User talk:Existentializer

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

How to edit a page
Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
Picture tutorial
How to write a great article
Naming conventions
Manual of Style
If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Wikipedia:Topical index.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! -Gblaz 15:30, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Talk:Jihad

WP:Civility WP:AGF

I reverted instead of fusing because was unsure if you had seen the previous comment, and if your comment was in some way a response to that one. I cannot repair a "glitch" because I am unsure if you did that deliberatly for some reason, and how you actually wanted it to look. RVing, and then inviting you to try it again allows you to say what you wanted to say, how you wanted to say it. Slinging around accusations is really pointless, an example of genetic fallacy and destructive to the barn raising commmunity spirit we need on Wikipedia.

We need to focus on writing a good article. Not on who is a crony of whom.--Tznkai 18:55, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Two wrongs don't make a right. Compared to the limited interaction I have seen, you have been considerably more caustic, offensive, disengenous and plain mean than anyone else on that page, with the exception of the anonymous reply to Irishpunktom which I reverted. I do not tolerate it for very long. My concerns with you are over your conduct. My cocerns with the article are over my standards for inclusion, based on my readings of WP:NOT and WP:NPOV. We can disagree civily on those if you so choose, but I will not tolerate continued accusation of cabalism and other obvious acts of bad faith. I do not care how bad someone else is, in refrence to how I feel about your behavoir. I am more than willing to bitch out both sides of an argument when needed, and trust me, I am keeping a sharp eye on the conduct of BYT and his "Brigade" as you call them. You crossed the line first, so you get yelled at first. If you want a history of how I deal with this kind of conduct take a look at talk:homosexuality--Tznkai 19:12, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cranky Kong

I've already proven that the Seal of Quality is put on any licensed game. Don't be childish, and just accept that your single piece of proof is wrong. If this is how you're going to act on Wikipedia, then I won't be surprised that the only piece of text on your page is 'Banned For Life'. This isn't how you act on Wikipedia. Maybe if you try to show respect to anyone or anything on this page, you'll one day become a good Wikipedia user. -- A Link to the Past 22:58, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Jihad

Sorry to take so long to reply, Existentializer. Regarding the poll, it isn't unusual for editors to contact others who might be interested in an issue, and in this case, it's being done quite openly. You're equally free to contact editors who might agree with your position, or perhaps you could consider starting a new article about the POW situation instead. Wherever it goes, if you stick to reputable, scholarly sources, and write in a disinterested tone, so it doesn't look as though you're trying to build a case, then you'll probably find your edits will stick. Sorry I can't say more, but I don't know enough about the subject to offer an opinion on the content. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:58, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

I agree completely with sv here. So you are not Enviro-whatever: that's very nice. Now if you edit politely and constructively, it doesn't even matter if you are, your edits will be welcome, and you will be respected. You are only ever accused of sockpuppetry, justly or unjustly, if you are obstructive in a way resembling that of another editor. Nobody will accuse you if your edits resemble that of another polite, eloquent, knowledgeable and well-liked editor. Thus, happy editing, dab (ᛏ) 09:44, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop the vandalism

Please do NOT blank any portion of the Talk:Islam page. If you persist, you will be blocked for vandalism. Zora 23:11, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nonexistant pages

You recently changed a link on Star Trek: Deep Space Nine, which led to a nonexistant episode page, and instead linked to a Memory Alpha article. I would like to refer you to List of Star Trek: DS9 episodes (on which I have worked extensively) and point out the large number of dead links. These links, rather than reflecting poorly on Wikipedia, encourage users to contribute. Please do not remove such links in the future. Thanks. -Schrei 01:07, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SIIEG invitation

please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam:SIIEG --Zeno of Elea 04:40, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

3RR on Human rights in the United States

Please do not keep undoing other people's edits without discussing them first. This is considered impolite and unproductive. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. Thank you. Carbonite | Talk 15:38, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

I fail to see what vandalism I have done. Care to provide a diff? [[smoddy]] 16:59, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, what I did was in no manner, way, or means vandalism, so stop the insults. Secondly, I saw an edit summary that I recognised as being a trademark of a banned user (User:Enviroknot), and I reverted on sight, as is allowed under policy. I think he's back. [[smoddy]] 17:10, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yuber

What makes you think those users are Yuber? I've checked the contribs but I can't see anything distinctive. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:25, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Of VfDs...

Feel free to open a new VfD for the Persecution by Jews article (using the {{subst:VfDx|2nd}} template). User:-Ril- has just opened a new VfD on the Muslims wiki, and the Jews wiki was pretty close to a Delete consensus (if not actually consensus). HKT ^talk 19:46, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(1.) Place {{subst:VfDx|2nd}} at the top of the article in question.

(2.) After the template appears, click on the red link to go to the VfD in question.

(3.) Start the page by giving your rationale for the VfD and why you have reopened it (remember to sign your username).

(4.) You may vote using the typical format(*'''Delete'''), but you don't really have to vote at all, given that your introduction of the VfD counts as a delete vote.

P.S. On 1st time VfDs, you'd only need to place a standard {{VfD}} template on the page and follow the rest of the instructions. Obviously, in such a case, you'd need not mention anything about reopening a VfD. It's as simple as that! Glad to help, HKT ^talk 20:33, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

False vandalism accusations

Please stop falsely accusing me of vandalism. If you disagree with someone, that does not get you the right to make false accusations and toss out insults. I see others have reported having problems with you above. Perhaps you should tone down your language and attempt to work with other people instead of against them. DreamGuy 22:47, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Blocked

I've blocked this abusive editor mainly because of strong evidence that he's a re-emerging sock of banned Enviroknot. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 08:42, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I'm glad to see he was finally stopped. It was getting ridiculous. DreamGuy 20:31, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

VfD pollution

Ril enlisted Persecution by Muslims for VfD again, just 24 hours after the article withstood the first VfD. You might be interested to watch it. [1] --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 10:22, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Block

Just so you know, I don't think you're a sockpuppet of anyone, and you have been very helpful to me. I've sent some messages out to other SIIEG members but it looks like Tony Sidaway is getting away with this abuse of power. Ni-ju-Ichi 16:38, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, how convenient... The person who goes around using new sockpuppets all the time shows up under his latest sockpuppet account to "support" the "other person." I suppose it's just a coincidence that the articles you are editing are the exact same ones he was editing, saying the exact same comments, in the exact same rude language with false accusations? Give it a rest, you aren't fooling anyone. DreamGuy 19:23, July 31, 2005 (UTC)