Anonymous editor

There are many few non-Muslim maintining neutral view towards Islamic articles. It is my pleasure to find you. Thank you. --- Faisal 17:31, 3 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thank you :). --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 17:35, 3 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Can you explain to me, why you keep restoring a personal attack me on Irishpunktom's userpage? -- Karl Meier 19:24, 3 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

It's his user page, editing it is vandalism. And I don't "keep restoring"; I reverted once. Ask him to remove it or get another opinion, but don't do it yourself. Thanks. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 19:25, 3 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

I ask you again to please quit harassing me, by restoring personal remarks regarding me on Irishpunktom's userpage. Nobody own any pages here on Wikipedia, and personal attacks can be removed on sight. If you keep harassing me, and insist on restoring these personal remarks/attacks on Irishpunktom's userpage, then I'll have to make a complaint on the administrators noticeboard about your and Irishpunktoms behavior, and bring it to the attention of a broader range of Wikipedians. -- Karl Meier 19:35, 3 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

You think that reverting someone's edits to a user's page is harrassment even if if it's done once?

About four other editors have also reverted you. I remember you had a very racist link on your userpage once that you absolutely refused to take off even when administators warned you. You can not edit his page, please ask him to remove it. I have nicely responded to your answer. Good bye. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 19:39, 3 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

It is true that there is several members of the "Muslims Guild" that has insisted on readding the personal attacks against me, but until now you are the only administrator that has done it. In my opinion it makes it much more serious, as administrators should be expected to be experienced users, that didn't engaged in such behavior (harassment/personal attacks and remarks). Regarding the external link, I have already agreed to remove it from my userpage a long time. In my opinion it wasn't racist, it was just an angry response to the violent attacks that happend just because of a few cartoons. This being said, I have already admittet that it was wrong that I placed the external link on my userpage, and it surely doesn't give editors such as you and Irishpunktom the right to harass me months after I removed the link. Please end your insults against me. -- Karl Meier 19:51, 3 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

You aren't allowed to edit another person's page and that's it. Don't do it because if he reports you will be blocked for vandalism. And please stop exagerrating one revert by me as harassment. I might have prevented you from being blocked. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 19:54, 3 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

You don't own any pages on Wikipedia, and personal attacks can be removed on sight whereever they are. If you feel that I vandalize Irishpunktoms userpage by removing a personal attack against me, then please file a report on "vandalism in progress" or quit your false accusations against me. It's bad enough that you restore these personal attacks. -- Karl Meier 20:01, 3 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

I think it should be removed but me reverting one of your edits to someone else's user page is not harassment even if you are biased enough to think so. You should have asked another editor or admin to remove them for you. Not do it yourself when three or four different editors have told you not to do so. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 20:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

If you where not "biased" as you call it, and if you really believe it should be removed, then I don't think you would have restored it. The plain and simple facts are that Irishpunktom made a personal attack against me on his userpage, and that you insisted that it should stay there. You even used one of your admin tools (the rollback feature) to insist on having this personal attack against me on Irishpunktoms userpage. -- Karl Meier 20:15, 3 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

I am very much impressed with your thoughts on Islamic Terrorism and on other points.I have gone through the INTELLIGENT ANALYSIS of the problem with the reference at one place, with syrprise. You have good collected the material as well as reference the sites at one place which earlier I have not seen. I will go through because I want to know more about the Islamic Terrorism and Islamic Extremeist. I am with you and support you. Keep this sprit always.

Since you previously showed interest in the former proposed policy Wikiethics, I'd like to inform you about this deletion review. Raphael1 15:02, 4 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Where are you these days. Without you they are becoming stronger and I am missing you. They are going to unprotect Muhammad article. They want to pust their stuff in. Please stop its unprotection and ready for reverting their POVs. I hope to see you soon around. --- Faisal 11:37, 9 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Salam bro. Don't you think we should undelete Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sahaba's ancestors? I put quite much time on it, and are proud of it, i belive its to usefull to be deleted. Im trying to see what people think before taking it to undeleteANI. What to you think?--Striver 08:53, 11 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

That anon has been making those edits for the last few days. The page was semi-protected for a while which helped, but it was recently lifted. Can you keep an eye on that page and if it happens again, semi-protect again? The Ungovernable Force 06:08, 17 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! The Ungovernable Force 06:11, 17 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

I see that you have accused me of calling other Wikipedians "names". That is a very serious accusation and I would like you to substanciate it, or withdraw it. Please provide a diff where I call any Wikipedian any disrespectful names, or quit making any such false accusations against me. -- Karl Meier 11:43, 17 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

You may be interested.

Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_June_16#Category:People_killed_by_or_on_behalf_of_Muhammad

BhaiSaab ^talk 00:18, 18 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Irishpunktom. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Irishpunktom/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Irishpunktom/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Johnleemk | Talk 10:52, 18 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for voting! Hello Anonymous editor, and thank you so much for voting in my recent RfA. I am pleased to inform you that it passed with a final tally of (119/1/3), into the WP:100, so I have now been cleared for adminship and will soon be soaring above the clouds. I was overjoyed, shocked, and humbled by the tally, and, most importantly, all the support. Thank you. If there is ever anything you need, you know where you can find me. Take care.

--Pilot|guy 22:53, 19 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

As you may have gathered, discussions have been raging for about a week on the Esperanza talk page as to the future direction of Esperanza. Some of these are still ongoing and warrant more input (such as the idea to scrap the members list altogether). However, some decisions have been made and the charter has hence been amended. See what happened. Basically, the whole leadership has had a reshuffle, so please review the new, improved charter.

As a result, we are electing 4 people this month. They will replace JoanneB and Pschemp and form a new tranche A, serving until December. Elections will begin on 2006-07-02 and last until 2006-07-09. If you wish to run for a Council position, add your name to the list before 2006-07-02. For more details, see Wikipedia:Esperanza/June 2006 elections.

Thanks and kind, Esperanzial regards, —Celestianpower ^háblame 16:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2006_June_26#Sahaba.27s_ancestors --Striver 20:24, 26 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Happy Canada Day, though I see you're (hopefully just) on a wikibreak. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 01:50, 1 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

I and User:Rama's Arrow were discussing [1] linkage of pages to India when refer to pre-1947 India (undivided India). Please have a look at discussion, and comment. You can also invite user interested in Pakistan, India and Bangladesh. Following is statement to start:

India after 1947 consists of three countries, Pakistan, India and Bangladesh. When we use word India, in articles, refereeing to whole India, links are such that they bring us to present day India (Republic of India), reducing size of pre-1947 India considerably. Is it possible that when we refer to pre-1947 India we use a term which encompasses whole India not just present day India? Please comment.

Following are suggestions:

• British India
• Indian Subcontinent
• Undivided India
• or disamg page of India.

--Spasage 10:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

i personally suggest undivided india nids 13:04, 28 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Back again. Hope all is well with you and yours. BYT 10:22, 9 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

I would not say in this case silence is more musical than the music. I trust you are all right. --Bhadani 15:12, 15 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Does any one has any information about him? --Bhadani 12:13, 22 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

السلام عليكم

the banu qaynuqa article is currently set to develop into perhaps a full-scale edit war[2]. this is in relation to (the same) content present in both the banu nadir and banu qaynuqa articles. the specific section of focus was something i had offered to discuss and suggest alternatives for (on talk:banu nadir), which could then be modified and analysed for suitability [3]. unfortunately this has not really seemed to work and now this is exactly the same content being reverted back on forth on banu qaynuqa. would it be o.k to request protection of the banu qaynuqa article (which is currently the condition with Banu Nadir), or at least the section, until the dispute is resolved? what other courses of action would you suggest (i'm still pretty much a newbie to WP)?

we tried mediation for the banu nadir article in hopes to settle the dispute but it seems that the opposing party isn't particularly interested in working to build a consensus article. at this point in time.. it seems that the mediation process is stagnating. what is your opinion of this and what steps do you recommend be taken in order to resolve the ongoing dispute? thank you ITAQALLAH 15:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hey. Do you have any idea that he has not come to edit from 17th June 2006. I am worried a lot. --Bhadani 16:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

indeed... i realised that a little after posting when i saw his contribs... i do hope nothing's wrong and that he is okay and doing well.. ITAQALLAH 18:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I have created a new article that will surely be afd'd very soon, and i would appreciate some help improving it before it happens: Controversial Israeli and Zionist quotes --Striver 13:31, 30 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Do you have any idea about his whereabouts? --Bhadani 16:49, 5 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hello Anonymous editor, I understand you are an administrator and in that capacity I am requesting your assistance. I have become involved in a very heated debate regarding an article I had previously nominated for AfD. During and after the AfD I have come in frequent conflict with User:Travb who questions my conduct on Wikipedia. I am not requesting assistance in any content dispute but I would very much like an outsider to review this matter and I would appreciate you looking into it. For some of the relevant links pertaining to this please see this and this. The thread on the admin noticeboard is getting to be a rehashing of the entire thing and no admins have responded substantially yet.

