User talk:RavShimon

Welcome!

Hello, RavShimon, 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
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 14:25, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello How do you know that Sam Moran was born is Sydney? do you know him? Welcome to Wikkipida! it's a lot of fun! --Jena I LOVE ANTHONY FIELD! (talk) 03:32, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

February 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did to Sam Moran, is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Bidgee (talk) 03:32, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: Sam Moran

I've left a reply on my talk page. Bidgee (talk) 03:49, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for abusing multiple accounts. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below. Kralizec! (talk) 21:04, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

---

Request reason:

OK, I understand the need to protect Wikipedia from abuse and I bear no ill feeling toward the process. However, I am not an alter ego of any other user--banned or otherwise--and am not sure on what basis I have been determined to be so. Furthermore, I see nothing particularly wrong with any of my edits; at worst I may be guilty of bad judgement (albeit always with good intent). How can I get this resolved?

Decline reason:

Krazilec has left compelling evidence that this account is being operated by the same person as had disrupted the Shia Islam article previously. Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:15, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Blocking administrator has been contacted for clarification. Please await his response before we act on this. Thank you. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 23:01, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for that consideration. RavShimon (talk) 23:04, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Socks of Klaksonn

In August 2007, Klaksonn (talk · contribs · block log) was blocked indefinitely due to persistent disruptive editing where he consistently pushed a pro-Shia POV. Since then, he has been utilizing sock puppets from both anonymous IPs as well as newly registered accounts to continue pushing his own agenda. (See suspected socks 1, sock 2, sock 3, checkuser, and sockpuppet investigation for more details on those.)

After hitting the article sporadically during the beginning of the month, in late February socks of Klaksonn came back with a vengeance and began inserting their own POV into the Shia Islam article, largely via mass deletes of {{fact}} tags, changes to the demographics section, and the removal of references that do not support his cause. Examples of this include:

• February 21 by 94.187.80.63 (talk · contribs · block log)
• February 22 three times by 77.42.179.9 (talk · contribs · block log)
• February 23 by Alfa123! (talk · contribs · block log)
• February 24 by 94.187.71.46 (talk · contribs · block log)

At this time I semi-protected the article for three days. However as soon as the protection ended, socks of Klaksonn returned to revert the article back to their own preferred version:

• February 27 by Asdfghjklrtyu (talk · contribs · block log)
• March 3 by Sdfghjkrtyu12 (talk · contribs · block log)
• March 4 by Dhskfiehsy (talk · contribs · block log)

At this point, rather than continue to play whack-a-mole with this long-term disruptive editor, I then semi-protected the article for six weeks. The very next edit to the article was RavShimon (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log), who made essentially the same revert to the article as the previous dozen Klaksonn sock reverts.

RavShimon reverting the Shia Islam article to the same Klaksonn-preferred version passes the WP:DUCK test in my eyes, and I blocked accordingly. --Kralizec! (talk) 01:45, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

{{unblock|Well, I can't say about that, as I don't know the history behind it all. All I can guess is that it was an unfortunate co-incidence of timing. I have reviewed the edit in question and I see that it was made immediately after a number of other back-and-forth edits; this was my attempt to revert to a pre-war state. The alteration of certain demographic information was due to my belief that its previous alteration had been part of that war. The other purpose of my edit was the removal of honourifics and change of "the Prophet" to "Muhammad." I only just noticed the deletion of the tags you mentioned and I fully admit it was irresponsible of me not to see that they were being removed as well. I shall in future try to be much more careful about matters like that. I can definitely see, though, how all this would appear highly suspicious, and I cannot say I'd feel any differently in your place. I am extraordinarily anti-POV, myself, and I do so hate seeing people misuse the WP system; I believe a review of my edit history will not only easily confirm that, but will also demonstrate that I do not have a single-agenda posting pattern, so I'll say no more in my own defence in that regard. Just please tell me at this point: if that is not sufficient for you, what can I say or do to resolve this matter or to convince you that this charge is unfounded?}}

Thank you for that.

I have long said that the great strength of Wikipedia--that anyone can jump on and edit it--is its own weakness: while the breadth and scope of articles is unparalleled, anyone can jump on and write anything, so one never really knows whether it's fully trustworthy. Unless you're willing to believe that the pope really was seen clubbing in Miami Beach, for example, it has to be taken with a grain of salt (sometimes with a whole salt mine). I think every good-faith contribution sets that forward one notch, and every contribution made in bad faith sets it back two or three.

