User talk:Isaw

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Please help me with...

Isaw (talk) 17:17, 12 March 2018 (UTC) My revision of an article have been del;eted by another user. AS far as I can see my references do not violate NPOV as suggested by the other user and the sources I use are a respected and reliable as the sources that user quotes

Why for example is Canadian Citizens For Charter Rights And Freedoms ( CCCRF) not a reliable souorce? of " facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media. " as user Drmies suggests User Drmies in the description of the last edit refers to CCFCRAF as a group of "non notables" Here is a list of speakers at their conference: https://www.canadiancitizens.org/conference-speakers I submit they are NOT non notables!

Members of CCCRF come from many religious and ethnic communities and many have long histories as human rights advocates. The group supports the rule of law in accordance with Canadian traditions and strives to ensure freedom of expression and the equality rights of women and the LGBT community. They specifically came topgether to address aspects of political Islam which is the subject which Bill Warner addresses.

2. Why is Bill Warner edited back to calling him "Anti Islam" equating him with with anti-Muslim, anti-Jewish, or anti LGBT type hate speech? Especially when no reference is given to what warner actually says which is anti Islam. the only source used is the Southern Poverty Law centre In October 2016, the SPLC published a list of "anti-Muslim extremists", including British activist Maajid Nawaz and ex-Muslim activist Ayaan Hirsi Ali. The SPLC said that Nawaz appeared to be "more interested in self-promotion and money than in any particular ideological dispute", identified what it said were gaps and inconsistencies in his backstory, rebuking his assertion that British universities had been infiltrated by radical Islamists. Nawaz, who identifies as a "liberal, reform Muslim", denounced the listing as a "smear", saying that the SPLC listing had made him a target of jihadists

In 1994 the Montgomery Advertiser published an eight-part critical report on the SPLC, saying that it exaggerated the threat posed by the Klan and similar groups in order to raise money, discriminated against black employees, and used misleading fundraising tactics. The SPLC dismissed the series as a "hatchet job". SPLC's co-founder Joe Levin stated: "The Advertiser's lack of interest in the center's programs and its obsessive interest in the center's financial affairs and Mr. Dees' personal life makes it obvious to me that the Advertiser simply wants to smear the center and Mr. Dees. The series was nominated for a 1995 Pulitzer Prize in Explanatory Journalism. Despite an SPLC campaign against the nomination the series was one of three finalists.

An additional reference http://www.islamophobia.org/islamophobic-organizations/175-center-for-the-study-of-political-islam.html

quotes  “Let me be clear: I do hate Islam." He has also stated, "I hate a doctrine that is found in the Quran, Allah, the Seerah, Mohammed’s biography, the Hadith, his traditions. I hate the Islam that is found in that."

But the video supplied clearly indicates Warner opposes the IDEOLOGY of Islam that imposes on non Muslims and not the muslims themselves. He clearly says he does not hate muslims but the parts of Islam which are against Human rights as understood by Western Judaeo/chriostian society e.g. female genital mutilation

^[1]

This should best be discussed on the relevant article's talk page. Regarding your specific questions, the CCCRF is not an independent source about their conference speakers. Of course they say nice things about the speakers. That's not meaningful for an encyclopedia article. The SPLC has been discussed at WP:RSN repeatedly and has generally been found reliable enough for uses such as that in the Bill Warner (Political Islam) article. The Wikipedia article states that Warner opposes the ideology of Islam, and given the quotes you present here, I wonder how you can consider "anti-Islam" inaccurate. "Anti-something" doesn't necessarily indicate hatred or hate speech. Huon (talk) 23:07, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Huon Thanks for your comment. I agree Warner is anti those aspects of Islam that impose thmselves on non muslims as wellas those thatabuse women within Islam such as female Genital Mutilation. However the admin editing me equates "anti Islam " with "anti muslim". any attampt to explain that Warner opposes the political aspects of Islam and abuse of Women by following Islamic Scriptures has been edited back out and the comment immediatley followed by a referrence to warner on a "hate list". And references to Warner opposing human rights abuses following that are edited out. Thats why "anti Islam" without context or qualification is a biased representation.

Secondly WHY is CCCRF not an independent source? Warner didnt write the CCCRF discription did he? It isnt self published . It is affiliated with the subject I accept because you are not going to invite a speaker to a conference if they dont address the subject if the conference are you? It isnt an academic reviev of him but it does show a body interested in the same field thought enough of Warner to ask him to address their conference.

Isaw (talk) 11:26, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Bill Warner (Political Islam) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Doug Weller talk 21:25, 12 March 2018 (UTC) Isaw (talk) 21:32, 12 March 2018 (UTC)Just saw this now will try and resolve in talk page but it appears the sources I cite including a peer review journal are being called "anti Islamic" I can say similar of the other source ( Southern Poveryt Law firm) that calls Warner anti Islamic but I am prepared to leave it in as I am not biased

• I only got to see these messages now and thanks for sending them. I have posted to the Bill Warner Talk page. I have not posted to any talk page before on Wikipedia and was not aware of how to go about things.

I have yet to see any evidence asd to how Bill Warners publications are not valid or based on fact. One suggestion posted was a need to refer to translations of the Koran. The Koran is a very small part of the Trilogy Literature discussed by Warner. The Ahadith make up a much larger part and certainly are more referred to when it comes to Sharia as Mohammad is only mentioned in a few verses in the koran. Also Teh vast Majority of Muslims do not speak let alone read Arabic so the vast majority of Muslims ( and opf non Muslims) rel;y on translations. If one is to claim that all the translations are "wrong" that brings the level of clarity of understanding of the Koran to a much more unclear level. Not alone that but even in Arabic there is no "original" Koran and all the ancient versions of it differ in Arabic and all dioffer from modern arabic Korans. But this discussion isnt about textual criticism oir testual integrety but about quantitative methods as applied to widely accepted Islamic texts.Isaw (talk) 23:42, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Isaw reported by User:Doug Weller (Result: ). Thank you. Doug Weller talk 21:36, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Doug Weller Could you inform me if you regard me as "anti muslim" also?Isaw (talk) 14:00, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

I can only judge you by your sources and your edits, and they certainly appear anti-Muslim. Doug Weller talk 14:03, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Doug Weller So that is a "yes" then. You regard me as anti muslim. And based only on edits I made? And only on edits I made to the Bill Warner page? So can you show me in what way say three of these edits show evidence that I am anti muslim in your view?Isaw (talk) 14:07, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Doug Weller Aslo can you see there is a difference between opposing Islam as a political ideology and opposing muslims?