My sole concern here is the intimidating tactics employed by Travb, his telling me what to do and think, threatening to know I will be booted from WP (I know it is just intimidation tactics but that's just what concerns me). He uses derogatory terms to describe those who don't share his POV and dismisses them and employs tactics like keeping tabs on how many words I add and delete from articles and implying that when someone doesn't add anything to an article that they cannot delete inappropriate content. I have not been totally civil myself perhaps and I can feel myself getting more and more uncivil in this matter and I do not like that one bit.

Even though I have been on WP almost a year now, I am not too familiar with what steps to take in dispute resolution and I do not know where else to turn but directly to an admin. If you cannot help I would appreciate a nudge in the right direction. Apologies for the length of this post on your talk page. Thank you, Kalsermar 00:54, 18 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi admin, sorry to drag you into this. This users request was ignored by everyone but User:Jkelly on Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Admin_help_requested, who recommended a RfC, which I have started. I also started mediation, and ask two other mediators I worked with before to mediate the article.

Kalsermar, If you feel that I have treated you unfairly, and you need support, I strongly suggest an advocate , they have helped me and others before: Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates. You can also e-mail those who share your POV on the disputed page and work on strategies to counter my work. You are not alone on wikipedia.

Sorry again admin for bothering you.Travb (talk) 02:12, 18 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hey. I want to report hateful, anti-Muslim comments made by User:Subhash bose on User talk:Haphar. I have no clue what to do with it, since I can't find any policy page on Wikipedia dealing with these types of comments.

• [4] "I'm not upset about fundamentalism in Islam because there is no fundamentalism in Islam. Islam ITSELF is 'fundamentalist', in the sense of Intolerance, Slaughter, Looting, Arson, Molestation of women, ie I-S-L-A-M. The very word 'ISLAM' means 'submission to God'. Well I, for one, refuse to submit to their god through the UPA government. Sammihit Bharat!"
• [5] "The claim of Islamic 'fundamentalism' gives rise to the illusion that there is a 'non-fundamental' kind of Islam. There is only one kind of Islam. The kind that blows things up."

Thank you, Mar de Sin ^{Speak up!} 02:24, 19 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Also, check out Haphar's anti-Semitic racist comments about the mythical "Jewish Lobby" (which is regarded as an anti-Semitic slur). I confronted him about it here. He has tried to engage in some sort of McCarthyist rally against myself in several talk pages here here and got admonished by other users here. He has frequently engaged in ad-Hominem attacks against myself in my talk pages (I have them archived), as well as various other talk pages throughout wikipedia. His behaviour points to a psycho-pathological leftist fanaticism and a potentially dangerous anti-Semitic obsession with this nonexistent "Jewish Lobby" thing.Netaji 23:55, 20 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Please give the indivdual edit that Haphar made, instead of pages. The evidence for "some sort of McCarthyist rally against myself" are your own edits, showing your deletion of Haphar's previous edits. Also, users are entitled to believe what they want about anything (like Haphar to the Israel lobby, which is just a term, not a rigid organization), but they should not make attacks. You, on your own talk page (Archive 2), made numerous anti-Islamic/Arab comments [User talk:Subhash bose/Archive 2#Look who's talking|here]], while i did not see a single anti-Jewish, -Hindu, -Indian, etc. comment made by others (I haven't read the entire thing, so I may be wrong). Thank you. Mar de Sin ^{Speak up!} 01:02, 21 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi all. Do you know that he has not done any edit from 17th June 2006? Any one having any clue about AE. --Bhadani 14:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Please offer your opinion, vote, or whatever about your choice for the image to be used with the Islamic Barnstar Award at the Barnstar proposals page. Although there is consensus for the concept of an Islamic Barnstar Award, some editors would like to change the image for the award. I was just thinking you should be aware of this discussion because you have contributed to Islamic-related articles, received the Islamic Barnstar Award, or have contributed to the Islam-related Wikiprojects, etc.--JuanMuslim ^1m 03:05, 22 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hello,

What follows are the sentiments, expressed in their own words, and in the 'protest signs', of the obscure, very small, but very vocal 'activist group' known as "Protest Warrior".

