User talk:Islamic Warrior
salaam will protect the templates for you. Good work, but wikiislam have always been aware of muslimwiki, i believe they even link to us WikiSysop 19:58, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
salaam no changes to the front page at the moment. Unless you have specific articles you wish to promote for the front page then please recommend them to me. You can email admin attt muslimwikidotcom if you need to get hold of me. WikiSysop 14:53, 19 May 2012 (BST)
I came to inform you that, right now, there is a community ban discussion on Wikipedia to get me a permanent ban. And it just so happens that most of the users voting are users who either have a vendetta against me over the Islamic materials I've added before, or more recent users who have been influenced by what they've said.
To be honest, I don't mind getting banned from Wikipedia, since the increasing punitive measures they are taking against editors who happen to have a minority opinion has really put me off (they've even banned one of its founding members in a high-profile case before). However, if I do get banned, it's not the ban itself I'm worried about, but I fear that this will be all the justification they need to eradicate all my contributions from Wikipedia for good, including all the Islamic material I've added before.
If you happen to have a Wikipedia account, please make your views heard and let everyone know how much the previous RfC which is at the core of this dispute had been criticized and disputed by numerous editors. If you don't have any such Wikipedia account, then could you maybe get in touch with others you do know? I'd be grateful for any help you can provide.
Salam, Jagged 85 16:23, 19 September 2012 (BST)
- Jagged I would love to help you out but I feel that they may not listen to me. There are too many unbeknownst users who will see the "evidence" and vote for your ban. I don't think there is much I can do. You should just import the stuff you wrote on there onto this wiki. At least then the sources can be examined in an unbiased way and fact checked. Eventually this will probably make it's way onto Wikipedia once the sources have been backed up properly. For now I think you should just join the project here. They've fraudulently attacked you by making a biased report - and it looks, from the perspective of other users, like an unbiased one at a glance. Until that's overcome (and I'm not sure how to go about it) you should just import everything on there onto here. I guess on your talk page you can build a case against them and challenge every single accusation they've made against you - you at least have that right. But don't waste your time. It looks like the smear campaign didn't ask for your involvement, it just wants one ruling and that's an outright ban without your improvements taken into consideration, and changes in mind. If you wish it, you can copy this paragraph or link to it. I've been examining your Islamic related edits for a while, and I haven't seen many problems with it once those sources on the RFC have been taken out of the equation (and even then the RFC has problems with it's own bias and misrepresentation of sources). You could also list all the articles from when they were large and show a before and after stub contrast. As far as I see it, there is no point getting involved as the voices will be drowned out with their "evidence". Good luck Jagged, and I hope to see you on this site soon enough. Islamic Warrior 22:34, 19 September 2012 (BST)
- The more that I think about it, you may be right. Wikipedia feels like some kind of Inquisition right now, out on a witch-hunt and banning any editors who have opposing views from the majority. If they can ban one of their founding members, that pretty much gives them free license to ban whoever they want. I've noticed how even when anyone suggests anything less than a permanent global ban, they end up facing criticism for it. I can't imagine how much worse it would be for someone who actually disagrees with their views altogether. I think I've had enough of the smear campaigns, the witchunts, the way they rally together like-minded people to ban whoever they want. It's an absolutely unfriendly place to work at. The more I think about it, I'm only wasting my time contributing to such an encyclopedia.
- I think it's probably time that I stopped wasting my time there and start contributing more here. In other words, you might probably be seeing more of me around here sometime soon. In the mean time though, feel free to edit the articles as you like. In fact, it would actually be quite helpful if you could do some fact-checking and fix up any errors you notice in the articles I've just copied over. The last thing I would want is Wikipedia members (or even worse, WikiIslam) slandering this site for "misrepresenting sources". Good luck with your work on this encyclopedia, and hopefully I'll join you sometime soon.
