User talk:Swingoswingo

Your edit
Swingoswingo,

I undid your edit in error and I just undid my revert of your edit, so it's back up. That was an error on my part. Sorry! Kosh Vorlon }
 * No problem. Swingoswingo (talk) 19:35, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Incest
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Incest. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:57, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Edits
I have observed the edit warring on the page in question; please remember that being correct is not a defense to edit warring and that 3RR applies to you as well. If there are further reverts by the other user, please feel free to make a report at the 3RR board. 331dot (talk) 09:09, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for mediating. Morning I spoke to another user who had similar experience with him on edit warring. So can you tell me what I should do regarding the article? I left a message on user talk. Swingoswingo (talk) 09:16, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I've reverted the article; if the other user does so again I will make an edit warring report. If the other user is unwilling to engage in discussion but continues to edit war instead, they will likely be blocked.  331dot (talk) 09:23, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I thought your first message is a warning to me. Lol. I guess it is a subst template. Swingoswingo (talk) 09:25, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

My concern about your edits
For a fairly long time, I have been observing your edits, and now I'm much concern about the edits you make. Your edits mainly consist of removing certain type of content on flimsy grounds, adding tags, and altering texts to serve your end. What is worse, I'm worried that I'm increasing seeing you as a POV editor because of your editing pattern.

You often intentionally add “better source needed” or similar tags to a sourced content as here and then delete that sourced content on the pretext of not providing a better source! In this edit too, you deleted a sourced content on the above pretext. Please explain what you mean by better source, and prove how Fazlur Rahman’s University of Chicago Press publication and Tariq Ramadan’s Oxford University publication are not better sources. In this edit, you deleted a content which could have easily been provided with sufficient citations which I eventually did in my next edit. In this edit, you altered the text, and rewrote Chronologically, the earlier verses urge peace, restraint, and conciliation, while the later ones exhort violence against enemies. Do you even know which verses were revealed earlier and which were later, let alone knowing which suggest what? Only a scholar, familiar with the context and background of each verse, can know this. In this edit-summary, you said All Muslim sources are biased as well. So you mean that when sources say the thing you like, they become fair; but when the sources – Muslims and non-Muslims – say the thing you don't like, they all become biased. - Ascetic Rosé   15:08, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

You tag content freely for better sources; but when you yourself make a content – which you very rarely do – you use such notoriously biased and cheap sources like 'The Religion of Peace'. Because of my shortage of time, I seriously looked into few of your edits. A thorough scrutiny will reveal more such grave cases, I believe.

I see another editor some months ago also expressed his concern twice, regarding your illegal tagging and removing content:

and

Wikipedia is a project where editors come to create, develop, and enrich articles. Usually, not every sentence does need a source. An information without any citation can be true. If you go on so far as to delete sourced content, and if your edits only consist of tagging and then removing content in Islam-related pages, then I fear Wikipedia is not a proper place for you. - Ascetic Rosé   15:10, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your communication. However, as carefully as you observe my edits (stalking is a bad habit but never mind), I hope you have observed Muhammad and his actions equally. Is this the right place to continue misguiding millions&mdash;nay, billions&mdash;of poor audiences about this man? It’s like trying to defend (in their respective articles) Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, Chengis Khan, and yes Timur who was Muhammad’s follower himself.
 * Of course, the vast majority of Muslim sources are biased. They have the burdensome task of upholding the crescent flag after all, a task which Western fools numbering in thousands have made easy. But their taqiyah is not going to work all the time. Most of the Muslim sources you see have already been refuted on other sites and I am ready to refute anything you come across. The wiki may be gullible and even helpless like any innocent but I am not. The academicians and so-called scholars are politically correct liars, and yes flimsy. The media are similarly flimsy, more painful than ISIS. Truly unfit for any genuine sourcing out here. What sane thought can possible make them defend Muhammad and the early Muslims? Many terror victims, rape victims etc. are indirectly suffering over decades because of these bootlickers and many more are in danger of getting wiped out in slow and steady genocide because of the same, flimsy, scholars and media. Here’s a nice way to summarize these flimsy guys: “Even if Caesar had stabbed their mothers, they would have done no less.” Replace Caesar with your favorite terror group ;-)
 * Once again, who is flimsier, me or Muhammad?
 * Unfortunately for the frequent melodrama of that persecution by Meccans, and for the trumpeters of this theory, Muhammad himself did not know the name of the first martyr (Actually I’d say he didn’t care as long as they die in hordes and kill and loot for him, but let’s put that aside). Then there were contradictory stories of the first martyr. So what knowledge do these funny academicians have that we don’t? Is Allah talking to them and they are hiding that from us? Yea, could be! They will be in grave danger if they call themselves his messengers (You know what happened to the Bahai and Ahmediya). Do these pandering scholars have the balance sheets or ledgers to show that Meccans spent Muslim property on caravans? No dear, no such proofs survived the conquest of Arabia. These are the real flimsy excuses to justify Muhammad’s caravan raids. If hundreds of Banu Qurayza and their women and children had colluded against him, he would be dead and have lost the war – Yet another flimsy lie to justify a massacre.
 * I can challenge any of them in a debate and checkmate them because it is very easy to defeat lies with truth. But they are so arrogant that they rarely respond to debate requests, or they know they will loose. No one even knows how many of these people exist. Coz it is they whose arguments are utterly flimsy.
 * Yeah I know that “Verifiability not truth”…. But readers, just rethink about this VNT line for 2 minutes. I am doing a history degree and I have lost all faith in 80 per cent of the history articles here. The site becomes hugely unreliable if it quotes liars and deceivers. Considering how ubiquitous the wiki is, it is not a fit place for lies and it shouldn’t ever be, especially for dangerous lies that ought to be challenged and quashed at first sight. Eperoton decided to believe an RS called Lapidus even when I pointed out that Lapidus wrote one of the most laughable sentences ever about Arabia’s churches in some random book whose existence nobody would know of if it were not quoted on WP. Just being an RS doesn’t mean you should lie freely, should you? Could be a mistake by Lapidus, it happens. But why should WP and its audience be at the receiving end because of such fantasies about Islam’s history?
 * I guess you must be aware of the volume of taqiya all around. I am a POV editor? Most Muslim with lots of dhimmi sources are POV sources themselves. And everyone instead condemns the non-Muslims who dare to speak out their mind (read truth) online or in a book. U know the labels they have got: Racist, islamophobe, xenophobe, hate group et. al.
 * “Wikipedia is a project where editors come to create, develop, and enrich articles.” Are primary sources the correct way to enrich an article? That too, it’s the sugarcoated Meccan verses and sweet lullaby ahadith that form the QUOTEFARMS. ;-)
 * “Usually, not every sentence does need a source.” That’s a carte blanche dude. A perfect way to insert more and more misinformation and spread it in forks! I have myself had to remove lots of flimsy websites like sunnipath and way2islam because people believe in those fairy tales and spread them all around. I can go on and suggest even stricter measures, but the reader is as naïve as those pagan Meccans, unless someone opens his eyes, so I am taking a break here. Swingoswingo (talk) 17:40, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with AsceticRose, and have had your page on my watchlist. Either I've had your page on my watchlist because I've been concerned about your editing and/or because of the fact that this very first edit you made with this account, and other earlier edits you made, indicate that you were not new to editing Wikipedia when you began editing as Swingoswingo. If AsceticRose or another editor reports your editing at WP:ANI, I'll be there to support the report. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:41, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Swingoswingo's editing seems to be gradually improving, and I don't recall seeing the most troubling issues I noted above in the last few months. Unfortunately, their long comment above reads like a WP:RGW manifesto. Eperoton (talk) 03:07, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

ANI notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.

Blocked
this is quite enough. It is evident you aren't here to be useful. I've indefinitely blocked this account. -- Jayron 32 16:38, 15 December 2017 (UTC)