User talk:Dy-no-miite

Hi Dy-no-miite! Nice to meet you here!

Thank you for finding the time to sign up and contribute to our project. If you're in doubt about anything, you might want to check out some of these pages:

Welcome, newcomers - a general introduction, and a good starting point
The help centre and FAQs
The Manual of Style - a guide to the community's writing conventions

It's also a good idea to sign the new user log and add a little about yourself.

When contributing to a talk page, you can sign your name by typing four tildes after your comments, like this: ~~~~. (Just so you know, some people won't pay attention to unsigned comments).

If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask me at my talk page. You can ask other users at the Help desk or Village Pump.

Above all, be bold when contributing and have fun!--Pecher 10:48, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding reversions[1] made on August 23 2006 to Robert Spencer

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. Voice-of-All 22:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of sourced material

Removal of sourced material is considered vandalism. Please aviod that. 70.132.9.24 15:24, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This has proven false, thankfully, as there is nothing inherently sacred about "sourced" material: Suppose, for argument's sake, that the source in one's "sourced material" was his "Magic 8 Ball," or his bowl of Alphabits, or his neighbor's ill-tempered pekingese... Dy-no-miite 00:37, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the policy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:BLP#Opinions_of_critics.2C_opponents.2C_and_detractors --Reza1 02:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like this part:

"The views of critics should be represented if their views are relevant to the subject's notability and are based on reliable sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to side with the critics' material. Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to critics."

It's quite obvious in your edits that you side with the critics. Dy-no-miite 02:05, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man, WHY DID I MYSELF ADDED THE POV TAG TO THE ARTICLE? I was asking from the beginning that you are free to add well-sourced material to the other side. Didn't I? --Reza1 02:07, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And you have made your 3rr today. --Reza1 02:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Everything is time-stamped according to GMT/UTC. Therefore, a new 24-hr period started at 8 EDT. Dy-no-miite 02:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No. Time stamp doesn't matter. more than 3rr in 24 hours isn't allowed. --Reza1 02:14, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now, please self-revert back since your edit is not supported by policies. Thanks --Reza1 02:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully decline. Dy-no-miite 02:18, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why? --Reza1 02:24, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Balance

Hi Dy-no-miite,

I have honestly done my best to keep the balance on Spencer article. Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Robert_Spencer#Balance . Thanks --Reza1 09:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Also, please note that I found and added some quotes from Bat Ye'or in defense of Spencer and put them at the top of the section. --Reza1 09:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jihad Watch

Hi, Can you explain why you reverted the version of that article that also includes links to pages critical of the Jihad Watch site? Jihad Watch is, as one would expect, a controversial website. In the spirit of balance, (at least some) sites which criticize the site should be linked under the heading "criticism" or "opposing views" or something like that. Thanks.Ngchen 01:35, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]