoman Armenian population Expand Islamic art Trivial Pursuit Communist Party of Germany

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 05:09, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Machsom Watch

Hi Pecher, Thank you for your note. I have read your comments on the talk-page, and if I understand you correctly, you object to inserting any implication of causal effect (between A: the existence of MW and B: the IDF implemented trainings.) My response is: as the article is now, it basically reiterate what the Irish Times article says: i.e. it only lists: A, B, without implying that A ->B. Having said that, I must add that I´m reminded of the expression "beeing more Catholic than the Pope" (I´m not sure if you use such an expression in your part of the world?). Our fellow Israeli editors in this case seem to agree that here A->B [1]. (Yes, I know: No Original Research etc..) But anyway, under these circumstances I think it is a rather "mild" version just to list A, B. Hope this made my edit clearer? Regards, Huldra 21:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi, yes I quite agree, the root cause is that "the original sentence implies connection without establishing one". But do you see any problem with it the way it is referred to now? IMO the MW article now reflects the same ambiguity as the Irish Times article does. Regards, Huldra 22:17, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh dear, are you not overambitious (on WP´s behalf) here? As for all the WP articles on the Israel/Palestine issue I have seen/read I would say I could count on one hand the articles which are "clear and unambiguous." I will defend the inclusion of the Irish Times article because A: it gives some balance the half a dozen ref. of critisism which is included in the article, B: (but this is unofficial, off the record, so to speak): the Israeli editors here (who are not known to be very critical of IDF, to put it diplomatically) actually does what Irish Times does not, that is; they make (or establish) the connection between the activities of MW and the response of IDF. But I would not be suprised if there somewhere exist a better, clearer ref. on this issue than the Irish Times article. Regards, Huldra 23:14, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Persian Jews

Please be reminded of the 3RR rule. [2] black thorn of brethil 22:04, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Be advised of 3RR rule. --ManiF 22:31, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Persian Jews Quote

I feel that statements like that really only serve to illustrate a particular POV, I feel we should stick to more encyclopedic passages, like mentioned the massacres and generally the hostile enviorment.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 08:59, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Why don't we just say accorind to shia customs Jews were considered unclean, and not include specifics.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 09:12, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

That is not totally true. It was certain clerics and I don't think that view should be placed on the article. 69.196.139.250 01:41, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Misleading and personal edit summary

Please do not write misleading edit summaries. I discussed it in detail, pointing out how the version I had inserted in the text respected your reservations, and you did not reply to my last point in the discussion. If anyone is refusing to particpate in a discussion, it is you. Palmiro | Talk 12:25, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Could you please detail exactly how you claim the article is (a) not neutral and (b) not accurate? The only disputes I can see are (1) over "allegations" v. "press reports', where your preferred version is in evidence, (2) over how to describe Israeli army checkpoints, where there is if anything a pro-Israeli POV, but no-one arguing against this has requested a tag, and (3), your argument against including the Irish Times quote, which is quite abstruse but does not seem to claim that the article is lacking in neutrality or accuracy.

I have inserted a new section in the Talk page for you to detail what your actual concerns regarding the article's neutrality and accuracy are. Hopefully this will allow us to assess the issues and consider how they may be resolved. Palmiro | Talk 12:37, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I refer you to my comment immediately above. If you cannot detail any arguments to the effect that the article fails ot achieve neutrality or includes inaccurate statements, the tag will have to be removed. Palmiro | Talk 12:50, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Khomeini

I've added some stuff about Khomeini's views on non-Muslims, but people might try to take them out. Could you keep an eye on that article as well? Aucaman^Talk 14:02, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

3RR

I don't care. I will do this as long as I can. I am here to push forward the truth and not to gain reputation. --Aminz 09:45, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Even if I get blocked, I can always work as an anonymous editor I think. As I said, I don't want to become an administrator or anything that I want to care about gaining reputation. --Aminz 09:52, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I think you are reverting my version, don't you? --Aminz 09:55, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Islamic wiki encyclopedia

Hi Pecher,

I wondered if you could add to this article as I think it is important for wikipedians to know what wikipedia would be like were it subject to Islamic law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_wiki_encyclopedia

RfA Results and Thanks

Pecher, thank you for your constructive opposition in my recent RfA. Although it did not succeed as no consensus was declared (final: 65/29/7), I know that there is always an opportunity to request adminship again. In the meantime, I will do my best to address your concerns in the hope that when the opportunity for adminship arises once again, you will reconsider your position. If at any time I make any mistakes or if you would like to comment on my contributions to Wikipedia, you are more than welcome to do so. Regardless of your religious, cultural, and personal beliefs, I pray that whatever and whoever motivates you in life continues to guide you on the most righteous path. --- joturner 05:21, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

