en User talk:Someone65

Archives

Merging

I think it will be better if the articles which are shorter, such as Islamic view of Elisha, are merged with the normal article on Elisha. I feel the same of David. Do you agree?--Imadjafar (talk) 06:58, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad/FAQ

I reverted this edit to the Muhammad/FAQ as vandalism. If this edit should not have been reverted let me know otherwise please be aware that Vandalism is not appreciated here and may result in your account being blocked from editing. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 22:29, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that your edit is not really suitable in that context. Please don't repeat it. Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:50, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours to the article Talk:Muhammad/FAQ has an edit summary that appears to be inaccurate or inappropriate. Please use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did, and feel free to use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do. Adding an unsuitable statement using the summary "typo", and subsequently restoring it while calling its removal "vandalism" is not an appropriate use of the edit summary. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:50, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Last warning. Don't make major changes with the edit summary "typo" as you did here.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:51, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Editing

Why not have a look at the Dutch or Arabic Wikipedia and see if there is something there that you could translate into English. You could put it in a sandbox and work on it there. Check out some of the Islamic articles to make sure they reflect a neutral point of view. I found this earlier and I suspect that there are plenty of articles that have been missed. You can check through new pages and see what needs cleaning up. Hope these help. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 23:53, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You could install User:Lupin/Anti-vandal tool, and watch RecentChanges for a while -- you find some interesting stuff that way.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:26, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tags,

There should be a 'tag' tab on articles, towards the far right of the screen. I don't know if it's something you need to activate in your settings, but it works in mine.— Dæ dαlus^{+ Contribs} 01:13, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how your Twinkle is set up but here's what I see. At the top of the page I see my user name and a bunch of other links. Below that from left to right are "Read", "Edit", "±", a star, a down arrow, "TW", "User", "Page" and then the search box. The "TW" tab has a down arrow which if you hover over it will show various options. On an article the last option is "Tag". Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 05:41, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm! You might have to change something in "My Preferences" or you may not have added all of Twinkle. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 06:10, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

Can you clarify this edit? I am not the most well versed in the Quran, but that is how I have always understood it to be, and it does provide a source. -asad (talk) 14:17, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Quran says "farthest mosque" in [1]. In arabic 'farthest mosque' translates to Masjid Aqsa. Thats why Al-Aqsa mosque is signficant in Islam. The Dome of the Rock is simply an adjacent building which is often confused with Al-Aqsa mosque. If you look at the Holiest sites in Islam (Sunni) article, Dome of the Rock is not there. And I did not delete the part which has a reference. I only deleted the first sentence which had no ref. Someone65 (talk) 20:13, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Right, so shouldn't we just delete the part that says it is one of the holiest places in Islam? You deleted the part in which it talks about it was the point in which Mohammed ascended into heaven.-asad (talk) 20:41, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, that part is still there. check again please. Someone65 (talk) 20:44, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're right! My apologies. I was just looking at the red. -asad (talk) 20:49, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem Someone65 (talk) 20:54, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Common Lisp edit revert

I invite you to discuss your objection to the changes I applied to the Common Lisp article under Talk:Common_Lisp#Dynamic_scoping_of_functions. Thanks. 66.11.179.30 (talk) 01:14, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick response! 66.11.179.30 (talk) 01:17, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Create

Well if it's a simple template you can usually create it yourself by typing in "Template:Whatever name you want" in the search box. Then click on the red link that shows up. Sometimes you can copy and adapt a similar template (or article) to create what you want. Hope that helps. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 18:21, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mecca

No, Mecca is not considered a Holy site for Baha'is. The holy sites in the Baha'i Faith are those that hve been dedicated as Shrines which are mostly in Haifa and Acre, in current-day Israel. That the Bab travelled to Mecca does not make it holy to the Baha'i Faith. The Bab travelled there to make a public proclamation of his mission in fulfilment of Islamic prophercy regarding the time of the return of Imam Mahdi, and that does not make it holy. Regards -- Jeff3000 (talk) 00:28, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Twinkle removed

I have temporarily removed your access to WP:Twinkle, as that last run showed that you aren't showing proper judgment in its use. After you've practiced without it for a while, you can request that you be removed from the blacklist, either by using the {{Adminhelp}} template here, or posting a request at the admin noticeboard.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:44, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Spam

