User talk:Matt57/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Note

Per Wikipedia:Help desk#An editor who sometimes doesn't use inline citations, stay away from Elonka on Wikipedia. By simply stating that you have seen that she has not used inline citations means you are watching every edit she makes to try and make her look bad and make it public to the community. If there are greater issues at hand, then bring it to someone's attention. Otherwise, this is getting stalkerish (a.k.a. If you persist in obsessing over Elonka and her contributions to Wikipedia, you will be blocked).—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:43, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Ryulong. You seem to have a one-track interest in Elonka, and it is beginning to concern me. Although we are a volunteer site, we try to act professional and civil; targeting a single user is not a good way to forward a belief or concept. I have zero tolerance for stalking, and I'm sure you do as well; take a step back or face a potential block to prevent this issue from continuing. — Deckiller 06:09, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Thats why I went to get someone else's opinion and didnt contact her directly. I was concerned with the edit she made to the Fustat article and that was a link she gave to me directly in a conversation. Please relax, this is not stalking but fine, I can see your concern given whats happened in the past. But that was it, thats all I wanted to tell her/the community. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 11:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, although I can see your point, the policy WP:STALK says:

This does not include checking up on an editor to fix errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, nor does it mean reading a user's contribution log; those logs are public for good reason.

So that was the best least intrusive way I could bring that up. I'm done with it now as she responded there and other people did too. Thats all I could do. I have no other concerns. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 12:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Matt, I've been trying to stay out of this but your behaviour towards Elonka is seriously beyond anything I would find acceptable. I don't care why you went to get other people's opinions. This is too much and it's been going on for too long. Stop monitoring her edits. Stop following her around. And stop talking about her. You are reaching the point where one of us is going to block you and no one will be willing to unblock. Please go and find something else to do...ie something not remotely related to Elonka. Sarah 12:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Whoa, ok then, this is it I guess. I'll take your advice. Heh, this is amazing. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 12:51, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

(ec)It's not about you being right or wrong. If you have a look back, you'll see that I opposed both of Elonka's RfAs and each of the family AFD's I've commented on I've supported deletion. I agree there are problems with the sourcing and notability of some of her family articles. But that doesn't mean that you can spend your time trawling through her contribs, following her around, discussing her and going after her articles. You made some very strong comments on her RfA, including promisng that you would ensure she never becomes an admin on Wikipedia. After that, can't you see how this looks and why you should leave her alone and let other people deal with anything that needs to be dealt with? Sarah 13:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your nuetral evaluation. I really believed that people would be able to see my actions objectively, i.e. they should be evaluated for their face value, not along with the history of the disputes I've had with her. But if this is how the community sees it, fine, I'll withdraw. I have no other choice. I guess her family spam is still going to continue existing on Wikipedia until people decide to do something about it. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 13:11, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for agreeing to withdraw, Matt. I appreciate that. As I understand it, several people have been working on trying to reference the articles to reliable sources. Thanks, Sarah 02:59, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

This whole thing has basically been strong arming, and trying to stop me from doing the right thing by putting false allegations of harrassment and stalking (this is something which others have experienced too). I will make one more protest about this later. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 03:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

re: WP:NOT#NEWS

I saw your comment in the history of Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not and the comment that the link didn't work. I just tested it and it worked as it was supposed to. Can you describe what didn't happen that you expected? Rossami (talk) 22:26, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Islam in the US

As a member of the Wikiproject Islam, I assume you know much more about the subject than me. In fact, I never heard of the ISNA, and I don't really have any intrest in them either. My interest is in purely having the best Wikipedia possible. The summary on the ISNA as it stood was not a summary, it contained very detailed information. With that info moved to the criticism section of the ISNA article, it is simply bad english to have the exact same text in the summary on another page. So if you or someone else who has expertise on the subject can come up with an approriate summary of one of maybe 2 sentances, I think it would make it a better article. Homersmyid 20:29, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Pelle wrote a compromise now, looks good to me now. thanks! --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 00:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Please stop editwarring on List of notable converts to Islam

As the title says, please stop revert warring and discuss the issue on the talk page, I have blocked User:Bless sins for 24 hours for being the worst reverter in this case. Thanks. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 03:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

What?

