User talk:CltFn
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)
- 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
- 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
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:
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jihad&action=history
- Vfd for Islamofascism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Islamofascism_(term) --Chaosfeary 14:56, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
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)
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)
NAZIISLAM
I love the image, where did you find it?
Klonimus 03:37, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
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)
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 {{fairusein|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)
- Hi, its just an image of a flag, its in the public domain .--CltFn 16:06, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
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)
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)