You support someone who is anti-Muslim and use anti-Muslim sources.Your second question is an example of what is called Begging the question, starting with a false premise and treating it as though it were true. Islam is not monolithic and is not a political ideology. Warner is using junk "science" to justify his preconceived ideas and pander to people's fear of the unknown. Doug Weller talk 14:24, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Doug Weller you say I 'support someone who is anti-Muslim' I assume you refer to Bill warner here? specifically where I provide sources which may support some of his views? The idea that Bill Warner is anti muslim is your OPINION. It isnt a fact. You have prejudged the subject and decided in advance so I dont know how we can proceed any further on that. For my part I don't know Warner Personally but I cant find any factual evidence in his work showing he hates muslims. I know he is very strongly opposed to elements of Islam particularly those which affect non Muslims but I dont see how this connects to any Idea that he opposes muslims or hates muslims. You on the other hand clearly oppose people and dont deal with the evidenbce they present.

You assert the distinction between the political aspects of Islam (i.e. how and where Islamic scriptures say to deal with non Muslims) and Muslims is a false distinction? How so? you say ' Islam is not monolithic and is not a political ideology.' We are primarily discussing sunni Islam here. do you accept that sunni islam is based on Sira Ahadith and Koran and that basically ALL sunni muslims accept that the sira and Koran as core texts and of the six main Hadith writers accept Bukhari certainly and possibly Sahih Muslim/Islam as a core text? As such these texts are monolithic literally written in stone as far as sunni Islam is concerned. Do you also accept Islam has shgaria law and that sharia law deals with how to treat non muslims? You are aware Warner describes the "political" element of islam as that part relating to the treatment of non Muslims? So do you deny sharia Law relates to how Islam treats non muslims? If so how canm you claim it isnt political? Where do you get the idea that statistical analysis is "junk science"? Isaw (talk) 14:48, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

His is junk science. GIGO. I seem to have missed where Warner says his analysis only applies to Sunni Muslims. Doug Weller talk 15:10, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

You are aware Sunni muslims use ahadith? shia for example have a very negastive view of Bukahari expecially Aisha as a narriator to the extent they claim she ios burning in hell. . As such you cant apply analysis of ahadith to Shia who regard them as rubbish. I would accept the analysis of the Koran ans sira however can apply to on sunnis. Whether or not warner said this is beside the point. One cantr apply political decisions based on work from from Bukhari to people who dont use or accept Bukhari. Isaw (talk) 15:40, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

I think also that the 90% or so of muslims who do accept the Ahadith would be offended by you calling the Koran and Hadith and sira "garbage".Isaw (talk) 15:07, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Lol. Are you deliberately being obtuse? He has selected what he does his stats on, that's not scientific and that's what is garbage. When you pick and choose what you are going to use, you are biassing your study. I'm obviously not calling the documents garbage. But you must have known that. I think it's very relevant that Warner says "I do hate Islam" but that you are arguing that there is (and I agree there is) a big difference between Sunni and Shia that Warner ignores. I don't accept that Sharia law is a monolithic codified body of law. How it is applied varies greatly. I greatly dislike theocracies and fundamentalism and see one of the greatest threats to freedom in America Christian fundamentalism. Which among other things fosters hate of anyone different, eg Muslims. Doug Weller talk 15:33, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

1. I fail to see the joke. As in any objective scientific research, of course, he selected the material on which he produced the stats. That being the Koran ( Which I assume all Islam accepts as a core doctrine; the two main Hadith Writers ( the "Sahih" i.e. all their Hadiths are regarded as the topmost reliable level whereas some of the other four writers have some Daif ( weak ) Hadith ) regarded by Sunni Islam (sunni are about 90% of Islam Shia Islam does not accept any of the six main Hadith writers; and the Sira which is accepted by sunni and shia Islam. These same works are used by Islamic scholars worldwide on which to base their rulings. In fact more Sharia Law is based on Hadith and Sira than on Koranic verses as the Koran hardly says anything at all about Mohammad. I think it mentions him by name five times. He does use an English translation of the Koran ( and of all other scriptures) but I can not see how this in any way changes the statistical argument. It is entirely scientific and fairly comprehensive to outline the Koran Hadith and Sira and offer the core texts for anyone to peruse and say they are not faithful reproductions of the core Islamic scriptures. As you say when you chose the material; top study you bias the study and yes the study is biased in favour of examining the core religious scriptures of Sunni Islam i.e. the Koran the Sahih Ahadith and the sira. Warner also makes analysis of each of these three on their own. Similarly he takes an English version of the Bible and uses that to analyse it. I doubt any christian scholar will say that the frequency of verses abotu violence in the Old Testament is baised although there may be slight differences if you leavew out somre of the books some Protestant denominations leave out such as the Song of Solomon. Taking the Hadith oif Bukhari and/ir Sahih Islam/Muslim the koran and Sira Rasool Allah are hardly using a sample whoich does not represent the core of Islamic scriptures and I would challenge you to produce any Sunni Islamic scholar who says these are not representative of Islam and leaving out the Hadith Any shia Scholar who says the same. You call the doccuments "garbage" but I challenge you to produce them and read them and show me anything in that Islam regards as "garbage". They are accurate examples of the "trilogy" as Warner describes them.

