User talk:OneGuy/Archive 2

Its not POV

No I didn't post in Cairo, but I posted in the article about aicha. I understood your point about the other thread, I have soften my edit + add sources.--Agurzil 09:01, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You are just reverting my edits, do you have any knowledge about what you are reverting.. and you dare calling my edits VANDALISM? I have given facts know by any Algerian, muslim or not, if someone had to argue with me it would be an algerian muslim..and certainly not you. the references will be given by either me or any other algerian, no one is in a hurry... Otherwise you would have to delete the whole article (is there any source in the article?), it just looks nice to so it is NPOV, Vandalism is appropriate to call your reverts, have some knowledge and then argue. --Agurzil 08:39, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hi and peace OneGuy.

I didnt know about the 3 rv rule so i got banned and unbanned after clarifying my ignorance.

I also read read your arbitration with some guy i dont remeber his name, and now recoqnice you as a unbiased veteran and i hope it will be easy for me to convince you why my texts are not POV.

My base argument is simple: People almost never hear Shias arguing in a educated maner about our claims, mostly since we are a minority, and that gives most people the imprsion that the Sunni POV of most topic is the NPOV. But that is not the case, something that is easly proven by showing their own books. My point: Sunnis dont acknowlegde the contents of their own book, even if they claim the books are Shai. Enter me for the rescue :P

I mean, look att this:

WHAT SUNNIS CLAIM:

1: ”n the year 10 H., when the Prophet went to Mecca for Hajj (pilgrimage), he met 140,000 Muslims there, who had come from different parts of Arabia to fulfil their religious obligation. He addressed to them his celebrated sermon, in which he gave a resume of his teachings... ...The Quran and the conduct of the Prophet were to serve as the bases of law and a healthy criterion in every aspect of human life.”

Source (plz check the source *smile*)

2 ”They saddled it and had it ready, so he went down the valley where a hundred thousand and twenty-four or forty-four thousand people gathered round him. There he stood up and delivered the following speech...

Verily, I have left amongst you the Book of Allâh and the Sunnah (Traditions) of His Messenger which if you hold fast, you shall never go astray.”

[allaahuakbar.net/muhammad/farewell_pilgrimage.htm Source]

3 Similarly, the Prophet (PBUH) has stressed the importance of his Sunnah. During the course of Khutbah al Wada’ah (Farewell Sermon) the Prophet (PBUH) is reported to have said:

”I leave behind two things, if you hold fast unto them you shall never go astray: the Book of Allah and my Sunnah.”

Source

4 ...the month of Zil-Qadah 10 A.H. Rasulullah accompanied by 124,000 Sahaba (Companions) left Madinah for Makkah to perform the Hajj...

Our Nabi also told his vast audience: "I leave behind amongst you two things. If you should hold fast to it, you shall be secure from vices and evil ways, i.e. the Holy Qur'aan and the Sunnah of Allah's Nabi "

Source

WHAT SAHI MUSLIM SAYS:

but I am leaving among you two weighty things: the one being the Book of Allah in which there is right guidance and light, so hold fast to the Book of Allah and adhere to it. He exhorted (us) (to hold fast) to the Book of Allah and then said: The second are the members of my household I remind you (of your duties) to the members of my family.

Source

See my Point? Sunnis say A Sunni book says B. And its not only Sahi Bukhari that says B, its more almost ALL hadith collections that narrate that evet, its has over 120 eyewitness that reported it, its THE most authentic hadith of ALL the hadithes.

And still they missquote there own books. I mean, look how they comment that hadith:

Sahih. Related by al-Tirmidhi, Ahmad, Ibn Abi `Asim, al-Hakim, al-Tabarani, al-Dailami and al-Tahawi.95 The phrase Ahl al-Bayt (members of the house) refers: (i) primarily to the Prophet's wives (may Allah bless him and grant him peace), from the clear context of the relevant verse of the Qur'an (33:33); (ii) to `Ali, Fatimah, Hasan & Husain, from the "hadith of the garment" (cf. Sahih Muslim, Book of the Virtues of the Companions). It is imbalanced and unjust to exclude either of these categories from the hadith.

