Misplaced Pages

User talk:Pecher: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 15:01, 9 August 2006 editSyrthiss (talk | contribs)36,785 edits I was replying to tigeroo ;)← Previous edit Latest revision as of 13:53, 27 February 2018 edit undoRenamed user mou89p43twvqcvm8ut9w3 (talk | contribs)90,395 edits Notification: proposed deletion of File:Lebanon civil war map 1979.gif. (TW) 
(33 intermediate revisions by 22 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{busy|Pecher}}

] ] ]

==Israeli Apartheid debate==

The Israeli Apartheid debate continues at ].] 01:45, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

And now on ], ].] 07:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

== ] ] ==

{| cellpadding=2 style="background-color: yellow"
|-
| ]
| Hello Pecher, and thank you for your support at my ], which ended with an awe-inspiring 86/1/2 result. I plan to do much with my shiny new tools - but I'll start slow and learn the ropes at first. Please deluge me with assignments and requests - I enjoy helping out. ''For Mother Russia!!'' - <b>]</b><small> ]/]/]</small> 04:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
|}
==]==
Based upon your commentary on ]'s talk page it seems safe to say that you didn't actually see the image. ] 17:53, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
:I see, well I suppose I have less doubts about your bias now. Thanks for the discussion. ] 18:33, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
==]==
Not sure if you've been following the talk on ] but while I agree with his inclusion in the ] it is presumptous of editors to include him in ]. ] 19:14, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
:If your "whitewash" comment was true I surely wouldn't agree with his inclusion in the Anti-Semitism category now would I? ] 19:18, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
::There's only one individual of note that I have seen referring to ] as an anti-Semite and that is ] who's anything but neutral on the matter. Is there some other notable sources referring to him that I should be aware of? ] 19:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
:::They ''do count'' that is for sure but neither have actually come out saying "Mahmoud Ahmadinejad" is an anti-Semite... they referred to him in terms of anti-Semitism which explains why the anti-semitism category indeed makes more sense for his inclusion over anti-semitic people. ] 19:37, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
::::I wonder if it was pro-jewish sophistry related editing I engaged in when I made , and to counteract whitewashers relative to ]? Not sure what to think at this point. ] 20:24, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

== Reversions to ] ==

:''You are in danger of violating the ] on {{{1|a page}}}. Please cease further reverts or you may be ] from further editing. <!-- Template:3RR4 -->''

I'm sure you are familiar with the ] and so this comment may not be necessary. Nevertheless, the ] article is volatile enough as it is; we don't need any revert warring. And using pop-ups to make revert warring faster and easier is a definite no-no. ]]] 20:21, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

== Muhammad ==

Seems to me like there are enough people murdered at Muhammad's specific instruction that we could have a category for them. What do you think? ] ] ] 13:18, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
* See ] and prepare for the inevitable demands for deletion of the category. ] ] ] 14:03, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
::The discussion continues . I wonder who will be the first to put it up for deletion? ] ] ] 14:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

==]==

Nice work on this article. I've made a few minor changes. ] ] ] 18:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

== Israel Shamir ==

Please see the AN/I entry on ] . ] 19:43, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

== ] ==

Why are you removing this category? ] <sup>]</sup> 14:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Are you kidding me?
Lovelace - wants people to flush the Qur'an down the toilet.
ibn Warraq - why do I even have to explain?
Pat Robertson -
Robert Spencer - read his books.
Johnson - go to his website.
] <sup>]</sup> 14:37, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

::I noticed it and I am working on undoing their obvious POV editing. -- ] 16:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


==DYK==

{| class="messagebox standard-talk"
|-
|]
|On June 16, ''']''' was updated with a fact from the article ''''']''''', which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on ].
|}

==]==
Your article is coming under some heavy attacks. Someone even slapped a cleanup tag on the Expulsion section. Also see the comments on the talk page. &mdash; <small>]] &bull; 2006-06-16 17:56</small>

Delightful. It's funny that the article is "intended to defame the Prophet" when the sources are virtually all ''Islamic'' texts that viewed Muhammad as the perfect exemplar. Clearly the authors of those sources weren't at all uncomfortable with the idea of wiping out the Banu Nadir; they regarded it as quite admirable.
Funny, I went through the same thing with ]. Several editors wanted to insert material in there to the effect that the Banu Qurayza men and women were guilty in their own murder and rape- basically "they had it coming". ] ] ] 20:31, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

==Deletion of section title: "Relationship between religious and racial anti-Semitism"==
Please take a look . --] 19:37, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

