User talk:CltFn/Archive 2

Articles under development:

Bellil

Hi CltFn -- You are not going to get very far by continually reverting the Bellil article to your favored version. You should instead try to work with the article we currently have to improve as you see fit. Please remember that anything contentious needs to be properly sourced. Yours, Sdedeo 23:09, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest the best course of action is for you to work with the version we currently have. You should add to it as you see fit. Right now, we are "flipping" back and forth between the two versions, and so any work you do is going to be lost. Yours, Sdedeo 23:13, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries

Regarding your edit summary to Samira Bellil what the #**# is the matter with you Yuber, stop vandalizing or participate in the talk page. PLease remember that edit summaries are for the reference of the whole community, and should not be used to address another editor. Further, this seems to be to be a breech of WP:CIVIL. Please do not use such edit summaries in future. Thanks. --Doc (?) 00:31, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Samira Bellil

Please respect the NPOV version that was created by Sdedeo. Wikipedia is about compromise, and you are not compromising. Other people have been informed of your behavior. Yuber^(talk)

I don't care what you think I know or don't know about the topic, because in reality, if this were just a black non-Muslim girl getting raped by other black non-Muslims you wouldn't give an iota of attention to her. So instead of attacking others' viewpoints, we should instead focus on the facts. And the fact is you have broken the 3RR and have done so using multiple IP's. I urge you to accept the compromise version, or you will get a 3RR report filed and be blocked. Yuber^(talk) 18:14, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Three revert rule

You have violated the three revert rule on 2005 French civil unrest. Please stop reverting - clearly people have a problem with your anti-Islamic bias. Rhobite 04:30, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy

Welcome to wikipedia. I know that the pervasive Islamic POV on wikipedia can become very frustrating at times. How ever it's very very important to keep your cool at all times. Klonimus 06:04, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

Hi, you've been temporarily blocked from editing for violating the three-revert rule at Islamofascism. The times of your reverts were 13:11 Nov 18, 13:42 Nov 18, 01:09 Nov 19, and 01:18 Nov 19. If you feel this block is unfair or incorrect, you're welcome to e-mail me using the link on my user page. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:50, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Shoebat images

I saw you and anonymous editor reverting over the two images... and I have come up with the best way to fix this. They are both up for "no source" and if you do not provide a source and a substantiable copyright claim within 7 days they will be deleted. In this time they can remain in the article but after that only well sourced images will remain in the article. If you claim fair use make sure it really fits fair use provisions. gren グレン 22:31, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I see you had responded before I got to type in the above. For the first image no source can be removed, but I had to put up unknown. You have to prove that it is fair use. For the second image you have to show where you got the image from like in the first. Show where you got it from, saying it's from fox and fair use doesn't help. Also add the image tags. You must do these things when uploading photos because it is part of wikipedia's integrity. gren

Islamofascism / Jihad

Religiofascist fundies User:BrandonYusufToropov and User:Anonymous editor are yet again trying to create a false view that "Jihad is misunderstood and harmless", etc, see:

vandalism on CAIR article

There seems to have been a lot of vandalism on the CAIR article, which I associate with my removal of the NPOV tag. In any case, if you catch vandalism in progress again as with 71.114.76.209 and others, go ahead and report it to the administrators, who will be able to issue warnings and create blocks. FYI, both of the recent vandals you dealt with came from Washington DC. Yours, Sdedeo 00:21, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Nazislam.jpg has been listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:Nazislam.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

—Charles P. (Mirv) 00:27, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NAZIISLAM

I love the image, where did you find it?

Klonimus 03:37, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Klonimus&action=submit

*Wikipedia:Requested moves/Islamofascism (term) – Islamofascism (term) → Islamofascism (move)

Wikipedia:Requested moves/Islamofascism (term) – Islamofascism (term) → Islamofascism (move)

American terrorism

Fair enough; If you don't mind, I'll reply on the article talk page and we can discuss it there. Tom Harrison ^(talk) 04:55, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CltFn; About your recent edits to American terrorism (term): It is clear to me that Chomsky and West are Leftist Ideologues; I have no doubt that Chomsky is anti-American. I know less about Doctor West's views, but for the sake of discussion say that he is Anti-American. I think it is also clear that Hugo Chavez and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad are hostile to America. Whether or not anti-American is a useful label for a foreign head of state is debatable, but again for the discussion say they are also anti-American.

First, Leftist Ideologue and anti-American used in this context are not neutral. Even if we agree it is true, we may not inject that here.

Second, we need not inject it at all. We do not need to point out to the reader that Hugo Chavez and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad are anti-American, or that a couple of Ivy League professors are ideologues. Their direct quotes do that (I think) better than we could. No one can complain that it is unfair to quote their own words, as long as we quote them in enough context to make their meaning clear.

This approach puts the wind at our backs. Our friends on the left will not oppose including the quotes. They are as sincere in their beliefs as we are, and think the truth supports their position. They will see the quotes as tough truths Americans need to hear, or something.

