BEN HEINE SPEAKING: MAY I ASK WHY YOU DELETED MY WIKIPEDIA ENTRY? THIS IS NOT FAIR! THE ENTRY HAD BEEN WRITTEN AGAIN AND RE DOWNLOADED BY OTHER PEOPLE AND YOU STILL KEEP DELETING IT. WHO ARE YOU? CONTACT ME HERE : heinebenjamin@hotmail.com Ben Heine —Preceding unsigned comment added by BenHeine (talk • contribs) 22:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BrandonYusufToropov, Karl Meier has removed material from your user page which some editors will surely find offensive.[1] It is (at least) uncivil to threaten other editors with eternal torment in Hell. This is being discussed on WP:ANI if you are interested in chiming in.[2] Please do not restore this material; it violates WP:USER and leads to hard feelings without improving the encyclopedia.
More generally, refraining from partisan pronouncements will spare you pointless controversy, help ensure that your contributions are judged according to their merit, and help us all get along.Proabivouac 07:57, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked repeatedly whether it might not have been better simply to have left a civility-affirming request that I remove this quote, and I have gotten either silence or doubletalk in response. I would have been glad to do take it off if someone had taken the trouble to discuss the matter with me. Perhaps Karl Meier, or yourself, or whoever started this little P.C. undertaking could see fit to offer an apology for peremptorily messing with my userpage.

This was the first complaint I ever received about the passage. Is there any other text on my userpage I should expect the Powers That Be to edit for me? BYT 13:12, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You added a referenece that is not in English, therefore not verviable. It will be removed. Padishah5000 14:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please direct me to policy that says that all sources used has to be in English? -- Karl Meier 11:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sources must be checkable for readers of this encyclopaedia. Which is in English. Please do not include sources that are not in English and do not have readily available translations. Grace Note 08:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If we need a source to be checked, then we can just ask one of the editors that is able to read and understand the given language. That should be no problem. Also, there is no policy that says that a source has to be in English for us to use it here. -- Karl Meier 17:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have absolutely no idea what your comment refers to. And I have no idea who you are. Kindly do not threaten me again. And dude, don't be writing to me using a template. I'm a long-term, good-faith editor of this encyclopaedia. If you think that's the right way to treat contributors, you need to rethink. Grace Note 08:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Karl, you need to rethink your model of collaboration and communication. Until you've had that rethink, I don't think we have anything further to discuss. Grace Note 02:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reverting to a version the introduction that I introduced earlier today. Not sure about your accusations though. Addhoc 20:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Karl. As you have participated at the ANI discussion regarding the behaviour of the abovementioned user, i just wanted to let you know that I opened an RfC on themselves in response to the concerns raised during the discussion at the ANI. The RfC is located here. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 10:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Karl. Have you had a look at this? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 17:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I noticed it. I guess that his clarifications regarding the issue was what was needed, and that this should solve the dispute and settle the matter. -- Karl Meier 17:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's correct. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 17:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Islamophobia, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible. ITAQALLAH 20:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have agreed to the mediation. -- Karl Meier 20:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see: Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Islamophobia#Parties.27_agreement_to_Messedrocker.27s_offer. ITAQALLAH 14:50, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have agreed to that. -- Karl Meier 16:41, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Totally-disputed is template cruft. And it's ugly. --The Cunctator 21:11, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just have trouble seeing how complaining about POV and accuracy is significantly different from complaining about just one of them. They're birds of a feather, and fixing one properly necessarily fixes the other. Especially if the question is "does this contribute enough to the general editor/reader to be distinct from {{Disputed}}?" I support atomization in Wikipedia content, but consolidation and minimalism in Wikipedia procedures.--The Cunctator 22:08, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reverting an appearent sock-puppy at Historical persecution by Muslims. Best regards, Hamster Sandwich 16:40, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to participate at the discussion in my Request for Adminship. Unfortunately the nomination did not succeed, but please rest assured that I am still in full support of the Wikipedia project. I listened carefully to all concerns, and will do my best to incorporate all of the constructive advice that I received, into my future actions on Wikipedia. If you can think of any other ways that I can further improve, please let me know. Best wishes, Elonka 03:35, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have some fans of your Wikipedia work. There is a Ben Heine who works as a waiter on the Western Railway Museum's Wildflower Express, but that is all I could find. You may wish to participate in Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_September_7#Ben_Heine. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 15:31, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:VilksMuhammad.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 07:29, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Karl, please explain what do you mean by this edit summary say [3]. --Aminz 08:29, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That he tried to bury the fact that Muhammad starting using her for sexual purposes, by replacing the more well known English term "concubine" with the more technical term "what his right hand possesses", which the average reader is not likely to be familiar with. To restore concubine and wiki-link it to Ma malakat aymanukum would be good for starters. -- Karl Meier 08:46, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The first one I can very well assure you is a written and explicit part of the account given by Abu Lubaba in Ibn Ishaq translated by Guillaume. The second one, right hand possess, does not translate or define as concubine. Three, the account in ibn Ishaq translated by Guillaume also does not state implicitly or explicitly any understanding that she was a concubine, just another prisoner of war taken by the Muslims, i.e. what right hand possess more correctly means. BTW, right hand possess is linked to its page so there should be no confusion. Jedi Master MIK 11:57, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP does not mean you can misrepresent sources. I think you know exactly what you are doing and I am going to take out a user RFC for this. You could have explained your edits on the talk page but have not bothered to do so. Itsmejudith 14:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe that anything there is being misrepresented, then correct that without violating NPOV and WP:BLP. The version that you insist on reverting to is absolutely unbalanced. Another thing don't come to my talk page and make threats. If you feel like spending your time writing RfC's, then you can do that, but don't ever come here again and make threats against me. -- Karl Meier 16:27, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm awfully sorry, but I really do think you should substantiate that belief on the talkpage. I'm afraid a couple of your reverts got me to break 3RR, though I reverted myself immediately, of course. I do invite you to respond to the remarks that are outstanding on the article talkpage, particularly the availability of alternative views, the possibility of refactoring the section, and the relevance of ArbCom precedent. I won't be on WP for some time, (since I've clearly been doing too much!) so I'm sure I'll see a response when I get back.