How about you stop spamming mine and other people's pages with useless warnings about reverted edits. None of my edits were reverted or were they tests. It seems you went to any and all ip address and spammed them too. 71.55.142.48 (talk) 17:24, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of David Wood (Christian apologist)

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on David Wood (Christian apologist) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Simon-in-sagamihara (talk) 11:27, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of David Wood (Christian apologist) for deletion

The article David Wood (Christian apologist) is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Wood (Christian apologist) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Neutralhomer • Talk • 12:25, 22 January 2011 (UTC) 12:25, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Canvassing

These two edits are examples of canvassing and are not allowed under Wikipedia rules. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 13:32, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Canvassing policy doesnt say anything about inviting people to a discussion being wrong. All i did was invite them. Appropriate notification policy is inviting those who are "known for expertise in the field".Someone65 (talk) 13:39, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nevertheless, you would do well to consider it is better to avoid even the appearance of canvassing in AFD discussions. Contacting individual editors directly, even when you have pure intentions, can be taken by others as inappropriate. Using templates to bring attention to the discussion to groups of people is less controversial. --Nuujinn (talk) 17:23, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, i'll keep that in mind. I simply searched through Christianity related histories and picked out the seemingly experienced editors. Someone65 (talk) 19:30, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I figured when I looked at whom you notified, it appears to me that your intentions were good. --Nuujinn (talk) 19:46, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Video References

Please do not use video references, be them from YouTube or Google Video, as they are not reliable third-party sources. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:16, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just changed the reference Someone65 (talk) 03:32, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, all the YouTube and Google Video references need to be removed as non-reliable. I checked and none of your references live up to the WP:RS standard. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:52, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:RS before adding another reference. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:15, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is the ONLY reliable third-party source you have added. None of the other sources you have added are within the WP:RS rules (which you have clearly still not read). You need to remove all video references, blog references and other unreliable references and then resource that information with clearly reliable third-party sources within the rules of WP:RS. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:11, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RE - a re-vote

The original AfD is still running, and I notice that more keep votes have been added now. People will be continually re-checking the AfD and may change their votes themselves if they feel it necessary, and if the article still gets deleted you can ask for the deletion to be reviewed at WP:DRV. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 11:59, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the Barnstar

Thanks for the Barnstar. I suggest putting each of your citations in to one of the four popular citation templates: Template:Cite news, Template:Cite book, Template:Cite journal, and Template:Cite web. That is more persuasive at AfD than a naked url link. Also, to get past AfD, avoid citing to youtube and websites since such content is usually the work of one person and likely won't meet WP:RS. Also, it is much easier to get past AfD using recognized newspapers and books. If you cite to websites, it is very difficult to prove to others DURING AFD that those websites meet WP:RS. Websites and, especially YouTube, do not impress anyone at AfD and instead usually prompt a negative reaction. If you need further help, please feel free to ask me. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:53, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Review

Yes I still maintain my vote to delete, he seems to of done nothing of note, and judging by the google searches of the lectures and debates listed in the article they certainly aren't notable for inclusion in the article, in fact just googling "David Wood Christian Apologist" you only receive 36,100 results in fact the first 2 results I get are answering-islam.org which seems to be an unreliable source and Wikipedia, even if I excuse Wikipedia the 3rd is a blog. Afro (Talk) 03:27, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

January 2011

Hello. It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on others' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:32, 24 January 2011 (UTC) 03:32, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Someone65. You have new messages at Lovetinkle's talk page.
Message added 04:18, 24 January 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