2. Warner does not IGNORE Shia Islam. He provides independent ananysis of the Sira and Koran which Shia accept. He doesnt provide analysis of Shia Hadith collections. He may well do so in the future. Isaw (talk) 23:49, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

3 you say " I think it's very relevant that Warner says "I do hate Islam" But you fail to acknowledge that Warner also says there are elements of Islam he respects and admires. Isaw (talk) 23:49, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

4. you say " I don't accept that Sharia law is a monolithic codified body of law. How it is applied varies greatly." But that isnt the point! Warner isnt arguing about how islam applies scriptures or whether most muslims even igniore their scriptures so much as doing a statistical analysis of what the core historical Islamic texts actually say. It does not matter if today one Mullah says to behead someone and another says only to cut off their hand. What matters is if they base their ruling on acts described in Islamic scriptures which DO bescribe beheadding or cutting off hands. whether one school of law foillows one part or the scriptures and another school follows another part isnt the issue. what warnert does is statistically count the amount of times for example beheading or cutting off hands or lighting a fire oin someones chest is described. he doiesnt comment on which is better to do he just doccuments how many verses state it.Isaw (talk) 23:49, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

5 you say "I greatly dislike theocracies and fundamentalism, and see one of the greatest threats to freedom in America Christian fundamentalism." I prefer not to bring my personal likes or dislikes into the editing of an article as I would try to avoid personal bias. Although I would say christianity isnt a Theocracy. Christianity states you should render onto the State what is the States and you should render onto God the things that are Gods. christianity thus accepts the separation of Church and State. Sharia Law however and the Caliphate under which Islam wants Shariua Law are a Theocracy whether you like it or not. Isaw (talk) 23:49, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Bill Warner (Political Islam). You have edit warred and violated the "bright-line" three-revert rule, see Doug Weller's warning above. The only reason I'm warning you instead of blocking is that you may well not have been aware of the rules, or Doug Weller's warning, when you made your fourth revert. Please note, however, that edit warring is unacceptable. Bishonen | talk 22:50, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Isaw thje fourth revert was a mistake on my part. I am more concerned however with with being labeled as "anti muslim". do you regard me as "anti muslim"?Isaw (talk) 14:03, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. I am glad to see that you are discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Bill Warner (Political Islam)‎ are for discussion related to improving the article in specific ways based on reliable sources and the project policies and guidelines, not for general discussion about the topic or unrelated topics, or statements based on your thoughts or feelings. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. Doug Weller talk 14:52, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Reconquista#Reverberations. Does Warner deal with this? Doug Weller talk 15:08, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

To be hoinest I dont know Ill check. I would not have bothered but you prompt me to check Warner's sources. Ill get back on that Otherwise when it comes to Spain and Islam I would tend to go to 'The Myth of the Andalusian Paradise', by Dario Fernandez-Morera. https://www.amazon.com/Myth-Andalusian-Paradise-Christians-Medieval/dp/1610170954 A finalist for World Magazine’s Book of the Year!Isaw (talk) 16:05, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Isaw Okay lets see what Warner references.

1. The Spanish under the Hapsburg dynasty soon became the champions of Roman Catholicism in Europe and the Mediterranean against the encroaching threat of the Ottoman Caliphate.

The Ottoman–Habsburg wars were fought from the 16th through the 18th centuries between the Ottoman Empire. Ferdinand I attacked Hungary, a state severely weakened by civil conflict, in 1527. Incidentally this brings in one use of slavery in Islam. Ottoman janissaries adopted firearms in battles since the beginning of the 16th century, although Ottoman usage of the handheld firearms spread much slower than in the Western Christian armies. Warner lists from 1527- Vienna, Prevesa,siege of Eger, The Ottoman attack at KLosek in 1530 is left out . But as there were only 700 Kinights on teh European side versus a huge Islamic army thsat isnt surprising . It leaves out the siege of Osijek 1537 but I would have to say until sulimans final battle in Szigetvar in 1566 Warners list fairly much covers the Suliman the Magnificant period of Ottoman–Habsburg wars. To go trhough a l;ist of maybe several dozen battles which are criss crossed with coincident campaigns in Afghanistan and other places is a bit of a task bity Im sure Warner is happy to include any battles he may have missed. dont forget thses are battles by Islam in Europe mainly so it doesnt really matter who started them . warners contention is Islam invaded and stayed for centuries. but feel free to critique the database he used It is here http://cspipublishing.com/statistical/charts.html#Battles Isaw (talk) 16:34, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't think there's any point in continuing this. The book you mention is praised by, for instance FrontPage Magazine (described as Islamophobic), Chronicles, run by the Rockford Institute, Daniel Pipes, and The New English Review. They all share Warner's views. Doug Weller talk 17:01, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

I dont think you are getting it! Deal withthe contents of the book! Not with who praises it or who contradicts it! As I have done aboive with the contents of the list of Battles. Obviously someone who didnt agree with Warners view wouldn't share it and vice versa! If you are going to claim you can't accept anyone who shares any views with Warner then you are biased from the outset! It is nonsense to claim you can only deal with published sources that disagree with Warner's views. that is tantamount to saying you only accept what agrees with your views which is basically the definition of bigotry the very thing you cliam you are setting out to to counter.Isaw (talk) 19:36, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Guess what Darío Fernández-Morera went to Harvard wher he got a PhD He has served in the United States National Council for the Humanities. But you cant accept his credentials because people who praise some of the things he publishes also praise some of the thgings Warner publishes? http://www.spanish-portuguese.northwestern.edu/people/faculty/teaching-research-faculty/fernandez-morera-dario.html