Could you explain what this edit comment meant? Hornplease 22:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

What's there that you dont understand about it? --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 22:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

How is the problem solved now? I still don't see a response to my concerns on the talkpage, or to those raised in the edit comments. Hornplease 22:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, now I do. Later than the reversion, so I missed it. Hang on. Hornplease 22:46, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Right, continued on article talkpage. Hornplease 22:46, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Religion of Peace

WP does not link to anonymous anti-islam right-wing websites, no matter how much you'd wish it did. And please discuss that article here. --Raphael1 01:17, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I am working on a rewrite of the Religion of Peace at User:Mike Young/Sandbox2 would value your comments on this, and especially any references you can add. Mike Young 13:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Matt - I made the change you referred to on my talk page because at the time I believed that Raphael1 might just object to the posting of the number of attacks on the page, rather than the mention of the website in the first place. I thought he might be appeased by removal of the number. Clearly, I was wrong, and I don't see any good faith coming from him or any of the other semi-anonymous editors that are trying to purge Wikipedia of any negative reference to Islam, so I won't complain if you change it back. I don't think we need to refer to the page as part of a quote, though. That seems to stem from his insistence that it's not a reliable source, which is totally beside the point. Lesson learned: appeasement never works. Alexwoods 14:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Mike Young has smiled at you! He says “ Thanks for your support on the editing of the Religion of Peace article. It is appreciated. Bear in mind these things are "Two steps forward one step back". The article will improve but not as fast as we would like. Compare it with earler versions and see what you get. ” Mike Young 12:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

No it was right

Matt57,

The entry is about Islam, as a religion (you know Islam the "religion"), in the United States. Again it is about a religion as it exists "in the United States." Of course some amount of information about non-Muslim American views of Islam belongs there, especially when it comes to issues that pertain to the form of Islam found "in the United States." That type of information is already represented. What I deleted is a completely WP:UNDUE, not to mention very partial and supposedly "secret" view of one institution on the link between Islamic scripture and Islamic militancy. It has nothing directly to do with Islam in the United States at all, with the exception that institution that has supposedly expressed these views internally is an institution of the U.S. government. It is even more ridiculous that someone would try pushing this into the entry when both of the partisan sources referencing it state that this information isn't public and can't actually verify its authenticity. So we have 1) non-pertinant information that is 2) completely unreliable. Please attend to these issues before reverting me. Thanks.PelleSmith 14:43, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

No, its the view about Islam in general, which includes Islam in United States. Unless you (Pelle) can prove that the Islam in US is different from Islam the religion, this view is relevant. Also Pentagon is an American organization and the people working there are Americans. So its view is the American view. This will stay. NapoleansSword 21:37, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Matt, why don't you just own all of your edits. I get it, you're not going to argue this because you know its ridiculous, so instead I get to deal with NS, who has no problem making absurd arguments. The most I'll get from you at this point is telling me that I shouldn't comment on people's behavior or how saying this argument is "absurd" isn't civil. I know so don't bother. Meanwhile I get to have NS not dealing with the two overwhelming issues here that the information isn't verifiable and that it isn't pertinant. BTW, this isn't Islam in general NS ... that's the WHOLE ENTIRE INCONVENIENT POINT!! Thanks.PelleSmith 00:20, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Continued on the article's talk page. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 01:57, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

You mean your meat puppet accusation. How nice of you. BTW your points are also totally off base, but that's no surprise.PelleSmith 03:17, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Pelle, I can call your arguments absurd too. Please refrain from name calling. I once again urge you to be civil. Further discussion on talk page of the article. NapoleansSword 07:02, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

It grows ever more difficult to maintain ones composure when other editors refrain from making any actual counter-arguments. When you start dealing with the problems presented by this information in the entry instead of dancing around them I'll stop being frustrated. Until then ...PelleSmith 12:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

