Your point about the content doesn't matter. 3rr only counts reverts, it doesn't deal with content issues. You might have a very valid point as far as the content goes, but you still broke the 3rr. Seraphim00:28, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Re: POV pushing
I realize that there may be some unfairness in such a comment, if one is not prepared to further engage in explanations, debates and arguments to support it. However, in the light of some of the protracted, and repetitive arguments that I have seen you engage in, I must admit... I can't be bothered. Sorry. 11:59, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
I simply neither have the time nor desire to get into such discussions, providing many a link and wordy explanations. My last words on this matter.Varga Mila12:35, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Considering that you brought that up in one of the afds I put up, I just want to say that I challenge that. All of those articles that I put up for afd do qualify the criteria for deletion and I would like to know why you think they didn't (did random family trees with no sourced to meet WP:V deserve to be on Wikipedia?). I would also like to know if you think the following qualifies as WP:POINT (or is Striver above Wikipedia policy?), and if it does not I would like to know why in my talk page.
And he went through with it as well by putting up Afds for all those articles out of revenge for them putting an afd on his article and without even putting afd on the page history.
When the contibutors to this pages saw what he was doing they went to take off the afd tags that he put up to make a point and he reverted it and again put Rv Vandalism on the edit history.
I was just admiring your userpage and wanted to know exactly how some of your entries constitute hate. Concerning the UK Commissioner’s remarks: So Muslims who wish to throw out the age-old laws, processes, and government of Britain and replace them with pure Islamic law are note hateful, but a commissioner advising those who wish to do so to leave is? —Aiden22:10, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The comments were concerning a poll conducted in the UK which saw some 60% of Muslim residents convey that they would like to see the current UK government replaced with an Islamic government operating under Sharia. You make it sound as if he basically told all adherent Muslims to leave, which is not the case. —Aiden23:06, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do you understand the poll the Commissioner was responding to was not about use of Sharia in daily life, but about the 60% of British Muslims wishing to replace the current British government with one that uses Sharia as its legal basis? You are misrepresenting the topic grossly. —Aiden02:58, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am referring to an ICM poll discussed here. Among other things it states: The special poll based on a survey of 500 British Muslims found that a clear majority want Islamic law introduced into this country in civil cases relating to their own community. Some 61 per cent wanted Islamic courts - operating on sharia principles – "so long as the penalties did not contravene British law." Further, 58% of Muslims agree that "despite the right to free speech, In Britain people who insult or criticize Islam should face criminal prosecution." My point is that the Commissioner's remarks were simply directed toward those who want Shariat courts in the stead of current British courts, not to Muslims who wish to adhere to Sharia or any other personal moral code, as your userpage insinuates. Secondly, I really don't see how the comments are 'hateful.' He is basically saying, "If you don't like our country, leave." It has nothing to do with being Muslim or non-Muslim in my mind. —Aiden02:29, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The point is not the content of the poll, it's your characterization of the Commissioner's comments as "hate" and your attempts to demonize any dissenting opinion and portry Muslims as perpetual victims of hate. Just like how you characterize those who claim Islam is a violent religion as 'hateful' but don't mention people who firebomb embassies and consolutes because of cartoons. But it's obvious you've made up your mind on the issue. Nice talking with you. —Aiden22:07, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Muslim vs Islam
I dont agree with a single point you made, but I wont fight the move. I really cant see how Muslim world is the correct term. That's like saying Israel is the home base for the "Jew world." KI02:06, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, you're missing my point. It makes more sense to refer to the Jewish world than the Jew world. KI21:31, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jyllands Posten cartoon aniconism proposal
Greetings Irishpunktom,
Please see this proposal for changes in the aniconism section.
Btw, nicely done on that block there... you did a good job hurting yourself too, that part made me laugh. The break did me some good though. I'm ready to do some more verbal battling and non-NPOV crushing. :-) Netscott11:26, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:Plagge.JPG. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.
If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, consider reading fair use, and then use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), 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. Thank you. Stan05:58, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
AfDs
When you find information on a topic whose article is up for AfD, info that you believe establishes its notability, e.g. Islamic Center of Irvine, you might consider adding it to the article. Also, your earlier keep votes on Jersey Devil's AfDs of Striver-created articles accused JD of making a point. AFAIK it violates no policies to state that in an AfD (though it doesn't really speak to the reasons stated for the AfD). However your later ones accused him of being on a Crusade. That's a rather more inflammatory accusation to make given the context. I think in the interest of civility you should refrain from that accusation.
Well, hello again Tom! Perhaps you could you elaborate on why you dislike the title please? And recomend a replacement title? please? Veej02:21, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Tom. Sorry to be thick. you added this to the talk page;
POV tag not added by me, it should stay till it can be verified that;This is the most used name for this event (I don't think it is)That the groups in question have all been identified as "Islamist" by a reputable sources.That the event only took place in one location.--Irishpunktom\talk 02:30, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
So this means that you do object to the title? Please state on the talk page what you think the title should be changed to. Veej02:43, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I would like to thank you for your contribution on Wikiethics page. We would appreciate your suggestions on improving the policy. As you probably noticed, Arguments and Sections subpages are for improving the policy. Thanks Resid Gulerdem19:47, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How could the addition of two extremely small comments be construed as vandalism? I'd agree if I had erased the "list" or blanked the page... but this I did not do... your hyperbole makes laugh... thanks for that. LOL! ;-) Netscott12:48, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Irishpunktom but try applying a little logic and realize that I never did attack you by saying you were asinine but your accusations are asinine. There is a big differnce you know? Netscott14:45, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uh huh, it was so clear to what it was that you were referring to... why don't you just go ahead and file an WP:RFC and watch what a laughingstock it'd become... such an RfC would be asinine itself. Netscott14:49, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Forgive my saying so Irishpunktom but I'm begining to think that you have less than a mastery of the English language (many of your seemingly illiterate posts in fact remind me bit of some of Raphael1's posts). "Angle of Attack" refers to the actual filing of an RfC, not attacking you as an individual. Please do refrain from making such asinine accusations. Netscott15:53, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps; or perhaps your refusal to ackowledge that you should not violate others user pages, make reverts on pages on which you appear to know nothing or taunt people is far from civil - yet you bemoan others for not upholding such things - Who, exactly, is the "illiterate" one.. Who was it, remind me, that you called an "Idiot"?--Irishpunktom\talk16:08, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Another false accusation, at this point it's normal for me to be editing on topics related to Islam and Muslims as the hundreds of Islam and Muslim related article edits on my contribution history will surely demonstrate. A better example of Wikistalking however would be your reverting of my good faith edits on User:Crad0010 which you would only have been aware of if you had 'stalked' me. To be honest though, I don't see either your edits or mine as stalking... you're just demonstrating a suspicion of my edits and I can only assume good faith and suppose you thought that you were within your rights to revert them. You haven't denied that I've made edits of a complimentary nature relative to you, so any reader can assume that my statement is true. Of course I can provide diffs if the need is there. Again Irishpunktom do refrain from making falseaccusations. Netscott16:23, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Or, possibly because it was brought up on a talk page on my watchlist. Your first edit to one of the cited articles was to revert me to include some obviously false information. And you can assume things all you want, it doesn't make you right. Further, you havn't answerd the question I asked. Why won't the Bastian of civility remind me? --Irishpunktom\talk17:39, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Are you insinuating that I have previously called you an "idiot"? Well, at least your not making further false accusations, but do your best to render your argument cogent and provide a diff. I'm begining to tire of this as you've not made any truly substantiated claims and our argumentation skills do not seem evenly matched. This unfortunately, is turning this "debate" into a one sided conversation. Netscott17:49, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