I also don't accept anything Creationists say. They twist the facts to fit their worldview. I also won't read material by antisemites for the same reason. And I don't trust anything written by anyone who supports Warner's junk science or anyone that assumes a racial or religious group as monolithic or bad in some way and then twists the facts to fit that view. So am I biased against people who twist the facts to fit their views? You're damn right I am. Doug Weller talk 20:05, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Cultching at straws now eh! I am not aware and have never seen anything by Warner supporting creationism. Nor am I awareDarío Fernández-Morera a creationist! But even if they were that won't change the statistical work Warner does or the historical research of Darío Fernández-Morera. you then plainly admit you won't even read work which has nothing to do with creationism on the basis that creationists praise it! that is called Argument ad Hitleruium. Based on that you don't like dogs or vegitarians or Wagner because Hitler liked dogs or was vegitarian. You then contradict yourself and claim peo-ple twist the facts when you admit you are wilfully ignorant of the facts they supposed twisting since you refuse to red the material. It is like the cardinals who told Galileo they they did not need to look throught the telescope because they already know better then the evidence the telescope might present! By admitting youare biased against people who twist the facts to fit their views you are already admitting that because their views do not match with your views they must be wrong already without having to look at any evidence! You have decided in advance what the "facts" are and those "facts" are what you care to believe and you certainly wont let any actual evidence come in the way of that bigotry will you? You will just keep on calling it "junk science" and hate speech based on youyr uninformed OPINION and based on no actual reference to the actual work itself! It is certainly no wonder you can't continue and compare any evidence published by Warner about battles in hoistory with the list you offered. Because if you did ( as I did in the case of Habsburg Dynasty in spain) you might find Warners list marches the hiostorical record!Isaw (talk) 20:21, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Also please dont try to move the gaolposts. we are not discussing Creationism ( actually come to think of it there isnt anything wrong with Creationism so I assume you mean a Biblical fundamentalist creationism of fringe fundamentalist "christins") her nor are we discussing anti Jewish elements. And we are certainly not discussing race! So trying to bring in other issues isnt going to solve your inability to actaully mention what "facts" you conjuter from Warners work rather then someone calling him a name and you then following that line based on you opinion rather than any "fact" from his data.Isaw (talk) 20:26, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

You accuse me of that here. By the way, you never denied being anti-Muslim. Doug Weller talk 19:09, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

And up to now you never denied you believe I am a muslim hater. But i am happy to say you didnt directly say it to me and I mistakenly thought the phrase "another muslim hater" referred to me as well as the source I quoted. When we clear up that you did call me anti muslim ( at least I believe you did and Ill check and if you didnt' ill admit that) and I deny being anti muslim.

Doug Weller You called me "anti-Muslim" in a discussion where i clearly pointed out the difference between opposing Islam as a political philosophy ( one might add internally in the treatment of Women and Homosexuals) externally as in how it deals with non muslims and Islam a religion. You didnt call me "anti Islam" you called me "anti Muslim" which given the context suggest i have a personal problem about all muslims. If most muslims dont actually follow the rules of Islam then I do not have a problem wiuth that. If a Muslim is oin favour of female genital mutilation or executiong homosexuals because Islam tells him that then I would oppose this muslim. I have muslim friends that I play sports with ( on the same team not on opposing teams although that doesnt mean you hate muslims either)

So I dont hate muslims and I am not anti Muslim. I oppose any Islamic rules that impose on non Muslims and any that are attacking teh rights of muslims as well. Ther is a difference between you and me. You refuse to even learn about people you oppose and take your information from hearsay. You dont go and ask what actual evidence SPLC have and you just take their word Bill Warner hates Muslims. I actually ask for the evidence and go and look at the primary source myself and see if it justifies the claim. You accuse you accuse you accuse. whehn asked forevidence you pander to the silly notion that if i remain silent and don't deny your accusations then that somehow proves I am anti Muslim! It is quite clear your position is not based on any evidence about me or about Bill Warner but on you personal OPINION. People have tried to impose a gagging order on Warner or anyone who might depict anything positive about Warner. They ahve complained to venues to prevent Warner speaking that them. Free speech is under attack. Even if i disagree with Warner I support his right to express what he believes. So let me apply YOUR standards to you. Do you believe I am a muslim hater ? Yes or no? a simple no will clear that up and Im happy to accept you saying "no". So let us see if you have the courage to say "I believe Isaw is not a muslim hater"? Because if you refuse to say that and try to claim you havent called me it it should be very very simple for you to clear it up by admitting you do not believe I am a muslims hater. So please tell me and I'm sure we can only progress the discussion based on your honest answer.Isaw (talk) 02:42, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Doug Weller If I say I hate child marriage ,female genital mutilation, slavery, wife beating and poligamy does that mean I hate muslims? Can you call me anti muslim if I say that ? If I say I oppose scriptures of Islam or Islamic clerics that support that am I anti muslim or anti Islam? Who gets to define anti muslim? It isd haste speech to hsay you hate Female genital mutilation and you hate where Islam supports it? Isaw (talk) 18:51, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

You still haven't withdrawn what is basically a lie. I didn't call you a Muslim hater. Please retract it at the article talk page. And agree to stop discussing me there. Doug Weller talk 19:59, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't like being called a liar. I did not lie! I thought you had called me a muslim hater partly because you referred to someone I referenced as "another hater". Would you mind retracting the calling me a liar please? Isaw (talk) 23:18, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

I believe you believe I am a muslim hater. That is not a lie. It is what I currently believe. It may change. It would be very easy to convince me you do not believe i am a muslim hater. all you need do is say you do not believe i am a muslim hater. I look forward to you sauying than and i will be happy to say you do not believe i am a muslim hater. As for you actually stating it. I cant find wher you did and several people have been messaging me using the word "hater" on this subject of Warner. But Im happy to accept any mistake by me if you didnt post those words. I still however believe although you didn't post them that you think I am a muslim hater. Do you? You refusal to answer that will convince me all the more that you believe I am a muslim hater. Your honest reply that you don't believe I am a muslim hater will be accepted immediately by me so it is very easy for you to clear up this issue of my belief and prove me wrong.Isaw (talk) 17:42, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't know if you are confused or what. You said I called you a Muslim hater. That's not true, and on haven't retracted it yet on the article talk page. You can easily search for the phrase "Muslim hater" using Ctrl F. Doug Weller talk 17:47, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Believe it or not I also have been busy elsewhere. when I logged on to wikipedia this is the first place I came. whenm I responmded above the secons place I went was the talk page where i discovered the phrase "another hater" referring to a source I posted.IO didnt usdew the CTRL F but thank you for telling me about it. i believe I took "another hater" to mean that you looked upon that source and myself as "muslim haters" But I have stated here and there that you did not directly say I was a muslim hater. I still howevre believe you think I am a muslim hater because you have yet to deny that belief. Do you denmy that belief? Or do you apply a double standard by suggesting I did not deny I was a muslim hater. And to clear that up I have stated I am not anti muslim or a muslim hater. do you accept that? Do you accept I am not or do you believe I am? Please clarify and I am happy to accept what you say in good faith. No evidence other than your word is necessary. Isaw (talk) 18:30, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