I appreciate your consideration in this matter, and I would like to re-iterate my earlier contention that I bear no ill-will toward the system; if anything, I am glad that there are administrators so careful about protecting it. I'll be honest in that I didn't enjoy getting caught up in it, but I do understand that that will happen sometimes.

Anyway, feel free to keep your eye on me as long as you feel necessary; I've nothing to hide. RavShimon (talk) 19:49, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and good use of rhetoric in the sheep skin-wolf's teeth analogy. RavShimon (talk) 19:51, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

CheckUser recently confirmed 32 socks of Klaksonn, and you (obviously) were not one. You have my apologies for jumping to conclusions and blocking your account. I am sorry. Kralizec! (talk) 01:26, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Thirty-two! Wow... can this Klaksonn guy really be that desparate?

Anyway, it's past; let's just move on from here. Any advice you—or anyone else—can offer me on how to improve my contributions here would be most welcome.

RavShimon (talk) 01:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Great work!

Great work on articles pertaining to Islam! And I know you're not Klaksonn~, I'm familiar with his editing patterns. --♥pashtun ismailiyya 11:38, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I wanted to defend you and point out that I'm not stupid enough to breed an account for months to later waste it on something trivial. My IP was unfortunately blocked. Please forgive. Uinzo (talk) 21:24, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, a piece of advice, when an admin, especially white-trash like Kralizec!, blocks you with no evidence, don't suck up to him afterwards or you'll be stooping to an even lower level than that of Kralizec. Uinzo (talk) 21:29, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your support, but I don't think that was at all necessary. Krazilec! was acting in what he (she? sorry...) felt was the best interest of Wikipedia, which is why he took on the role of administrator in the first place. It seems to me (and forgive me if my conclusion is incorrect in this regard) that Krazilec! didn't bother to look at my edit history, but rather dropped the banhammer on the basis of one post, which I consider highly inappropriate (and I hope he/she/it/they/other learns to be more careful about it in future), but I do understand that it was meant well, and so I cannot really be too angry. I meant exactly what I said earlier, and I do not "suck up."

Throwing out pejoratives like "white-trash" is not only immature and inappropriate, but, quite frankly, counterproductive. I am an extraordinarily kind and loving man, but I have an extremely low tolerance for racism, sexism, &c., so if you wish to say that sort of thing about other people, kindly do so someplace other than my talk page.RavShimon (talk) 19:03, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

lol that's how he usually talks, don't give it too much attention. --♥pashtun ismailiyya 07:06, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Re:Reverting a whole lot of unsourced nonsense by Omar 180

Hello, Shimon, but this is our belief. It is not "rubbish" or "nonsense". You could ask any Muslim or imam. Watch yourself before making a mockery out of me. I have a reputation to protect for over 23 years. And, besides, I'll revert significant parts of what you whipped out, including the Arabic interwiki, which is much more accurate if you take the time to observe. Do not attempt to touch the upcoming changes. - Omar 180 (talk) 21:25, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Check again. They were all "sourced".

Talk:Iran

We're having some balance issues. We're discussing how much we should discuss the Arab influence on Iran, and the Persian influence on Islam. Why don't you come on down? --♥pashtun ismailiyya 07:18, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Ali

There has been some very heavy-handed POV pushing there, and I appreciate your reversion. This has been an ongoing issue reccently, and if you'd be willing to keep it on your Watchlist awhile I'd be deeply appreciative. Thanks again! Doc Tropics 19:38, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Rav, I added a note there under yours so folks will look in the right spot. User:Pashtun added some useful info on the talkpage and I've tried to work it into a sentence that will cover the topic neutrally. Doc Tropics 03:11, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again for your help and support. Your most recent post to the talkpage made a number of excellent points. Just as an FYI tho - you were right that reverting vandalism never counts toward 3RR, nor would reverting extreme POV in a BLP, but many admins might well issue a block for the same thing in less-sensitive articles. POV that isn't actually defamatory is often seen as a "content issue" rather than vandalism, and talkpage dialogue is usually seen as the best remedy. At any rate, we seem to be on the road to a useful compromise that will actually improve the article...that's what I call a "win-win" situation! Thanks again, and happy editing. Doc Tropics 00:56, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your help and support. plz have a look on my recent post at Talk:Ali#Sunni_view_edits.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider Rizvi (talk) 06:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks so much for the Barnstar; that represents some very high praise and I'm really flattered. I also appreciate the good work that you've been doing, your name is popping up all over the place. It's always a pleasure to work with bright, thoughtful people : ) Doc Tropics 03:12, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Recent revert on Ali