== Exact Phrasing of Source ==

What's the exact phrasing in the Encyclopedia of Islam that leads to the conclusion that ''Islamic law bans non-Muslims from entering mosques''. And perhaps a bit of context before and after would be nice. ]]] 21:45, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

:Also, unless you have further objections, I'm going to remove the {{t1|disputed}} tag from the style section of the mosque article (or perhaps you could do it). See ]. ]]] 22:06, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

==Thanks==
]
A big pixelated WikiThanks for the Resilient Barnstar! That's probably the longest I've held it together on a talk page in quite a while :) &mdash; <small>]] &bull; 2006-06-17 00:59</small>
<br clear="all">

== ] and NPOV ==

Please stop removing the neutrality tag from the article... it really is disputed (since... the talk page is full of arguing) and just because you don't agree with their basis doesn't mean that it isn't. So, give it a few days? Thanks. ] ] 17:38, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


== Flummoxed ==
Say, I'm flummoxed about something. I just stumbled on the ]? I was wondering if there are more boards like that. It struck me as a deck-stacking mechanism, similar to other notice boards that have been deleted, but maybe I am mistaken. What's your opinion?--] 23:56, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't even know there were noticeboards until the other day. Can anyone set them up? Maybe there can be a "tolerance issues" noticeboard, for people like myself who believe in tolerance. --] 11:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I hear you. But what we have here is a notice board devoted to people of a certain nationality, not to a particular topic. Why not an Jewish Wikipedians' notice board or an Irish Wikipedians' notice board?--] 11:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I see. Thanks for clarifying. Well, it is too bad these boards are not policed.--] 13:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

== Some More Changes to ] ==

From ]:

:''I made to the article, using only the Qur'an to present the idea that polytheists are prohibited from mosques but letting the information about Omar II speak for itself. Essentially, I wanted to not make a conclusion on whether Islamic law prohibits monotheist non-Muslims from entering mosques (as we can't seem to make that conclusion clearly ourselves) and instead ]. What does everything think of this version? ]]] 02:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)''

Your comments would be appreciated. ]]] 02:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

:On ], Raul said: ''If there are no other issues, I'd be happy to reschedule this article for the main page.'' Oh, and sorry if you have ] on your watchlist and these messages are unnecessary; I'm sure this will be the last. ]]] 00:39, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

== FYI ==

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/728863.html

== can you help ==

I want to write an article on red dawn but need to create a disamb page first since an article by that name already exist

see this for background:

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3264921,00.html

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&q=%22red%20dawn%22&sa=N&tab=wn




== FYI suggest you read all of it ==

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3265297,00.html

== Request to mediate ==

I believe you violated ], which states that reverting "means undoing the actions of another editor" when you recently reported me for a 3RR violation after I added a totallydisputed tag to ] when reverting to the version I preferred would have been a 3RR violation. I wish to mediate this dispute. Will you agree to mediation? ] 17:11, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

:I will be asking for dispute resolution on the following questions:
:# Should a 3RR block occur after an editor chooses to insert a dispute tag instead of reverting, when reverting would violate 3RR, inserting the dispute tag returns the article to a previous version, and the dispute tag in question has never been removed except through reverts?
:# Would such a block be within the letter of ] which states that reverting "means undoing the actions of another editor"? Why or why not?
:# Would such a block be within the spirit of ]? Why or why not?
:] 17:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

== Banu Nadir mediation questions ==

Please help ] mediation succeed by providing your opinions in answer to your column on the ] (referring to the questions in the preceeding section.) With luck, this will help narrow the focus of the dispute. ] 08:24, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

==3RR report==
Greetings Pecher, please be aware of ] concerning yourself. Thanks. ] 12:06, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

==Weather report==
.] 04:19, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
:. ] 09:23, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

== What are your arguments for "no basis for dispute" on the Anti-Semitic people category? ==

I would like to have you point out to me why there is no basis for dispute, and why this category was not renamed. Respectfully, --] 15:22, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

== Why did you twice sabotage ]? ==

When I attempt to add entries to this category (note I only do indisputable ones, not debatable ones like ], ] or ]), you keep reverting them. What is wrong with this category? --] 11:00, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

== Hi How are you ? ==

]

==Barnstar==
I think I am somewhat less "celebrated" at the end of this week than I was at its beginning, given the number of controversies I have found myself involved with.
But your sentiment is appreciated. ] ] ] 21:29, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

== NPA ==

I warned Faisal when he said "I guess we know what religion this editor is" on Talk:Muhammad.... so, now I warn you. "in Faisal's religion, Muhammad's actions are viewed in this way"... don't speculate... I don't care if your purpose was to degrade or to be cleverly illustrative. Stop that kind of crap because it just creates an annoying and worthless tension. ] ] 03:32, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