		My RFA
		Thanks for your support in my request for adminship, which ended with 58 supports, 1 opposes, and 1 neutral. I hope your confidence in me proves to be justified. Addhoc 19:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

ROP

Well, the name alone is not enough. We don't mention http://www.muhammad.net on Muhammad or http://www.islam.com on Islam. And linking to it still violates WP:EL#Links_normally_to_be_avoided. --Raphael1 18:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Stanley Dunin AfD

Hi there, as a previous contributor to this article, do you have any opinions on this question, or could you provide some sources that establish notability? All the best Tim Vickers 01:17, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

In case you haven't noticed, Matt57 has just been blocked for the third time in a row - this time for a month - due to his efforts to vet these articles.Proabivouac 01:25, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Seems like I should scroll upwards a bit when I'm posting on talk pages! Tim Vickers 01:32, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Yup, I've been forced into silence again.

Tim, I didnt even know that AfD was going on. I dont think there are any reliable sources for that article. Many of these family articles often have sources which dont mention the subject of the article at all, or mention it only in passing. I saw that happening in Antoni Dunin and I suspect the same will be true for this article also.

This is for those who are working on this article and others like it: the reason why the article probably wont get deleted (no consensus) is because its made to 'look' notable. The way to deal with such articles is to first take out unsourced OR. As per Jimbo and WP:RS, everything must be sourced to reliable sources, or it is original research. This is the first central problem of these articles that must be dealt with, otherwise the 'apparent notability' will not let people see whats really going on. Take out any OR which cannot be sourced. There is simply no way around it. Good luck. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 03:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Blocked

Per the discussion [1] at AN/I I have blocked you for one month. Please feel free to edit in a less aggressive manner when you come back. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:03, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

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).

Matt57 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

How is telling another user that they'll be opposed at an RfA a threat? --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 17:09, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Decline reason:

That was hardly the reason you were blocked, but rather just one example of your problematic attitude, and presenting it in that light is dishonest. The AN/I discussion clearly far more than that. — Vassyana 17:19, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

---

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.

EC: I was about to decline with the reason "Unless the consensus changes at the ANI thread about you, this block should stand.", but got edit conflicted. I agree with Vassyana's response. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 17:20, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I heartily endorse this block. Matt57's aggressive behavior has consistently bordered on harassment, and he needs to understand that this will not be tolerated in our community. --krimpet⟲ 17:25, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

There we go. Elonka's friends and her family spam won in the end. Thats pretty amazing and this block is ofcourse, completely unfair. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 17:49, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't even know Elonka, so that theory is pretty much out the window. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 17:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

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).

Matt57 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

This is an excessive block. I dont even know what I was blocked for. Whatever it was, a month is excessive. Please reduce the block time. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 04:49, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Incivility as well as this comment makes one month deserving. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 04:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

---

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.

What a joke. In the ANI discussion, Matt's post regarding a future RfA was bandied about as a reason to block. Those with power haven't even bothered to post a clear reason for the block here. Arrow740 06:38, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Canvassing / forum-shopping to go against consensus? Also, we've blocked people on threats alone, and his comments reek of "Either you're with me or against me". - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 07:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

1. Is telling anyone that they'll be opposed at their RfA something that deserves a block? 2. Where and what did I canvass? 3. I was told by people to go seek outside opinion. When I did, I was conveniently accused of forum shopping. I'll make sure to do the same next time if I see people with opposing views seeking outside opinion. This has become a common accusation here. Anyway, I see how all this works. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 11:47, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand why our admins block users like Matt but don't stop banned editors like His excellency. There's something wrong with the way wikipedia is run. Arrow740 19:44, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

That's a good point to think about.--C.Logan 12:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Indeed the soap opera here is getting more and more ridicules. -- Karl Meier 10:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

From my own familiarity with Matt through my watchlist and through involvement in past disputes, I find it extremely hard to believe that so many users could have such a clear problem with him. He appears to be rather blunt at times, and may be easily angered, but I haven't found any one of those "stalking" accusations to be valid. That being said, I think I should note that I believe that there's a thin line between stalking another user and following links with curiosity concerning other contributions.

