User talk:Islamist

Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has now been reverted or removed. Please use Sandbox for any other tests you want to do, since testing in articles will be reverted quickly. Please see the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. Apollomelos 04:56, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please stop removing content from Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you want to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 21:59, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't care whether it was an experiment; don't do it. If you do it again, I shall block you from editing for a period. Mel Etitis  ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 22:07, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * If you vandalise an article again, you will receive an editing block; this is your final warning. Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 22:31, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for 24 hours. When the block expires, please feel free to edit Wikipedia in a collaborative way &mdash; neither blanking pages nor adding them simply because of your own political views. Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 22:36, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Judaism is a religion, not a nationality
Jews are not a nationality. They are a religion. Why are Jews listed on List of nationalities? Why are Jews considered a nation when no other religion is given that status? --Islamist 15:04, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Because they're a nationality. Read Jew. Jayjg (talk) 22:55, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * In case you didn't see this - please inform yourself. While the term Jew can refer to a member of the Jewish faith, it is also used to refer to a person of Jewish decent - an ethnic Jew. Musser 23:00, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Personal attacks, discussion
I have unblocked you, on the grounds that your edits at Judeofascism and Islamofascism do not constitute vandalism. However, I remind you that No personal attacks is a binding policy, and strongly urge you to resolve arguments on the Talk: page of an article before making controversial edits. - Mustafaa 05:58, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * In reply to Islamist's e-mail to me, accusing me of hypocrisy on the grounds that I'm obviously a Jew, I included this:
 * I was not concerned with the content of the article; I didn't even read the Islamofascism article, in fact. I was concerned with your actions in unilaterally, with no attempt to discuss it with others, blanking a long article and turning it into a redirect.  I was similarly concerned with your doing the same thing in reverse with the Judeofascism article.  Wikipedia isn't supposed to be made up of a bunch of egoists doing whatever they want -- it's a team affair, a collaboration.
 * Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 08:56, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I noted your hypocrisy in editing and reverting islamofascism and Judeofascism and said that it indicated you must be a Jew. Was I wrong? No, you are a Jew. I didn't say you were a hypocrite on the gounds of being a Jew or because you are a Jew. I said your edits were hypocritical and your bias indicates that you are a Jew. It is a true statement so don;t try to turn it into a personal attack. Are you ashamed to be a Jew? You shouldn't be. Are you ashamed to edit Wikipedia articles in a biased manner? You should be. I am not ashamed to be a Muslim but then I do not make biased edits to promote a bigoted belief system either so I have nothing to be ashamed of. --Islamist 00:38, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As a matter of fact I was brought up a Catholic, am now an atheist, and am (as my User page indicates) half English and half Irish. To the best of my knowledge I have no Jewish blood, though I'd be perfectly happy to find that I had. Sorry to prick your bubble of complacency &mdash; that if someone disagrees with you they must be bigoted because of their race or religion. And frankly your edits do indeed show an extremely one-sided approach to everything you touch. Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 09:34, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Marking things VfD
When marking articles for VfD, make sure you follow the full VfD process, detailed at the bottom of WP:VFD. The three steps, and  are all necessary for an article to correctly appear on WP:VFD for discussion. Feco 01:00, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't think you got things exactly right, but it looks like another user has already corrected the formatting. Take some time to read WP:VFD.. at the very bottom of the page, there are two sets of instructions on how to do VfD. In my opinion, the first set (with >, and  ) is easier to follow.Feco 01:16, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Personal attacks in edit summaries
Stop referring to other editors as being bigoted. These are personal attacks, and are not allowed. Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 14:28, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * This is your final warning. Personal attacks are never acceptable - and calling people bigoted is a personal attack. Thryduulf 15:15, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I never caled another editor a bigot. I called some edits bigoted, which is true and I do not apologize for it. Calling edits bigoted is not a personal attack. Get off your high horse. --Islamist 15:28, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * (after edit conflict)
 * I'm not interested in sophistry about whether calling editors' actions bigoted is to call them bigots &mdash; though 'you are nobody' can't even be defended in that way. If you continue in this arrogant and abusive way, though, you will be called to account.  It's up to you; I'm trying to save you future grief, but if you refuse to change, don't be surprised if you receive another editing block. Mel Etitis  ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 15:17, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I laugh at your arrogant threats. You are nobody to threaten me. You are just another editor. What makes you think you have any authority to order me or anyone else around? I suggest you read Wikipedia policies and adhere to them. Your edits are abusive and your accusations against me amount to personal attacks. I welcome entering into dispute resolution process with you to help you stop your abusive editing practices. --Islamist 15:22, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I haven't threatened you.
 * I haven't ordered you around.
 * It's sad that you think only those with authority over you have the 'right' to try to get you to behave with courtesy and good sense. Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 16:45, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * As above, I think you'd better calm down and show some civility. If you're not already aware, we also have a three revert rule, which you've come very close to breaking. Please understand that Wikipedia is not a soapbox for your cause; making an article NPOV does not necessarily mean injecting your own POV.