:... and yet you call BhaiSaab's saying you misinterpreted something as a personal attack. You needn't accept the warning but you need to keep article talk pages more civil. Just because someone identifies as Muslim (explicitly on their parge or not) does not mean you can (and moreso it isn't helpful) to make assumptions about aspects of their faith. If you start saying "gren's ideology is to use cheap meat in order to rip off the customer" I will be needlessly offended and even though my user pages cleary says that I am taco bell it does not make it proper or constructive to mention that on talk pages. ] ] 09:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

::You are completely missing the point. It doesn't matter even if he said it. On the talk page it was used in a pejorative manner which led to you two bickering. The talk pages of so many pages have digressed into similar behavior. My point is that that needs to stop from everybody. So, no need to reply to this, just please, do make your best efforts to avoid the current atmosphere of bickering. Thank you. ] ] 09:26, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
==Surprise, not==
. ] 12:48, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
:There's something to be said for folks like ] as one could not be mistaken for where they stand. ] 13:07, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
::How do you figure "vote stacking"? I'd understand such allegations if I was ] or posting '''VOTE AGAINST!!!!''' or even posting on the Muslim Guild, but this I did not do. Lest you join ] in becoming known for demonstrating a lack of good faith (albeit seemingly misguidedly in your case being that you're not a native speaker) I strongly suggest you remove such an allegation. ] 14:24, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
:::Neutral posts on ] about ] related topics (and categories for that matter) are perfectly within the ] of the Islam Wikiproject. Perhaps you were not aware of that... I '''strongly suggest''' you look up a definition of ''vote-stacking'' before you again make foolish statements that lend an air of bad faith to what you do. ] 14:40, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
::::Your conduct and your statements are not '''you''', even ] can confirm this. Sorry but this is going nowhere and is pointless... I'm removing your unfounded claim of votestacking from my talk page. Any further related unfounded claims shall be removed from my talk page summarily without further discussion from myself. ] 14:52, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
:::::Yet the phrase "known for demonstrating a lack of good faith" is of course ''not'' about conduct, but an allegation that someone lacks good faith - an indefeasable charge you are quick to see hints of in the statements of others, and equally quick to include in your own. I am hardly participating in this venemous forum any longer, so I'd appreciate it if you'd find someone else to accuse (as it appears you have).] 17:21, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
::::::Hmmm, demonstrating? Sounds like conduct to me. If I had said "known for his lack of good faith"... you'd have an argument. What's up with all of the Islam-bashing of late? Seriously even ] has of it. ] 17:48, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
:::::::"To demonstrate" is a conduct, but the object of this conduct is the imputed state. For instance, were one to say that you are "showing yourself to be ", would that, too, be an commentary on "conduct", on the mere ground that "to show" is a verb?

:::::::The ''point'' is that such sentences are wholly ''about'' contributors, rather than any particular contribution or conduct. Because they are indefeasable and unanswerable ("I ''do'' have good faith" is an answer, but one you'll not allow), they accomplish nothing beyond a poisoning of the well.

:::::::Additionally, your definition of "good faith" is ''far'' too narrow and presumptious - contributions sincerely meant to improve the encyclopedia, according to any criteria, are good-faith contributions, and contributors sincerely here to improve it are good-faith contributors. It seems you've redefined it to mean, approaching a subject with an outlook which meets with your moral approval. Such outlooks are known as points of view, not degrees of good faith.] 18:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
::::::::Timothy Usher, when you're telling me to "Stop defending anti-semites.", you're demonstrating a lack of good faith and when you repetitively do that you become known for it. Your arguments have no foundations. Unlike yourself, I've not been defending anyone demonstrating anti-''anything''. ] 18:58, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
:::::::::I didn't check whether Timothy indeed said it, but if he did, then it should be a broadly correct description of your behavior. It has nothing to do with good faith: good faith is a sincere desire to improve the quality of Misplaced Pages; commenting about the conduct of other users has nothing to do with good faith by definition. ] <sup>]</sup> 20:03, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
When I'm ''demonstrably'' falsely accused of doing something and no apology is forthcoming after such has been illustrated... that'd be a demonstration of lack of good faith. ] 20:26, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
:No, see above as to what good faith actually is. ] <sup>]</sup> 20:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
:I do not accept that it's false, nor did I have only one instance in mind. But as you mentioned one, "defending" isn't so strict as to require that you went on ANI and said that all aspects of his conduct are acceptable. Maintaining that he has good points that ought to be made more civilly (just ''how'' one might civilly restate some of them, I've no idea), and encouraging him to come back to do so, is a sort of defense.

:Netscott, if there is an element of bad-faith here, it's that I actually don't think it all that productive to spend our time here raising questions about one another's motives, as I'll admit was ''implicit'' - these questions may or may not be good ones, but they can't be answered, and only contribute to a distrustful atmosphere of prosecution and rebuke. However, I was not the one who started down this road, and I ''in good faith'' believed that to see yourself subjected to such questions - whatever their answer - might have helped illustrate how the dialogue of insinuation and guilt by association appears from the other side. We can ask if your post above (re Acre) was meant to compare the founding of Israel with the Holocaust; we can ask if your objections to a category documenting the deaths of Jews might not reflect some sympathy with the narrative in which their slaying was justified; we can ask if removing Ahmadinejad from the Anti-Semitic people category might not be an assertion that his Holocaust denial and call for Israel's destruction is not, in fact, anti-Semitic, etc. We might even ask why you recently filed a ''false'' 3RR report against a Jewish editor. We can ''ask'' all these questions and, in doing so, construct a narrative in which an answer appears obvious, even as it is inherently untestable and thus irrefutable. That is the very mode of discourse to which you and your former associate His excellency had subjected me, now applied to you. I ask you in good faith, do you think it fair?] 21:24, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

== what do you think about this ==

see also talk page of that artixcle. ] 20:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I think this is bad as it create a non NPOV section. ] 20:15, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

== FYI ==

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=21186_Hamas-_Islam_Will_Conquer_US_and_Britain&only

=="unreferenced"==
Pecher, it is not a good idea to slap {{tl|unreferenced}} on a well-developed article like ]. The template is intended for undeveloped articles that cite no sources whatsoever. Most of the aritcle is completely undisputed. The controversial statements are referenced. It would be ] to add {{tl|fact}} to every sentence that has no footnote. In particular, many statements that contain a wikilink to another article may be considered summaries of information there, and the sub-article may be consulted for reference. I suggest you pick your five to ten main grievances with the article and add {{tl|fact}} to those. After these have been addressed to your satisfaction, you may tag the next five. Such would be a constructive approach, while your action at present simply means that you are unhappy in some unspecified way, but decline to bother to detail why. ] <small>]</small> 12:23, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
:no. leaving the template unspecified implies that the entire article is unreferenced, which is not true. This is not helpful, because we do not know what you are objecting to. At least use the template's argument to explain what you mean. See ]. ] <small>]</small> 08:13, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

== Zeq ==

Pecher, how is it specious for me to complain about Zeq opening an article about me under my real name posting my personal details when he did precisely that after coming off his 48 hour block for vote-stacking, a block he blames me for? Even Moshe rebuked Zeq for this. Please do not dismiss a complaint as "specious" when you admit you haven't seen the article in question. Please strike out your comments on AN/I. ] 13:58, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

it's not reasonable to expect someone to violate their own privacy in order to make a privacy complaint - rather self-defeating, actually. As I said, I can email the url of the deleted article to any interested admin. Also, your claim of speciousness is unfair and untrue, please remove it. ] 14:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

See also ] 14:24, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Charming post. And what of disciplining Zeq for violating ] or are your friends exempt from policy?] 18:21, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

==luck==
It took me a while to figure this out, but I suppose your message relates to football?
The Ukrainians played well, and if you manage to not score in two full hours, you have to accept losing at a turn of chance, so there :) ] <small>]</small> 12:36, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

==Alleged Killing of the Jews in Khaybar==
Hey Pecher, what's the matter with you?!
Obviously, you are no longer interested in objectivity and fairness, and intend to push your view through suppressing the many sources that contradict it.
I'm sorry, but this is not acceptable for me.
I mentioned Stillman's opinion in a footnote, and that's what it deserves. But you mustn't simply ignore the fact that his is merely a minority opinion!
] 13:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

You really should be able to live with my current formulation, which is definitely not "apologetic".] 14:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

:I blame Muhammad for the negative things he ''actually'' did, and not for the things he ''possibly'' did.] 14:47, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

The tenor of this discussion on both sides is unnecessarily heated. You're both valuable editors and I'm learning a lot from following your arguments. However, I'd enjoy it a lot more if the accusations of bad faith were to stop.] 22:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