That fact that Matt had been accused of "stalking" for his positive edits on Cuteness troubles me deeply. Checking a user's contributions and opposing other negative edits is not "stalking"; ignoring such edits would be negligence (assuming that the inquiring user is at least familiar with the subject or with policies being violated by the opposing editor).

In reference to the current dispute (for which he was banned), it seems that there is more an issue of Matt's attitude problem than anything. I would need a more complete picture, of course, as it seems I know very little concerning Matt's history with Elonka. I feel that the discussion of Durova was exaggerated greatly- it appears that Matt rode in on the attitude train, but quickly dropped the issue, only to have it revived by other users who soon exacerbated the tension of the discussion. The 'threat' to Jehochman is about the most valid charge I've seen in this discussion.

In the Incidents request, it seems that a rather unfair parade was going about, and I'd hate to assume that several users were condemning Matt more for past offenses than for the current issue; the sense of "offenses", of course, being subjective. I would have spoken up in his defense, but I'd removed his name from my watchlist long ago, and didn't have much of a way to find out about the discussion.

Matt is not innocent, certainly, but from my experience and from my view of these disputes, it seems that Matt should not be banned past a month's time at the most. It seems rather extreme to suggest anything beyond that.--C.Logan 12:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks C Logan, it was a month and it was excessive.

Since I couldnt put in my oppose vote for Jehochman's RFA, I will do so here even though it may not count in and he'll still get the adminship, I'll still voice my opinion:

• Oppose: Jehochman could not provide a non-biased opinion over the Elonka articles affair and instead choose to assume bad faith and attack me instead of talking about the article in question. In this case, Jehochman allowed emotions to rule over logic and rationale. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 03:44, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I sent him an email already requesting him to put in my oppose vote (fat chance he'll do it though). About being blocked, I'm not really missing it that much. I had reduced my editing anyway before that if you see my contribs so its alright. And for the Elonka family spam, it continues to exist and you know what, only the editor who wants those articles to stay in will keep suffering because of them. Thats all those articles will do, they will continue to cause trouble because everyone can see that its mostly unsourced family spam. In the end though eventually, they will be gone or reduced to RS and justice will be done.--Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 03:44, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Aw, I saw the userbox Preston john created for me and others linked to too. That made me smile. Thanks all for your support! heh. I'm humbled. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 03:58, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

RFA Thank You Note, Jehochman

		Ready to swab the deck!
		Another motley scallawag has joined the crew. Thanks for your comments at my RFA. No hard feelings, Matt57. - Jehochman Talk 23:29, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Recent changes to Apostasy

Do you feel my changing of the heading might be biased? Only Sunni hadith are used, and I feel it is encompassing that which it isn't supporting. Yeah, majority of traditional Shi'ah scholars support the penalty, but no quotes are used in this section. Thanks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Apostasy_in_Islam&diff=164602669&oldid=164602530

--Enzuru 23:45, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Unblock

Matt57, I've given you a good faith unblock after consulting with the blocking admin. I want to extend the olive branch to you. - Jehochman ^Talk 03:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Jehochman. The past three blocks of Matt57 are together one of the most unfair series of administrative actions I've ever seen in my entire time on Wikipedia. As he's not popular with the current in crowd, and can't help you or hurt you in any way, I have to see yours as a righteous deed. Thanks again.Proabivouac 03:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

If anyone persecutes Matt57, I will stop them. At one time Matt and I got along well, and I hope to return to that point. - Jehochman ^Talk 18:06, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

thanks JH. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 23:08, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Re [2]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stanley Dunin 3 remains transcluded into Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 October 19; any administrator is welcome to close the discussion at any time. By no means does my relisting oblige administrators to wait an additional five days before closing the discussion. However, since Stanley Dunin was the subject of two prior AFD discussions, both of which were closed as "no consensus", and one of which was closed less than a month ago, the current discussion might benefit from some additional scrutiny. John254 03:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks ()