- Salam, Jagged 85 03:49, 20 September 2012 (BST)
- Jagged, don't be depressed. I guess your officially banned now (albeit for the wrong reasons) but no worries. Once it's blown over just rejoin the project and contribute slowly on articles that are relevant to Muslims or Islamic civilization or people under a new username. The people that banned you aren't historians or scholars, their attempt to change history won't have that much of an impact. Like I said before all the articles that you contributed to, bring them here so we at least have the sources to look at. Oh and I think you should start building up evidence for your case on here in case you ever want to go back to Wikipedia. The fact that you contribute quickly could be an asset to this wiki. It doesn't matter what Islamophobes think. A good peer review process here would do the articles justice. Islamic Warrior 18:29, 22 September 2012 (BST)
- After having a long think about it, I've decided that I'm through with Wikipedia for good this time. I could technically appeal the decision sometime in the future, but I honestly think it's a waste of time. Instead of wasting my time contributing to an encyclopedia that's slowly dying (which I'm not surprised by at all), I'd much rather spend that time contributing to encyclopedias where editors don't have to put up with nonsense like frequent bans, restrictive "policies", constant harrasment, "community" witchhunts, "stubbing" censorship, etc. I've stopped responding to my talk page at Wikipedia for the past several days because, well, enough is enough. Besides, if we already have a MuslimWiki dedicated to Islamic topics, who needs Wikipedia? I think it's better if we just use our time building up this encyclopedia and then spreading the word about this place across the internet, as a superior alternative to sites like Wikipedia or WikiIslam (which has recently gone down, strangely). I think that would be more rewarding than wasting our time contributing to Wikipedia. Salam, Jagged 85 02:16, 23 September 2012 (BST)
I'd recommend you don't respond to any of them. They probably feel really proud of what they've done. It would be a waste of your time if you did start up something against your ban - but like I said before it's futile without having to gather it first. I had no idea others felt that about Wikipedia as well. It looks like the project, because it didn't have a proper hierarchy, is going to being Wikipedia's bane. And the fact that so many aggressive good for nothing editors keep interrupting the wikis progress for editors who actually want to contribute and not run the place is going to have an impact as well. They could have edit checked it everything but their eurocentricism really shines through when they decided to delete other peoples edits as well. I just had a look at the List of Japanese inventions and it looks like the article has been ruined by their racism. They can censor stuff all they want but it won't work out in the long term. About Wikiislam, it does seem rather strange it's gone down. What do you think they're up to? Islamic Warrior 00:21, 24 September 2012 (BST)
- Exactly. Those self-righteous, over-zealous, Eurocentric users running the show at Wikipedia will run it all into the ground sooner or later. Regarding the Japanese inventions article, a user (Phoenix7777) hit the nail right on the head when s/he pointed out how the articles on German/English/American inventions articles are in much worse shape than the Japanese one (or the Islamic one, for that matter), yet three Eurocentric editors there (Gun Powder Ma, William M. Connolley, Athenian) all refused to acknowledge their own hypocrisy and completely ignored the question, choosing to stub the Japanese article and keep the absolutely terrible English and German articles. It's become obvious that their intent is simply to wipe out non-Western (especially Islamic) accomplishments from Wikipedia in order to hype up Western accomplishments. And this will ultimately be the undoing of Wikipedia, the self-proclaimed 'sum of all human knowledge', a claim that will remain nothing more than an empty promise at best. As for WikiIslam, I suppose someone probably hacked their site? Jagged 85 21:42, 24 September 2012 (BST)
 Hi again
I just thought you might be interested in reading the following blog that talks about us... It's a silly little article written by a very clearly biased Islamophobic reader, but it's kind of hilarious to read. Jagged 85 06:05, 2 October 2012 (BST)
- It is amusing that he's confusing me with NarSakSasLee! I've never really contacted this user nor "ChainedButFree" (I was under the impression he might have been Hamid). He's barely on this website and from the looks of it wikipedia too. NSSL doesn't seem really "Islamic" given what he's said about Islam here ("...a religion forbidding drawing Muhammad seems rather stupid and childish...") and here (where NSSL seems to add an article on drawing the Prophet Muhammad - doesn't seem likely I'd encourage that, I'd do the opposite). I think NSSL was the one who wrote the original article on Wikiislam that I managed to find and paste onto here. Maybe that's why this bloggers so butt hurt about him (I notice he's quite paranoid about using right wing sources to convey his delusions towards his audience - I don't think any right minded individual would use "JihadWatch" to prove their point or FrontPageMagazine (See David Horowitz - he edits the magazine) It was a few days before the article on Wikiislam got deleted after a debate on wikipedia that I decided to save it. That's really all the connection I have with him (and I might have pinched 1 or 2 more articles from him - seems like NSSL is just curious about Muslim culture). It's really strange someone would write this blog without adequate evidence or at least have done proper research into who they were accusing. As for the comments on you, well I'd say it's no different to what was being said on Wikipedia. If the blogger is so outraged by your "misuse of sources" then why not link to the original pages and let the readers decide instead of just repeating what was said by a small group of unqualified, and clearly eurocentric users on Wikipedia - who clearly fooled others with thirty or so cherry picked references? Islamic Warrior 18:33, 2 October 2012 (BST)
- Also Jagged, who from that "clean up" committee on wikipedia got banned when they turned on each other? You mentioned something of it above. Islamic Warrior 18:38, 2 October 2012 (BST)