Yeah, what you deleted was oddly placed, and really doesn't have much place in the article as of now. It was a hadith is in both Shi'a and Sunni books that is often used to prove the special place of Muhammad's family. He brought them under a cloak, referred to them using the term Ahl al-Bayt, and then recited the verse of purification. We will eventually need to put it in there, when we mention that event under the Shi'a view. --♥pashtun ismailiyya 10:38, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanx for all your efforts. One more thing which I just found that reference # 26 "Fatima Bint Muhammad". USC. Retrieved 2008-12-19., this link seems to hold no relevant information(at least to the place/section where it is quoted). By the way I'm he (just sneak peaked your talk at Pashtun's about me). Accept my apologies if I offended you. --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider Rizvi (talk) 19:38, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Rav, (I hope it's ok to call you that) I noticed that this article was twice nominated for GA status, but failed both times. We seem to have several editors developing into a good working group, and I'm sure that with cooperative effort we could succesfully bring it up to GA quality. I hope you'll be interested in further participation. Thanks, Doc Tropics 21:56, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Ali: Clearing of dead/unrelevant references

Dear editor,

Few of us have concluded that this article needs severe cleanup and revamp. Intial steps of this have been started and as of now are underway one task.

• We'll take one task at time, have a review after its complition and move to another,
• One or two members will do the actual task while others can do periodic review and correction,
• Group of editors can take a task and devide it section wise between themselves
• During this process any major revamp or re-writing of article will be avoided.

You are invited for this activity.

Talk:Ali#Article_cleanup_and_revamp

--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider Rizvi (talk) 09:53, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I noticed that you removed the text from various locations; at start of this activity we decided that we will remove dead/ references and tag resultant unreferenced text as unreferenced tag(as done by me and Doc). I think we should follow that understanding, in next phase we can start with cleaning of article(for which probably we'll have a short discusion).

Thanx for your contributions.

--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider Rizvi (talk) 09:50, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

March 2009

Please do not add content without citing reliable sources, as you did to Sam Moran. The content has been removed. Before making potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Again I've found no reliable sources to prove that he was born in Sydney and since the Daily Advertiser is classed as reliable and has stated that he was born in Wagga it stays as is until it can be proven. Bidgee (talk) 11:32, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Bidgee, please remember that dropping templates on regular contributors can be a bit offensive; they make it easy for us to give info and links to newcomers, but Rav knows his way around and doesn't need that treatment.

Rav, I went looking for an RS to back you up, but the Wiggles' website confirms Waga Waga as his birthplace and would reasonably be considered reliable for that kind of information (unless it were contradicted by a more authoritative source). However, that page also provides some insight into possible confusion: apparently he moved to Sydney as a child, and that had long been reported as his home. I hope this helps a little, Doc Tropics 20:24, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Rav, thanks for filling me in on the details; this is certainly more interesting than I thought at first glance. While this isn't necessarily a critical matter, I feel a strong obligation to correct inaccuracies in the information we present here. One of the biggest issues facing WP is "credibility". One of the best ways for individual editors like us to make a difference is by insuring that every little tidbit of info is as accurate as possible.

In the U.S., most newspapers have a small section on page 2 or 3 called "Corrections, retractions, clarifications" or something similar. It's how they correct previously published errors info without writing a whole new article. Would it be possible for Sam Moran or his family to contact the paper and request that they print a correction? If possible, that seems like an easy way to solve the problem, since the correction could then be cited as overriding the previous (incorrect) entry. If not, there are a couple other possibilities, but that would be the easiest option to pursue for now. If you're interested, I'd be happy to help in any way I could; I owe you one  :) Doc Tropics 15:05, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello, RavShimon. You have new messages at Figureskatingfan's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Christine (talk) 20:57, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

God

You are easily confused. Kazuba (talk) 14:19, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

See also, Jesus

Have you read WP:SEE ALSO? It is generally not necessary to link to items that already have links in the main article text. The items I removed all have links in the main article text, in addition to my belief that they are too general and really aren't that helpful. If you want to discuss it further on Talk:Jesus, I'd welcome that. But I wanted to send you a personal note pointing out the guideline in case you didn't know. Thanks for your consideration.-Andrew c ^[talk] 22:54, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Award!

		The Islamic Barnstar
		For your wonderful work on articles related to Islam. --♥pashtun ismailiyya 09:27, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Messiah spelling

What's wrong with my Hebrew spelling of Messiah? See Talk:Jesus.