"What's becoming clear is how the religion of Islam is addicted to war and mayhem. Not a radical minority, not a rogue sect, but its very essence is about submission and sacrifice and proving your worth by worshipping death in this life to gain a paradise of orgies and drunkenness. Their entire history is of warfare, and any accomplishments of their so-called Golden Age has been proven to be merely parasitic off the cultures they've conquered and reduced to dhimmi servitude. That every country under sharia is corrupt, belligerent, desolate and barbaric obviously gives them no pause, except to constantly drive them into further psychotic rage as they refuse to ever accept any responsibility for their conditions. They are akin to the powers in Orwell's 1984; there must always be an enemy. It's no surprise that women are treated like property in these countries as that's the only way Muslim men can feed their egos, to dominate others rather than ever actually produce something."

Kfir Alfia and Alan Lipton, founders of "Protest Warrior"

Their 'protest signs'...

Signs

I thought you might be interested in this group's sentiments. They are currently very actively editing their own article on Wiki and there is a lot of 'group think'. Perhaps you might want to become involved in the editing and discussion process on that page. If you do, please don't vandalize, and try to remain civil. Should you not want to involve youself, please forgive my intrusion.

Protest Warrior

Protest Warrior Discussion

NBGPWS 08:45, 28 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi Anonymous,
Just to let you know that something has come of your and KI's encouragement earlier this year. Thank you for making the initial suggestion!
Best wishes, David Kernow 04:04, 6 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Ok. that is fine. But I fail to understand the reason for no edit from AE from 17.06.06. I am worried a lot. --Bhadani 13:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

This is really disconcerting. Anonymous editor is a great administrator and has made prolific contributions, but he has basically disappeared without even one clue, signal, or message. I hope AE is alright, and I hope he will come back soon. Mar de Sin ^{Talk to me!} 20:17, 20 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Dear Anonymous editor,

Please come back. Sometime ago, I was looking at the Isa article and felt deeply felt the lack of your taking care of that article. You were doing a great job. I am sorry for the incivil comments I may have made on your talk page. I hope you are well. I wish to see you editing again soon. --Aminz 21:30, 7 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Salaam' User:Hkelkar, keeps adding unnecessary {{dubious}} and {{cn}} tags and also claims I did a personal attack on him when I warned him about his edits and unnecessarily adding the tags when the article "Cheema" clearly cites it sources. It seems anything which shows the humiliating treatment some Hindus dished out to the Jatt then he has to add the tag to that piece of text when there is clearly a reference there. So please can you look into this thanks. --Street Scholar 17:48, 6 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

He is on vacation. last edit he did on wikipedia was on 17th June.nids(♂) 17:56, 6 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

For the record, I have been on irc talking about him and editors agree with me that his sources are false. I will post a record of the chat session if you want me to do so.Hkelkar 18:07, 6 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

On vacation? It seems that AE disappeared from WP without a message/Wikibreak tag at all, and this has been almost 4 months. Mar de Sin ^{Talk to me!} 19:41, 6 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

I am a bit worried. In case, he has some real life issues, I would request him to please put a note here. I wish him all the best! --Bhadani 01:40, 13 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

I also wish him the best and hope he comes back. --Aminz 22:46, 19 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Me too :( -- ابراهيم 07:59, 20 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

I wonder if he's read Ibn Ishaq or al-Tabari. Arrow740 06:15, 24 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I was wondering why you protected the User talk:203.101.61.10 page, since now this user is going around vandalizing articles, and editors are unable to warn appropriately... Wouldn't itbe better to block this obvious sockpuppet before he does any more damage? Sfacets 07:58, 30 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Peace, I need some help with the article Religious_significance_of_Jerusalem#Jerusalem_in_Islam. You can visit the history of the article to witness the edit wars that broke out, or the talk page under /Talk:Religious_significance_of_Jerusalem#About_the_header, for the current debate. Bless sins 02:19, 10 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

