Welcome!

Hello, Benjamil, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! 

Also, if you are Norwegian, perhaps you could check out Wikipedia:WikiProject Norway and add yourself (i.e. your user page) to Category:Wikipedians in Norway.

meco (talk) 18:08, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I thought one sentence would be OK according to you.--Shrike (talk) 19:23, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, one sentence in a large section that notes things that aren't shameful as well. Surely everything that currently transpires in the British Pakistani community is not related to allegations of terrorism, forced marriage or pedophilia. It probably isn't all related to discrimination either. If there was any real interest in actually improving the article, I'm quite sure there are reports on the British Pakistani community as a whole that put things in some perspective. (The article yearns for it as much as Anton)

Best regards, --benjamil (talk) 21:01, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

The very first one is just to a history page. I'll let you know if others are too confusing. I have to be honest with you so far, not yet half way through, I am only seeing content disputes although I agree that the "mainly Pakistanis" edit is mildly troubling... anyway letting you know so you can correct or clarify link. I'll let you know if any others don't work for me. Egg Centric 00:35, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I've stopped reading, please see reasons on ANI. I am also going to leave a message for ankh because I want to be seen as fair in this. Egg Centric 00:48, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

9

I'm sorry for the misunderstanding. I believed that "tendentious" meant consistently slanted, as in normal usage. The appearance of article histories was simply because the number of diffs needed to display this is large, and I believe that the article histories show such a pattern clearly. I see now that the definition of "tendentious" is stricter, having criteria which partly overlap with disruptive. Best regards. --benjamil (talk) 09:22, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

They let their women get raped by Muslims and then blame it on Israel! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.45.23.134 (talk) 06:24, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

NOTE: Please do not remove. I collect this shit.

ROFL LMAO!! I will nominate this message for the Unintended Irony of the Year Award. While this bigoted drivel is lame and futile, the pathetic coward part is priceless. Such messages harm their writer's cause to a much greater extent than they intimidate the target. I consider it a badge of honor. --benjamil (talk) 06:43, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Your recent edits to Eurabia [1] seem to more eloquently state the point I've been trying to make. The sidebar still needs to be reverted back to {{Criticism of Islam sidebar}} as this is a criticism of Islam, not hatred. Though I may be a bit late in calling Altetendekrabbe out on his behaviour, my credibility is not invalidated. For the time being, however, I will watch what happens with my posting to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. --Frotz (talk) 23:36, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

While I disagree regarding the sidebar, I'm happy that we have otherwise found some common ground. When it comes to the reverts, I believe that the main problem is that some editors do not engage in a real discussion, and I'm not that eager to pin the blame on anyone in specific. --benjamil (talk) 07:54, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not keen to pin blame on anyone either. Part of this comment removed by benjamil (talk) 20:31, 20 June 2012 (UTC) -- Frotz(talk) 08:15, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

hei, ta en titt på denne linken. ganske nyttig faktisk.[2] -- altetendekrabbe  07:56, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Benjamil. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Benjamil - You're not really getting to the crux of the issue, which is that the referenced ADL paper only discusses SIOA, and not JihadWatch.

Potential fixes: 1. Find a new reference that supports the assertion that the JW blog has "faced harsh criticism" from the ADL (they've criticized SIOA, not JW. In the reference most of the criticism is directed at Geller. Spencer is briefly accused of anti-Muslim associations and themes. This is not harsh criticism of either Spencer or JW--it is mostly factual information on SIAO's activities) 2. Delete the assertion that JW "has faced harsh criticism" from the ADL 3. Restore my info on the association of Spencer and JW with SIOA, which puts the reference in context.

Regards, kdsflyfree — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kdsflyfree (talk • contribs) 16:06, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing this out. I have made some edits taking your remarks as a point of origin, opting for fix 3.

Regards, benjamil (talk) 19:03, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Your edit failed to read the cited article. http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/186020/20110725/anders-breivik-manifesto-shooter-bomber-downplayed-religion-secular-influence-key.htm

It explicitly states this:

"A majority of so called agnostics and atheists in Europe are cultural conservative Christians without even knowing it," he wrote.

"If you have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and God then you are a religious Christian. Myself and many more like me do not necessarily have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and God. We do however believe in Christianity as a cultural, social, identity and moral platform. This makes us Christian," he wrote.

Breivik's initial explanation comes in a segment of the manifesto entitled "Distinguishing between cultural Christendom and religious Christendom - reforming our suicidal church."