external links on the David Wood page

Someone65, I would REALLY, REALLY think about deleting the http://www.answeringinfidels.com/ page from the "external links" section. That site is so biased, and, quite frankly, despicable, that I, who voted to keep the David Wood page as long as better sources could be given, find myself seriously wavering on whether or not to change my vote to delete. That type of website, which doesn't even come close to being reliable, notable, or even sane, should not be mentioned on here if you want anyone to take your article seriously. In the interest of fairness I read several of the articles by David Wood on that site (The "Was Muhammad a Pedophile" and "Murdered by Muhammad" articles) and while they are poorly argued, extremely biased, and forgetful of the fact that the Bible says MANY of the same things, they themselves might be included as a reference to Wood's own thinking (although, even though Woods does manage to actually defend Muhammad a little during the articles, with titles that are CLEARLY meant to inflame prejudice, I wouldn't recommend including them at all.) However, the fact that they exist on this website will make any neutral reader of wikipedia blanche immediately. Please understand that I am not attacking you personally (although if you're David Wood I guess I am), I believe you are trying your best to make the Wood page a good page, but I highly recommend that to do that, you delete that link and find some decent third party sources. http://www.answeringinfidels.com/ and the http://www.acts17.net/ site don't count. (Also, David Wood can only really have ONE "official" website, and that appears to be the http://www.acts17.net/ site, NOT the http://www.answeringinfidels.com/ site. You have named both as "official" in the "external links" section.) Vyselink (talk) 04:49, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

actually, i had a second look and you have a point. I never really dwelt on that site, and no, i'm not Wood myself. deleted :) Someone65 (talk) 05:31, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Answers

Is bahai just another name for believing theres many pathways to god?

The teachings of the Baha'i Faith state that religion is progressive and that over time God sends down messengers known as Manifestations of God over time, and it is through the Manifestations of God that we can know how we can get closer to God. While the Baha'i teachings believe that there have many Manifestations of God over time, including Jesus, Muhammad and Krishna among others, Baha'is believe Baha'u'llah to be the most recent Manifestation of God whose teachings have superseded the teachings of the other Manifestations and has the teachings appropriate for today's world. So while Baha'is believe that the other Manifestations of God brought the correct teachings, the teachings of Baha'u'llah are the most appropriate right now, and the acceptance of Baha'u'llah is a key point in one's spiritual development.

If baha'i is abrahamic then why isnt jerusalem holy to bahais like other abrahamic religions?

An Abrahamic religion is one who follows a series of prophetic traditions stemming from Abrahamic; it does not mean that one Abrahamic religion has to follow the teachings or traditions of the previous Abrahamic religion. As I mentioned above, while the Baha'i teachings state that the previous Abrahamic religions were from God, the teachings and practices of those religions have been superseded by those of Baha'u'llah.

If you're a member of a sect in Bahai, will you be accepted in the Bahai community gatherings ?

99.99% of Baha'is are united under the one group known as the Baha'i Faith, so this is virtually never an issue.

What are the specific requirements of the Bahai prayer in terms of gestures and postures?

Generally, there are none as Shoghi Effendi didn't want to introduce any ritual in any Baha'i practice, and Baha'is from different cultures pray differently. The Baha'i obligatory prayers, which one of three has to be recited each day, have some small number of gestures which can be seen in italics at here, here and here.

Can you use musical instruments in the prayer?

Yes

Does bahaullah hav any other niocknames or bynames or monikers?

Not in English

Does the Universal House of Justice proselytize?

I don't understand your question? Do the members of the Universal House of Justice proselytize themselves? As they live in Israel, where Baha'is don't teach, the answer is no. If the question is if Universal House of Justice asks Baha'is to teach, then the answer is yes. As you may know, Baha'u'llah stated that the teachings of the Baha'i Faith are the most appropriate way to live now, and for Baha'is teaching is a joy as why would you want keep the spiritual teachings of Baha'u'llah to yourself.

What is the bahai festival day?

If you are referring to Holy days, please see Bahá'í_calendar#Holy_days, if you are referring to the 19-day Feast see here.

Why is there nothing in the baha'i articles about bahaullah being the 2nd coming of christ?

Baha'u'llah claimed to fulfill the prophecies of many religions, and when he addressed specific religious communities he specified specific prophecies, but the Baha'is and the Baha'i Faith in general doesn't stress any of these aspects. The claims are discussed in Bahá'u'lláh#Claims.

Who do bahais consider to be the dajjal?

There is no definite person that Baha'is consider to be the dajjal.