An article that you have been involved in editing, Danny Graham, has been listed by me at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Danny Graham. Please look there to see why this is, if you are interested in whether it should be deleted. Thank you. --Jerry lavoie 05:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC) Jerry lavoie 05:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi there, I am a research student from the National University of Singapore and I wish to invite you to do an online survey about Wikipedia. To compensate you for your time, I am offering a reward of USD$10, either to you or as a donation to the Wikimedia Foundation. For more information, please go to the research home page. Thank you. --WikiInquirer 21:50, 3 March 2007 (UTC)^{talk to me}Reply

can it be removed or not. plz answer me . i like your contributions.

   thanks

Zikrullah 11:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gary_Miller_(Abdul-Ahad_Omar)

User:Waqas.usman (Talk) 11:44, 18 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Strange to find messages when AE has not edited since 17th June 2006, and appears to have left without any clue. --Bhadani 20:04, 18 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

I need your help. I'm now very tired and annoyed reading, since days, advices and pages about wikipedia policies without finding a real solution. Since days I wait for an administrator to cancel my account. I found incredible being in the impossibility to cancel an account I created. "Do I have to make vandalism in Wiki pages to finally found someone clever enough to answer to my request and cancel my account?" I asked.. I had no reply. Please accept my request and cancel definitively my account from wikipedia. Thank you. MDMDMDMD —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MikeMcGD (talk • contribs), 31 March 2007 (UTC).

Hey there,

I've been in a reverting cycle with "Someone" (given they do not use a username and just update with an IP I dunno who) in regards to this article. I know that it is a snub but it is clear to me that it is someone trying to use the page as some sort of platform for something. I know and have campaigned for John and yeah he is smart but I don't think that a) His IQ should be listed as it is unverifable and b) his support for a local movement is suspect. So I removed both references and this other person keeps re-inserting them claiming that "I" and not following wiki policy or that using my logic the article wouldn't exist. I believe I am in the right in that arbitaray things like IQ and opinion should be removed if it is unsourced or unverifable. Could you lock this page after my edit or give me some advice in regards to this issue. You helped me once before. Thank you. --Kirkoconnell 17:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Dear editor, I added the following on this article: an image of Pakistan Army surrender in East Pakistan, some of the others like mercenary and one other feel this is vandalism, I think it is important as it was the most important time in Pakistans history when it lost through surrender half its country. Furthermore, I made each coup into a sub paragraph, others dont agree. I would invite you to look at it and give your impartial opinion.

trueblood 03:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Am i allowed to remove vandalism warnings, copyright image notices, etc, from my user talk page? User:Yamakiri user has threatened to permanently protect my user talk page so that i cant edit it. Can i remove copyright image notices at least? i hope you see this soon. thx Modelun88 00:23, 9 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Getting of tired of going behind him... Anyways, he's removed block notices, and I'm not an admin so I just requested that his page be protected and that he get a block. P.S. he's copied and pasted this on quite a few pages now.Yamakiri 00:44, 9 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Can you tell me what is wrong with my infobox on my sandbox?--Arceus fan 17:07, 21 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi Anonymous editor. Please consider adding your admin username to the growing list at Classification of admins. Best! -- Jreferee t/c 23:02, 28 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Teddy?

dissregaurd if you don't know what this is.--ANOMALY-117 (talk) 18:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I and my fellow editors are facing a deadlock on a issue of removing a section as subsection under criticism section in Operation Blue Star article, concerns include WP:NPOV, the summary of dispute can be found at [6], please let us know your views/opinion so that 'alleged' bias may be looked into and a consensual solution may be found. Thanks LegalEagle (talk) 06:37, 9 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

I am writing to you because of a problem on the Billy Joel article. There is an anonymous user with the IP address of 148.4.25.128 that has been reinserting a link to a personal website on the article in the External links section. This user has been doing this for quite some time. He did it on November 20th, 2008 and I just noticed it tonight. I removed the link because I know about Wikipedia's policy on Spam links and that they are not allowed.