 * Regarding List of political epithets; I didn't realise "Judeofascism" was already listed there, as the diff didn't clearly show this and it didn't occur to me that you'd try to insert a duplicate entry (what's up with that?). But that supports the revert; I removed duplicate material. If the separate Judeofascism article is merged into the list (as it appears it will be), then it would be pertinent to go into detail. If the same happens for Islamofascism (not quite a certainty), then its list entry could be expanded as well; as it stands there's no need to bloat the list article if a more detailed article is available. I'd also like to point out that adding links to an article currently on VfD (especially when the votes are leaning strongly in the delete/merge direction) is, IMO, bad form. Islamofascism was already linked before the VfD, and (as of writing) the outcome of its vote is still unclear. -- Hadal 15:48, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

List of "Hostile" editors on your User page
Hi. I'm sure you didn't intend it to be a personal attack, but the section on your User page where you list "hostile" editors isn't appropriate for Wikipedia. It would be a sign of good faith if you were to remove this section. It would also assist in reducing any tension that you may have with other editors. Thanks! Carbonite | Talk 16:30, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Comments
Original Text from Talk:Gallery of national flags:

Comment: just one more thing, and this is towards Islamist: I do not appreciate the edit summary for this page as (stop denying reality) and the comments on your user page that we are "narrow minded". This is borderline POV, and I respectfully ask you to tone down the comments a notch and just to be as NPOV as possible. Zscout370 02:46, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I never listed you anywhere so I don't know what you speak of. Maybe you have guilty conscience. --Islamist 02:49, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Correct, you did not list me by name, but this is what I was refering to, and this is from your User page: "The following articles are of interest to me. They are being targeted for what I consider biased and bigoted edits by a small group of editors. I ask for collaboration from enlightened editors to delete and revert narrow-minded edits that are being entered into these articles:" and you list the flag pages as one of them. I have no problem if you want to edit the articles, but calling us (I said we earlier, not I) biased, bigoted and calling our edits narrowminded is something that I do not appreciate.

Now, for the second comment, which is shown from the Edit History. The first two edits of yours were reverted by myself and other user, mainly since you have gone around and put POV images/talk on various pages, giving you a 24 hour ban. With your last edit being "21:27, 17 Apr 2005 Islamist (stop denying reality)," that is basically saying that you will not only keep on adding this image to the Gallery, but your telling us this state will be here. I also find that POV, which Wikipedia is supposed to have none of that. We might keep the image there, though I personally think you sould have came to us first before adding the flag to the Gallery. I also want for you to soften your POV tone and stop making personal/group attacks because we do not have the same POV as you. If you want to contribute to Wikipedia in a civil and neutrual manner, that is fine with me, but I beg you to look at what I wrote and please take the suggestions I have given you. Sincerely, Zscout370 03:16, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

On the art of avoiding edit wars
This site is first and foremost an encyclopedia. There are indeed many articles in which an anti-Islamic POV has been put, and this needs to be fixed. But this can and should be done in a friendly manner. Assume good faith is worth reading in this connection. If you assume that anyone who doesn't agree with you 100% is disagreeing solely because of bias, and will not listen to rational arguments - that quickly becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. - Mustafaa 05:51, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Image source
Thank you for uploading Image:Ruzicka.jpg. Its copyright status is unclear, so it may have to be deleted. Please leave a note on the image page about the source of the image. Thank you. --Evil Monkey&#8756;Hello 07:10, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC) Original image located at http://www.civicworldwide.org/images/marla.jpg, which is displayed on the About page of CIVIC. Zscout370 11:40, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Evil and Islamist, here you go:

RfC
No-one seems to have informed you that you're the subject of Requests for comment/Islamist; if you want to give your side of the story, you should do so at that page (make sure that you read the instructions carefully before doing so). Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 11:26, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Right to exist
You might be interested in knowing that there is currently an attempt to delete the "Right to exist" article on the grounds that it is insufficiently pro-Israeli. LevelCheck 19:14, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory vote
Please consider voting at:

Conspiracy_theory

to rename articles that use the pejorative term "Conspiracy theory" to denigrate the content of the article.

Do the titles of WP articles generally pass partisan judgment on the subject under discussion? Should they? BrandonYusufToropov 02:28, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Palestinian flag
As-salaam alaikum, brother. No, I'm not Muslim, but I'm definitely feelin' you on the Palestinian flag. I happened across your dispute on the RfC (Request for Comments) page. I've included the Palestinian flag among the Flags of non-sovereign nations. I was surprised not to find it there. I don't know how to make the format conform with that of the rest of the entries, but I think that's where it belongs. Palestine is, indeed, a nation unto itself -- but, unfortunately, it is not yet sovereign. I've also added it to the article on Palestinian territories. Peace. :) deeceevoice 19:29, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Ruzicka.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Ruzicka.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages 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 non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rettetast (talk) 19:58, 1 January 2008 (UTC)