When I wrote that your statement was "basically a lie" I was very annoyed that you hadn't retracted it at the article talk page. All that was needed was a simple statement saying "I was mistaken and apologise" without the justification. And without the continued suggestion that I really think you are a Muslim hater. Upon reflection my comment was too strong and I should have simply said "You still haven't withdrawn your untrue (or maybe I should have said false) claim, and I apologise for being too strong. I don't know if you're a Muslim hater, but your comments puzzle me. You say you oppose "child marriage ,female genital mutilation, slavery, wife beating and poligamy", as do I (I also oppose circumcision without informed consent, something that is practiced in the US by both Christians and Jews). What puzzles me is that these are all things that Christians do so associating them solely with Muslims seems odd. You don't even seem aware that in 2007 the Al-Azhar Supreme Council of Islamic Research in Cairo ruled that FGM had "no basis in core Islamic law or any of its partial provisions"^[1][a] but write as though it's generally supported by Muslims. Are you aware that the laws in the United States concerning child marriage are very poor? 25 states have no lower age limit for marriage and the rest generally set it at 14 or 15. In the US there are also Christian groups which practice polygamy. This is really just for information as you seem unaware of it. I'm not going to get into a discussion with you about what you think or don't think. And you need to keep such discussions off the Bill Warner talk page, which is there solely for discussing the article, not Bill Warner himself or political Islam or editors. Doug Weller talk 19:20, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

1. An Egyptian committee sdfoes not speak for the entire muslims world nor does it set the law in egypt. 2. wher is your EVIDENCE that 25 US States have "no lower age limit for marriage" OR that the rest which are another 27 states generally set it at 14 or 15.? You are making this up! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_marriage_in_the_United_States says " 32 have a minimum age (ranging from 14 to 17)." SO you claim of 25 having no legal age is not true! Two states completely ban child marriage. as of October 2018:

18 states have no minimum age of marriage ***in some cases.*** 2 states have a minimum age of 14. 5 states have a minimum age of 15. 19 states have a minimum age of 16. 6 states have a minimum age of 17. Where is this happening in the Islamic world? what sharia law changes have banned child marriage?

You say "I was very annoyed". I explained how I cam to this page before the article page and both her and there accepted you did not use the words "muslim hater " directly about me. I can understand you being annoyed but it does not justify calling me a liar. you have said sorry for that and I 100% accept that and I assume you accept that I have stated both here anbd there that saying you called me a "muslim hater" was factually incorrect but I also explained why I believed it because you did you the words "another hater". I hope we can progress in a civil way from here.

More on Female Genital Mutilation https://islamqa.info/en/45528 is a fatwa on "Female circimsision" says "Islam may enjoin or forbid something and the people – or most of them – may not be able to see the wisdom behind this command or prohibition. In that case we are obliged to obey the command or heed the prohibition and to have certain faith that the laws of Allaah are all good, even if we cannot see the wisdom behind them...Circumcision is one of the Sunnahs of the fitrah, as is indicated by the words of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him): "The fitrah is five things – or five things are part of the fitrah – circumcision, shaving the pubes, plucking the armpit hairs, cutting the nails, and trimming the moustache." narrated by al-Bukhaari (5889) and Muslim (257).See also https://islamqa.info/en/9412 Isaw (talk) 02:03, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

As for your other points. Where do christians and Jews practice FEMALE genital mutilation? I accept Jews have MALE circimsion but I would hardly call it "Mutilation". Christians DO NOT have circimsision as part of their religion. this is central to Warner's point about POLITICAL Islam. christians or Jews do not apply their rules OUTSIDE their religion whereas most of the Islamic scriptures according to Warner are about non Muslims.

"these are all things that Christians do so associating them solely with Muslims seems odd." FGM al;ready dealt with. What scripture or christian rule supports polygamy , wife beating,child marriage or slavery? You mention a group in the US which has polygamy. If so it is not regarded as a Christian group. You cant just poick on fringe fundamentalist groups . Mainstream Christianity is Latin Rite, Orthodox and the POrotestant Groups of Anglican Communion, Lutheran and Methodist. Those five are about 90% of all the people calling themselves Chriatian. they profess a core set of beliefs. Jehovas witnesses and Latter Day Saints (Mormons) and ther are millions of them are not regarded as Christian. Christianity never had polygamy before Joheph snmith anyway. To suggst any of thiese opractices are christian is ludicrous! Slavery might be the one exception. christianity would have acceopted slavery but it didnt promote it. Slavery was a much larger scale in Islam and over a much longer time. In the Western World the Atlantic slavetrade lasted about 200 years and Christians brought about the end of it.Isaw (talk) 01:19, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

as for " solely for discussing the article, not Bill Warner himself or political Islam or editors." dont blame me for that. I didnt call people names or call sources names. I only responded to others doing so. By the way you say I "confuse you" but you still havent said you dont think I am a hater? Let me tell you. I do not hate muslims. I have muslim friends. I do have problems with elements of Islam particularly those that would be against human rights or where Islam imposes on others. If you want to call that anti Islam you can but i dont oppose muslims practicing any belief they want so long as it does not infringe on the rights of people or abuse people. You may not be aware of cases in the UK. I refer to child abuse and free speech problems. I can discuss them if you wish.Isaw (talk) 01:19, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

could I also add that while others brought up Bill Warner himself and expressed opinions on him on "Political Islam" I would have thought is open to discussion as the Page is titled Bill warner ( Political Islam) and the firsdt sentence mentions Politicasl Islam and links Bill Warner to it.Isaw (talk) 01:24, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

You need to go change Polygamy in Christianity (you don't seem to know anything about polygamy and Christianity if you don't know it's more or less as old as Christianity) and Female genital mutilation then if you are correct. And of course change our articles on Christian and Christianity and various templates, etc which call the Latter Day Saints Christians. If you have never urged any action of any kind against Muslims then I will accept that you don't hate them - of course I never said that you did. The article talk page though is still for discussion of the article, see WP:NOTFORUM. Doug Weller talk 15:04, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

