User talk:Kitrus

Introduction

Hope you enjoy contributing to Wikipedia. Be bold in editing pages. Here are some links that you might find useful:

Try the Tutorial. If you have less time, try Wikipedia:How to edit a page.
To sign your posts (on talk pages, Articles for deletion page etc.) use ~~~~ (four tildes). This will insert your name and timestamp. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes).
You can experiment in the test area.
You can get help at the Help Desk
Some other pages that will help you know more about Wikipedia: Manual of Style and Wikipedia:Five pillars, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, Wikipedia:How to write a great article
Wikipedia:Template messages

I hope you stick around and keep contributing to Wikipedia. Drop us a note at Wikipedia:New user log.

-- utcursch | talk 08:57, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Beit Or

POTUS

No, I haven't seen it. But he led our country for many decades, whether it be fighting in the trenches of WWI, commanding the Allies during WWII, or eventually, tackling tough decisions at the White House. Thanks for your comment. Эйрон Кинни (t) 00:16, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

M. Shahid Alam

Were you planning on creating an AfD entry for this article? An anon has just removed the AfD notice and I went to revert then saw you hadnt actually done the entry. Let me know if I can assist, thanks! - GIen 03:24, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Protest Warrior

Please do not add sources that consensus agrees violate WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:OR, without discussing them on the talk page. Many Wikipedians are working to improve this article, and adding WP:OR and WP:RS such as Indymedia and RockNRev's site, you are hindering that effort. I encourage you to discuss changes on the talk page for Protest Warrior. Thank you. --Neverborn 05:45, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Terrence Malick

You could try the Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal. They are an informal mediation group. You just go down to "Making a request for assistance" and someone should help you soon. Gdo01 20:31, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rules of Engagement

What's your malfunction about this article? What are you afraid of? You can't handle the idea that something you don't like may have some value? What piece of factual information I posted do you have proof is false? If so, please send me links. Oh, and please send links with a neutral point of view. Deathbunny 06:55, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello kitrus, thank you for informing me of this. I will take a look at it within this week. Thank you. -Inahet 01:03, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where is your evidence for Wafa Sultan being describing as an Atheist ?

You changed the page on Wafa Sultan by altering her description from secular to atheist see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wafa_Sultan&diff=prev&oldid=82768502 . This was reverted by others along with lots of other stuff that you did. As far as I know she has not stated that she is an atheist. As a self-described atheist myself I'm happy that people do describe themselves as this and would be interested in any evidence that you have that she has described herself with these words.... or are you just using atheist as some kind of derogatory label ? Edits of living people pages need to be very precise in how Wikipedia describes people. Please see WP:LIVING. OK ciao. Ttiotsw 13:56, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from Ttiotsw talk page FWIW

As a matter of fact, I do have proof of Wafa Sultan's athiesm. Rather than assume that I'm making using "claim" "as some kind of derogatory label", you should assume good faith and do your own research. [1]

Several months ago, an obscure 47 year old unemployed psychologist by the name of Wafa Sultan had a debate on Arabic television with Algerian religious studies professor Ibrahim al-Khouli. A "translation service" operated by former members of the Israeli intelligence apparatus called MEMRI posted a five-minute cut of the segment that seemed to show Sultan winning the debate. This was widely dessimated by the right-wing blogsphere and then the mainstream media, including The New York Times. Unfortunately, the cut was questionably translated and showed only a very short segment of the long debate. Here's a link to the translated transcript of the entire show:

Full Transcipt Link - .pdf format

Athiesm quote:

"I am not defending my opinion from a Christian perspective; I want to make this very clear: I am not Christian, I do not believe in any religion. I am a secular human being and do not believe in the supernatural, but I respect the right of all to believe in it."

Wikstalking

Your recent reversion of many of my recent edits are not helpful to the project. Please discuss your reversions on the talk pages of relevant articles, and don't remove sourced relevant information just for the hell of it. Elizmr 00:59, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please look at the diffs. I didn't vandalize the Tutu page, I REMOVED vandalism. YOu, on the other hand DID vandalize a lot of pages I edited on. Please consider apologizing. Elizmr 01:19, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here is some more info for you: Note: Kitrus has refused to admit that I did not say that Tutu was a child abuser. Please note:

Here is the diff AFTER my EDIT: [2]
Here is the diff BEOFRE my EDIT: [3]
Here is my edit summary: "rv unsourced material slanderous"
And here is the history page showing my reversion of vandalism and who the vandalism was added by [4]

Again, I'm asking you to apologize to me for this accusation of vandalism. Elizmr 01:51, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blanking and vandalism

Hi Kitrus, I saw you accused another user in being a vandal. May I suggest you read WP:VANDAL and WP:AGF because you seem to misunderstand it.

