Hi Mike18xx! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! --Piedras grandes 03:27, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

howcheng {chat} 07:35, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have rewritten the article on Bat Ye'or along the lines of Robert Spencer. If you're interested in the subject, your opinion and improvements will be very welcome. Cheers, Pecher 22:24, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Erasing all the messages on your talk page is seen as an unfriendly act around here. Anyway -- I think you misread "less marginal". That means that the Islamists have MORE influence than Fred Phelps. Hence your angry outburst on my talk page was based on a misconception. Zora 23:06, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I warn on my main page that I periodically toss my Talk page; I don't like it taking forever to load when it's a billion miles long. That, and the fact that I'm eccentric. Also, nothing kaks permanently around here; all people have to do is click History.--Mike18xx 00:15, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, he's kind of a low activity vandal. He's already gotten one warning, so the most I can do is up the warning level. No activity in the last couple of days, so we'll just have to keep an eye on him. FYI the place you want to go for a quick response to vandalism like this is Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress or Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Thanks. howcheng {chat} 08:12, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mike, you need to be more civil. I know lots of people have said negative things but yours are far and away the worst. Calling someone's edits "jackassery" and saying that they are likely lying because they are Muslim is not going to help us work anything out. I know we often have a forum atmosphere here but please try to stop that. You're new and I don't know if you know all of this... so, clean slate if you can stop doing it. If you have any questions ask, okay? Just keep it civil... I know you completely disagree but the best way to solve disagreement is to start citing more scholarly works on these issues... not to try to pain the person's character as the problem. Thanks. gren グレン ^? 00:48, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grenavitar? You're a hypocrite; and the evidence is as plain as your own user page, where you proudly detail creating Wiki stubs like, for instance, "Fascists in Christian Clothing: The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy" (which, I find hardly astonishing, no longer exists). And lemme guess: I'm going to imagine that if I go to the 'other guy's' talk page, I'm not going to find your admonishment to him for saying "negative things" *first*.--Mike18xx 01:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have been here long enough to know about the three-revert rule. Is there some reason why I should not block you for violating it? Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:53, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes; you should refrain for the simple reason that reversion of vandalism does not count towards that rule, and I *do* so label them vandalism for the reason that they are deliberate attempts to eliminate sourced, pertinent information. