User talk:Pename

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Flockmeal 22:21, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Stop making personal attacks
I've been watching the Jihad page. I don't like Jihad one little bit, but you are not helping by saying things like "the last thing you are capable of contributing is a neutral point of view. what you contribute is an Islamic apologetic point of view. That sort of thing does not belong in encylopedias. Perhaps you should start your own Islamic website." and headings starting with "Alburundi's latest lie"!

Firstly, your own edits are POV (I've been watching the article) and secondly you should be aware that we have a rule on Wikipedia: no personal attacks.

Alberuni may not be the most polite user, or the most NPOV user, or even the most cooperative user, but you are either deliberately baiting him/her with your immoderate speech, or you don't understand how to make compromises or understand that this is a consensus based website. Your edits are just as POV as Alberuni's!!!!

Stop it!

Ta bu shi da yu 05:34, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

How can I edit the timeline? --Pename 06:34, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

Sigh. Template:Timeline of Islamist military history. Click on edit. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:00, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I have put in some comments on the talk page for that "timeline". Please comment. &mdash;iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 06:28, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)

"minor edits"
Don't mark reverts as a minor edit. They aren't. Use the minor edit box for things like fixing spelling errors or grammar, fixing wikilinks, etc. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:40, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * excuse me? Where did I mark a revert as a minor edit? BE SPECIFIC ABOUT YOUR ACCUSATIONS AGAINST ME, OTHERWISE THEY WILL BE DISMISSED AS FRIVILOUS. --Pename 23:43, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)


 * Hmmm. Appears I misread the wrong edit history. Sorry about that, and I categorically take back my comments and apologise unreservedly. I also appreciate that you are making an attempt to objectively address my concerns in the article, though I still think that improvements could be made. Will look a bit more carefully at the page when I have more time. Sorry for the heat I've generated in the talk page and on your talk page. Please be aware that I'm trying very hard to mediate between two completely opposing viewpoints here, and to be fair to all parties. Perhaps I've been a bit harsh on you. If that's the case, I apologise again. - Ta bu shi da yu 00:25, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * No worries. I understand that you're only trying to mediate betweening opposing viewpoints, and as such your continued efforts are duly appreciated. --Pename 00:40, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)


 * OK, so long as you understand. I'd prefer it if you didn't quit this site (despite the way my comments about you might have come across), because I think you more than likely have very valuable information to impart to us! I'd also like to say that if I have given the impression of attacking you personally, then this makes me sad because that was not my intention. I really do want to try to understand a subject as topical as Jihad, but I would like to see a relatively unbiased source, where information is presented in such a fashion that I can trust it to some degree. Hence the reason for me asking those details questions. You started well by answering some of the questions, and finished off badly by attacking me personally yourself. Please, I ask you to stick around but modify the way you do your edits! Ironically Jihad does not have to a battlefield. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:43, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Cite sources
I strongly suggest that you read Cite sources. If you do not cite sources, then your information, whether credible or not, will probably be removed. --Viriditas 04:08, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * thanks but I do cite everything i write. not everything in that article was written by me, you know.
 * Then instead of being a quitter, cite your sources. You are welcome to email me if you would like help putting your citations into the appropriate format.  Also, please remember to sign all the comments you make.  Most people use four tildes (~ ~ ). That will place your user name and time stamp after your comments.  Again, email me for further info.  --Viriditas 05:04, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Personal attacks
Would you like me to file an RFC on you? Your last comment that "I'm extremely sorry to have to tell you this, but you're not exactly the brightest bulb on the Christmas tree." definitely goes against the no personal attacks ruling. I'm giving you fair warning, if you don't heed it then I will file one on WP:RFC! - Ta bu shi da yu 05:27, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * You need not worry. I won't be contributing to Wikipedia anymore, or taking part in the Talk page. In my opinion Wikipedia needs an expert review system. I understand that they are trying to devise one now. Until then, it's simply not worth my while. I'm not going to spend hours meticulously documenting evidence, and organizing and presenting the information, only to have it all deleted without rhyme or reason by uninformed and illogical individuals. --Pename 05:32, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)