== ] warning ==

From reading just that sequence, the single "how did you get to be an admin?" didn't seem like that much of a personal attack. Less than civil, certainly, but I expect a certain amount of thick skin to be an admin job requirement. (One of the main reasons I supported Crz for admin was because of my belief he could stay cool under pressure, in fact.) I admit I don't know any of the backstory, however, so you may be right. I won't make a federal case out of it. ] <sup>]</sup> 18:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
==] question==
Pecher, what was specifically wrong with ]'s edit? Is there a section of related talk you can direct me too? ] 21:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
:Well when I'm assuming good faith then I'm inclined to believe that it was correct. But I'm informing myself more and more on the subject and wondered about your revert (not even an editorial comment explaining your revert). ] 21:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
::Before I ''in good faith'' revert your revert I'm going to ask you again, what was wrong with his edit? ] 21:13, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

==Important RfC==

Hi. Why don't you take part in ] RfC case? ] 22:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

== Mediation ==

A case in which you are a party (Banu Nadir) has been submitted to mediation by the ]. Please review the proposed solution in this case. ] 19:03, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
:Thank you for your comment. Just because a side submits a version
does not mean that it will be put in the final version. Bearing that
in mind, please go to the case page and type AGREE or DISAGREE to indicate your feelings toward the proposed solution. G]o. 19:49, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

== Fall of Constantinople ==

I'm not near my books with me at the moment, but I'll look it up as soon as I can. Hopefully the author I have in mind didn't rely on Gibbon, since I don't think of Gibbon as reliable in this area.

Googling around though, we have , which is something at least. '']'' <small>] ]</small> 23:21, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


==Barra binte Samawal==
It should not have been speediet, the mother of a queen, and the wife of a king is not speedy material. And it ''is'' spelled '''binte''', not '''bint'''--] 19:58, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
:Check the Encyclopedia of Islam. It's "bint". --] ] ] 22:42, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

== FYI ==

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3271274,00.html

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3271267,00.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/5144438.stm

==Asma bint Marwan==

Could you please watch out for the Asma bint Marwan article? BhaiSaab is insisting on removing some essential information from the article, in order to prove a ] about my editing in another article. -- ] 22:20, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

== {{user|His excellency}} ArbComm case filed. ==

You have been nominated as an involved user.

]. - ] 00:23, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

== FYI ==

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3272837,00.html

==]== ==]==
This case is now closed and the result has been published at the link above.
Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: ]. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, ]. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, ].

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --] 08:20, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

:Hi Pecher, it's my understanding that the ArbCom members don't do much with the statements on the main Arbitration Case pages once they have opened a case, so might not do much good. At this point all the action in the case is at ], ], and the associated talk pages. This is not a big deal -- you didn't do anything wrong -- but if you want to enter evidence or suggestions that the ArbCom is sure to look at, you might consider it. &mdash;] (]) 01:39, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

== ] ==

I've added a section dealing with his virulent (even for the day) anti-Semitism. If you have any additional info, please feel free to add. ] ] ] 17:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

:Some folks are trying to chip away at it, too... Why people rush to defend this monster is beyond my ken. ] ] ] 19:33, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I've done about all I can on this. Rjensen continues to whitewash. ] ] ] 20:42, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

== Teleportation AfD ==

Hrenovo, Pecher. Stydno tak ispol'zovat AfD. Obviously, the topic exists - so slap {{tl|fact}} wherever you think you see OR. I speedy-kept it. - <b>]</b><small> ]/]</small> 21:03, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

==Vandalism==
Please stop. If you continue to ] pages, you will be ] from editing Misplaced Pages. <!-- Template:Test3 (Third level warning) --> -- ''] 20:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)''

== Last warning ==

Do not remove warnings from your talk page. This is your last warning. -- ''] 20:49, 13 July 2006 (UTC)''

:Remove the warnings if you agree w/ what i discussed in the article talk page Pecher. Cheers -- ''] 20:55, 13 July 2006 (UTC)''


*His excellency is placed on personal attack parole, should he engage in personal attacks directed at individuals he may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeat offenses. Should he engage in attacks directed at ethnic groups such as "The Jews" or "The Kikes" he may be blocked for extended periods of time, up to a year.
::It's pretty disappointing to see that an admin like Szvest doesn't seems to understand some of Wikipedias most basic policies, and confuse content and NPOV disputes with ]. -- ] 18:15, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


*His excellency, having made one personal attack directed at "The Jews" and another directed at "those kikes" is banned for one month for the first offense and 3 months for the second offense, to run consecutively.
== ] ==


*His excellency has continued to make anti-Semitic attacks on other users during this proceeding. An additional ban of <s>6</s> 2 months is imposed to run consecutively with other bans.
Hi Pecher,