Sorce

Did you see that? Its actualy prety incredible what kind of lies Sunnis put forward, ill repeat it:

refers: (i) primarily to the Prophet's wives

Now, do you remember the Sahi Muslim hadith i gave you a few lines above? It also reads:

...He (Husain) said to Zaid: Who are the members of his household? Aren't his wives the members of his family? Thereupon he said: His wives are the members of his family (but here) the members of his family are those for whom acceptance of Zakat is forbidden... Source

Three hadithes down we find this one:

We said: Who are amongst the members of the household? Aren't the wives (of the Holy Prophet) included amongst the members of his house hold? Thereupon he said: No, by Allah, a woman lives with a man (as his wife) for a certain period; he then divorces her and she goes back to her parents and to her people; the members of his household include his ownself and his kith and kin (who are related to him by blood) and for him the acceptance of Zakat is prohibited.

Source

Rerun: Thereupon he said: No, by Allah

The Sunnis are SOO desperate to keep their lie that not only do they missquote THEIR OWN Sahi Muslim, they tell stuff that is in THE CONTRARY to their OWN book!

The sad part is its the same site that spred both the lie "primarily to the Prophet's wives" and the translation of Sahi Muslim!

Now, tell me, What is most NPOV: To say "Quran & Sunnah" or to say "Quran & Ahl ul-Bayt"?

Their own book testify against them, their hole school of thought is on shaky grounds cuz of the Calips usurption of Ali rights, its recorded ALL over history and they cant hide it anymore now that they have A) Stoped killing Shias B) Shias can publish books and have internet.

I have seen in your work that you are truly unbiased and dont care for neither my opinion nor the islamophobics opinon. Thats 100% ok by me. JUST WRITE WHAT THE HISTORY BOOKS SAY.

Ill give you hundreds of proofs from Sunni sources that proofs what historicly happend, that muslim where INDEED usurped of Alis leadership, That Fatima did hate abu Bakr, that Aisha did hate ali, that they we NOT cosy-cosy best friends. Ahl ul-Bayt and the Caliphs where enemys of eachother wich nobody can deny when the 6:th Calif murdered Hussain ibn Ali.

I want to argue, i have the proof on my side and my proofs are irefutable for the unbiased mind.

Sorry for taking upp so much text, as you see i burn for this issue.

looking forward for an answer, even a short one.

Peace, --Striver 00:48, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hello

Consider the statistics of Buddhism by Country in Africa and Asia... Please recalculate them, especially for Africa, for I doubt that there are so many Buddhists there. Thanks for the trouble. Mr Tan 23:27, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Discrimination against non-Muslims in Malaysia

thanks for bringing up subject. __earth 00:32, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)

Troll w/ Sockpuppets alert

FYI:

See: Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Ollieplatt

Technical evidence found by Tim Starling confirms that Libertas has multiple sockpuppet accounts. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Libertas/Proposed decision#Sockpuppets 2.

Salazar, Ollieplatt, Razalah, Jennypratt, Suna, Dean12, Viewvista, Fylc, Billclinton, Anilingus, and Nutrosnutros are all sockpuppet accounts of one user (as acknowledged by technical evidence), likely Libertas.

"He's a troll." said RickK

Davenbelle 09:25, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)

Your use of terms for Jewish people

I'm curious to know why you have created articles called Islam by country, Buddhism by country, Hinduism by country, Christianity by country, but when you get to the Jewish faith of Judaism articles you simply call it "Jews By Country". Why not afford them the same respect you did for the rest of the faiths and call it "Judaism by country"?. The word "jew" or "jews" is often used in an anti-Semitic context. Jewish people are more likely to use the word "jewish" when refering to one another. 168.209.97.34 10:56, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I was told to use the word "Jews" by someone Jewish because most of these people do not practice Judaism OneGuy 11:00, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, I am in South Africa and I know that most Muslims here do not practice Islam. Also, many Christians do not practice their religion either. Same can be said with all other religions. Best you change the names for Christianity/Islam/etc by country to Christians/Muslims/etc by country. 168.209.97.34 11:06, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