Hope the above helps. -- Jeff3000 (talk) 14:17, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If I May

I'd like to suggest that you look at this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Wood_(philosopher) as I think that the "Interviews" "External Links" and "See Also" sections are what you want your David Wood page to look like. The .edu and .org sites referenced are better than .com's. Just a suggestion. Vyselink (talk) 23:34, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Summary

At Alevi you made an edit with summary grammer which changed the meaning of the lede from "Alevis call themselves Muslim, but others challenge this" to "Alevis call themselves Muslim, but are not." Your next edit made it clear you were interested in changing content, not just grammar. Please do not make misleading edit summaries in the future. Jd2718 (talk) 12:35, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Definition of grammer : "The study of structural relationships in language or in a language, sometimes including pronunciation, meaning, and linguistic history." Someone65 (talk) 12:39, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your objection

I will say, my editing on the Isaiah page was unconstructive as was my ACCIDENTAL deletion of David in the Baha'i faith. First, in regards to the template People in the Qur'an, which I wanted to create as another one existed called New Testament People - I can find you every verse which refers to every figure. I even put the figures in Italics which are not mentioned by NAME but are mentioned otherwise. I don't know if you are aware, but scholars take names of unnamed figures from the Bible or the Hadith. If you read Abdullah Yusuf Ali's commentary, you will see also - (Rachel is made Rahil).

Here is the list:

Abel: I think the established name, Habil, appears in Islamic literature, if not the Hadith.
Anne: You feel Abdullah Yusuf Ali is reliable? See his note. 375 of his commentary on this subject. Every commentator, classical and modern, regards this name (in Arabic rendered Hannah) as her name. In the Encyclopedia of Islam, Hughes Encyclopedia of Islamic faith and practically all of the so-called Stories of the Prophets cite Mary's mother's name as Anna or Anne. It is usually said to be Anne to not create confusion with the New Testament prophetess Anna. For the Qur'anic references see 3:35-36.
Asiya, wife of the Pharaoh: This name is established through Hadith. Do not confuse it with the Hebrew Bible Bithiah, who was the daughter of Pharaoh.
Caleb: Mentioned in 5:22-26', Caleb (Kalib) is described as one whom God bestowed His grace upon. See Abdullah Yusuf Ali note. 726.
Benjamin: Using the Hebrew Bible, all commentators have said that the 'brother' referred to in Sura Yusuf's v.6 and v.69 is Benjamin. See the article on Encyclopedia of Islam.
Jethro: Although often identified with Shoaib, some scholars regard this to be false, inclduing Abdullah Yusuf Ali. But a man is mentioned in the Qur'an as the one whom Moses worked for some time and the one whose daughter Moses married. This man, who is portrayed as righteous and whose narrative parallels exactly that of Jethro, is the Jethro of the Hebrew Bible.
Jochebed: I have told you before that Moses' mother is mentioned in the Qur'an, but is it not named. Just as other women, Eve and Zulaikha for instance, have been attributed names from elsewhere, why can't we use the name of Jochebed given in the Hebrew Bible? THE ONLY WOMAN MENTIONED BY NAME IS MARY, please understand that.
Potiphar: In 12:30, the husband of Zulaikha is mentioned.
Samuel: See Abdullah Yusuf Ali's note. 278 as well as practically all classical and modern sources. He is referenced in 2:246-248.
Kenan (son of Noah): Even I thought twice before giving the name Kenan, because I have only seen it in one source. An unrighteous son is mentioned in 11:41-46. Thus, you may revert the name in the table to Noah's son and you may merge the page with Islamic view of Noah.

If you have questions about other figures, please tell me.--Imadjafar (talk) 14:07, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

wikipedia articles are not sufficient WP:Verifiability references. You have to provide refs from websites or third party articles. See Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources Someone65 (talk) 14:26, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Absoloutely. I will not include wikipedia articles as references in the future and will delete all those currently present. But otherwise, no reversions? Also, I felt pages for Qur'anic parables were neccessary just as there are pages for Parables of the New Testament. --Imadjafar (talk) 14:37, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron - the cleanup

I cleaned up the cluttered section of Aaron in Islam, tell me if there is anything else we must include over there.--Imadjafar (talk) 08:25, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The template

Will the template People in the Qur'an stay?--Imadjafar (talk) 08:32, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Violation of 3RR on Template:Honoured women in Islam - under aggravated circumstances

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Informing you I am in the process of taking your third revert (in less than 24 hours) of this category to ANI. In addition, your history of reckless or harmful activities such as mass page moves and retaliations against articles, and your subsequent attempts to cover your actions, will be discussed. In addition, your inflammatory remarks about Islam, your bullying and your intimidating behavior on talk pages regarding this Honored Women issue will be discussed. Aquib (talk) 06:29, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Really?