Later in the manifesto, when attempting to justify his "martyrdom operation" Breivik did not see himself as being religious.

It can't get any clearer than that. He's only "Christian" in the very specific, cultural sense, NOT religious sense. Therefore he's not a Christian. He views Europe minus Islam/Eastern influence as inherently "Christian." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Validuz (talk • contribs) 22:12, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

The topic has been discussed several times at the talk page,[3] and in depth here [4]. I see other authors have weighed in, as well. Still, I apologise for the oversight when it comes to the source.

Best regards, benjamil (talk) 09:30, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello,

I have read several of the academic sources added by you in the Wikipedia pages about Eurabia, Counterjihad et cetera. Among them, I have not yet found one that link Eurabia denunciators/Counterjihad movement with violence/terrorism in the same way (or more) than

• "If Europe has already succumbed to dhimmitude and become Eurabia and if its ruling elites are completely complicity its enslavement to Islam, and thus democratic resistance is no longer possible, Breivik’s answer is not irrational." in Michael Sells, Breivik, Trifkovic, and Bat Ye'or (web draft), that I previously mentionned in Talk:2011 Norway attacks/Archive 3#Breivik and Eurabia thesis;
• "If you’re saying that Jens Stoltenberg, for instance, is actually a worse traitor than Quisling, if you’re saying that Europe is being occupied and colonised, if you’re saying that politicians, journalists and academics – across the political scale – are willingly playing a part in this… if you’re saying all of this, politically motivated violence does not seem like an absurd idea; the step onto violence is not a very far one." in Øyvind Strømmen, So, what’s the deal with Fjordman? (web blog), that is currently mentionned in List of Eurabia literature#Commentaries and columns;

I guess that you have read more papers than me. Do you know an academic source that make a claim like the above? Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:45, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi

I believe that it is quite easy to get confused about this, because the counterjihad movement appears to span such a large spectrum. I think the most far-reaching I've read comes from a polemical article in the Journal of International Relations Research, by Elizabeth Humphrys:

Breivik railed against the ‘cultural Marxism’ of the very mainstream Norwegian Labour Party. That the language is not so different to repeated accusations by leading US right-­‐wingers of Obama’s ‘socialism’ and should give pause for thought about the forces they may be legitimating.

This is quite vague, but I believe Liz Fekete paints a rather ominous picture in her article: "The Muslim Conspiracy and the Oslo Massacre". In a report named "Pedlars of Hate - the violent impact of the European far right", she also expands on this analysis with information like:

now troops are arriving back from those conflicts (Iraq, Afghanistan, my note) to find that defence leagues and counter-jihadist movements, which portray themselves as patriots not Nazi, are describing the Muslim community in Europe as a threat equal to that of the enemy, (...) In the UK, former officials of the British National Party (BNP) have set up a charity to help homeless soldiers146 and the football hooligans network Casual United has announced the formation of a unit within the EDL called ‘Combined Ex-forces’.

Also, I recently found this article, published by the International Centre for Counter-Terrorism, with a comment here. It says, among other things:

The second audience for official security discourse is the far‐Right milieu itself. This paper proposes the

thesis that, in some contexts, the circulation of the values‐identity narrative of terrorism has the unintended consequence of creating discursive opportunities for far‐Right actors who are able to blend official narratives into their own discourses, enabling them to creatively update their existing belief systems and draw renewed

legitimacy by bringing their ideologies into closer proximity to mainstream views. Breivik is one example. (...) Others, such as the English Defence League (EDL), share the same definition of the ‘problem’ but employ different tactics, favouring demonstrations and street‐based activism, often involving public disorder, racist violence and incitements to anti‐Muslim hatred. (my emphasis)

Still, it seems that research interest in this area is of relatively new date. Please inform me if you can find further information. I don't have time to go through it all at this moment, but I would believe that the risk assessments of the various national security services could provide some useful complementary information.

If you're not able to get the articles online, please tell me, and I will see if I can help.

