I always respond to messages here.

Chronological Archives
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 Topical Archives
munafiqun

Hi - I see you have recently created a new stub type. As it states at Wikipedia:Stub, at the top of most stub categories, and in many other places on Wikipedia, it is recommended that new stub types are proposed prior to creation at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals, in order to check whether the new stub type is already covered by existing stub types, whether it is named according to stub naming guidelines, whether it reaches the standard threshold for creation of a new stub type, and whether it crosses existing stub type hierarchies. Your new stub type is currently listed at WP:WSS/D - please feel free to make any comments there as to any rationale for this stub type. And please, in future, consider proposing new stub types first! Grutness...wha? 10:26, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not POV. Its based on article. Your edit here was thus invalid. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 17:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if this was you. It came right after the edit from your username. I dont know if that message is true. The truth is that editors are eventually suceeding in getting information in Wikipedia, if you look at the past of how this encyclopedia has been. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 18:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CABAL.--Kirby♥time 18:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

... and WP:AGF. ITAQALLAH 18:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See if you guys can participate here. I want to add this to the article when we get the lock out. Suggest improvements on the page page. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 18:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know what a merge means? Move the material into Houri which you deleted here. Exciting changes await this article. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 21:25, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't see how I'm trolling or soapboxing by pointing out that an article that criticizes Israel gets a lot more interest than one that is about the conditions of Palestinians. The suggestion I made was earnest and constructive, and one can only take note of the reaction. I'd be absolutely fine reporting this to the Admin board, so feel free to revert again. --Leifern 20:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Constructive for what??? You're assuming bad faith on the part of all editors who disagree with you. And not just that, you're grouping them all together and claiming that all of them, collectively, use double standards in a very specific and identical way. That is clearly trolling.--Kirby♥time 20:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Though I didn't find that section particularly helpful or constructive either, I'm not seeing the section in WP:TALK that actually backs up deleting it. Did you mean to link to a different guideline? Bladestorm 20:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't expect there to be so much controversy regarding this. I will not remove the section anymore. Bladestorm, I removed it per WP:ATTACK#Removal_of_text, which is linked from WP:TALK. I've done this beforehere, and nobody complained about that, and in fact one user thanked me for it.--Kirby♥time 20:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did not make any assertions about any or all editors that disagree with me, and I clearly juxtaposed "some" vs "the vast majority," and made it clear this was my conclusion. --Leifern 20:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't matter. I still would like to know how your comment is constructive towards improving the article. Pointing fingers doesn't help one lick.--Kirby♥time 20:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed you had changed it. Thank you very much :) Viridae^Talk 23:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

with various articles. Thanks very much. Cheers, --Aminz 08:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, as someone who edits Islam related articles, I was wondering if you could comment on my proposal for standardising the citation of the Qur'an using a single template. Thanks. → Aktar ^{(talk • contribs)} — 21:42, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. In a follow-up to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MDS International (2nd nomination), a merge of the article MDS America into MVDDS dispute has been proposed. You can voice your opinion, if any, on the matter at talk:MVDDS dispute#Straw poll on merging MDS America. Thanks, nadav 21:15, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I undid your edit because after a long discussion, consensus was to have "criticisms" instead of "allegations." Allegations is too POV. Please use the talk page before making POV changes in the futute.--Sefringle 20:42, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What long discussion are you referring to? I checked the talk page and found pejman arguing against "criticisms".--Kirby♥time 20:58, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Mahmoud Ahmadinejad#Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's claim of not being an antisemite and Talk:Mahmoud Ahmadinejad#The incredibly POV use of 'stated'. We finally agreed on User:Jossi's version, which was to use "criticisms." --Sefringle 21:00, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any comments by User:Jossi in that section. That section doesn't even discuss what we are talking about now.--Kirby♥time 21:03, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

see here [1]--Sefringle 21:09, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those are talking about "said vs claimed", not "allegations vs criticisms". Are you sure you are linking me to the correct diffs?--Kirby♥time 21:13, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The point I was trying to make was that we agreed on Jossi's version for the wording int the page, because it was more neutral. --Sefringle 21:52, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who is "we"? You don't have consensus.--Kirby♥time 21:55, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please use the talk page before making changes like the ones you did here in the future.--Sefringle 21:50, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the talk page, I asked Matt57 to justify the fair use of the photo by proving all the requirements per the list I presented. He has not done it yet, so there is nothing for me to say on the talk page. I didn't think my second edit would be controversial, but since it has, I'll discuss it on the talk page--Kirby♥time 21:54, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked you for 24 hours for persistent edit warring on User:Kirbytime, Banu Qurayza and Criticism of the Qur'an. Whether or not you have technically violated the three-revert rule I am uncertain; however, you are being extremely disruptive with your edit warring. This is why you are being blocked. Please discuss issues on talk pages and do not assume it is the other party's responsibility to give his or her justification first. Thank you. Heimstern Läufer 02:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, although I think this block is extremely unjustified, I stand by your concerns and have decided to not request an unblock. But I would very much appreciate it if, instead of blocking me, I volunteer not to edit the articles in question for a week. I feel that my contributions to other subjects on Wikipedia (such as math, and the reference desks) is much too valuable to be stopped by this. Thank you for your consideration.--Kirby♥time 02:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And by the way, I only reverted my userpage twice.--Kirby♥time 02:36, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3 minutes left =). Revert time.--Kirby♥time 02:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm joking, by the way.--Kirby♥time 02:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]