Then please tell me, if Goliath is mentioned in the Qur'an BY NAME, how is he not part of our religion? --Imadjafar (talk) 07:02, 31 January 2011 (UTC) Your argument makes no sense. A name is a name. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, which needs references from all sources, and Stories of The Prophets is one. Why do Muslims go to the Cave of the Patriarchs to pay respect to the graves of Sara, Abraham, Leah, Jacob etc.....--Imadjafar (talk) 07:02, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will follow your advice

I will give references in the future, but then stop staying that these people are not part of our faith when they are in our Holy Book--Imadjafar (talk) 07:13, 31 January 2011 (UTC) I changed the template back to Qur'anic people because all those people are the Book. If you made it Hadith, all the Sahaba would also have to be added, as we got their information through Hadith.--Imadjafar (talk) 07:13, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anne

Please see my reason for putting Anne back on the table Honoured women in Islam--Imadjafar (talk) 07:43, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Boxing

Did you try Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Boxing? It's the only place I can think of. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 17:58, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There probably is some sort of template but I'm not sure what or where. I just usually let things run their course and see what people think. The reason that the line wont show is because it does not exist in the {{Infobox NRHP}}. It would need to be there to work. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 15:52, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Abraham

What is wrong with the sources?--Imadjafar (talk) 18:03, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing wrong. But the sources you gave are different to the text in the article. The sources did not say islam is the "religion of Abraham". It also did not say Abraham was tender-hearted, compassionate. You just made that up and you deleted an entire lede stuff other people wrote. If you want to make a major change you have to have a WP:Consensus on the talk page first, just like i did here.

When i make a controversial edit i dont just go on mass revisions. First i see whether other editos agree with my edit. You should also do the same Someone65 (talk) 18:19, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

David wood christian

A tag has been placed on David wood christian, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect from an implausible typo.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you believe that there is a reason to keep the redirect, you can request that administrators wait a while before deleting it. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the page and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. L.tak (talk) 19:59, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

something you may be interested in

[2] - though it would need secondary sources to be more substantiated - "… the city of Baghdád, enshrining the “Most Great House,” the third holiest city of the Bahá’í world, …" Smkolins (talk) 22:17, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neutralhomer

Stop interacting with him. End of story. Easy solution, and no one gets blocked, mmk? He's being told the same thing. /ƒETCH COMMS / 20:12, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, seems like Wikipedia made a mistake since my corrections are showing and the original were not reverted or cancelled as noted...my apologies.

DELETION OF "PUSA CALL"???

18:58, 8 February 2011 (UTC)V2VG2G (talk) Hi Someone65,

This message is in referance to the article "Pusa Call", which has been deleted just in the recent times. Though, I am happy that you all experianced people have noticed this article. But, it seems, you have ignored the content which was written in it.

I understand, that the particular article might be lacking in satisfying referances. But, if you have noticed in the article itself, it clearly mentions that this subject is a ban in the institute, hence it is impossible to get it listed in the institute's official website. But otherwise, I have tried to incorporate the remix version(A youtube video) and a modified version of the same.

Apart from that, if you look at the history of people who have watched this article in such a small span of its existence, can be an indirect referance indicating its popularity. Unlike the Hoax/Fake articles.

As I am a new wikipedian, I would like to mention that I am still in the process of learning the wikipedia and working for the same. It is my humble request to you all, to please reconsider its formation at wikipedia again. And believe me, it is not a hoax article at all. I will try my level best to incorporate more and more relevant referances and links to this particular article in the near future.