Cheers! Hornplease 16:57, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I and other editors have already substantiated and explained what is wrong with your edits on the articles discussion page. On major problem is that they are in violation of WP:BLP. Also, no one is making you violate 3RR, and as I can see that you have been blocked for 3RR violations before and also quite recently, it is reasonable to expect that you are aware of the rule. If you don't like 3RR blocks then the solution is very simple: Don't violate the rule. -- Karl Meier 18:18, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Karl Maier why did you remove sourced and relevant content?[4] As you know, wikipedia is not censored. If you have legitimate objections, please state them on talk.Bless sins 19:56, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:BLP, and my comment on the discussion page. -- Karl Meier 20:32, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Karl..for standing up for neutrality and against the removal of sourced factual content on Islam in the United States. unfortunately, some editors have recently removed, moved or censored factual content (all sourced) to change the article to a certain POV. There is little discussion with most of it going to a different tangent for no apparant reason and also some editors making you repeat your points again and again. There is certainly no consensus as a couple of editors other than me have voiced their concerns in the past. It becomes difficult for editors who want to keep factual accuracy with such edits. I tried to revert them but since they are more than one, I am sure that they will use the policies like WP:3RR to get me blocked. This article really needs some good editors. Thanks for your support. NapoleansSword 14:23, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Prester John/Userbox/Free Matt

I am giving away this userbox as a sign of solidarity with our good friend Matt57. The gross injustice purportrated against him shall be met with peaceful non-violent protest. Please place on your userpage until this excessive and unjust ban is reversed. Prester John ^{-(Talk to the Hand)} 07:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is a good idea. I added it right away. We should not let them get away with their misbehavior, and I hope that Matt will be back right after the days that he has left of this ridicules block. -- Karl Meier 11:06, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		Ready to swab the decks!
		Another motley scallawag has joined the crew. Thanks for your comments at my RFA. No hard feelings. - - Jehochman Talk 05:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:VilksMuhammad.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 16:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Karl, what edit are you referring to? Thanks. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:40, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do I? Itsmejudith (talk) 22:41, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK you mean the Ibn Baz thing. He was notable but the source that purports to give his view in no way meets WP standards. Don't see why you came to my talk page when this was a matter for the article talk page, and please be careful not to use language that could be construed as threatening. I suggest we both trust Itaqallah to get it right; he has an excellent understanding of scholarly sources on Islam. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:48, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't try to construct false allegations about me being somehow "threatening". As for Islam Q and A, it is a source which several important and notable Islamic scholars support and guarantee for the quality of, and I suggest that you provide some arguments for you claim it "in no way meets WP standards". -- Karl Meier (talk) 10:59, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About you here. - Merzbow (talk) 21:57, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To the extent anyone not involved commented, I think the consensus was close to my comment. ArbComm has said that the practice of using edit summaries to discuss changes is not enough discussion, especially when reverting. Please make more use of talk pages to explain and actively seek compromises that can become a consensus. GRBerry 14:12, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 Karl Meier, 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, Happy New Year, or whatever you celebrate, and see you next year. Yahel Guhan 00:11, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Karl, you've weighed in at Aisha before, and the age issues are coming back up again with some new editors. It's exactly the same as before: editors trying to use Islamic scholars to "prove" that Aisha was older than 9. The scholars they're using are more legit this go round but it still smells like a POV-push to me.--Cúchullain ^t/c 03:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was just wondering, sir, if you knew whether the Danish WWII general William Wain Prior was of English ancestry. The name is very English.

Have a nice day!60.48.109.53 (talk) 17:29, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion has begun about whether the article Faith Freedom International, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Faith_Freedom_International_(3rd_nomination) until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Oore (talk) 20:33, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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) 13:05, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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) 13:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]