Finally, it is actually more effective if you tell the truth without characterization and let the reader draw his own conclusion. I hope it doesn't sound like pop psychology to say the reader will be more attached to a conclusion he has drawn himself than to one we have drawn for him. Tom Harrison ^(talk) 14:53, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging Image:MuslimCroatsHandschar.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:MuslimCroatsHandschar.JPG. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use {{GFDL}} to release it under the GFDL. If you can claim fair use use {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or {{fairuse}}. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of image pages you have edited by going to "Your contributions" from your user page and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thanks so much. --Sherool (talk) 16:02, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, its just an image of a flag, its in the public domain .--CltFn 16:06, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not all flags are automaticaly in the public domain (though they usualy have fairly free use). Even so if it's in the public domain you have to specify it, a blank image page does not mean "public domain", we have "tags" for that including flags. Additionaly you have to say where you got it from, images like everyting else on the Wikipedia need verifiable sources. If you found it on a webpage provide a link to it. If you scanned it from a book or whatever name the book and so on. --Sherool (talk) 16:17, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bat Ye'or

At this point it appears that the claim is referenced. Unless you assert that the source listed does not verify the allegation, I suggest you refrain from reverting further. Kelly Martin (talk) 16:42, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The reference is clearly noted in the article as footnote one, which refers to the New York Times article. This article has been verified to support the claim (by User:Mindspillage, who I trust implicitly). If you still feel that the claim should not appear in the article, you'll have to build consensus for it to be excluded on the article talk page. Kelly Martin (talk) 17:23, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Screenshots

You seem to have some ability to make screenshots of Fox? What do you use and can you make them slightly (still not violating fair use) higher quality? gren グレン 21:14, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to make it clear that you must then cite the video. I thoguht you took screenshots from the TV which, you can do... but if you find the video online you must cite where you found it too. But, that's a good method, just make sure you cite the source of the video. gren グレン 21:50, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Deletion review

Please list Islamonazism here. Since it was deleted you must bring evidence to the process to show that new information has come to light or the process was wrong. You can read everything there or ask me questions. Then get out the word to everyone related to Islam-article-editing. gren グレン 21:39, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, and have not read the article. The issue is that there is no real discussion on its talk page that would allow you to recreate. If there had been discussion there I might not have just reverted but there is none and Mirv showed the AfD. I agree there can certainly be review and that's why we have a deletion review system. So, start generating discussion on Talk:Islamonazism if you want and start a deletion review. It could very well be overturned. However, Mirv rightly reverted your actions because there has been no talk on its talk page and no deletion review. Please go through that because it seems like you unilaterally were trying to overturn the verdict. Deletion review will give you complete legitimacy if it is voted back. gren グレン 22:02, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I commented, I recommend starting deletion review now so we can get the word out. gren グレン 22:20, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I directed you to the best of my abilities. Since the AfD was for delete (even though it was never formally deleted, but redirected) I figured deletion review was the answer. As of now I have no idea what's going on. It seems that FCYTravis travis agrees with it having been deleted and having it on deletion review (which is my opinion). Yet, since things have stalled on deletion review I don't know what your best recourse it. I have asked SlimVirgin what's going on and if I find out I'll tell you. Sorry if I directed you down the wrong path. gren グレン 02:04, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Muslim Reformers

Hi, I am moving this category to Category:Muslim reformers since the R should not be majuscule. I am slightly wary about what constitutes a reform (all Mujaddid no doubt?) from those you have listed so you may want to be more clear and even create a different name. Many Muslims like to be seen as reformers... ibn Wahhab was a reformer who tried to purge Sufism from Islam... so, your definition seems to be non-existent but you are filling it up with modern liberal Muslims. gren グレン 01:50, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Me? PC?

How are my changes PC? I don't get it. That just sounds like a slight ad-hom to me. My problems with the version you reverted to are as follows.

The word 'vicious' is clearly emotive and provides no extra info.
The link that equates Middle-Eastern and Muslim is just plain dumb.
There are numerous typos ie. ],
Intros to historical events generally say what happened and save the root causes for later in the article.

Ashmoo 02:10, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sydney race riots

There is absolutely nothing in those 3 sources that mentions any such sexual assualt.