Also, please do not blank referenced and relevant content as you have done here. Thanks. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 04:26, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stop violating WP policies and intimidating other users. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 04:36, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't expect to get far by making it personal and uncivil. Perhaps you've never heard of other WP policies: WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. From now on, we'll assume you know them all. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 04:59, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

resolving disputes--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 09:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Summaries

No one at all, I was Rc patrolling and almost reverted you as removals of that size with no summary are almost always vandalism. That of course wasnt a warning- but I've removed to keep your page nice and tidy. Keep up the great work :) Glen 10:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Links

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that exist to attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam policies for further explanations of links that are considered appropriate. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 10:17, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries

With regards to this edit, please do not provide a misleading edit summary. If you feel the citation is unreliable, say that it cites an unreliable source rather than saying that it is uncited. Thanks, Andjam 11:43, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article Content and Citations

Please do not remove content from article that are cited with a tag directly after the paragraph in question. The fact that the information was prominently known does not help either. Thank you. - MSTCrow 11:53, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism warning

You are removing references to other Wikpedia articles, valid sources, and large portions of text simply claiming that this is "spam" (Islamic terrorism, Muslim Brotherhood and other articles). Please respect work of other editors. If you disagree with something, please provide an alternative point of view supported by references, rather than delete references and citations provided by others. Biophys 04:09, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kitrus, please note that Biophys is doing exactly the same thing, but without even calling something spam. Biophys is known for publishing defamatory and libelous claims from unreliable sources about Russia.

Stalking

Is their a Wikipedia policy against stalking?--Kitrus 07:03, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is, at Wikipedia:Harassment. Ibn Shah 15:35, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

reverting

In the future please do not randomly revert without explaining your reasons either in the edit summary or on the talk page.--Sefringle^Talk 06:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright status of Elliot_Jaspin

Please do not post copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder, as you did to Elliot_Jaspin. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites (http://www.coxwashington.com/editors/content/reporters/jaspin_e.html in this case) or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) then you should do one of the following:

If you have permission from the author leave a message explaining the details on the article Talk page and send an email with the message to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted under the GFDL or released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:Elliot_Jaspin with a link to where we can find that note;
If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the GFDL, and note that you have done so on the article Talk page. Alternatively, you may create a note on your web page releasing the work under the GFDL and then leave a note at Talk:Elliot_Jaspin with a link to the details.

Otherwise, you are encouraged to rewrite this article in your own words to avoid any copyright infringement. After you do so, you should place a {{hangon}} tag on the article page and leave a note at Talk:Elliot_Jaspin saying you have done so. An administrator will review the new content before taking action.

It is also important that all Wikipedia articles have an encyclopedic tone and follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. -- lucasbfr ^talk 09:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed Naseeb Shaheen is also Copyright © 2007 University of Memphis. Did you create some other pages that fall under copyright violations? It is a very important matter. -- lucasbfr ^talk 09:33, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, only those two. Maybe they should be replaced by one line descriptions for now. I wasn't aware of how the copyright issue works vis-a-vis the internet.--Kitrus 09:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification :). You can use the source as a source of ideas, and not sentences. That means that if you can write the same biographies without reusing the text (changing one word there and there doesn't count of course ;), that's ok. Don't forget to back your article with a reference to the source (especially for living people). -- lucasbfr ^talk 09:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikistalking

I see you have wikistalked me to three more articles, [5] [6], [7] solely for the purpose of reverting me without conversation. In the latter revert, you re-inserted the antisemitic POVing of an IP editor. If you don't stop doing this, and start using the Talk: page instead, I will take action. You have been notified. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:33, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your editing

Hi Kitrus, there's been a complaint on AN/I that you're stalking Jayjg, and I see complaints from other editors that you're reverting too much or vandalizing. Stalking is very much frowned upon here, and can lead to a block if it continues. I understand that you're editing in an area where feelings run high, but if it's causing you to follow editors to pages you've never edited before simply to revert them, it might be a good idea to back away from that area a little and try editing elsewhere for awhile. Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:57, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You've been temporarily blocked from editing for 72 hours per discussion here. Please use the time off to become familiar with WP:HAR and avoid similar behavior when you return. FeloniousMonk 15:28, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tags on Wafa Sultan

Kitrus, I have removed the tags from this article. The tags were placed with no discussion either before or after the insertion of tags. As a note, both tags said to discuss on the talk page. They were placed way too quickly and with no discussionstatsone 20:49, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removing content