Thanks! For taking care of your signature which now has no load on the servers now. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 04:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

You welcome man :)  A M M A R  13:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stanley Dunin 3

You were warned by several users to stay away from Elonka and articles she was working on. Given your comments on the AFD, you apparently have little respect for it. If you continue to violate this warning, you may be blocked. --Coredesat 04:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Please don't block him, Coredesat. I am the one who unblocked Matt57, and he is trying to become a productive editor. Let's give him a chance, please. (By the way, he opposed my RFA.) - Jehochman ^Talk 04:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Matt57, please try to find other things to do besides involving yourself in Elonka articles. I can ask other admins not to block you, but I cannot prevent them from doing so if they feel the need. If you look on my user pages, there are a couple of links in the ideas section. One is a possible WP:DYK article. The other is an article listed at WP:FAC. Make yourself busy with writing an article if you can. - Jehochman ^Talk 04:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

CoreD, sorry, I said nothing to deserve a block warning like this. I was clearly as civil as I could be. This is about the article, not the editor. I just came out of another pretty much punitive unnecessary overbearing block. Further, there was nothing formal about this 'warning' you mention. I did not have to heed it if its not something that for example an Arbitration Committee decides. If 3 people said something well - 5 others said the opposite thing. Who should I listen to then? Do I not have the right to work on any article I choose to? I wonder how long this is going to go on. Please assume good faith. This is about the article - not the editor.

JH, there are many people who might want to work on these Elonka articles. I dont think I'll have to step in and I dont feel like doing it, but I reserve the right to do so according to policies if I want to. I just dont get why people have to see this whole thing as an attack affair. If that was true, all the 50 other people on that AfD who voted for delete would also be 'attacking'. If I'm to be warned for working on Elonka's articles, everyone else who does so should be warned too.

CoreD, can we please cool down, move on and put this behind us? Dont worry, I dont feel like working on these articles, not any time soon atleast. I dont think its going to happen. If I feel like working on thise articles, I'll let you know and will ask your opinion. I wish people would not take this affair personally. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 04:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

JH, I usually dont care about any article if it doesnt have anything to do with Islam, or unless there's some blatant unchecked violation of policies going on somewhere. I've throttled my edit activity anyway - hopefully I'll keep it this way because I want to set time aside for other stuff. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 04:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

CoreDesat, according to WP:OWN, there are no "Elonka articles." That's been the entire problem with this to begin with. We've turned WP:COI on its head. If someone is attacking someone through their bio, that's a different matter, but removing original research is a service to the project; indeed WP policy demands it. As an administrator, you're expected to uphold those policies, not thwart their upholding, regardless of how you feel towards the editors involved. I haven't always agreed with Matt57's edits elsewhere, but here, he isn't just becoming' a productive editor, he's been the single most productive editor in this entire thread. The article was misinforming the public. For a would-be encyclopedia, that's (supposed to be) the bottom line. Whenever we allow original research, we run that risk negligently . When we actively defend it to help out a wikifriend, and block whistleblowers under false pretenses, we run it corruptly. Matt57 would never do that. Seriously, hand him the tools - he wouldn't. He'd just argue content and policy - exactly how this project was supposed to work to begin with, through discussion, not intimidation. That it clearly doesn't now is a damned shame.Proabivouac 05:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Proabivouac, I consider your involvement here unhelpful. I think you are leading Matt57 into danger. Please, go find other things to do. I unblocked Matt57, and really want to avoid another administrator overturning that decision. Stop encouraging him to involve himself in controversies. - Jehochman ^Talk 13:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

JH, your unblock of me was a few days shy of my month long automatic unblock anyway, but thanks for the gesture. People are told to stay away from articles when they display disruption or repeatedly disrespect consensus. I did not do that, did I? Why should I be told then not to work on any certain article? Until now on Wikipedia, I havent done anything on any article which warranted an official "warning" for me to stay away from that article. Only an Arbitration Committee can decide to tell me to stay from any article. For that, diffs will have to be provided which prove my disruption. Fortunately, those diffs dont exist. If a few people tell me to not to edit any article, thats not something I have to listen to. If I told you to stay away from XYZ, you wouldnt be expected to listen to me.

