User talk:Albertbrown80

Hello Albertbrown80! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Sefringle 17:42, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
Wikipedia tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia How to: edit a page • upload and use images
Getting help
Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention
Policies and guidelines
Attribution • Neutral point of view • Notability Conflict of interest • Autobiography Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Citing sources • Footnotes Image use policy • Copyrights • Fair use External links • Spam • Vandalism Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry What Wikipedia is not • Deletion policy

The community
Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Writing articles
Be bold in editing • Develop an article The "perfect" article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review
Miscellaneous
User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General - Spam - Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Vandalism to Muhammad

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Some of your recent edits, such as those you made to Muhammad, have been considered unhelpful or unconstructive and have been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Sefringle 17:42, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please bring up major changes, such as deleting a whole section at Muhammad, on the talk page of the article. I see someone has already acquainted you with what you actions look like. Please discuss and contribute - deleting is just vandalism. Shenme 11:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. The small things, like signing, are noticed and appreciated. Please don't let all of this stuff drive you crazy like it has some of us... ;-) Shenme 20:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Muhammad, you will be blocked from editing. Sefringle 07:08, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to blank out (or delete portions of) page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to Muhammad, you will be blocked from editing. Your constant disruption of Muhammad is not appreciated. Frotz 01:51, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad

Please do not remove the section. Thanks --Aminz 08:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blcoked for a week. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May 2007

This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did to Muhammad, you will be blocked from editing. Once again, please do not remove large sections of Muhammad without discussion. Because of previous blocks and requests to bring it to the talk page, this is the only warning you will receive. --Kinu ^t/_c 05:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removing Muhammad image is NOT vandalizism

Welcome in wikipedia. Do not need to remove images from Muhammad article right now. I will ask for your help in a week. Please contact me and we will work together if we think alike. Do not discourage with their post they call each edit they do not like as vandalism. Hence just ignore them. Be around and work constructively in wikipedia. Wassalam --- ALM 10:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad pictures

I am preparing User:ALM_scientist/Including_Muhammad_Pictures_Against_wiki-policies an arbitration case. I hope to have your support. Please help in improving that article with lots of sources. with best wishes. --- A. L. M. 09:21, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your continued disruption

User:Funnypop12/User:Albertbrown80, your edits continue to be disruptive.[1],[2] I won't bother giving you a "final warning," as it's obvious that the community lacks the will to follow through. There is little I can do other than to politely ask you once again: please stop.Proabivouac 04:45, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2nd block for blanking

You have been temporarily blocked from editing Wikipedia as a result of your disruptive edits. You are free to make constructive edits after the block has expired, but please note that vandalism (including page blanking or addition of random text), spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, personal attacks; and repeated, blatant violations of our neutral point of view policy will not be tolerated. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:06, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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).

Albertbrown80 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

My fault is that i have different opinion than other wikipedian users. This block is based on bias. Wikipedia should check those people who use it to malign other religions. Its not fair. I find wikipedia so informative and i am regular user but its very unfair with me.i am sad.

Decline reason:

You have ignored repeated warnings about deleting information from articles. You were previously blocked for this offense. — Vassyana 09:30, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Suggestion

Take the time to read through the welcome message and the policy pages linked in it. They will help you better understand how things are done on Wikipedia, and why they are done that way. Simply removing large chunks of content is seen as disruptive. Use article talk pages to make your case for major edits and the removal of significant content. It is important to discuss big changes with other editors, especially on large articles with a lot of contributors. If you have questions, feel free to leave them here. I will keep this page on my watch list. Vassyana 09:43, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vaynassa Brother i tried to raise my voice in article talk page but people there have bias attitude sorry to say that. You are famous by your act of kindness and thanks for helping me out. Those who edit Islam articles know less about islam that they are more negative. Sorry to say that. If someone want to understand something he should read it. Islam is beautiful religion. So much negative attitude. People talk harshly with me no one take notice on that i dont but still i am blocked. Its the sad story coz i love wikipedia. You are famous for your kindness so i thank you again for helping me brother!Albertbrown80 20:02, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Last warning before 3rd block

This is your last warning.
The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Building an Encyclopaedia through consensus