Also, note that generally you are required to provide an explanation to a revert, unless it is blatant vandalism; see WP:REVEXP. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 08:56, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Reason for reverting edits

You have been reverting pages without a discussion It is against the guidelines of wikipedia.Notedgrant (talk) 06:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Recent edits on Safiyya bint Huyayy

Recently few sections of article have been removed. These sections were based on Martin Lings' work, reason cited was that Lings is not a historian and was just a writer.

But same article quotes Wafa Sultan who is a psychatriat.

The difference seems to be is that Lings quotation were in support of Muslim view while Wafa's are against.

I think a discussion is needed over this issue.

--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider Rizvi (talk) 13:05, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

This user has been deleting edits on talk pages It sounds a bit funny :D --Notedgrant (talk) 17:38, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

About your recent edits to the article on Prophet Muhammed (pbuh)

Instead of directly deleting a few words (or partial statements, if you may call it so,) from an article, don't you think it might be more fruitful to instead discuss your points on the article's talkpage or with the editor in question? I personally don't appreciate the term POV-pushing and being a co-editor on Wikipedia (much like yourself,) the very act irks me too. Please assume Good Faith and don't blatantly accuse someone of POV-pushing while referring to something that you might not be fully aware of yourself. I've kept this page in my Watchlist, so you have the option of replying to me either here on my own talkpage. ~:'Abd el 'Azeez (talk) 12:00, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Black Stone Picture

Could you tell me what is the criteria for you to accept the image for posting on the page. Why you are removing the images by simply saying poor quality?? You should understand that these are authentic pictures.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.86.192.205 (talk) 21:00, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

July 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles, or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion debates, as you did with Hilal ibn Ali. Otherwise, it may be difficult to create consensus. If you oppose the deletion of an article, please comment at the respective page instead. Thank you. Per Ardua (talk) 07:18, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Recognition

		The Exceptional Newcomer Award
		Awarded to RavShimon for outstanding contributions to the quality and integrity of controversial and difficult articles Doc Tropics 20:18, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I've been meaning to do this for some time, but got distracted. Better late than never (hopefully). Keep up the good work  : ) Doc Tropics 20:18, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Lubavitcher Rebbe

Please stop trying to exercise ownership over this article. Your claim that the source is a "highly biased anti-observant Jew" is irrelevant. Mark A.R. Kleiman is a Professor of Public Policy at the UCLA School of Public Affairs, and thus is a reliable source for the claim cited (especially since the article subject is dead). Several other commenters on the talk page have already stated that this article veers too much towards hagiography. You are not helping. *** Crotalus *** 19:29, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Allah

Patant nonsense? Prove what I wrote is "nonsense". I think you'll find your religion is nonsense. As we say in Cricket "Howzat"... for religion that's "OUT". —Preceding unsigned comment added by HampshireCricketFan (talk • contribs) 14:15, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Torah edit

An anyomymous user made this edit which I reverted for POV and citation concerns. However the guy wanted a second opinion, and I don't feel qualified to offer it. Serendi^podous 15:29, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Muhammad

Can you explain Your recent edit on the article Muhammad please --NotedGrant Talk 14:21, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Category for deletion

Category:Manifestations of God in the Bahá'í Faith has been nominated for deletion. Please share your thoughts. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 18:20, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Twelve Imams

Explain your justification for uploading the pictures before you do it agian. You are in danger of breaking the triple revert rule. So don't be foolish.--Ya Rasulullah Madad (talk) 19:14, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

You haven't listened and you are now being reported to the administrators. Peace out!--Ya Rasulullah Madad (talk) 21:33, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Edit-Warring

You have violated the three-revert rule on The Twelve Imams. Any administrator may now choose to block your account. In the future, please make an effort to discuss your changes further, instead of edit warring. I don't know what's gotten into either you or Ya Rasulullah Madad but you at least should know better than to resort to edit-warring. Yes, he is wrong, yes his edits are violating the rules, but you responding in kind doesn't help. Peter Deer (talk) 21:57, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

As it were, I was under the inpression that reversion of vandalism is not covered by the 3RR. RavShimon (talk) 22:46, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 Hours for Edit Warring. Please stop. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below. FASTILY ^(TALK) 22:48, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

---

Request reason:

As it were, I was under the impression that reversion of blatant and persistent vandalism is prohibited by neither the 3RR nor the policies against edit warring. I would very much appreciate clarification, as my sole intent was to prevent removal of images from The Twelve Imams against Wikipeda non-censorship policy. Thank you for your consideration.

Decline reason:

That's not blatant vandalism (see WP:NOTVAND), just a (sadly) routine religiously motivated content dispute.  Sandstein  23:26, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 14:00, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 14:06, 24 November 2015 (UTC)