I never knew that applying Wikipedia policies to an article could be so difficult. The Stanley Dunin's article's history is not visible now but do you know that once I took out OR from there and you reverted me with the edit comment "Matt57, please seek consensus" ? Now, that was exactly what was done in the end before the article was finally able to get deleted. Do you think your revert was right? You can totally disregard my involvement in this whole affair. 50 other voices stood up and said the article should be deleted (and so did you). It would have been better if I had not taken part in that AfD last night because now people are making it look like it was because of me that the article was deleted and I'm getting beaten up here for that, when infact I did nothing to bring up the article to its shape before it was deleted. Other people did. Maybe they should be warned and blocked.

I reserve the right to edit any article I wish to edit unless I display disruption or disrespect consensus, or am told by the Arbitration Committee to stay away from that article. Wikipedia policies apply in the end eventually, as you can see. Blocking me and harrassing into silence only resulted in other people stepping up. People can sense injustice and they will act accordingly. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 13:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

You are not subject to any sort of topic ban. My advice is practical and hopefully helpful, but not binding. - Jehochman ^Talk 13:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I assure you I'll not do anything that is disruptive or against Wikipedia policies. If I do that, I'll come to you and ask you to block me myself. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 13:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Islamist terrorism

you are correct, i had misread. i was looking at the discussion in the light of this page move by the discussion-starter. Islamist terrorism is certainly much better than what we currently have as the article title, but the title still needs to be neutralised as per WP:WTA. ITAQALLAH 01:33, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive users

Do you know of any disruptive users who have been bothering you or other users long term? I am compiling research on how Wikipedia can better handle these situations. If you have info, please email me. - Jehochman ^Talk 02:13, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The Elonka Paradox

Looks like I'm not the only one who has stepped on Elonka's toes in Wikipedia. Please take a number. Mindraker 09:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Heh, after pointing out that the article Rodryg Dunin was 100% from the Polish Biographical Dictionary, I got shut up really quickly having a 24-hour lock put on my account. Then they sprinkled in a few distracting citations, and rearranged a few words. If you look at the bottom, you can see how the entire article comes from that one source, so that someone who doesn't speak Polish won't immediately see it's copied text. Meh, I lost respect for Elonka, someone who chooses fame over friends. Mindraker 20:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Qur'an and miracles

For this, the title of the article is (Qur'an and miracles), so it makes sense to list the scientific miracles in Quran, the WP:OR does not apply, as i did not post any personal research or opinions, what i posted was proved facts

Please check Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, your contribution history suggest you're anti-islamic. (Imad marie (talk) 09:12, 19 November 2007 (UTC))

The Qur'an is not considered a reliable source. Your exegesis of the text is A.) your own research, and is B.) an opinion, not a "fact". Please understand that neither the Qur'an or the Hadith (or the Bible, or any primary source) are considered usable for citations in and of themselves, more specifically in the case of exegetical presentations. Finding a reliable source that links these concepts is another matter. WP:NPOV does not help you here. Matt's removal was according to policy, in that he removed unsourced original research.--C.Logan (talk) 20:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with you that Qur'an is not considered a reliable source. It is widely accepted between Islamic and Christian leaders that Qur'an is a reliable source, i suggest completing this discussion in the article talk page. (Imad marie (talk) 09:45, 20 November 2007 (UTC))

Wikipedia policy does not consider it to be a reliable source, because it is a primary source, and is too easily interpreted or misinterpreted by observers such as yourself (or anyone). I'm unsure what the rest of your comment is saying, but no, "Christian leaders" do not widely accept the Qur'an as authoritative by any measure. Please see WP:MOSISLAM#Qur'an and Hadith, which disallows the use of the Qur'an and the Hadith as secondary sources.--C.Logan (talk) 21:49, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Why is this a big deal to you? (Imad marie (talk) 20:11, 26 November 2007 (UTC))

Removing comments

What you removed was not a personal attack. He was talking about the guy in the picture (who is carrying the camera). The allegation that the guy is blind came from Yahel Guhan, not Atif who was trying to refute that argument.