Plus, the photo of white Australian rioters assulting police and Middle Eastern Australian is being removed. If you wanna add an alleged sexual assualt (and to go as far as linking it to the riots), then provide sources where said assualt is mentioned. And if such a source exists and you can provide it, then put it in the "backgroud" section mentioning the possible connections to the riots, not in the intro. Directly quote (" ") the parts of your source when you have it. Al-Andalus 02:31, 13 December 2005 (UTC).[reply]

You've just done it again. And then you say it isn't you introducing those claims of sexual assault and attempted rape, and that those aren't your sources. You even left an edit sumarry comment "re-insert the documented intro" Al-Andalus 03:17, 13 December 2005 (UTC).[reply]

I don't think you've done anything wrong. If you're trying to get some balance into the article and keep it from a "Aussies are shit racist fucks, screw em!" good on you and keep going! - G^t 03:22, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Don't change the header. Keep it NPOV. it explains further down the surf lifesaving bashing, leb gang violence, etc. -

G^t 03:43, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just don't change the header yet. Please! -

G^t 03:47, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If we label them "Lebanese Muslim Gangsters" in the header, it gives the other side the right to label white Australians "Aussie Redneck Mobs". Keep it nice and simple. It's not PC. It labels each group, and states simply what's happening. I'm damn opposed to Political Correctness and even more opposed by the media's "blame whitey" bullshit so please for the sake of reason do not pov-push! -

G^t 04:48, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If we're going to call a spade a spade in which context? "Damn Whitey and his Racism", "Stupid Lebanese Gangs". Why blow it up? -

G^t 04:54, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you're still online and still editing, please do what you can to avoid the article becoming some politically correct biased rubbish. Your balance is appreciated. Cheers. -

G^t 15:56, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Calm

"Please add a source to the section CALM..." -Too late, someone already squashed my comment, and I can't be bothered adding it again. Cheers, --Jquarry 05:08, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bat Ye'or

I ask again: could you please comment on the Bat Ye'or talk page? I have now tried to explain myself more clearly, and I expect you to reply to that instead of just reverting my edits. Arre 15:46, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

On a related point, please remember to use edit summaries - it helps other editors to see what is going on when looking at their watchlist or the page history. Thanks. Palmiro | Talk 06:19, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks, and accuracy of edits

Dear CltFn, please review Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Accusing other editors of vandalism or being sockpuppets does not improve the environment.

Please also check Wikipedia:Cite your sources. On the Bat Ye'or article, you have added back in material that was unsourced and had beeen commented out with a request for sources to be provided. If it is true, it should be possible to find a source for it. We cannot include material without a source: see Wikipedia:Verifiability.

You also added back in a claim and associated internet link presented as a source for the claim, which in fact appeared to indicate that the claim was incorrect. This was clearly stated in a hidden comment on the page and was the result of another editor (me) having gone to the trouble of checking whether the source agreed with the claim stated and finding out that it didn't. Without any explanation, you removed the comment and re-added the apparently false claim. This suggests that you're not reading the page with sufficient care. Where other editors have added hidden comments, please check what they say before removing them. I put that one there for a reason - to help keep Wikipedia clear of inaccurate material. Palmiro | Talk 13:33, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Categories in articles under development

While you are developing an article as a subpage of your user page (e.g., User:CltFn/2005 Sydney Race Riots), you might want to remove or otherwise disable the categories at the bottom of the page (e.g., by using a colon before "Category", as in [[:Category:2005]]) so your version won't appear in the category itself (Category:2005 in this case). - dcljr (talk) 22:51, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image

You added an image to the Islamic conquest of South Asia article which showed the Sikh Bhai Dayala Ji [4]. It was removed by Anonymous editor because the image was unsourced. Do you know if the image is free to use or if it is copyrighted? If it is in the public domain, this should be marked in the picture description page. ([5], WP:ICT) --Kefalonia 12:44, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

no source

I have talked to you about this before. You will give proper sources for images and not prematurely remove no source tags. You must provide the name and page of the book and edition, etc. if you scanned it. Saying it's scanned from a public domain book does not work. We respect copyrights here and you should too. So go by the rules and stop removing no sources tags, this is your warning on this issue. gren グレン 16:06, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

spencer

Lets talk on a Talk:Robert_Spencer#Scholarship. I agree that the criticism are nonsense, I think that is clear, but people make them, so I think they should be left. I think we need to carefully rebute the doesn't speak Arabic argument. I just want to work in the system here. I defenatly dont want to get in a revert war.--Chalko 16:26, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bat Yeor again

Could you please say on the talk page what is wrong with the NYT quote instead of just deleting it? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:45, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

You have been blocked from editing Wikipedia for violation of the three revert rule on Islam in the United States. The block is for a period of 24 hours. Please discuss your changes further on talk pages rather than reverting. If an edit war is continuing, consider posting on the Wikipedia:Requests for page protection to have an admin protect the page.

To contest this block, add the text {{unblock}} on this page, along with an explanation of why you believe this block to be unjustified. You can also email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list. Please be sure to include your username and IP address in your email. —BorgHunter (talk) 07:05, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You have been reported for the 3RR

Please try to compromise because you are coming off very aggressive right now. Yuber^(talk) 15:40, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oriana Fallaci

Hi CltFn, I believe you've been evading your block by making edits to the above as User:70.156.141.155, which resolves to the same part of the world as your usual IP address. I'm not going to extend your block because you may be celebrating Christmas/Hanukkah and so it would seem like a mean thing to do, but please don't edit again until your block expires. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:04, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]