A Muslim by definition believes in Islam as a religion, even if he doesn't practice his religion. A Muslim can't be a Muslim if he doesn't believe in God and Muhammad as a prophet. That's not the case for Jews. Someone can be an atheist but yet still be Jewish. See the talk page. I initially used the word "Judaism" but was asked to change it OneGuy 11:21, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Go to Jews by country and see the history, the first version. I used "Judaism" initially OneGuy 11:26, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration ruling

The case regarding you has closed. You are reminded you that you should not respond to personal attacks in kind, even in cases where you are severely provoked. For further details, please see the ruling. -- sannse (talk) 00:53, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If some body calls my opinion as 'agenda' and says i am promoting an agenda. Does this count as personal attack? Zain 22:08, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

3 revert rule

Gaming the system is as inappropriate as actually violating the letter of the rule, and has in the past led to others being blocked for doing it. Friendly warning -- not a good idea to do it. RickK 21:04, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)

My personal policy, when I see an edit war happening, is to revert the article to the state it was in before an edit war starts. I have no opinion as to the POV of the article in question. I have already suggested to Zein engineer that he/she stop edit warring, but you are the one currently gaming the system, and that's why I cautioned you, so that you're on record that it isn't a hard and fast rule, and if you continue, you might be blocked. RickK 21:21, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)

After being warned many times about the WP:3RR, you have for the second time violated policy on Children and minors in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (the first time when the article was under a previous name) by reverting the article 5 times within a 24 hour period:

• 20:57, 23 Jan 2005 OneGuy (rv to NPOV version) [1]
• 11:11, 23 Jan 2005 OneGuy (ops .. that was before 24 hours. Back to POV version .. till tomorrow 2:55) [2]
• 11:08, 23 Jan 2005 OneGuy (rv to NPOV version) [3]
• 07:25, 23 Jan 2005 OneGuy (rv to NPOV version) [4]
• 23:33, 22 Jan 2005 OneGuy (revert to NPOV version ..) [5]

--Viriditas | Talk 21:48, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

(note: none of admins on the admin board agreed that I violated three revert rule in the example cited above OneGuy 07:45, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC))

Regarding your AMA request

One Guy, I am the Coordinator of the AMA. While I do not engage in advocacy work during my tenure as Coordinator I can help you find an Advocate. I suggest you first look over the list of members and check the Wikipedia:AMA Member Statements as well as members individual user pages to see if you want to approach any of the AMA members for assistance directly. That is the way most of the people we work with choose an advocate. Please don't hesitate to contact me if you need any help (best via email from my user page). — © Alex756 22:54, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Huh? What is that about? I never requested AMA OneGuy 22:57, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:AMA_Requests_for_Assistance has a listing with your User name as a header. I checked the history and it was done from an ISP number, so I assumed you were asking for help regarding the issues stated under the name. I guess the request is coming in annonymously against you. Please let me know if you can figure out what this is about as the posting was unsigned except that it links to you user page. Thank you. — © Alex756 05:40, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Please do not vandalise and forge entries on my talk page

OneGuy, you have forged an entry making it appear to come from Grunt and vandalised my talk page. This is a formal request for you to stop such actions. 168.209.97.34 10:16, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

No, the edit summary clearly stated "restored arbitration notice..." OneGuy 10:19, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It is not up to you to organise my talk page. So don't. You also removed the notes about the IP being a proxy server and also requests for new messages to go on top. Do NOT vandalise my talk page again.

User:OneGay

Hello OneGuy, you may be interested in newly registered User:OneGay who seems likely to cause you trouble.--Pharos 11:29, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Must be the old abuser 168.209.97.34. His IP should be examined to see who he is OneGuy 11:36, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

No, that is NOT me and I consider your accusation a personal attack. It's very clear to anyone who follows your activity that you have A LOT of people who don't seem get along with you very well. 168.209.97.34 11:44, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

:)) Since you seem to be following me for the past several months, I assumed it was you. It could be someone else though. I know there are a few other POV pushers who don't get along with me :) None of them follow me around as consistently as you do however. OneGuy 11:55, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