*His excellency is placed on Probation for one year. He may be banned by any administrator from any page which he disrupts by edit warring, incivility, or other disruptive behavior. All bans are to be logged at ].
I reverted a couple of your changes at this article. Some of your deletions were fine, for example, I think you were correct to remove the statement that WINEP supports Likud more than Labor, since I don't think its true and it definitely needs to be sourced. However, I think that listing the members of the advisory board is relevant, WINEP lists them on its website and it does show that the organization draws support from a number of big names in both parties. Also, the statement that WINEP scholars have served in the Clinton and Bush administrations is correct. For example, Dennis Ross worked for both Bush Sr. and Clinton and a WINEP scholar whose name I forget recently moved over to the treasury department to head the unit that deals with terrorist financing (I forget his name).


*Timothy Usher is placed on Probation for one year. He may be banned by any administrator from any page which he disrupts by edit warring, incivility, or other disruptive behavior. All bans are to be logged at ].
] 18:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


*Traditional Muslim usages such as "Salam, brother" or (PBUH) may be used on talk pages at the discretion of the user; however, care should be taken to not create a hostile atmosphere for non-Muslims.
:Advisory doards are usually full of high-profile people who do not spend much time and attention on these institutions. Thus, devoting an entire paragraph to advisory board members is unnecessary and disproportional; a list of the most notable scholars would be much better. I have no objections to mentioning the fellows who served at different administrations, but we must be specific because "some" and "many" is not acceptable. ] <sup>]</sup> 18:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


*Violation of bans imposed under the terms of this decision may be enforced by blocks appropriate to the offense involved. All blocks and the basis therefore to be logged at ].
::Okay, I did create a list of notable scholars. Unfortunately, some of the most notable people associated with WINEP do not have wikipedia articles. Unfortunately this article appears to have been distored by some anti-neoconservative people in the past - I can certainly understand your reasons for caution. Right now, the sentence says that several WINEP people have served in government, I may add a couple of specific examples, but I don't think we need to quantify it exactly. As for advisory boards, in this case I think it is notable, very few institutions have this kind of high-level bipartisan list, and since WINEP brags about it, it can't really be called wellpoisoning to include it. I agree that their day-to-day involvement is probably minimal, but they are still important to the institution. If we can't agree on this one I'd suggest taking it to the talk page to gather other opinions. ] 19:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


For the Arbitration Committee. ] 21:36, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
::P.S. - I will watch this page temporarily in order to find your response. By the way, I noticed from your user page that you live in Ukraine. Have you ever heard of a town called Koretz (also transliterated as Korits, Korec, even Korzec) in Volhynia? ] 19:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


==Deleting Categories of Jewish Athletes==
:::Frankly, I've never heard of that town before, but I have started a stub, see ]. ] <sup>]</sup> 20:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


Hi. I know that this is an issue that has interested you in the past. At http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion#Category:Jewish_fencers some people are suggesting that Jewish athletes, beginning with Jewish Fencers, should be deleted. I do not think that is the correct approach, or consistent with wiki policy, and thought that others might want to weigh in on the discussion. --] 23:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
== Safiyya bint Huyayy ==


Unfortunately I think Pecher is no longer using wikipedia :-( ] 13:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi,
there is no source about the particular torture part in the article.
Have you checked in a book yourself?
] 16:59, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
==Kol Nidre==


tx--] 13:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
The similiarity between Kol Nidre and Taqiyya is not in what they are, rather, its in the spread of false information in respect of what they actually mean. Both Taqiyya and Kol Nidre have been used by partisans to say that Muslims and Jews respectively have a religious mandate to lie, or be false, to others. Unless you are acyually disputing that. --]\<sup>]</sup> 20:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
: Taqiyya allows one the right when faced with duress to say you are not a shia. Thats it, end of story. Yet people, such as Briangotts it would seem, have misinterpreted it, claiming it allows a Muslim a religious mandate to lie at will for whatever reasons, the samecharge levied against Jews in respect of Kol Nidre. Exactly how too does this compare ewith bread? I didn't make the Comparrison, Israel Shahak did.--]\<sup>]</sup> 20:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


==Fair use rationale==
There is no meaningful connection. One is a prayer forgiving oaths made to God, the other is a doctrine permitting false conduct and statements (the extent and circumstances under which it is acceptable being widely debated) To compare the two is utterly absurd. Why not have a "See also" link in the ] article to ]? Both are countries, so the connection is far more solid than what you propose.] ] ] 20:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Reguarding your uploading of ], ], and ], please provide a ].--] 23:35, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
: The connection is in the misinterpritation. One was judged by partisan non-jews as being a religious license for Jews to lie, the other was judged by partisan Non-Muslims as a religous license for Muslims to lie. Both misinterpritations about the respective subjects allowed the same false ideas to be spread. --]\<sup>]</sup> 20:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
:: The user no longer uses his account. He was kinda forced out] 21:07, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