A suggestion (Excellent to my mind :D )

I think RFC is not a good idea since we are not sure both articles may have some problems. I have a suggestion: All editors involved in this mediation nominate a few editors(not among themselves). They are better to be administrator or at least experienced editors(e.g. Zora) and concede their editing right to their nominated editors. These people will form the editor committee. All the editors have to promise not to edit the articles directly anymore, but just try to convince the editor committee if they want to make any change to the article(The articles can be blocked from editing). The final decisions are however made by the editor committee(maybe voting). I hope that concensus could be achieved easier there. How is my idea? --Aminz 03:31, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Pecher, I have made an slot for you on the mediation page.[3] Please post your opinion there. thx--Aminz 07:22, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Martin Kramer and Campus Watch

I like your edits to Martin Kramer and Campus Watch -- I'll keep working on both to increase their professionalism and coverage with your second opinion ensuring its quality. --70.48.240.217 23:55, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Islamism article

Please visit the Islamism talk page if you have some spare time and a high tolerance for bullshit. The Islamist-sympathizers (at best) have thrown up a lot of flak, so I apologize if it makes your head spin. Summary: they want to make the page about how Islamism is an unfair term and these people are just harmlessly following their religion. Hostile editors are only two, but are hardcore and ruthless. The article is currently locked by an ill-considered admin decision (I'm working on it), but won't be forever.Timothy Usher 07:42, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I see. Thank you. That would explain a lot. What other admin(s) can I bring into this? The handling of this matter has been distinctly unfair to say the least.Timothy Usher 07:51, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Pecher,

Just to let you know that the Islamism article has been unblocked, and that one of the problem users, MuslimsofUmreka has finally been blocked for personal attacks - Tom Harrison gave him 48 hours, Katefan0 extended it to a week, bless them both. The other problem user on this page is precisely the abusive sock puppeteer behind Deuterium and seems to have gotten a little shy in light of his exposure. So, if you've anything to say about the article, which still needs much work (I'll be on it again tomorrow), you can do it now without being subjected to legal threats, personal attacks, illogical runarounds on the talk page, etc.Timothy Usher 10:19, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Hat tip, Pecher, you're my hero. I was honestly afraid to do it again, seeing how Kyaa the Catlord got banned for "edit warring" (i.e. reverting from undiscussed vandalism) with this problem user. I must warn you, he's shown a preternatural talent for soliciting admin involvement on his behalf. Before they figure out what's going on, naturally, but that could take a day or so. It's unfair, but just a fact that if you confront him, you might be banned. All I can promise is that I'll vouch for your noble deeds as I did with Kyaa.Timothy Usher 14:01, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Mediation

Could you please post your opinion on my new suggestion at the mediation page. thx. --Aminz 08:55, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Freedman quote

Well, the main objection is that the IP editor is trying to do original research; pick claims from various critical articles so he can rebut them himself. In addition, he's obviously trying to choose the easiest statements to rebut. Also, who is she? It would be best to have the article quote only the more noteworthy individuals who/groups which have spoken about it. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

My suggestion on the mediation page

I have replied to your comment" I don't think it sounds like a terribly good idea. Wikipedia is by definition an encyclopedia that everyone can edit. I see no reason why I should voluntarily surrender my editing privileges having done nothing wrong and without having been banned by the ArbCom or Jimbo. If someone wishes to show restraint by not editing some articles for some time, then fine with me, but I have no obligation to follow suit. Anyway, the suggestion will have limited practical consequences at the moment because the article Dhimmi is already protected." Please have a look at it. thx. --Aminz 04:40, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Anti-Arabism

Why are you persisting in reverting Anti-Arabism without discussing your changes on the talk page despite considerable opposition? Please try to discuss this issue without getting into a needless revert war. Do you seriously not consider anti-Arabism a form of racism? Deuterium 12:54, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

La Convivencia

Greetings, that term has actually been around for centuries.. convivencia. From what I know of the term "La Convivencia", the article seems to not contravene WP:NOR. Was there something in particular relative to WP:NOT and that term that you had concerns about? Netscott 17:43, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Link spam

On the surface they do look like an effort at promotion, but it's simplistic to say they are therefore vandalism and must all be deleted wholesale. The decision should be made on each page. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:17, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I would recommend that you add back the ones that you feel are legitimate and add to the articles contents -- that is allowed. --70.48.241.41 22:35, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Warning to User:70.48.241.41

(copy from User_talk:70.48.241.41)

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. Pecher ^Talk 22:23, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Huh? Can you specify exactly what you are referring to? Please note that I was acting in accordance to the recommendation made here: Talk:Martin_Kramer#Is_Martin_Kramer_link_spamming_Wikipedia.3F -- a discussion you were a participant in. Thanks. --70.48.241.41 22:29, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Reverting Link Spam - Why?