That's because you don't harass the others as much as you do me. Even to this day you are vandalising my talk page and accusing me of being "OneGay". I follow you around because I'm curious to know what else you are doing to try to punish me for trying to negate some of the Islamic apologistic POV you push wherever you go. It's so ironic how you accuse others of being POV pushers yet you are one yourself. It's also ironic how it's ONLY YOU that seems to have had a problem with me. 168.209.97.34 12:04, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Read Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/168.209.97.34. None of them thought that I was pushing "Islamic POV," but they did think you were. In any case, I don't have a personal interest in you. You can follow me all you want. Doesn't bother me OneGuy 12:16, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

In my role as a member of the Arbitration Committee, I have been asked by 168.209.97.34 to deal with what that IP claims is personal abuse by you. The IP puts forward Talk:Islamophobia, of all things, as evidence. Having read it, I suggest you not rise to his bigoted baiting, and instead continue to snicker at such ludicrous abuse. Keep up the good work on the article - David Gerard 21:07, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

What a great example of unprofessinal behavior from a member of the Arbitration Committee! What an asset to Wikipedia! I'm sure you have employers from the World Book Encyclopedia and Encyclopædia Britannica hounding you with job offers! Allah could not have sent wikipedia a more worthy committee member! Allahu Akbar! Allahu Akbar! Allahu Akbar! 168.209.97.34 08:51, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I've blocked him indefinitely and cleand up. Lupo 11:37, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hello

Please add Kazakhstan and several other countries in Buddhism by country. Thanks.

Yes, of course, please. Or it won't look like a complete list, which it is supposed to be, even it is n/a.Mr Tan, 4:26, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Proxy tests

Why the bot posts on wikipedia to test if it's open proxy anyway? The bot would run faster and won't consume Wikipedia resources if the testing is done somewhere else. If you can access any site (such yahoo.com) using the proxy, that would mean it's open proxy and should be blocked indefinitely immediately. And if a later test (done next week or month) fails, that would mean the IP is no longer open proxy and should be unblocked (and blocked again if the next test is positive etc). Just a keep the list of IPs and let the bot test every week or 15 days. Block/Unblock the IPs (or the bot could do it automatically) depending on the test results OneGuy 10:10, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Not all proxies can access all sites. Not all proxies can do posts. There are at least a few people who run open proxies I know of that also edit wikipedia, and have blocked their proxy from accessing wikipedia so it doesn't need to be blocked and they can still access wikipedia. --fvw* 17:33, 2005 Feb 3 (UTC)

Blocking

The several anons reverting Islamophobia are obviously all the same person, but I can't prove that, and none of them seem to have individually violated the three-revert rule yet. But I'll keep an eye out. - Mustafaa 18:52, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ah - i get it. How do you tell if an IP-address is an open proxy? - Mustafaa 18:58, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Genital mutilation

According to laws prohibiting certain practices, I should point out that an adult clitorectomy is not classified as FGM, nor is any procedure FGM when it is medically necessary. Whereas even a genital piercing is, by legal definition in US federal law, and the laws of many state, a form of FGM on a minor. With circumcision, the type of procedure is a distinguishing factor. With FGM, only the person's age is the factor.

Clitorectomy is a type of female circumcision, and it is also a type of FGM. But that does not mean the two terms are identical terms, even though in many African countries they happen to coincide. Historically, medically, and legally, there are distinctions. DanP 15:01, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

OneGuy, I did not say they are unrelated -- only that they are not synonyms. The state department only researches the instances that are common in counties being studied, not the all practices that are prohibited by law. So they are the same in their case. But that is not always true:

• FGM includes labia reduction, certain piercings, etc., but are prohibited [6] on minors. These are not always circumcisions.
• Female circumcision includes adult procedures [7], such as when specific medical conditions exist. This is never called FGM. DanP 20:21, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

OneGuy, this is not how the articles are currently arranged. If you refer to genital modification and mutilation, three of the procedures are female circumcision. The remainder are not, but some of the remaining ones are outlawed under FGM prohibitions. If you want to redirect to female circumcision, then why are these other mutilations being excluded? If you want to restructure things, go ahead. But start there please. DanP 20:51, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Gzornenplatz/Wik