== ] ==
I'll self revert part of my edits in minute--] 21:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Hello, Pecher. An automated process has found and removed a ] image used in your userspace. The image (]) was found at the following location: ]. This image was removed per criterion number 9 of our ]. The image was replaced with ], so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image to replace it with. ]] 23:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


==Fair use disputed for Image:Mohammed Kadir (BBC).jpg==
== Because there's more to life than arguing ==
]
Thanks for uploading ''']'''. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at ] carefully, then go to ] and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at ] is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Misplaced Pages policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.


If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our ]. If you have any questions please ask them at the ]. Thank you.<!-- Template:No fair --> ]''']''' 08:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
{{smile}} And sometimes it's nice to wind down and enjoy the summer. ] 21:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


==Fair use disputed for Image:Abdul Rahman with Bible.jpg==
== Invite ==
]
Thanks for uploading ''']'''. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at ] carefully, then go to ] and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at ] is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Misplaced Pages policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.


If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our ]. If you have any questions please ask them at the ]. Thank you.<!-- Template:No fair --> ]''']''' 08:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I invite you to argue for of me that my was "actually just another attempt to sneak Goy and Gentile into the "See also" section".


==Fair use disputed for Image:Mawlazezadah (BBC).jpg==
Please explain.
]
Thanks for uploading ''']'''. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at ] carefully, then go to ] and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at ] is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Misplaced Pages policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.


If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our ]. If you have any questions please ask them at the ]. Thank you.<!-- Template:No fair --> ]''']''' 08:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
1. <s>what was my previous attempts </s> I have had no connection with any attempts in sneaking Goy and Gentile into the "See also" section.


== Come back ==
2. Here are "all" my relevant comments on the talk page:


I hope you're coming back. --] <sup>(]•])</sup> 03:31, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
#I don't personally joined the discussion on Gentile since I didn't know exactly how it is. But I wonder why there is this much sensitivity to having this word in the "See also" section? There is a section above in which some editors have made some connections between Dhimmi and Gentile.--Aminz 22:49, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


#Leifern, why do you think "this link - deliberately or not - implies that there is equivalence between the Moslem concept of "dhimmi"? ; we have links to "Kafir (Pagan)", "heathen", etc as well. Feel free to add more. It is in the "See Also" section after all. --Aminz 23:55, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


==Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Logo of Lebanese Forces.gif==
#Leifern, I was indifferent to having Gentile in the See Also section from the very beginning. Still I don't understand how it is offensive (?) to you; but as you let us know that it is so, I don't think anybody here wants to make you unhappy. --Aminz 00:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for uploading ''']'''. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by ]. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. Adding and completing one of the templates available from ] is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Misplaced Pages policy. Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an ]; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.


If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our ]. If you have any questions, please ask them at the ]. Thank you.<!-- Template:No fair -->] (]) 12:57, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
3. I only added those links to the Dhimmi article '''once''' and that was only after when MikeXX (a new editor) reverted Hypnosadist's edit without joining the discussion.


== Replaceable fair use Image:Martin Kramer press photo.jpg ==
I think of your accusation as "false". I invite you to argue for your accusation. --] 22:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
]
Thanks for uploading ''']'''. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of ], but its use in Misplaced Pages articles fails our ] in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:


# Go to ] and edit it to add {{tlx|di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, '''without deleting the original replaceable fair use template'''.
P.S. I believe my suggestion was inspired by Hypnosadist's suggestion and I am just trying to get a compromise that we can all agree on. --] 22:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
# On ], write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.


Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, ], or by taking a picture of it yourself.
:You have misrepresented my comments. I didn't say "another attempt ''of yours''"; I said simply "another attempt", which absolutely correct. ] <sup>]</sup> 18:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on <span class="plainlinks"></span>. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before ] ]), per our ]. If you have any questions please ask them at the ]. Thank you. <small>Do you want to ] of receiving this notice?</small><!-- Template:di-replaceable fair use-notice --> ] (]) 21:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
:: I'm sorry. I misunderstood that bit (my english is bad). I'll strike that part out. Please argue for the "absolutely correct" part of your comment. --] 04:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


== ] nomination of ] ==
:::Other people had tried yo push the same POV into the article before you did, hadn't they? ] <sup>]</sup> 18:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
]An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for ]. The nominated article is ]. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also ] and "]").


Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to ]. Please be sure to ] with four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>).
== FYI ==


You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the ] template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/Khaybar_Khaybar


'''Please note:''' This is an automatic notification by a ]. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --] (]) 01:04, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
== Indian caste system ==
== ] of ] ==
]


The file ] has been ]&#32;because of the following concern:
If you care to check the talk page, the reasons are there. ] <sup>]</sup> 21:06, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
<blockquote>Orphaned map.</blockquote>


While all constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, pages may be ].
: He reverted it five times and didn't get blocked. He refuses to contribute to the page. Infact the admin ] says the material was well-sourced, so if you want to re-revert it, the contributing editors (myself, D-boy, Netaji, and Krsont) would have no qualms.] <sub>]</sub> 15:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your ] or on ].
== I was replying to tigeroo ;) ==


Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the ], but other ]es exist. In particular, the ] process can result in deletion without discussion, and ] allows discussion to reach ] for deletion.<!-- Template:Proposed deletion notify --> ~ ]<sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">]</sup> 13:53, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
I knew you were requesting full. ] 15:01, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 13:53, 27 February 2018

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/His excellency

This case is now closed and the result has been published at the link above.

  • His excellency is placed on personal attack parole, should he engage in personal attacks directed at individuals he may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeat offenses. Should he engage in attacks directed at ethnic groups such as "The Jews" or "The Kikes" he may be blocked for extended periods of time, up to a year.
  • His excellency, having made one personal attack directed at "The Jews" and another directed at "those kikes" is banned for one month for the first offense and 3 months for the second offense, to run consecutively.
  • His excellency has continued to make anti-Semitic attacks on other users during this proceeding. An additional ban of 6 2 months is imposed to run consecutively with other bans.
  • Traditional Muslim usages such as "Salam, brother" or (PBUH) may be used on talk pages at the discretion of the user; however, care should be taken to not create a hostile atmosphere for non-Muslims.

For the Arbitration Committee. FloNight 21:36, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Deleting Categories of Jewish Athletes

Hi. I know that this is an issue that has interested you in the past. At http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion#Category:Jewish_fencers some people are suggesting that Jewish athletes, beginning with Jewish Fencers, should be deleted. I do not think that is the correct approach, or consistent with wiki policy, and thought that others might want to weigh in on the discussion. --Epeefleche 23:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately I think Pecher is no longer using wikipedia :-( JHJPDJKDKHI! 13:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

tx--Epeefleche 13:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale

Reguarding your uploading of Image:Abdul Rahman with Bible.jpg, Image:Mohammed Kadir (BBC).jpg, and Image:Mawlazezadah (BBC).jpg, please provide a Fair use rationale.--Sefringle 23:35, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

The user no longer uses his account. He was kinda forced outJHJPDJKDKHI! 21:07, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:1915 Dance by Rodchenko.jpg

Hello, Pecher. An automated process has found and removed a fair use image used in your userspace. The image (Image:1915 Dance by Rodchenko.jpg) was found at the following location: User talk:Pecher/Archive 3. This image was removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image was replaced with Image:Example.jpg, so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image to replace it with. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 23:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use disputed for Image:Mohammed Kadir (BBC).jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Mohammed Kadir (BBC).jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Misplaced Pages:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Misplaced Pages:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Misplaced Pages policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. effeietsanders 08:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use disputed for Image:Abdul Rahman with Bible.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Abdul Rahman with Bible.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Misplaced Pages:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Misplaced Pages:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Misplaced Pages policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. effeietsanders 08:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use disputed for Image:Mawlazezadah (BBC).jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Mawlazezadah (BBC).jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Misplaced Pages:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Misplaced Pages:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Misplaced Pages policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. effeietsanders 08:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Come back

I hope you're coming back. --Matt57 03:31, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Logo of Lebanese Forces.gif

Thank you for uploading Image:Logo of Lebanese Forces.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Misplaced Pages:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Misplaced Pages:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Misplaced Pages policy. Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 12:57, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Martin Kramer press photo.jpg

Replaceable fair use
Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Martin Kramer press photo.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Misplaced Pages articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
  2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Avi (talk) 21:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Islamic terrorism

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Islamic terrorism. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Misplaced Pages:Notability and "What Misplaced Pages is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Islamic terrorism. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:04, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Lebanon civil war map 1979.gif

The file File:Lebanon civil war map 1979.gif has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Orphaned map.

While all constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ~ Rob13 13:53, 27 February 2018 (UTC)