If a comment is distasteful or irrelevant, then Yahel Guhan has the right to remove it from the talk page, not you.

You must also realize this: removing comments from talk hinders necessary dialogue.Bless sins 18:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Tahrir-ol-vasyleh

Do you have access to this book? Tahrir-ol-vasyleh. Want to verify the infamous "thighing" quote. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 03:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

There is a link on the site to the an arabic copy.--CltFn (talk) 12:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Elonka adminship

"Don't blame me, I voted for the other guy." Sound familiar? Mindraker (talk) 22:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes very. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 22:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I just thought I'd say that although we don't have the same opinions about this AfD, I appreciate the way that you have remained calm in what must be a difficult topic for you. If you have any concerns or problems in the future and think I might be able to help, I hope the fact that we have disagreed on this subject will not make you at all hesitant to contact me. All the best Tim Vickers (talk) 06:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Tim. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 15:42, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi again. Now (almost) all of the drama has died down, I thought I would contact you and a few other users who opposed the RfA. Since I helped Elonka get adminship I now share the responsibility if you are correct and she misuses the tools. I still think this is unlikely, but if you do become aware of any such abuse could I ask you to contact me and I will try to deal with it. I don't want any future "dramabomb" and I may have a better chance of being able to mediate and defuse conflicts. Anyway, I don't think this will be necessary, but I thought making this offer might help avert any future problems. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:31, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, but if you need any help or advice please feel free to contact me. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:19, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Matt, please rest assured that I definitely paid close attention to everything that was said in the debate, and, where possible, I will try to incorporate the (constructive) criticism towards being a better administrator. I'm going to take it slow for now -- I'm working my way through the Wikipedia:New admin school, carefully investigating the admin tools and double-checking the relevant policies, and will gradually phase into the use of the new tools. I sincerely doubt you'll see anything controversial coming from my new access level. My main goals are to help out with various backlogs, though I also fully intend to keep on writing articles, as there are a few more that I definitely want to get to WP:FA status. If you do ever have any concerns about my activities as an administrator, I encourage you to let me know. My door is always open. --Elonka 07:56, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. Matthew 10:34 KJV

Dear Matt57, at this season of THE WINTER SOLSTICE, may reason prevail. There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven, no hell. There is only the natural world. Religion is but myth and superstition that harden hearts and enslaves minds.
Kirbytime sen't me this a year ago, and i liked it, so merry christmas, and see you next year. Yahel Guhan 23:33, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Images of Muhammad(PBUH)

I know nothing new is going to happen that is why i am calling arbitration on this article, this is not a issue of censorship or respecting polices, this is a issue of respect and reality. you can not use these 2 to change the religion of others and misguide next generation. its a fight for right to represent truth about a faith. --Faraz Ahmad (talk) 05:09, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an objective project. The only problem I see here is the proposed censorship of information which myself and many others should be permitted to access. Understand that not everyone is a strict Muslim, and that the censorship of pictures which really do not offend most readers (including many Muslims) is tantamount to the misguided logic of the prohibition and other such movements. In short: to each his own.--C.Logan (talk) 08:02, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Accusation of Sockpuppetry

• Just so you know, your constant accusations of sockpuppetry, as amusing as it may be, is going to stop. Since you have made no effort to complain to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets, it can only be assumed that your purpose is in direct conflict with the notions of Wikipedia:Civility. In other words, you are intending to threaten or harass another user within the confines of the system, for the purpose of intimidation. I personally find this amusing, but it is becoming rather disruptive, as another editor named Arrow740 has used your unsubstantiated accusations as an excuse to undo or remove ANY edit that I may make, on the grounds that I was somehow banned as a sockpuppet at some point in time. This cannot be allowed, and I am fully prepared to lodge a complaint with Wikipedia:ANI if you fail to respond promptly. What you are doing, after all, is a clear cut case of harassment and wikistalking Atari400 10:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Zakir Naik

Hi Matt, I take issue with some recent insertion of criticism on that page and believe it unbalances the article, given the relative sizes of the other sections. I have opened a section on the talk page. ITAQALLAH 16:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Responding there. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 16:27, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey Matt57!