I'm not sure that there's anything to be done. If he wants to email Jimbo, he can also do that after the arbcom decision comes down. I doubt he will. The whole thing seems distinctly unfair to me. What I particularly don't understand is that the ArbCom has known he is Wik for a long time, and not done anything about it, until this suddenly pops up now for no reason. Furthermore, it seems highly dubious to me that statements by Jimbo that Wik should be banned indefinitely constitute such a ban, especially given that for many months he was not listed on Wikipedia:Banned users. Given that Gzornenplatz has been a good and useful editor, and hasn't done anything disruptive for some time, to bring this up now doesn't make much sense to me. Personally, I figured out that Wik and Gzornenplatz were one and the same many many months ago. I told Danny, as someone serious who had generally supported Wik. He told me that he had told Jimbo about it, and that Jimbo had said not to do anything. So what was changed? But, that said, I don't see how anything can be done. In a technical, legalistic sense, they are probably right - effectively, Wik is hard-banned because Jimbo says he is. As such, Gzornenplatz should be too. It's up to him to change that, and he knows it. Whether he does it or not will be more a matter of his own pride than of anything I or you or anyone can say. john k 15:20, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Daeron

Wonderful! I think the best thing to do with Daeron is just let him keep talking. The more he talks, the deeper he digs himself. The whole thing is pretty clearly absurd - we had a disagreement on the Talk:Papua (Indonesian province) page, even! At any rate, Daeron is not a particularly persistent POV pusher, at least based on the experience last time he was here. Once he exhausts various appeal possibilities to get his way, he'll likely give up and leave wikipedia for several months. john k 06:29, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

POV warrior apology

I apologised in the place that the topic arose, but I rather think that I should say more. I'm afraid I've been under a bit of stress with work recently, and have also let the ugly politics of right wing extremists get under my skin, namely the politics of moral equivalence between the Shoah and the Dresden bombing: it's rather unbalanced some of my recent editing, and turned me into a bit of the mirror image of a POV warrior for a patch: an NPOV Don Quixote tilting at windmills in the belief it is political subversion. There was nothing in your editing that could objectively have warranted the insult I applied to you, and you have my unreserved apologies. ---- Charles Stewart 23:50, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Help!

Ali ibn Abi Talib was a big old stylistic mess, so I did a straight copyedit and deleted a bunch of laudatory quotes at the end. I am uncertain, however, of the factuality of many of the claims here. Would you mind taking a look? BrandonYusufToropov 01:09, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Autofellatio links

Hi OneGuy. The links at autofellatio are not spam. One is to an image of the act and the other is to a website devoted to the act. I can assure you that I am not making money off of these porn sites, and I am quite offended by the insinuation. Please see Wikipedia:Assume good faith and Wikipedia:No personal attacks in order to avoid this in the future. I'm not going to revert you again, although I would be well within my right to do so, and others probably will; instead, I leave it to you to transcend your personal bias against autofellatio material and revert yourself. TIMBO (T A L K) 19:57, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

How to edit a template?

The one that attaches to the Islam articles and lots of related ones identify madhabs as "sects," which is a problem. I'm trying to correct this with a separate category, but can't figure out how you edit a template. Any idea where I'd find this? BrandonYusufToropov 15:53, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Autofellatio

The link is not spam. I have no relation to the site, and I doubt Tony Sidaway does either. --SPUI (talk) 19:07, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

DO NOT delete my comments, or anybody else's. RickK 23:13, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAutofellatio&diff=10303958&oldid=10303905 RickK 23:17, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

Was it possibly an improperly resolved edit conflict? --SPUI (talk) 23:20, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

No, I think I had two windows of IE. One window was the older one. I clicked "Save page" on the older one OneGuy 23:36, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

LOL.. I see you are hanging out in the autofellatio pages now, eh? Let me guess, one of your roomates is into that type of thing just as you stated one of your roomates is muslim? What a wacky household that must be! :P 168.209.97.34 12:20, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)