Best regards, benjamil ^talk/_edits 08:31, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

You have twice vandalized my edits to the Eurabia articles which correct your Goebbels-inspired attempt to define the term as a conspiracy theory, in gross violation of WP:NPOV. Your edit history shows that you are well aware of Wikipedia policies. Continued flouting of WP will lead to your account being terminated. WikiFlier (talk) 08:04, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

At the time of your writing, I had reverted you just once, as User:Toddy1 isn't me. While it is somewhat unclear why I should continue to cooperate with you after you have attempted to defame me,[5][6] I will give it one last chance. Please continue this discussion at Talk:Eurabia#Recent_reverts. benjamil ^talk/_edits 10:20, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

		Civility Award
		For accepting an apology where many of us would have just kept grumping, have this barnstar! - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 20:12, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

In this edit I added "european bureaucracy and intelligentsia". In this edit you wrote "bureaucracies, intelligentisas and European political leaders". In this change WikiFlier replaced "intelligentisas" by "intelligentsias", correcting the typo. By here you reverted the previous edit. I suggest you to self-revert about this precise point, with an explicit edit comment, something like "partial revert of 503737089 by Benjamil, thanks to WikiFlier for finding a typo". Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:43, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

That is indeed highly suspicious. I think that those accounts edited enough to become auto-confirmed and the way they worded their support males me suspect a sock or at the very least a meat puppet. Blackmane (talk) 07:13, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Benjamil. You have new messages at Eastlaw's talk page.
Message added 07:52, 26 July 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Eastlaw ^talk ⁄ _contribs 07:52, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

From time to time people inappropriately edit articles to promote their POV - some of them use intellectually dishonest phrases such as "more accurate" or "eliminating bias" in the edit summaries. When you revert these edits, please give consideration to using a template on the POV-editor's talk page. You can find a selection of appropriate templates on Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace.--Toddy1 (talk) 10:49, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

The Teamwork Barnstar

For working with me to resolve a dispute over one word which could seemingly make a huge difference, and which was a rather tough and arduous task that required much brainstorming, but was an interesting and constructive process that we both benefited from. The civility and kindness between both of us was helpful to the process and hopefully we will encounter such easy cooperation over disputes in the future with other editors. Activism1234 01:35, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate the high standards you bring to the project and the fairness you extend to friend or foe. The striking of that comment was very much appreciated. Ankh.Morpork 09:31, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Why, thank you. I have much fun reading your eloquent prose, and if it weren't for my personal involvement in the disputes, I would probably have enjoyed these interludes at ANI as episodes of humorous, nerdish bickering. Seeing that they significantly hamper altetendekrabbe in making the valuable contributions I know him to be capable of, I hope that we can work out some voluntary interaction restrictions or find another way of making the editing experience enjoyable for all. benjamil ^talk/_edits 10:12, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I shall return the compliment and say your English is excellent considering it is not your native language. I also draw satisfaction from reading meaningful and well-expressed prose and Nishidani is my idol in that regard. I would happily abide by voluntary editing restrictions. In the cited Dhimmi example, my first edit in over a week was immediately reverted by A, which I then restored, and I did first provide a explanatory talk page comment. You can check the page history. Do you have any suggestions? Ankh.Morpork 10:28, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm Ok with a move but the lead should made some mention of it (as it did previously), especially as contrary views are expressed there. Ankh.Morpork 21:37, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry to have bothered you by making it appear that I would like the text to remain, but as I tried to cover everything that Andy brought up on the talk page, there just wasn't any informational value left. I certainly don't want to have the text I was left with on my editing record.benjamil ^talk/_edits 22:02, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate your efforts to improve upon it which sharply contrast with other editors' approach. Please clarify on the talk page all of your concerns with my edit. Ankh.Morpork 22:13, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello, this is just to let you know that your editor review has been completed, several editors have provided their feedback on your editor review page. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Happy editing and regards, Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 03:13, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

This is an automated message. Your editor review is scheduled to be closed on 26 August 2012 because it will have been open for more than 30 days and inactive for more than 7 days. You can keep it open longer by posting a comment to the review page requesting more input. Adding <!--noautoarchive--> to the review page will prevent further automated actions. AnomieBOT⚡ 03:59, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bat Ye'or, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The National (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:11, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

This is an automated message from VWBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Sidney H. Griffith, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.marquette.edu/mupress/Griffith.shtml.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) VWBot (talk) 22:38, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello Benjamin, I note that some time ago you had helped to improve the page of mission_(Christianity). I have been trying to get it into workable form also, but if you are still willing to help out I would love it if you went back there to see if you have any ideas for how to improve it or some more material. The page was in a pretty terrible state when I stumbled upon it. Xphilosopherking (talk) 07:11, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Hey, you might want to get involved here. Zaminamina (talk) 12:42, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello Benjamil,

What is your opinion about adding

• Sigve Indregard [no] (ed.), Motgift: Akademiske responser på den nye høyreekstremismen, Flamme Forlag, 2012, ISBN 978-82-02-38170-7.
• Sindre Bangstad, Eurabia, folkehjelp.no, 2013-06-03.
• Sindre Bangstad, Eurabia Comes to Norway, Islam and Christian-Muslim Relations, 2013-06-03, doi:10.1080/09596410.2013.783969.

in Bibilography of Eurabia and/or Counterjihad? Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:07, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi. I believe those are good sources. Motgift is an antology with contributions from some of Norway's best academics in anthropology and sociology of religion. Bangstad is, as far as I know, an associate professor at the University of Oslo who has contributed much to these debates.