• I noticed you are not having alot of luck with your fishing expedition![3] It appears you spent alot of time on it, and I mean ALOT of time. Anyway I can help? If not, will you be willing to help me out with a harassment complaint against you? It would be greatly appreciated. Atari400 03:18, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

"Defense of Kirbytime"

Response to your post: I'm not defending Kirbytime. Bless sins (talk) 08:11, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Atari400 can certainly make better edits, and I don't agree with all his/her edits. There are many editors that are unhappy, it seems. However, that is a debate I've not been following (but now will). What I have been following is sock puppetry claims, which I believe are baseless. Bless sins (talk) 08:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Certainly not every disruptive user is a sock puppet of Kirbytime (whether Atari400 is disruptive remains to be discussed).Bless sins (talk) 08:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Re:Zakir Naik

I don't believe I "blanked" anything except Ali Sina. The removal of Ali Sina has been explained on the article's talk page.Bless sins (talk) 08:28, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Done

User:Matt57/Avraham Sinai — iridescent 19:52, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Shaam-e-Gareeba

Good day, Friend! Could you help me recognise the proper categories for Shaam-e-Gareeba? Also, if possible, could you check whether this isn't a copyright violation (per this and this)? I do not know the context, therefore I turn to you. Thanks in advance! --Ouro (blah blah) 08:53, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi! Yes, I've been following your edits and have noticed that you removed almost everything - however that which is left provides little to no context and is begging for expansion. I have almost no knowledge on the subject (am getting ready to study the Qur'an), but I'm thinking, maybe this'd be better as a redirect to the Day of Ashura article? You have more knowledge, you decide. But thanks! --Ouro (blah blah) 09:09, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Sounds logical. I'll stay around to see what comes out of this. Thanks once again and happy new year! --Ouro (blah blah) 09:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Deleting votes

Hi,

Can you name a policy that gives you the right of deleting votes of suspected sockpuppets.Bless sins (talk) 20:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: Islamophilia

Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

FSM BOX

Fine by me, happy editing. — xaosflux ^Talk 05:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Response:Shaam-e-Gareeba

Hi, the problem was the wrong transliteration. I moved it and you can see some results in google[4]. I believe we should move its content to Commemoration of Husayn ibn Ali and only make a new article when its size reach to about 70 kb. This is what we had done for other similar articles:Talk:Mourning of Muharram#Merge--Seyyed(t-c) 06:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

IslamOnline

I'm sorry I made haste in saying that IslamOnline is a reliable source. I should've been more careful. The part I said was reliable is signed by "a group of researchers", with no names specified. This is one of the biggest arguments against the reliability of that particular article.

However, many times IslamOnline publishes the opinions of respected scholars. In those cases only, IslamOnline should be considered reliable.Bless sins (talk) 00:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

When did I say Gary Miller is reliable?[5]Bless sins (talk) 00:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't recall saying Miller is reliable.Bless sins (talk) 01:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Haykal's book is a reliable source. It was approved by the Supreme Council of Islamic Affairs, Cairo, Egypt. Haykal himself was major Egyptian official. Please keep in mind that Egypt is the 5th largest Muslim state in the world.Bless sins (talk) 01:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

This proves that it is a partisan religious source, unreliable by WP:RS. Arrow740 (talk) 21:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Let me ask this question a different way: what is it that makes Robert Spencer reliable - in your view - but doesn't make Haykal reliable? I desperately await your response.Bless sins (talk) 01:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)