thanking you. V2VG2G

Original research & undue weight

Kindly refrain from adding original research to the Iman (model) article. It is already mentioned in the filmography table that she was featured in that Michael Jackson music video; so mentioning it again in the television section -- the wrong section to begin with -- is placing undue weight on what is already mentioned. Please stop this. Thanks, Middayexpress (talk) 20:46, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have just added references for your courtesy. I have also added it to the "correct section" for your courtesy. But judging by your recent two blocks within the past month, and almost getting blocked a third time last week, i have a feeling that these refs wont mean anything to you, since you have a history of acting as an Owner of articles and wanting everything your own way. Someone65 (talk) 21:12, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CIVILity, please. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:22, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like we have a serious case of WP:HOUNDING here. By the way, I just noticed the completely made up passage you added on the Siad Barre article accusing him of genocide, when not one of the sources you cited do (including Boutros Ghali). Wikistalking and WP:BLP violations only do you and Wikipedia's readership a disservice. Middayexpress (talk) 21:27, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Im not not hounding you. I simply noticed you seem to revert several established editors when i twice stumbled accross your name on 3RR in a short period of time. Someone65 (talk) 21:31, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The failed 3RR post, no doubt. Wikihounding all the same. Middayexpress (talk) 21:35, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Someone65 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was blocked for three months for giving misleading "typo" edit summaries. Initially, i trusted Sarek's admin abilities and accepted the block, and was simply hoping for a block reduction thinking the length was disproportionate. But on closer inspection, when i actually checked my edit diffs i realized there was nothing wrong with my edit summaries. Check for yourself, these are all my recent "typo" edit summaries: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11]

Even if these were misleading edit summaries, i should have first received level 2, 3, or 4 warning notices before getting a block. Also, Surak was unaware that there was a consensus for my "shia" edits at this discussion, so she unknowingly reverts me.

Also, Sareks decision to Re-open a case after it was closed two days earlier by another admin should be considered a breach of admin conduct.

I hope i get unblocked, because my goal is the improvement of wikipedia. My thousands of constructive edits prove this. Alternatively, i would settle for a block reduction. Someone65 (talk) 05:18, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

The only part of this request that even begins to address the reason for your block is a claim that you weren't sufficiently warned. Warnings are a luxury, not a right and a quick scroll up your talk page shows that that's plainly not true. What did you think "last warning" meant? The rest of it talks about Sarek's conduct, which is wholly irrelevant to your block. Oh, and how you manage to get someone's name wrong so many times, despite it being all over this page and in block log is beyond me. If a reduction of the duration is what you seek, I would recommend discussion it with Sarek (and getting their name right would be a good start). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 06:11, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Issue

{{adminhelp}} I want to complain about my block but its a bit complicated.

SarekofVulcan blocked me for 3 months yesterday for using "typo" edit summaries on February 8th even though there's nothing wrong with my "typo" edit summaries on Feb 8th. See for yourself [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20]
On February 6 admin User:Fetchcomms closed and hatted this thread and decided there would be no blocks.
However Sarekofvulcan disregards the above decision by overruling and reverting Fetchcomms' decision two days later by re-opening this thread and giving a 3 month block.

So, firstly my edit summaries were okay, and undeserving of a block. Secondly, i feel cheated because one admin said i won't be blocked, then two days later i get blocked for something i was cleared of. Someone65 (talk) 11:33, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For one thing, correcting Shi'a to Shia isn't a typo, it's a difference in transliteration. But that's not what caused me to block -- your first link up there shows you changing "Twelver Shi'a" to Shia, which is not a typo under any description of the word. Neither is changing "supernatural" to "divine".--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:13, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Those are NOT typos. I'm a bit surprised at a 3 month block for an inappropriate edit summary, but there may be more to it. As to the present subject, you are claiming your edit summaries are OK, and they are not.--SPhilbrick T 15:07, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looking further, I see that there have been warnings, and you continue to use misleading edit summaries even after being warned. You misread Fetchcomms, you were never "cleared" of mistaken edit summaries. A request for a block reduction ought to start with a recognition that you've done something wrong, not an insistence that your edit summaries are right. If you realized they were wrong, I'd be more sympathetic. If you think they are right, why wouldn't you continue doing them if unblocked?--SPhilbrick T 15:23, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Sphilbrick, you should note that English is not my first language and i really did think those were "typos". It was not intentional vandalism, but rather I was acting out a consensus.