Best regards, benjamil ^talk/_edits 09:36, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello - some editors fight off the vandal hordes, as I do repairing pages with citation errors. If I didn't - there would be a large backlog in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting and in Category:Pages with missing references list as in Category:Pages with broken reference names (more than 1500 yesterday). But it is impossible to work it alone. Do you know how to do a "Blitz" (excuse the comparision) to find willing editors to work on it. It is much more easier to repair references if you do it one hour, one day or one week ago after the errors were made instead of months and years after the error was done. Very, very difficult to find these errors.

Only with WikiBlame Search it is possible to find and repair such errors.

Best wishes --Frze ^{> talk} 08:42, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Backlog status (Purge)

Category	Current status
Pages with incorrect ref formatting	Not done
Pages with missing references list	Done
Pages with broken reference names	Expression error: Unrecognized punctuation character ",".

Best wishes --Frze ^{> talk} 04:27, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

There is a suggestion on Wikipedia:Bot requests#New REFBot for a new REFBot working as DPL bot and BracketBot do. I beg politely for consideration. Please leave a comment if you wish. Thanks a lot in anticipation. -- Frze (talk · contribs) 04:27, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi. I've not been very active lately. Would you care to explain concisely what this is about? benjamil ^talk/_edits 12:10, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

That article doesn't have much content,but the existing one is plain ridiculous.Every medical college in India(that's what medical schools are called in India) has these departments.It's like saying that <this woman has a vagina> on all articles concerning women.Guru-45 (talk) 05:58, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree. I'll edit the page. benjamil ^talk/_edits 08:15, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello Benjamil, I'm here onbehalf of WP:ORPHAN in which you are also a participant. So, we want your opinion to a WP:ORPHAN related matter. It is a proposal by Technical 13. Please have a look here. Your opinion (i.e support, oppose etc) are very much appreciated there. Thank you. By Jim Cartar through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:02, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello Benjamil,

WikiProject Orphanage is holding a month long Backlog Elimination Drive to de-orphan articles which have orphan tags!
The goal is to eliminate the backlog of orphan articles. There are currently 53535 articles which have orphan tags. The drive is running from April 12, 2014 to May 12, 2014.

Awards will be given out for all editors participating in the drive in the form of barnstars at the end of the drive. To add your name in the participants list click here.
So start de-orphaning articles! Click here to see the list of articles need de-orphaning.
Visit Suggestions for how to de-orphan an article to know more!

Thanks. _{Opt-out Instructions} by Jim Cartar on behalf of WikiProject Orphanage through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:21, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello everyone! I was just working on responding to a couple bug reports for a script that I worked up as part of a request from this project, and I noticed that only a couple people (who weren't even on this mailing list) are actually using the script. A little history on the script: In March of 2014, Jim Cartar came to my user talk page and said he needed some help in acquiring a script for a backlog drive that he was working on that could keep track of and score deOrphanings for a scored backlog drive. I took that request to the project's talk page (BackLog Drive "DO" (De-Orphaning) script proposal) and there was near unanimous support for this. I thought about the proposal and decided the best way to do it was to build a new script (which is still no where near as comprehensive as Manishearth's OrphanTabs) and build into it a mechanism that will make BLD scoring easy.

What I'm wondering at this point is, since there appears to be only two people using the script, should I continue to develop this script with a goal of using it for scoring BLDs or just debug the existing script and leave it at that. Thanks for any replies or comments.

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list or alternatively to opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Opted-out of message delivery to your user talk page.

• This message was sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 13:57, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:27, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Benjamil. I'm an editor (not very active till now) of the Italian Wikipedia. I'm trying to participate to an IEG with the project "Women are everywhere". You will find the draft at this link https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IEG/Women_are_everywhere It would be great if you could have a look at it. I need any kind of suggestion or advice to improve it. Support or endorsement would be fantastic. Many thanks, --Kenzia (talk) 14:38, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Benjamil. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)