User talk:Matt57/Archives/2007/June

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Islamophobia. For the Mediation Committee, ^demon[omg plz] This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to open new mediation cases. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

This message delivered: 12:18, 21 June 2007 (UTC).

Report

You're supposed to do a report anyway. Don't be lazy now. Protectpeople 21:19, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I like the suspense, plus the username needs some activity before it can be reported. You should know being an experienced user of this website. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 21:20, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I read that as "I don't have enough proof but I like to mouth off accusations anyway." Protectpeople 21:21, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

2 of your IP's were proved to be open proxies and have been blocked indef. What mechanism do you use to get these new IP's? Do you use anonymous browsing? --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 21:24, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

How do you suppose those IP's are me and not someone else? You should direct such questions to your friends and mentors. Protectpeople 21:29, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

See His excellency, its no use. Once you've been strongly blocked indef, its impossible to come back. With all your different IP's, you still couldnt do anything. Infact some of the IP's you used been reported and blocked indef. Do more edits and I'll report all of them to be blocked. I'll be observing any edits from this username and file another check user on you in time. Now unless you have something useful to say, I will stop responding to you. --Matt57

I'm His Excellency, you [***]. How many people have you and your gang of [****] falsely accused of being me? 01:37, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

^{(talk•contribs)} 21:33, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I see you're using TOR proxy. I've just sent them an email. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 21:48, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

You're an idiot. It is quite easy for banned editors to go on without being detected - they wouldn't let you know, would they now? Protectpeople 21:54, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

It could just as easily be Kirbytime. Arrow740 22:25, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Yea, it could be either. All the anonymous users editing with different IP's should be easily reverted. I've noticed once of these two sock puppets creating problems at various articles, so it was the sock puppets of either of these two. Poor guy. He filed a 3RR report on me while he was editing from the various IP's, but that ended up in some of his open proxies being blocked. I'd say that was successful self-reporting. I'll be more vigilant on these open proxies now (he's using TOR). --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 22:28, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Does HTML work here? Error1010 00:29, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Ask the people at the help desk. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 00:32, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I used the preview button instead. It works. Error1010 00:40, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

With Tom harrison inactive we should probably contact Jayjg about this. Arrow740 00:41, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Lets wait a little bit and see what happens. I'm filing a 3RR for now. Its probably Kirbytime. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 00:44, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Criticism of the Qur'an

Responded on my talk page. This is not original research since I supplied article that say so.The Muslims don't argue about the verse.Because they agree they exist.however they just don't want it to be there.Unlike the case of the moon God here we have good reason to add it.I will be very happy if you join the discussion and to explain why it is important.You can see that I supplied full sources.Thank.Oren.tal 15:16, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

FFI

[1] - Let me explain. I removed it because someone else pointed out to me how absurd it is to trust FFI on an exceptional claim such as that. Seeing that FFI was indeed the primary source for the claim, the claim could not be trusted and had to be removed. Perhaps if something official of Montazeri also backed the claim it could be reintroduced. In retrospect I feel quite silly for keeping that claim there in the past. The Behnam 19:22, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

You will need to make a case or the article will once again have to be adjusted. The Behnam 00:05, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

How is that an exceptional claim? He was just having an email debate with Montazeri. In any case, this is a primary source. Ali did the debate and he mentioned it on his website. You can add "According to Ali", or "Ali claims", but you cant remove. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 01:31, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I was planning on using 'claims' in the next readjustment. As there is nothing backing the claim aside from FFI itself we really ought to use "claims." Perhaps this must be done for some other supposed debates and exchanges mentioned on the page - I'll look into them. But yeah, I can't believe I didn't consider the possibility that it was made up before. I'm almost ashamed. Anyway, either you can change it to "claims" or I can. I'd appreciate it if you did as a sign of resolution of this dispute. That is, unless there are further objections on your part... The Behnam 04:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Its not made up. You can put "claimed" if you want, or rather put "according to Sina". --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 11:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikistalking and WP:ANI thread

Benham has filed a note on WP:ANI complaining that you appear to be staking them: following them around, reverting changes, commenting inappropriately about their edits, etc.

It is particularly concerning that, on first glance, you have showed up at pages they edit regularly and commented against them as your first edit there.

Can you explain what you've been doing here, and what your motivations were?

Nothing you have done so far is a blockable offense by itself, as far as I can tell. You are pushing the line on the WP:STALK policy, but you may not have been aware of it. Can you read that policy and respond here to explain your actions? Hopefully this can just be resolved by discussion here.

Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert 20:32, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

This is a false and more importantly trivial claim of stalking and reminds of Kirbytime who did the same. I've explain on ANI there. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 23:11, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Iran Leader

About this [2]:

The claim "In Western media, the sitting Supreme Leader is sometimes referred to by the religious title The Ayatollah of Iran" was original research because the sources do not say anything like "In Western media, the sitting Supreme Leader is sometimes referred to by the religious title The Ayatollah of Iran."

Apparently an editor saw the usage of "Ayatollah of Iran" in those articles and made the original conclusion that "In Western media, the sitting Supreme Leader is sometimes referred to by the religious title The Ayatollah of Iran." But the sources did not actually say this.

Do you understand how that is original research? The Behnam 00:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Cuteness, The Behnam, and vandalism claims

Please do not label Behnam's edits as vandalism. I know you strongly disagree with his removal of the photos from the Cuteness article, but I see no indication that his actions are anything other than good faith edits to (in his opinion) improve the project. To label his actions as vandalism does nothing to help move the situation towards a resolution, and really only serves to inflame a already antagonistic edit war. Vandalism means a number of things, but IMHO Behnam's edits are not one of them. (That all aside, I'm generally of the opinion that the article was much better when it had pictures. But the fact that I also generally disagree with Behnam still does not make his actions vandalism.) - TexasAndroid 13:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok I agree, it wasnt right of me to call it vandalism. I should have taken a breather before responding. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 13:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Islam in Germany

You informed me about the missing explaination of the npov tag. This is absolutely right. Usually I leave an explaination and therefore do not understand why I did not do it this time. I´m sorry about this. Now I left an explaination. --Thw1309 23:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)