You've been blocked (again) for your consistantly blanking part of the Muhammad article. If you think the block is inappropriate, you can put the {{unblock|your reason}} template on your page to have another admin review the block. If you want to make contraversial changes to any article (and it seems that you do) - gain a consensus for the change on the article's talk page first, especially if your change has been reverted one or more times. Otherwise you're engaging in an edit war, which is unhelpful behaviour, and not tolerated. Regards Wily D 20:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My dear you are just blocking me because i am muslim and i have my own point of veiw. Your blocking me because i am muslim.. simply!!!!Albertbrown80 20:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC) I feel sorry for you "oh its jamie" Albertbrown80 20:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you ever studied islam? huh? Albertbrown80 20:39, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brother wily tell me even if concensus is not a justified concensus?Albertbrown80 20:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you'll find as long as you maintain an uncooperative attitude that you won't get very far. If you're concerned that the article on Muhammad lacks enough focus on the Muslim point of view, this is an issue you can try to edit the article to correct by balancing it, or through discussion on the talk page. My own opinion is exactly the opposite - the page on Muhammad focuses far too much on his career as a prophet, and far too little on his career as an empire builder. But you're free to try and develop a consensus among editors to the contrary.

With respect to the rest, Editors are not required to be neutral --- Edits are. I don't care whether you're Muslim, Christian, Atheist or Discordian - your edits need to be fair and balanced. But even that isn't the real problem. The real problem is your continued refusal to engage in dialogue. Wikipedia works by consensus - you can take bold action - but if others disagree with your actions, develop a consensus for it, don't just blindly repeat it. The latter is [WP:EW|edit warring]], and it's unacceptable behaviour. Your POV isn't a problem, but if your behaviour doesn't improve, you'll have nothing to look forward to except a series of escalating blocks. If your behaviour does improve, you may even find that your concerns are addressed. Wily D 20:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In principle, the Foundational issues] cannot be overruled by consensus. But that's not particularly helpful in this issue. Otherwise, there are a few other issues - copyright violations and the like - that aren't really subject to consensus. As for a "justified consensus" - this depends. Like I said, for a copyright violation, no, for the colour of a template background, yes. The general belief is that a consensus will evapourate if unjustified. Otherwise, there are many services available to help editors in conflict. Wily D 20:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try that..Albertbrown80 21:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to pursue dialogue with other editors, I would be prepared to unblock you if, and only if you pledge not to return to your campaign of blanking material out of Muhammad. If you were to abuse this opportunity, I would be very disappointed. But, if you were to become a productive editor, I would be most pleased. Wily D 21:36, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WilyD, please check User:Funnypop12 as well. User:Albertbrown80 was created to evade Funnypop12's last block. User has been blanking the very same sections since December 2006 - not just depictions, but the text section on Western views of Muhammad - and to my knowledge has never done anything else; it is a single-purpose edit-warring account and, I'd have to guess, a sockpuppet of another editor who, if not banned, doesn't wish to associate his main account with this behavior. Past blocks have been merely ignored (if not evaded) to pick and resume as if nothing had happened. If this time, it's going be different, well, I'll be very surprised, but also relieved, and as you say, most pleased. On the other hand, if it resumes, its well past time for an indefinite block (as it probably is anyhow.)Proabivouac 16:48, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

probv, willy is giving me good tips of editing and now i am learning so whats your problem now. Again you are starting personal attack.willy you should check others for personal attack please. i am editor who has different point of veiw. Willy probviac is attacking me personally though you have given me some nice tips of editing. consensus thing. Now take any action again prob or i will think that wikipedia moderators are biased!!!. Albertbrown80 19:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I want to be more cooperative but in atmosphere where people attack me personal from time to time how can i be coorperative. Now help me willy Albertbrown80 19:12, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Albert - I hope you can understand that it will take time to regain the trust you've lost in your previous history of uncooperative editing. Wikipedia is not a battlefield, but you have been treating it as one. Proabivouac's comments are not about your opinion, but a reminder of your past actions - and you'll see even he would be glad if you became a productive editor. There are, no doubt, editors you'll have a harder time winning over, and ones you'll have an easier time with. As for personal attacks - I don't know if anything Proabivouac said would qualify (and I've never taken any actions against someone for "personal attacks"). If people are a little hard on you, you'll probably just have to turn the other cheek. If you start to behave yourself, people will come around.

And I will tell you, there is a bias in the way editors are treated - not because of their viewpoints, but because of their behaviour. Editors with a long history of productive editing and good behaviour are more likely to get the benefit of the doubt than editors with a long history of edit warring. I won't lie to you - you've already lead people to judge you through your actions, and Proabivouac's judgement won't be the harshest. Wily D 20:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Probably of little concern

But I've blocked this account since you're now using User:Ramzk001 by all evidence. Please stick to one account in the future, or identify your multiple accounts openly, as required by WP:SOCK. If you think there's some mistake, I'll be watching this page, and respond to any concerns. Wily D 13:44, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]