Since I saw that you are an administrator, I felt that I should talk to you regarding this rather than me taking care of the matter myself. I also do not want to start any edit conflicts and/or wars. Thanks for taking the time to look into this matter.Frschoonover (talk) 02:39, 21 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

 

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article List of Pakistani television and radio channels, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

This article's title states that it is a "list of Pakistani television and radio channels", but there is no such list on the article. Even if there were, it would be superfluous because of List of Pakistani television stations and List of Pakistani radio channels. There is no reason to group the two lists together under this title, therefore this article serves no purpose.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Neelix (talk) 21:22, 6 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

I made an edit today--one edit--to the article Carrie Prejean and have not made an edit to the article in days, but yet another editor reversed my ONE edit and then reported me on the 3RR notice board. I find this to be a clear use of Wikipedia to win a debate about article content and direction. Prejean was called a series of negative things by Perez Hilton, most of the words are contemptuous and vile, such as the b-word and c-word. There are editors that believe that each and every one of Hilton's use of those words MUST be included in the article about Prejean. Now, I don't see the need to have an article about Prejean dominated by the words and comments of ONE individual (highly negative words at that) dominate the life story of Prejean. It is tantamount to having the words of Saddam Hussein concerning George W Bush dominate the Wikipedia article about Bush. It violates Wikipedia avowed goal of NPOV and it violates BLP. Now, I know that consensus in Wikipedia editing is one of the goals, but consensus does NOT override other valid Wikipedia ideals such as BLP. There can be a compromise made where the gist of Hilton's highly negative opinion is included in the article, but at the same time it does NOT dominate the life story of Prejean. Prejean is notable for many, many reasons, not just her public fight with Hilton. She is notable for being a successful model; she is notable for participating in Deal or No Deal; she is notable for being the current Miss California USA; and she is now notable for being a TV personality. My first question is: Can you at least review the article and see if the second, third, fourth, and fifth repetitions of the b-word and c-word violates BLP? I believe that it does. And my second question is: Is it appropriate to make a report on an editor for violating 3RR even though that editor has only made one edit? And my third question is: Is misusing 3RR to win a debate on the proper interpretation of BLP appropriate? I don't think so.--InaMaka (talk) 15:58, 15 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

I am curious as to why the article for Brooklyn musician Yula Be'eri has been deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.250.112.135 (talk) 17:26, 8 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

I was wondering if you could help me. I made the mistake of vandalism last year on the Elizabeth Swann page. I have never done it since then and I feel very bad about it. I didn't mean to be a pain or anything, I just didn't like what was written and didn't know what else to do about it. I do regret it and I didn't mean any harm.

I wanted to know if you could erase the discussion. I feel so bad about what I've done and I know only an Administrator can erase edits and such. I would be most grateful if you could do this for me. I really feel guilty when I see that page. I've changed and I'll never make an edit again. If you could help me, I'll appreciate it. 71.230.185.202 (talk) 02:18, 2 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Dear Anonymous, regarding article Jesus in Islam, recently I had a long discussion with other reader/editor/admin on its title to have “Isa” word in it. In the history of 'talk page' of this article in year 2006 there was a long similar discussion regarding title involving name "Isa" and there was editor naming similar to you was very much involved. If it is you, please have a look at discussion on 'title move' there and let me know about your view on the subject on my talk page if you feel so, thanks.--Md iet (talk) 09:52, 5 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

I recently nominated Institute of Chartered Accountants of India for peer review. I request you that if you can spare some time offer a peer review of Institute of Chartered Accountants of India. Please favourably consider my request. R.Sivanesh ✆ 08:21, 23 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

  Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative privileges of users who have been inactive for one year, meaning administrators who have made neither any edits nor any logged actions in over one year. As a result of this discussion, your administrative privileges have been removed pending your return. If you wish to have these privileges reinstated, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e., as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised and that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions). This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. RL0919 (talk) 20:06, 8 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Please put the Port Claro article back — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.166.196.84 (talk) 03:22, 25 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hello. You are receiving this message because of a recent change to the administrator policy that alters what you were told at the time of your desysopping. The effect of the change is that you will not longer be able to request restoration of the tools because of your prior inactivity. You have until December 30, 2012 to request restoration or else the policy will prevent you from doing so in the future; you would need to seek a new WP:RFA. Until December 30, you can file a request at WP:BN for review by the crats. Thank you. MBisanz ^talk 04:22, 3 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

(delivered by mabdul 22:58, 3 December 2012 (UTC))Reply

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:04, 23 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

I enjoyed your posts at Wikipedia Review. Enigma^msg 17:43, 16 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

 

The article Muhammet Kızılarslan has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT and WP:NOLY.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:01, 5 October 2024 (UTC)Reply