Note: This user edits as CltFn (talk · contribs), Diglewop (talk · contribs), and 81.15.233.3 (talk · contribs) SlimVirgin ^(talk) June 30, 2005 02:32 (UTC)

As I told the pro-CAIR activists who contributed to Council on American-Islamic Relations, please read the WP:NPOV policy before continuing to contribute here. Copying in whole posts from Daniel Pipes' blog is unacceptable. Pasting in things like "CAIR's campaign to silence critics", with zero citations, is also not acceptable. You need to cite your sources and write in a neutral manner. Furthermore your "fabrication of statistics" section is simply copied selectively from a Washington Post article. This is plagiarism, use your own words. This kind of stuff may fly on FreeRepublic but on Wikipedia we write our own articles. Rhobite 00:56, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

I am familiar with NPOV statistics and I have made adjustments accordingly. Am I detecting some condescension in your tone?--Diglewop 03:29, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think you should re-read the NPOV policy if you still feel it's OK to make opinionated accusations such as "CAIR's campaign to silence critics". Please don't duplicate the criticism section, please don't copy and paste whole paragraphs from the lawsuit filing, Daniel Pipes, or the Washington Post. Use your own words. Rhobite 03:38, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Look I fixed most of the issues you mention about. However I stand by the silencing critics title , which is exactly what they are doing,you can google any of the names listed with the word CAIR and you will see exactly that , a campaign , a mobilization of resources to silence various public personalities who express their views about religion. I will be filling in the details for each of the names listed in that section over the next few days as I get to it. I am not sure which country you live in , but here in the US we have something called the 1st amendment freedom of speech. --Diglewop 03:50, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You didn't fix anything, you're still copying and pasting a bunch of random stuff you read on some right wing blogs. And will you stop duplicating the damn criticism section? It's in there twice. Rhobite 03:58, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

wow how arrogant can you get , you have a cristal ball or something? , do you really think you know what other people read ? Have you won the lottery yet with your magic cristal ball? Stop freaking censuring information and blanketing sections that YOU and YOU ALONE do not like. --Diglewop 04:30, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have pointed out serious accuracy problems with your paragraph about National Review and Boeing. Please respond on Talk:Council on American-Islamic Relations before editing further. Please also consider the Wikipedia:Three revert rule. Rhobite 17:00, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

You have made three reverts on CAIR within less than 24 hours. Please note that Wikipedia policy enforces a maximum limit of three reverts daily; if you make a fourth revert within 24 hours on this article, you may be temporarily blocked from editing. Also, please discuss your edits on the article Talk page. You should also assume good faith of other contributors. Your edit summaries (most recent example: Editors cannot be trusted to summarize lawsuit without a spin thus we present the info as it is in the lawsuit) indicate that you are presently not doing so. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and it is important to work towards consensus. Firebug 01:52, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for telling us what we all already know ad nauseaum. I would say more but that would be a waste of my time cheers --Diglewop 04:42, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hi, your editing style is causing problems in a number of areas, which I hope you'll address. You're editing using two accounts CltFn (talk · contribs) and Diglewop (talk · contribs), and while there's no specific policy against this, if you use the accounts to appear to be two separate users, one of them will be blocked. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet for more information. If you have a reason to edit under two accounts, you should consider making clear on your user page that you're doing so.

Secondly, most of your edits don't comply with our policies, particularly Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:No original research, which I encourage you to read. You're pushing a specific point of view with practically every edit you make. You're creating pages about controversial books with no attempt to offer a neutral description of the contents. You're also inserting book lists into the main texts of existing articles, sometimes instead of introductions, which you're moving lower down the page, and when the lists are deleted, you revert. Though books are of course mentioned in texts about authors, the Wikipedia style is to include the list of publications at the end of the article. Introductions are there to summarize the main points that follow.

Also, you need to take more care to explain issues to readers. For example, your stub about Andrew Whitehead, who maintains a website criticizing CAIR, failed to say what CAIR is.

Above all, you're not taking time to discuss your edits with your fellow editors. This is a collaborative project. No one is allowed to insert their own views into Wikipedia without explaining their edits, if asked to.

Finally, please read Wikipedia:Three revert rule (3RR). If you violate 3RR, you're likely to be blocked without further warning. I hope you'll give these points some consideration. I'd be happy to help in any way I can. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:09, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

The article Andrew Whitehead has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Notability queried over a week ago and no reply.

While all constructive 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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} 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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. PatGallacher (talk) 17:33, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]