Pecher -- I notice you are now reverting the removal of Martin Kramer links. I am not going to engage in an edit war. Please explain your behavior. It may be best to take this to mediation if you feel I am out of line. --70.48.241.41 22:45, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Please note that I explained the situation fully on Martin Kramer's talk page. I took the issue to Wikipedia:Requests for investigations: [4] and from there User:Petros471, a member of the counter vandalism unit, wrote "I agree that they are spam. Feel free to revert all additions and warn the IPs (see WP:TT for some templates you can use such as {{spam}}). If they continue report to WP:AIV for blocking. Thanks for helping. Petros471 20:59, 7 April 2006 (UTC)"

I repeat, can you please explain your behavior? --70.48.241.41 22:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

check this

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3237529,00.html

Richard Francis Burton

I was not happy that you removed GA status from the article Richard Francis Burton (which was granted only a few days ago) on what I consider to be extremely tenuous grounds. Could you look at what I said in reply and possibly reconsider? --Richard Clegg 00:03, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Deuterium

Any ideas about what I've posted on WP:ANI re Deuterium? We might also ask among so many other things how Hrana98 knew to go to this page and find this text, but seeing as that's only circumstantial...Timothy Usher 07:28, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Good advice. I am so naive.Timothy Usher 12:03, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I realize this is redundant by now, but note also how 24.7.141.159 is perfectly aware of all this: [[5]]

Being aware of my biggest fans is necessary. The two of you have spent far too much time trying to tear me down. If I was really a nobody anon user, then you two would move on. We all know that isn't the case. Keep sniffing me down there, it is nice to have groupies. 24.7.141.159 13:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Moderation

I'm posting this hear in an attempt to calm you down and address any grievances you may have. I understand from all your postings attacking me that you are threatened by my presence and knowledge. I'd like to reassure you that I think it is wonderful to have another editor such as yourself here. Let me help you facilitate some positive change to benefit the Wikipedia community. If we cannot resolve this here, then I will go to for a RfC and proceed to the moderation Cabal. I would prefer dealing with it here and now. 24.7.141.159 13:54, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

3RR

Please mind the 3RR rule on the Passover article. --Aminz 09:31, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Dispute tags on Apostasy in Islam

Feel free to restore them. I'm only trying to verify that/how the article is still disputed (or not).Timothy Usher 08:11, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Pecher. I wasn't sure which tags still belonged here. And thanks for dropping in on Islamism the other day. Note the new User247 sock.Timothy Usher

You were faster

Hey, I used almost the same words about Chelm in that section, but you were faster. Cheers. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 20:36, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Good job, colleague, and nothing to be sorry about. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 20:43, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Sources

By your argument it would be legitimate to write the following in the New Anti-Semitism article because its sourced:

The New Anti-Semitism is a myth[6]

Sourcing a POV does not make it NPOV. I have no problem including the viewpoint that the new Anti-Semitism is a left wing phenomemon as long as we make clear that that is a POV and not an objective fact. Homey 22:48, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

New anti-Semitism

Please be more careful with accusatory edit summaries (proponents "claim", but critics "contend"; is that your version of NPOV?) [7]. You may not be fully aware that "claim" and "contend" may be used as synonyms in American English in the context of maintaining or asserting. [8] —Viriditas | Talk 11:56, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Please note the distinction between dubious and acceptable use. Also note that "contend" is still in the article because you don't recognize it as a synonym of "claim". The use of "claim" in the original context did not imply doubt or smear a viewpoint, but demonstrated that proponents made the assertion as described. In fact, using "believe" instead of "claim" could imply doubt, since a belief is not necessarily based on evidence. This change appears to have had the opposite result to the one you intended. —Viriditas | Talk 13:42, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Tag-teamed

I've been tag-teamed over at Muhammad. Sigh. I'll try to pick up the pieces tomorrow. What's going on with you?Timothy Usher 12:50, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Which editor? The only ones I've noticed lately are Mpatel and AgreeToBe - in both cases, they've made reverts to other pages, in the first instance it was neutral, and in the second favorable (to a Zora version which can hardly be bad), though I've seen neither on the talk page. Is there someone I'm overlooked?

Oh, and Humanist732 - but this is an edit from an earlier anonymous IP, so it's possible he just now got a username (albeit a misleading one).