Please do not delete content from pages on Wikipedia. Your edits do not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use Wikipedia:Sandbox for test edits. Thank you. statsone 06:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content when editing you user page. statsone 06:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV disputes Wafa Sultan

On NPOV Dispute, it clearly states "Drive-by tagging is not permitted." In order to insert tags for NPOV disputes, "The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies..." Please follow the policy before inserting tags. statsone 06:48, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pallywood reverts

1) i've left you a comment here: [8] 2) i find that list you've made on here to be both uncivil and a breach of WP:AGF. i am not a sock of anyone and i request you start by removing my name from your list, and continue by removing this list entirely. there are other ways of handling suspiscions. -- Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 01:23, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eurabia

Please do not edit war on the Eurabia article. You are about to breach 3RR. Prester John ^{-(Talk to the Hand)} 08:45, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe he is approaching the 19RR. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.153.100.127 (talk) 03:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blanking

Please stop. If you continue to blank out (or delete portions of) page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, you will be blocked from editing. -- Avi 14:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy notice

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive295#Is this acceptable?. -- Avi 06:42, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:USER, the community has judged this unacceptable. Please refrain from restoring it. Thank you. -- Avi 19:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Commenting on archived pages will usually foster no results, as they are archived. Please start a new discussion on WP:ANI, referencing the old discussion via wikilink. Thank you. -- Avi 20:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page editing

For someone who professes to be concerned about wikipedia policies as you do here, may I point out that Wikipedia:User page#Ownership and editing of pages in the user space states “As a tradition, Wikipedia offers wide latitude to users to manage their user space as they see fit. However, pages in user space still do belong to the community.” I have no reason to edit your talk page in general, but statements such as “Your edits of my Talk page will be limited to that subheading only.” are against wikipedia policy. Thank you. -- Avi 12:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seattle Jewish Federation shooting

Please, again, leave this article alone until we have resolved the issue on the talk page. I am getting really tired of reverting your edits, and you haven't participated in the discussion at all. Alexwoods 14:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of massacres during the Second Intifada

Talk:List of massacres during the Second Intifada Looking for outside input into a long-term controversy over the naming and scope of this list. As you participated in the afd, please help us out. Thanks. <<-armon->> 11:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

revert on Deir Yassin massacre

Hello,
I don't understand why you reverted both articles I added in the "see also" section. Both are related to the article :

1947-1948 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine is the article that deals with the general context. There is even a section about these events in it;
Blood Libel at Deir Yassin is a book written on the subject. Whether we like what is written or not by the author, he is a reknown historian...

What do you think, Ceedjee (talk) 07:58, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure there are many books precisely dedicated to the Deir Yassin events and that have an article on wp. I assume that Sheveshalosh will simply add it to the bibliography, which would not change much at the end. ok.Ceedjee (talk) 08:56, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Inconsistency

Can you explain why you changed "Arab writers" to "Academics"[9], but "the writer" to "the Jewish writer"?[10] This seems extraordinarily inconsistent, especially for edits under an hour apart. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:05, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic fundamentalism

i've asked once why you removed links on this page and you didn't bother to answer it only to re-insert them. I've removed it once more, if you feel the links are POV then discuss them on the talk page. Once we gain consensus we can change the links. Lihaas (talk) 11:00, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ayn Rand

Moral statement as in "They are savages because they are doing X" or "they are savages because their culture advocates Y", which was the context Rand was using to describe the Arabs. It is a moral statement not in the sense that the statement itself is moral, but in the sense that it is making a moral judgment--not a racial one. Also, see WP:NOR. Even though you may well be right that Rand was racist, we aren't allowed to say that she was--we can only cite sources that argue that she was. TallNapoleon (talk) 00:43, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Steyn and WP:BLP

Please stop adding unreferenced controversial biographical content to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Mark Steyn. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Palin and WP:BLP

Please stop adding opinion pieces as external links to Sarah Palin. Content of this nature is in violation of Wikipedia BLP policy and WP:EL#In biographies of living people. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Naveed Afzal Haq

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Naveed Afzal Haq. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Naveed Afzal Haq. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:14, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of The United States and Right-wing Dictatorships, 1965-1989

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on The United States and Right-wing Dictatorships, 1965-1989 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Wayne Jayes (talk) 05:14, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Thank God they're on our side: the United States and Right-wing Dictatorships, 1921-1965

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Thank God they're on our side: the United States and Right-wing Dictatorships, 1921-1965 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Wayne Jayes (talk) 05:14, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]