No I dont need to change it becauase that Article does not support the idea that Polagamy was a thing for christians to do. It provides sources from anti Nicaean fathers which show it was either frowned upon or equated with fornication. It mentions two examples by JEWISH sources ( dont forget Jewish law allowed it) . It mentions a roman Emperor Diocletian who brought in polagamy but that Emporor persecuted Christians! Eusabius is not presented as supporting polagamy as widespread and the slorce is lost anyway. Basil calls it "fornication" and recommends excommunication for bigamy! Augistine supports oner man one woman in Marriage. Socrates of Constantinople refers to an emporor doing it as bigamy! Justin Martyr, Irenaeus and Tertullian all spoke against polygamy, condemning it. that are all the early sources used in that wikipedia entry! the article says the same of the Middle ages and Reformation. It isd onl;y in 1890 when you come to Mormonism anything supporting Polygamy arises in the Wikipedia entry. Not alone do you not know about the opposition to polygamy in christianity you didnt even read the source to which you referred as it oipposes yur claim! and it seems the same applied to Bill Warner. Ill bet you havent read any of his work have you? Isaw (talk) 20:47, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

the Wikipedia entry on Christianity does not deal with Latter day Saints or Mormons as mainstream but mentions them as developing in the 1800s and says " While the churches originating in the Second Great Awakening have some superficial similarities, their doctrine and practices vary significantly." And thank you I will add " In terms of their beliefs and the beliefs of the core creeds of christianity It is also true to say these groups are dissimilar since if they believed the same as traditional christians from before the 1800s they would not exist in the first place and would be part of the traditional core. There are tens of thousands of these groups representing 1% of people calling themselves Christian and none of them would be accepted by the Three core Catholic/Orthodox/Protestant denominations" Isaw (talk) 20:47, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Article talkpages are for discussing improvements to the article, nothing else, and definitely not for going on and on about what another user believes. It's not your business what Doug Weller believes, only what he says; so stop nagging him about his beliefs on this, your own, page, too. Comment on content, not on the person, especially not on their thought processes. Please read WP:TALK and also WP:BLUDGEON, which is an essay explaining the problem with dominating the conversation on talkpages and ignoring what other people say.

Bishonen I beg to differ. It makes no difference what someone else believes UNLESS what they believe motivates them to particular acts against another person. You are entitled to any opinion you want but if that opinion is that I am anti Islam or an Islam hater and motivated you to biased opinions about me and to prevent me or others you think are Islam haters or anti Islam editing any article related to this then what you believe DOES INTERFERE with the content of the article. Particularly when the parts you want in the article relate to the person being anti Islam or an muslim hater and the parts you want edited out relate to anything that show that person in a positive light and not as a muslim hater.Isaw (talk) 00:53, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Bishonen as for your point about " Comment on content, not on the person, especially not on their thought processes. " the whole reason I got top mentioning this wass because you and others started describing myself and/or Warner and/or references to Warner as anti Islam and anti muslim and muslim haters. It was not I started commenting on the "muslim hater" thought process. It was I who commented on it AFTER you and others embarked down that route! So please dont try to criticise me for pointing out something you or others did! Isaw (talk) 00:58, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Bishonen you say "It's not your business what Doug Weller believes, only what he says; so stop nagging him about his beliefs on this, your own, page, too. Comment on content, not on the person, especially not on their thought processes." So how do you apply this criterion to doug Weller who dismisses Warner and references to warner not on the CONTENT of what Oi references but because OTHER SOURCES not even mentioned by me accoirding top Doug Weller " all share Warner's views"? How is that commenting on the content of what I sourced? Isnt it posting on the thought processes of others rather than content. and need UI remind you again that this arose because Doug Weller NAGGED ME several times saying I had not denied being anti Islam. I dont see you repremanding Doug Weller for nagging me. Which again demonstrates double standards on your part. The reason I brought up the point about Doug Weller calling me liar was related to the very same standard he proposed. That if someone makes a false attribution they should remove it. I did not realise he had not used the words "muslim hater" and actuaslly had used I think "anti Islam" or "anti muslim2 ( i would have to check) describing me because he had called someone else "another muslim hater" I thought if "another" was that person then the other( in another) person he referred to was me( and/or Warner and myself) . Im happy to say it was not me when he says he does not believe I am. But he says I was lying and I was not lying. I thought that is what he wrote when he described someone I produced as a reference as another muslim hater. Isaw (talk) 01:18, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Also, please don't waste your own or other editors' time with flippant nonsense like Warner's books being in those national libraries that by law carry everything that's published as, I suppose, a point about the value of Warner's books as sources (otherwise why bring it up at all?). And you objected to Doug Weller's question why it matters that they're in the LoC in these terms: "Doug Weller asks why the Library of Congress is important? I would have thought the LoC is at least equal to if not better than any University Library. Apparently Doug disagrees with this?" It shows a lot of good faith on Doug Weller's part that he answered that wild strawman argument at all, and indeed also explained seriously what was wrong with it. You're creating too much work for others; I could imagine Doug Weller has better things to do on Wikipedia than "discussing" those types of remarks and bad-faith questions from you. Please try to raise your game and discuss sensibly. Timewasting and exhausting other people's energy for editing Wikipedia is a serious concern here where everybody is a volunteer. Bishonen | talk 12:36, 17 March 2018 (UTC).

Bishonen said " I could imagine Doug Weller has better things to do on Wikipedia than "discussing" those types of remarks and bad-faith questions from you. Please try to raise your game and discuss sensibly. Timewasting and exhausting other people's energy for editing Wikipedia is a serious concern here where everybody is a volunteer." So you consider iot a waste of time to ask someone to withdraw their remark calling me a lisr but not a waste of time when they demand i withdraw a remark about them calling me a "muslim hater" when they actualkly referred to someone I mentioned to them as "another hater" and I thought the "another" meant I was one too? And when I asked whether they thought I was one too they refused to reply and persisted in their claim that I was a liar. You thikk being called a liar is acceptable? Isaw (talk) 01:32, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Warners books are listed in three catogeries on Amazon as in their bestsellers list of the top 100 books. the point was it was claimed they were NOT in a university library. 1 How do you know no university library does NOT have them? 2 I disproved that on the basis that ther are University Libraries that have them all be it on the basis that those Libraries are also copyright libraries. But you cant claim they are not in all non copyright university libraries. Well you can but wher is the proof to support that?Isaw (talk) 00:53, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi, again. Please don't post in the middle of my post, as that unmoors one part of my comment from my signature, which is confusing. Feel free to for instance number the parts of my post and refer to those numbers when you reply.

