User talk:الكاتب السابع

Welcome![edit]

Hello, الكاتب السابع, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing 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 for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! HighInBC 07:34, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad[edit]

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 Muhammad, 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 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.

HighInBC 16:35, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That case of your Arbitration Committee is about the images, not about the lead of the article. Please, stop sending misleading message like this.--الكاتب السابع (talk) 12:06, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The arbcom remedy is very clear: Standard discretionary sanctions are authorised for all pages relating to Muhammad, broadly interpreted.(Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad_images#Discretionary_sanctions).

Don't confuse the name of the case with the result of the case. You can read the link and read about Standard discretionary sanctions. It applies to the topic and anything related to the topic, broadly interpreted. You don't have to believe me, it is none the less enforceable. HighInBC 17:39, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Avoid commenting on other editors[edit]

When engaging in debate with other editors please avoid commenting on them like you did here: [1]. This is important in all parts of Wikipedia, however in the Muhammad it is extra important. Stick the the debate, not the debaters.

The Muhammad article has a long history of heated discussion. It is also subject to people who pretend to be new users when they are not. As such we hold people there to a higher standard of behaviour. We have special rules for that article as are described in the template I gave you above, please read the links.

I hope you understand and can continue to contribute to the debate in a productive fashion. HighInBC 16:38, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your remark is actually misleading as I didn't comment on other editors here: [2] as you falsely claimed. I absolutely didn't address the person of Jeppiz in that comment and I clearly avoided to grant his personal attacks against me an answer (as I explained in the comment). My comment was totally addressing the previous comment of Jeppiz in which he attacked me in person in response to my refutation of his earlier comment. Kindly, avoid treating people with this bias and injustice in the future because this is not healthy for you and for the others. It was Jeppiz who attacked me in person here: [3] and made false accusations against me instead of commenting on my refutation of his earlier comment here: [4] in which he didn't present any source or reasoning at all to backup his opinion. He just said in it what his personal POV is, so I needed to refute his personal POV with quotations showing that his POV is biased and not genuinely honest. If he had presented a source instead of personal POV, I would have presented a refutation of that source. However, he didn't present any source or anything except his personal POV, so I was entitled to refute his POV with a quotation showing it is not honest POV. This counts as a refutation per the hierarchy of disagreement. On the other hand, his personal attacks against me by accusing me falsely of wikihounding him counts as an ad hominem.--الكاتب السابع (talk) 11:37, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop accusing people of bias and injustice left and right. I could not care less about the subject at hand. It really does reveal that you are seeing enemies where there are none. This sort of assumption of bad faith will only reduce the quality of interaction you have here.

If you think somebody is exhibiting behavioural issues or otherwise feel the need to comment on a person then do so at their talk page, or if needed a noticeboard. Do not use article talk pages to discuss other editors, particularly in contentious areas.

Have a nice day. HighInBC 17:49, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]