Not being able to speak any other language fluently, I can sympathize with the difficulty of expressing oneself in another language. That is an explanation for the first mistaken use of the term. However, when you continue to use it after being told it is wrong, and then insist that it is correct, even when told repeatedly that it is wrong, then you aren't dealing with a language challenge, but something more fundamental.--SPhilbrick T 15:58, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@SarekOfVulcan, I now admit i have made a mistake and i apologize. But as it states on my userpage, I speak two other languages, and i'm still learning English and am using an online dictionary/thesaurus as i type right now. I recognize i've done something wrong and it will never happen again, as i now know the true definition of the term "typo". Can i get a block reduction please? Someone65 (talk) 15:48, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Given your edit warring on Iman (model), your recent arguing on WP:ANI, and your repeated requests for your Twinkle access to be restored, I'm not willing to shorten it at this point. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:03, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Someone65, you are a disruptive editor with an agenda of inciting sectarian discord on the Islam portal, as evidenced by your attack on the Islam article yesterday. In this instance, your misrepresented edits set off a series of responses by other editors that could very well escalate. Your edits are generally unsupported, misrepresented and carefully targeted to exploit religious differences. Your non-disruptive edits are a screen. When you are caught, you deny. When that doesn't work, you confess. When you are released, you repeat. Every day you are in lockdown is a good day for our encyclopedia. And I still think you are a sock for Allahlovesyou; you picked up just where - and when - that other editor left off. -Aquib (talk) 16:19, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I guess enthusiasm online is no different than essence in the real world huh? Someone65 (talk) 17:15, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's an interesting question : ) -Aquib (talk) 17:50, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps yours is the reasoning Wael Ghonim used to win his release from the Egyptian authorities? -Aquib (talk) 20:29, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wish. I avoid politics at all costs. :) Someone65 (talk) 20:56, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Declined unblock requests may not be removed (WP:BLANKING)

Section title says it all. Favonian (talk) 19:55, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. –Grondemar 01:43, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Someone65, I would strongly recommend you acknowledge (on this page, under your own account) that the block evasion was a bad idea and agree not to do it again. If you honor your current block (which will likely be restarted as of today due to your actions), and spend the time familiarizing yourself with the many policies and guidelines you've run roughshod over during your short stay here, things will go much more smoothly for you when you return to editing. Evading your block is not going to shorten it; quite the opposite. 28bytes (talk) 02:22, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per consensus at WP:ANI, your three-month block has been reset as of 7:28 EST this morning. –Grondemar 12:30, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite block

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for repeated block evasion as an IP, after being specifically warned to stop. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

–Grondemar 13:00, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vitali Klitschko vs. Odlanier Solis

Yeah sure i do. Do you? I hope he will win the fight. Please help me expand the article Vitali Klitschko vs. Odlanier Solis — Preceding unsigned comment added by David-golota (talk • contribs) 23:27, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Completely new abortion proposal and mediation

In light of the seemingly endless disputes over their respective titles, a neutral mediator has crafted a proposal to rename the two major abortion articles (pro-life/anti-abortion movement, and pro-choice/abortion rights movement) to completely new names. The idea, which is located here, is currently open for opinions. As you have been a contributor in the past to at least one of the articles, your thoughts on the matter would be appreciated.

The hope is that, if a consensus can be reached on the article titles, the energy that has been spent debating the titles of the articles here and here can be better spent giving both articles some much needed improvement to their content. Please take some time to read the proposal and weigh in on the matter. Even if your opinion is simple indifference, that opinion would be valuable to have posted.

To avoid concerns that this notice might violate WP:CANVASS, this posting is being made to every non-anon editor who has edited either page (or either page's respective talk page) since 1 July 2010, irrespective of possible previous participation at the mediation page. HuskyHuskie (talk) 20:58, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for merging of Template:Criticism of Islam sidebar

Template:Criticism of Islam sidebar has been nominated for merging with Template:Criticism of religion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you.

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

In this issue:

Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
Research: The most recent DR data
Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->

--The Olive Branch 19:31, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of David Wood (Christian apologist) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article David Wood (Christian apologist) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Wood (Christian apologist) (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Sreeram Dilak (talk) 10:10, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of David Wood (Christian apologist) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article David Wood (Christian apologist) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Wood (Christian apologist) (3rd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

NAADAAN (talk) 01:13, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]