 * By giving up you are not only allowing the Jihad article to appear as something other than what it is, but you are encouraging other Islamic apologists to do more of the same. Please stay. -lothario- 08:04, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry you feel that way, but you simply don't seem to understand how Wikipedia works. We work because we base our contributions on consensus. I'm also sorry if you felt under attack or felt that you were being treated unfairly, however I feel that under scrutiny you were not able to satisfactorally address my questions on the Jihad talk page. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:41, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Of course he doesn't understand how Wikipedia works. He's a new contributor.  Please do not bite the newcomers.  --Viriditas 07:10, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Excuse me, but I was not attacking him. I was asking questions! sheesh. Since when was that classed as "biting newbies"? I'd suggest you read the article assume good faith.- Ta bu shi da yu 07:37, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * There's no excuse for biting the newcomers, which I feel you have done.  For example, when you first replied to Pename's personal attacks, when Pename asked you how to edit the timeline, you replied with a sigh; you threatened to file an RFC against him after only two days of posting, etc.  Then there is the Jihad page, where Pename expressed his frustration with the removal of his comments, and where he tried to create a compromise version (in good faith) of the article, whereas instead of replying with positive reinforcement, you shot him down with another RFC threat, you made fun of his edits ("ridiculously POV), and you said he had an exe to grind.  While what you have said about Pename may or may not be true, you were less than constructive in your response to an editor who is trying to learn how to use the Wikipedia, and at the same time has expressed interest in consensus.  Instead of complimenting him on this valiant effort, you took the effort to degrade him.  If you had assumed good faith, this would not have happened.  I have to say, regardless of Pename's content, it is rare to see an editor attempt to achieve consensus after only posting here for two days.  Instead of admiring this behavior you sought to belittle it.  --Viriditas 07:55, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Yeah, and as I've already told you, he sent me an email asking the same question. Hence the sigh. Incidently, sighing is not a personal attack. I didn't "threaten" to file an RFC, I promised if he continued editing the way he was editing. RFCs are not punishment, and I don't appreciate you making out that's what I was doing (I wasn't "threatening" anyone). RFCs are requests for comment. His edits did become, IMO, ridiculously POV. You've also overlooked the other times I've asked him to stay on his talk page and continue contributing to this article. I don't appreciate your attempt at character assasination here. I would kindly ask you to assume good faith in your edits also, because you said that I was only asking my questions in Talk:Jihad because I am attacking him (see the article you wrote afterwards that you linked to). One last thing: I don't admire behaviour that is POV and I certainly don't admire his insults. Don't ask me to, that's not going to happen (even if he is a newbie). - Ta bu shi da yu 06:17, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I asked you once not to make personal attacks. You just stepped over the line, so I've requested an RFC on your behaviour. (being a newbie does not give you the right to make derogatory comments about other users). See Requests for comment/Pename. I suggest you respond. My hope, incidently, is that you will cease with the personal comments (which are totally unnecessary) and try to add to discussion and articles constructively. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:04, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * "I suggest you respond." <--- You should cherish and be grateful for whatever responses I have given you already. Someone of your lowly intelligence does not deserve my attention, let alone an actual response to every idiotic question or comment you have. Go ahead and file an RFC on this too. Don't forget to cry about "personal attacks" - the policy against personal attacks is a great loop hole for people who have severe defeciences that would prevent them from contributing to real research (as opposed to this circus called wikipedia). --Pename 02:30, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)


 * Are you saying you won't respond or modify your behaviour in regards to personal attacks? - Ta bu shi da yu 04:17, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * And even when we disagree, the result of discussions between us can lead to good, constructive work. Please see how the discussion is progressing at Template talk:Timeline of Islamist militancy. &mdash;iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 19:33, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)

Jihad
Pename, if you want to add substantial changes to controversial articles like Jihad, you will need to present your candidates for inclusion with the sources clearly cited on the talk page. If you refrain from personal attacks, you will have a better chance of making your case. If you find yourself writing something unkind to Ta bu shi da yu or Alberuni, or calling groups of people "fanatics", then stop what you are doing and take a break. I bet you have some really important contributions you can make, but in order to do it successfully, you will need to first discuss controversial entries on the discussion page. I would be happy to help you make your case. It would be easier if you would address only one proposed contribution at a time. Remember to post the source citation(s) so that that other users can examine the claims. Thanks in advance and I look forward to your contributions. --Viriditas 07:17, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

edit war by Alberuni
Mr. "You are an Islamophobe and hatemonger!" (also known as Alberuni) apparently wants to turn this into a pure edit war. I guess this is his only option, when he loose more or less all of the discussions with you at the "talk" page. Unfortunatly I can only revert his vandalism three times per day, but atleast I will continue do that, IF HE continue to revert without any discussion. Anyway good luck turning the "jihad" article into something neutral! A lot of people here apparently consider whitewashed to be equal to NPOV. Stereotek 18:21, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * This person has completely abandoned any sort of discussion, at this point. His activities not consist purely of reverting any and all edits to the his mangled, whitewashed, and incoherent version of the article. Except sometimes Alburundi tries to revert the article back to the version that existed I even started editing it. If you look at this main article history, Alberundi recently suggested that the article be reverted back to a version from October (I only started edited a week or two ago)!  I think if Alberundi continues in this manner, the matter should be escelated to someone who can ban Alberundi from editing Wikipedia. Unfortunately even this will not be very effective, since Alberundi will undoubtably continue his quest to vanadalize and whitewash as an anonymous editor.


 * The sad thing is that Alberundi's tactic has succeeded; he couldn't intellectually defeat me, so he's driven me away from editing the article by persistantly vandalizing any edits I try to make. --Pename 02:36, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)


 * Alberuni has been vandalizing a lot of pages, and it has been noticed. Please take a loook at this: Requests_for_arbitration. Hopefully they will ban him for the next 10 years! Anyway, when they ban someone they ban the IP address, not just the username. This I think might actually help in his case, because I seriously doubt he is able to use a proxy. Stereotek 11:39, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)