User talk:Spine.Cleaver

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 07:26, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Perfect --Dhulfiqar 08:09, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

About your message on the King Fahd Causeway Article
Ok, thanks. Well to move a picture to a different side of the screen you just have to add |left| or |right| to the image code. It looks something like this;. You don't actually have to put "right" in, because the software will automatically put it on the right by default. If you want to know more about the subject, you could read this page; Images, as well as all the other tutorial pages. Good luck in editing. --Hibernian (talk) 00:01, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * That explains a lot. Thanks mate!--Dhulfiqar 03:20, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 04:12, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Acts 17 Apologetics
A tag has been placed on Acts 17 Apologetics requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for organizations and companies. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you.  ttonyb (talk) 06:24, 26 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I clearly made an effort to give reasons, but my article was as swiftly deleted as before. Please visit the Talk Page! This is repulsive:


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Acts_17_Apologetics Dhulfiqar 07:27, 26 June 2010 (UTC)


 * You can sign your comments automatically using four tildes ~ . I deleted your recent article because it did not provide independent verifiable sources that it meets the notability guidelines, and it appears to be an unencyclopaedic platform for airing a point of view. It is not your page, and there is nothing to discuss if the article meets the speedy deletion criteria. Please avoid WP:CIVIL in your comments 9disgusting, repulsive). Thank you for saying that my action was shrewd, although I'm not sure how that sits with your other comments.  Jimfbleak  -  talk to me?  07:29, 26 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I checked the guidelines before I created the page. How did my article contain any POV material when all the information was supported by four independent websites, including the Acts 17 Apologetics homepage and their blog (which happen to be primary sources). Your actions were shrewd because I was not done editing the page, and was deleted within less than a hour it was posted. You could have alerted me or informed me of the problems with the article and I would have gladly tried my best to fix the article. You deleted my articles two times without settling the argument diplomatically. Remember actions speak louder than words. You may be an administrator, but you are as obligated to be as polite and formal as I am required by Wikipedia's standards. I kindly request that you reverse the delete so that we make discuss how the article is POV. I've taken a second look at my deleted article page. The first time you accuse me of POV rant, and the second time you accuse me of not explaining the subject's significance. These are two vastly different accusations. May I ask why you did not include the second accusation with the first? I made four points in the Discussion's Page about Acts 17 Apologetics' significance. This is why I referred to your actions as shrewd and justifiable. Dhulfiqar 07:33, 26 June 2010 (UTC)


 * You can sign your comments automatically using four tildes ~ . Your sources are not independent verifiable sources, most seem to be Christian or conservative propaganda sites. I only need to give one reason for deletion, but your article failed on notability and pov grounds. Let's just look at the first paragraph.  describes itself as a ministry that glorifies God by defending the Gospel of Jesus Christ from ground up. hardly suggests we are getting a neutral view here. Your article isn't about the group, it's about incidents involving its members, considered from one point of view. Unsourced claims  They have become extremely popular in recent years no independent evidence that this is true. much more of the same later.  Jimfbleak  -  talk to me?  08:02, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Also in discussing the incidents you only give one side's views, pov by definition  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  08:06, 26 June 2010 (UTC)


 * OK. Why didn't you tell me this before you removed my article? I was not finished citing the article, what we know as independent verifiable sources. Instead of citing Christian propaganda I will also cite news worthy links that you will be witness to.


 * Point 1. Acts 17 Apologetics describes ITSELF "as a ministry that glorifies God by defending the Gospel of Jesus Christ from ground up." That's not a case about neutrality - it's a claim, a statement, a phrase the missionary uses to describe their mission. Furthermore I was not finished editing the article. I was planning to add more details on their mission objectives. Highly disconcerting that you're indicting me based on the skeleton of an article.


 * Point 2. I was not finished with my article. How can you say that my article wasn't about the group when I had it up only for a few minutes before you swiftly collapsed the article? I was highlighting an incident that brought the group into the limelight only 6 days ago. Claiming that my article's purpose was about the incidents concerning the group is based on idle speculation.


 * I kindly request that you allow me to try one last time and at least offer me details on how to fix the article before you decide to delete it again. I strongly encourage we use diplomacy as a means of resolving this issue. Please discuss this with me on the article's Talk Page. Thank you for your consideration.


 * Dhulfiqar 08:20, 26 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok, then. I see you don't solve issues using diplomacy, but it doesn't matter. I will not recreate that article. Dhulfiqar 09:58, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Acts 17 Apologetics


The article Acts 17 Apologetics has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * WP:COATRACK

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing  will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 09:42, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Can you please tell me what's wrong with the article as is? I am not finished editing it as of yet. To assume that I created the article as a way of sending subliminal messages to my readers if highly offensive. Tell me what you disagree with and I will change it immediately. Dhulfiqar 09:47, 26 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Simple. The main part was off-topic and didn't talk about the given title; rather, after a short intro, it went on to discuss a single incident unverified by independent sources. It has now been protected from creation since you have re-created it twice already. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 10:05, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Violation of wp:3RR on Zakir Naik
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. --Ari (talk) 10:17, 26 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the friendly reminder, but do keep in mind it also applies to you. Dhulfiqar 10:18, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

June 2010
Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Ari (talk) 07:52, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Then why did you accuse me of being an apologist? I suggest you look at your words before you point at the mistakes of others. Despite your wild accusation I will take heed of your wise words. --Dhulfiqar 10:34, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Username block
This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia because your username, Spine.Cleaver, does not meet our username policy.

'''Your username is the only reason for this block. You are welcome to choose a new username (see below).'''

A username should not be promotional, related to a "real-world" group or organization, misleading, offensive, or disruptive. Also, usernames may not end in the word "bot" unless the account is an approved bot account.

Please choose a new account name that meets our policy guidelines. However, do not create a new account if you wish to credit your existing contributions to a new name through a username change. To request a username change:
 * Add on your user talk page. You should be able to edit this talk page even though you are blocked. If not, you may wish to contact the blocking administrator by clicking on "E-mail this user" on their talk page.
 * At an administrator's discretion, you may be unblocked for 24 hours to file a request.
 * Please note that you may only request a name that is not already in use, so please check here for a list of names that have already been taken. For more information, please see Changing username.

If you feel that you were blocked in error, you may appeal this block by adding the text below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. --Chaser (talk) 01:17, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I kindly request you remove this block as soon as possible. --Dhulfiqar 04:13, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 06:21, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

User pages
Hi Spine, please don't post on other editors' user pages like this. If you have a message, the best thing is to leave it once on their talk page. If they remove it, that's means they've seen it. Cheers, SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 09:50, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Spine, were you able to get your id unblocked ? I suffered the same yesterday, but I was able to quickly resolve it by contacting another admin to review it. I believe, I am the third user now who is getting blocked for editing/discussing Zakir_Naik article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saju wiki (talk • contribs) 23:51, 7 July 2010 (UTC)