Do you have a problem with reading? You don't seem to be answering anything I said, but going off at tangents of random associations to it, which makes it difficult to talk with you. A case in point is where I was talking about the Library of Congress, and saying Doug Weller has better things to do than answer bad-faith questions such as "I would have thought the LoC is at least equal to if not better than any University Library. Apparently Doug disagrees with this?". And you reply "So you consider iot a waste of time to ask someone to withdraw their remark calling me a lisr, bla bla bla". I've bolded the word so, because that word really did it for me, with its pretense that there was some connection between what I'd said, and what you seem to think I said. I feel I might as well have been talking about the price of tea in China. (By the way, do you ever follow the links in messages to you, because I haven't seen any sign that you do? The blue words in Wikipeda discussions are links, which the other person has looked out for you in the hope that they'll be helpful.) If you'll start over, and if it looks like you're making an honest effort to address what I actually said rather than something else you're preoccupied with, I'll reply one more time. If you don't, I won't. I'll instead refer you to Pestering on Meta, and explain that I would love to help but I'm rather busy. I'm a volunteer too. PS, please stop talking about people calling you a muslim hater, because nobody ever did. And try to be more concise. Bishonen | talk 17:30, 18 March 2018 (UTC).

sorry about posting in the middle as I am a novice at all this.

I already responded on the technicality of the claim which was that no University Library had Warners Books. I originally pointed to a library that had them. Doug Weller said that library has every book and it isnt a university library. So I showed him a university library which has the book, even if for the same reason as the LoC it technically disproves the claim. But on the broader issue of no university department having Warners book the "burden of proof" isnt mine. It is for the claimant to show no university has that book.

Bishonen as for "pretense that there was some connection between what I'd said, and what you seem to think I said" what you said was on the subject of the LoC not being a source on the basis that it was a legal deposit library. As i pointed out it is unfair to shift the burden of proof to others to go through every university library to see if Warners books are or are not there. Now you want to know how is this conencted to calling me a liar? In the reference you suppliedhttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bill_Warner_(Political_Islam)&diff=830516282&oldid=830485573 " note where I say "Again I return to the main issue here. Are Warner's books acceptable as a source? If not why not?" Again and again we come back to this. Warner is described as a muslim hater and I believe because I attempted to show Warner's work in a positive or objective light any source which does so is regarded as a "hater" or "liar" . I accept the LoC isnt a source which proves academic credability. as to not being in any university that is for you to show. But it is quite clear that people here have an axe to grind against Warner and anything which seems like support for Warners research is dismissed not based on sources but on OPINION about Warner and name calling. In fact the SPLC is referred to but opn WHAT EVIDENCE is the SPLC listing of Warner based? The "not in any university " issue is a fallacious claim and I have shown why but it seems people want to make it into an issue about ME! That there is something wrong about ME and that personal attack on me is necessary! I didnt call anyone here a liar or a hater did I? And whn I deal with an issue such as the LoC issue which is related to the "not in a university library" claim by showing how that claim is fallacious I get personally attacked for bringing other additional moot points to the issue and the actual fallacy about "not in any university library" is ignored and the issue turned into a personal criticism of ME who 1. did not call anyoine a liar but was called a liar and 2. did not call anyoine a hater but is depicted as an anti muslim hater and 3 when I ask if the belief by the other people personally attacking me that they believe I am an anti muslim hater is true that is not answered!

That is how the moot point about the LoC and the broader issue of "not in a university library" is related to me being called a liar. No need to look up tea prices. It is related in the sense that both arguments have a motif of personal ad hominem attack on ME rather than the issue of warners work and sources on warners work. In short you are latching on to a moot point about the LoC when the broader issue related to the LoC point ( i.e. is warner a credible source) resulted in personal attacks on me (just for attampting to show he has some credability) Isaw (talk) 00:35, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

as for "please stop talking about people calling you a muslim hater, because nobody ever did." I was called anti- Islam and when I referred to a source that source was called "another hater" ( as in anothert hater of muslims) I asked for clarification whether "another hater" meant the person saying it believed I was a hater. I have yet to recieve any clarification on that. So they didnt call me a hater directly but when I referred them to someone else they called that someone else "another hater" Im quite happy to accept it if they say they dont believe I am but you or they never said so. So if they meanst I am not "another hater" let them say so. Also please tell me honestly of you believe I am a muslim hater. Do you? If you say you dont I accept what you say. But I suspect you will not answer. I accept you did not call me it and i also acceopt you did not answer when I asked you if you believe itIsaw (talk) 00:35, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

I have had delays in editing. I discussed this "hater" topic with Doug on my talk page. I have not continued talking about that . I have only responded to OTHERS like you bringing it up. BEFORE you brought it up again, I already admitted the phrase "muslim hater" was not used by him and that I mistakenly took the phrase "another hater" used by him in a reply to me meant I was one too. We have both accepted our errors and Doug has had the decency to accept he should not have cast aspersions on me personally. I respect that. If you want to continue with personal issues about me instead of the content of the article that is your decision not mine.I only reacted to what I perceived as personal commentsIsaw (talk) 01:52, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

In re reading your point i need to addrtess what you raised ie me using "So" and lilnking LoC with personal attacks. The point I was making was that you are criticising me for what you see as a personal fault of mine in wasting editors time but you say nothing at all about a personal attack on me! Even if the Library of Congress is unrelated to being called a liar the point was you find great fault in me personally raising a moot point about the Library of Congress and make an issue over "good faith" but attribute no fault at all to anyone calling me a liar ( which is not showing good faith). I was suggesting your priorities on "good faith" are not in balance. The broader issue remains however . that whatever tiny mistake by me or oversight or moot point is emphasised and serious issues of personal attack are not! Which is much of what I find problematic with the Warner Article. Emphasis is made on making him out as a hater or as abnti muslims ( as happened to me) and emphasis on the actual arguments he makes about Islamic scriptures is absent. I think we need look at Warners work and his claims and see if they stand up and are valid and reliable.Isaw (talk) 10:02, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