Thanks for your comments and knowledge on the Banu Qurayza. I removed the part about them choosing their arbitrer only because, though I was familiar with this excuse (as if it is one), it sounds like rubbish on its face. I didn't have the sourced proof as you did.Timothy Usher 10:34, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Seriously, nice touch. User247 23:29, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Talk page

Do not change my headings on my talk page. If you have a problem, then take it up with an administrator. Lastly, do not harass me. Thank you. User247 20:55, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Mosque FAC Comment

I have responded to your comments on the Mosque FAC; I hope I have addressed your concerns sufficiently. Feel free to comment more on issues with the article on the FAC page. joturner 03:12, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Enabled

What's up?Timothy Usher 20:12, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Infidel

Greetings Pecher, thanks for your editorial commentary on Infidel, unfortunately Irishpunktom is trying to censor verifiable information. Perhaps you can review the edit history of the last few edits and edit or revert accordingly? Thanks! Netscott 15:25, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Ah I understand a little better now. :-) Netscott 16:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

In your latest edits it does strike me as odd to see you put the perjorative term kafir and the generally non-pejorative term giaour in the same line, those two words aren't really in the same league as far as their usage is concerned. Netscott 18:29, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't claim to be an authority on English but as a native communicator in American English this, "Kafir ... as well as its Turkish equivalent giaour, is a term usually translated into English as "infidel" or its synonym "unbeliever"." rings quite wrong in my mind. The line is speaking about two terms and becomes plural at that point. Netscott 19:08, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Humus

Great minds think alike. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:54, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Sakina Bint Hussain

Bro Pecher why did you stub the article without first discussing it on the talk page? I have said it many times that please if you want to make any changes in any article in wikipedia then before making the changes please discuss it on the talk page. So other people can know the reason of the change you make. I you are stubbing the article because you think that the article has violated the copyright or the article is being said from the point of view of the Shi’as, then please before you do it first discuss it on the talk page, please because I said it so many times but you keep on stubbing the article for a reason that other users don’t know. Thank You Salman

Encyclopedia

I don't know exactly, but I would write:

• Doe, John. "Israel," Encyclopedia Britannica, online edition, retrieved April 19, 2006. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:11, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

If it's online, I would just link to it with a full citation in the References section. Or I would use the ref footnote system so I could include all the details in the footnote. If using Harvard referencing, you could certainly use (Doe 2006), but I probably wouldn't do that, because it sounds as though it's a paper or book by him, so I would write (Encyclopedia Britannica 2006). SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:25, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, though I would write the article title first. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:31, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I just looked up the EB's citation style for you. This is what they say:

• MLA style
  • "Israel." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2006. Encyclopædia Britannica Premium Service. 19 Apr. 2006 [9]
• APA style:
  • Israel. (2006). Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved April 19, 2006, from Encyclopædia Britannica Premium Service [10]
• Britannica style:
  • "Israel." Encyclopædia Britannica from Encyclopædia Britannica Premium Service. [11] [Accessed April 19, 2006]. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:33, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

My pleasure. :-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:22, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Infidel

Pecher, the additions to Infidel are sourced via the external links below. If the wording/Grammer is wrong, fix it, but why did you feel the need to blanket Revert? --Irishpunktom\^talk 10:27, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

That Goy can refer to Non Jews? - [12][13][14] - That it can mean a Non-Mormon? - See this.That Mlechcha is the Hindu equivilent of Barbarian, see [15]. I did not add the Islamonline reference, and your Revert left it in, but as a citation relaying an example of the opinion of some notable modern Muslims, there are few better sources. The papal decree authorising the Crusades - Do you seriously need a citation for that? There is a full article on the term Kafir, and there should be one on the Term Infidel, but your reversion without even asking for a citation on the points you are unfamiliar with does not help improve anything. --Irishpunktom\^talk 11:54, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Goy can refer to non Jews, and that should be added. The further details of its origin and correct use should be explained in proper details in its own article, that is what it is there for. mlechcha or mlekka still refers to Non-Believers, of the Hindu faith in this instance, and too should have its own article. Kaffir, Goy, Gentile, mlechcha are all there as comparrisons to the word infidel, and it that small context they should remain, and that is how I had them. ---Irishpunktom\^talk 13:21, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Infidel = Non Christian, Goy=Non-Jew, Kaffir=Non Muslim, Mlechcha = Non Hindu .. How can you not see the link? --Irishpunktom\^talk 13:29, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Irrespective of their correct or original use, they can be used to describe non-adherants of their repective religions. That is the reason for their inclusion. --Irishpunktom\^talk 13:58, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I have already shown you where Goy is used to describe a non-jew and where Mlechcha is used to describe a non-Hindu. --Irishpunktom\^talk 14:06, 20 April 2006 (UTC)