User talk:Rembrandt Peale

May 2013

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to 2013 Woolwich beheading. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Giant Snowman 20:17, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GiantSnowman was removing material attempting to gut the article 2013 Woolwich attack, 2013 Woolwich beheading even as I was creating it. Intimidation and bullying.Rembrandt Peale (talk) 20:57, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I removed unreferenced and biased material. Giant Snowman 21:07, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stop bullying working editors and make an honest contribution. You could, for example, have added a reference or two.Rembrandt Peale (talk) 21:15, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Or you could try and stop pushing your Islamophobic bullshit? Giant Snowman 14:08, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've been adding material form the BBC, newspapers and academic journals. You just don't like the facts.Rembrandt Peale (talk) 13:58, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ways to improve Beheading in the name of Islam

Hi, I'm Salimfadhley. Rembrandt Peale, thanks for creating Beheading in the name of Islam!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. It might be worth including some islamic perspectives regarding the acceptable use of beheading.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse. Salimfadhley (talk) 22:12, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Standalone articles on a facet of a religion tends to be difficult to establish. Sometimes when a large article needs to be shorten, a section may be broken off and put into a standalone article. But creating an article from scratch is more demanding. If your article doesn't survive the afd process, you may want to insert an abridged section into the Decapitation article. This brings editors with experience in the topic to the task of reviewing and contributing to the topic. If the article survives the afd process, you might want to add a section to the Decapitation article anyway. Jason from nyc (talk) 16:41, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Beheading in the name of Islam for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Beheading in the name of Islam is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beheading in the name of Islam until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Martin451 (talk) 22:14, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

SPI

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Historicist nableezy - 16:11, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Block notice

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. EternalFloette (talk) 16:12, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]