No, it is not the role of Wikipedia to examine or validate Warner's claims. See no original research. We are an encyclopedia that reflects what reliable sources as defined by our guidelines and policies say about the subject of an article. I've made it clear on Warner's article that he is anti-Islam and indeed hasn't based his work (according to him, note) on what Muslims say today. Doug Weller talk 15:07, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Come to think of it "what muslims say today" as opposed to what Islam always said is called "bida" in Islam and is regarded as a serious sin of "innovating" on traditional beliefs unless it agrees 100% with tradtional accepted scripture. that is why for example slavery is not mentioned as being against Islam because it it clearly practiced in scripture. But as new slaves are captured in war slavery in the modern context only happens when a war is going on as is happening in syria and Iraq and Africa today wher Islamic slavery continuesIsaw (talk) 21:22, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Muslims don't base their claims on what muslims say today! Unless it agrees with ancient scriptures. So Warner bases his work on what the scriptures actually say. But their are plenty of exampl;es of Muslims scholars supporting any point Warner makes about Islamic Scriptures. Also , by saying he does not base his claim on something you are committing two fallacies "arguing from ignroance" and inviting "proving a negative". Rather than says what Warner doesn't claim you need to address what he does claim. And you need to show what warner does claim is not based on Islamic scriptures as he claims. You havent done that. warner doesnt just cherry piockl out verses that support a claim he looks at the totalisty of scripture and compared the proportion of verses that support a claim and the proportion of verses that dont support it ot the proportion of vewrses in other religions on similar topics.Isaw (talk) 20:18, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Nor did I ask you to redo Warners work or do work wiich produces directly contradicting conclusions so the "No Original REsearch" argument doesnot apply! What I asked is you state on what sources the research is based. Or show sources whioch did similar statistical analysis of Islamic texts and came to a different conclusion. I didnt ask you to go through the koran and Bible and point out the proportion of verses that oppose women for example but if you say Warner says Islam is anti- woman then you need to show what actual claim Warner makes about proportion of verses which are anti Woman or anti Jew or whatever and what he says about Biblical or other religions on the same issue. I dont think it is made clear at all that Warner opposes Islam only in so far as it imposes its rules on others oir attacks individual rights. I think the tone supports the idea that Warner hates muslims and I believe you think that Warner hates muslims too and you want the article to convey that. So I suggest we put in quotes from Warner saying he does not oppose indivdula muslims or the right oif muslims to follow their religion and have such beliefs. Then it would be clear Warner does not oppose Muslims today who are not following those scriptures of Islam which are against non Muslims and/or against civil rightsIsaw (talk) 20:18, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

--Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:13, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Dr. Fleischman This information is very helpful and says what I have been suggesting all along! Thank youIsaw (talk) 17:57, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps I should mention that I'm a member of the Arbitration Committee that wrote the sanctions, just in case you might think I don't know about them. Doug Weller talk 19:07, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

that must be difficult for you in cases like this wher a conflict of interest arises and you are involved in deciding on your own case. I assume WP has procedures so you can excuse yoursewlf should such a conflict of interest arise? Isaw (talk) 00:17, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

On the other hand you have demonstrated a particular anti right bias and I was going to contact you to look at the same arguments happening n the Lauren southern article. If you can do the same there that you havce donme her and restore some balance and neutrality to the article content that would be an achievment as on that article there seems to be trenchworks dug already. Isaw (talk) 00:17, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Please post at the bottom of discussions. If you absolutely must respond directly to a specific post, indicate this through indentation, and don't "cut in line" ahead of other responses. I can see that other people have explained this to you already, so review Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines carefully. Think of it this way, would a reader looking at that talk page for the first time be able to make heads or tails of it? Would they be able to keep track of who is saying what? If not, you've made it too confusing. If you want people to respond to you, make your comments short and readable, and stop repeating the same thing in multiple talk page sections. Grayfell (talk) 23:10, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Grayfell. You are littering Talk:Lauren Southern with comments, basically taking over the page. It's getting a bit disruptive. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:26, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree with him too. Im learning and Im sorry if that has caused difficulty. I responded to pointw where they were made. I hope that has been corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isaw (talk • contribs) 17:13, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll also add that I'm done responding to your questions and comments. Some things seem not to be getting through. If you're not going to pursue dispute resolution then I suggest you read the oft-cited WP:STICK. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:44, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello, I'm LWG. I noticed that you made one or more changes to an article, Christianity, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. I saw your addition to the Restorationism section. It looks like you were trying to clarify the relationships between the various groups in terms of which ones recognize each other as fellow Christians, but a lot of the information you put there isn't accurate. For example, the 5 groups you listed do not make up 95% of those calling themselves Christian according to the source you cited [link]. In any event, that information would probably be better put in one of the denomination-specific articles. If you have any questions or think I made a mistake, don't hesitate to let me know on my talk page. Cheers! -- LWG ^talk 19:50, 18 September 2018 (UTC) -- LWG ^talk 19:50, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Baptism to Christianity (your addition has since been removed). While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. If you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:15, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

I attributed the original article but the person who removed it cited not being able to use Wikipedia as a reference as part of the reason and delketed the attribution.Isaw (talk) 21:40, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Isaw. You have new messages at LWG's talk page.
Message added 16:32, 21 September 2018 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

-- LWG ^talk 16:32, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello Isaw, Quite a few years ago you tried to introduce some balance and information to the article on Bill Warner (writer). I am trying to do the same but with limited success. The problem seems to be some senior admins are blocking neutral or non-critical content. Could you have a look at the page’s recent history and give me some advice, ideas or support on how to proceed? JeddBham64 (talk) 07:19, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

you might look at my attempts to address similar at the entry on "Cultural Marxism" Isaw (talk) 16:53, 22 August 2024 (UTC)