Hello, Causteau! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already loving Wikipedia you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Happy editing! Steve Crossin (talk) 02:49, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Getting Started Wikipedia Tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Pages needing attention • Peer review Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

You may feel that someone who makes a major re-edit and then expects discussion before someone does a revert is being unfair. Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Revert_only_when_necessary. --80.200.59.250 (talk) 23:09, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Haplogroup E1b1b (Y-DNA). 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 a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Elonka 03:01, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits all seem fine even if they are not always my preference, which is of course the best any Wikipedia editor can ask for. In my opinion it is up to the two of us to decide when to remove the warning box on the article (which might be discouraging others from contributing). I'm happy that I've made all the points I wanted to make, and I think you understand and perhaps even sympathize a bit with them. Most importantly I am starting to think you are not going to start doing large reverts. If that is true, then please go through the article again, make sure it is "reasonable" enough that we've got rid of anything which might now be, or might easily be edited into, something against our core concerns, and perhaps you can do the honors of removing that box. By the way, some of the bits you edited could still have better sourcing! :) --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi -- I've noticed that you've been editing back some of my recent categorization changes. I've also been told by another user that there is some disagreement with them. Could you tell me your reasoning for language article categorization so I can understand better how you'd prefer it done? Aelfthrytha (talk) 04:30, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I asked the other user, do you think this should apply to the language family articles only or to every individual language article? Aelfthrytha (talk) 14:33, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What I understand you to mean is that the individual language articles should be filed under every grouping they fall under. I disagree with that method of filing as a matter of wikipedia policy / organization because as I have mentioned, it results in 1) too many articles in the upper level categories for them to be useful in finding articles, and 2) too many categories on the end of language articles. On the other hand, it might possibly make articles easier to find (as I think you believe). If you have other reasoning why they should be categorized that way, please explain because I'm not sure I understand your position. For the basic info on Categorization policy / reasoning, please see Categorization. Categorization and subcategories goes into more detail on the specific topic here - some reasons there weigh in favor of your position, some weigh in favor of mine. Last, please do not begin reverting until we've come to a consensus. Aelfthrytha (talk) 02:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if you remember getting into a revert war with Afbibwei (talk · contribs) in the Arab world article back in March, but Afbibwei has been uncovered as being one of the two dozen sockpuppets used by Egyegy (talk · contribs). For more info, please see: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Fantevd. --Kralizec! (talk) 22:15, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a suggestion: you may want to explain the reasons why this was not a civil war on the Talk page. If you did this, it would bring you in line with Wikipedia's suggested best practices, as explained at WP:BRD. -- llywrch (talk) 02:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have my aid. I have seen this many, many times before. Anonymous editors looking to insert their own personal opinions believe that by being persistent and rude that they can get their way. It's nothing new. The same guy was inserting POV edits on other articles too. I'm always glad to help with these things for the sake of keeping Wikipedia POV free. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:17, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I saw it. These kinds of dudes irritate me to no end. I'll be on it now as well. In the meantime, have you sought administrative action yet? MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:34, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replied at my talkpage. Also, can you please give me links to the WP:AN threads? Thanks, Elonka 03:39, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still looking through the various pages. However, let me caution you that you should stop reverting at this point. You've made 4 reverts in 24 hours at Al-Azhar University, and so, per WP:3RR, pretty much any admin could come along and block you for that. The edits by the anon are not clear vandalism. His edit summaries have been unhelpful (as have yours), but the anon has been adding sources and quotes, and you've just been reverting him wholesale. If the anon comes back, and includes sources, do not just revert. Instead, try to see if you can change the edit to better reflect what is actually in the sources. You can also move the sources to another part of the article, to get them out of the lead. But the reverting and uncivil edit summaries must stop, from both sides. --Elonka 05:11, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk about POV... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.42.181.248 (talk) 17:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is something wrong with you? I want to keep the article factual and accurate and, hours after I fixed it with a direct quote from Encyclopedia Britannica, you revert it and call your version a consensus version. Let it go. Why don't you just leave your fanaticism aside and have a shred of respect for yourself, only for a while, and agree with the version as it is written in Encyclopedia Britannica. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.42.181.248 (talk) 23:51, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Repeated insertion of "Saladin converted Egyptians by force"? [1] [2] [3]

[4] [5] [6] [7]. Do you think whoever reads your comments will not bother to actually see through your lies and actually check the history page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.42.181.248 (talk) 23:58, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't insult my intelligence and that of reading parties. You have repeatedly inserted the blatant LIE that "Saladin converted Egyptians by force to Sunni Islam", which you also happen to have personally authored. You've done this a record of 6 times on the Al-Azhar University page: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

You first did this without even bothering to include a source i.e. pure original research. Then, when I called you on it, you began tacking on a bunch of bogus, irrelevant, unrelated, dummy sources after it to create the illusion that what you are saying was factual instead of the lame, transparent POV it was and is. I know your sources for the above statement are bogus cause I followed up on them and posted a report on the talk page. Bummer, eh? Well, here it is again, just for old times sake:

None of the sources you supplied support your argument that "Saladin converted Egyptians by force to Sunni Islam". Your first source simply asserts that "Saladin removed the Shiite Fatimids from power and restored Sunni Islam in Egypt". The second source is a series of pay-per-view articles that also makes no mention of Saladin coercing anyone to do anything, let alone "forcing" Egyptians to convert to Sunni Islam. The third source only states that "after Saladin expelled the Fatimids in 1171, the university's scholars began to act as guardians of an orthodox interpretation of Sunni Islam". The fourth source's -- some guy's blog -- lone mention of Saladin is in the following benign phrase: "Al-Azhar is perhaps the world's oldest continuous university and has been since the time of Saladin a major center of Sunni religious authority". And the fifth states that "Saladin converted the university into an agency of orthodoxy as part of his war against Western crusaders". Again, nowhere does it state that "Saladin converted Egyptians by force to Sunni Islam". That's original research, plain and simple.

You also tried insert that same slanderous LIE about Saladin "forcibly" converting Egyptians to Sunni Islam not once, but twice on the Al-Azhar Shia Fatwa page: 7, 8

Both Mezzo and I have exposed your dishonest editing practices ad nauseam on the talk page. Your last ditch attempt at trying to salvage your "reputation" here, at trying desperately not to appear like an anonymous serial vandal, is transparent and, frankly, more than a little absurd. While "your" version of the article (which amounts to one line of difference with "mine") may indeed now finally have a legitimate source, the direct quote it replaced in "my" version was sourced long before the one in "your" edit. Both Mezzo and I also consider that version far preferable to yours; that's what we mean by consensus. We clearly asked you to "respect the consensus version until mediation can be finished", but you've opted in the interim to yet again go it alone and impose on the world your own personal view of the issue at hand -- other editors be damned. I'm sure you'd love nothing more than for us to "let it go", but that's not exactly going to happen given your very dubious editing history and your repeated refusal to accord your fellow editors the same level of respect you somehow have the audacity to demand in return. Causteau (talk) 02:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]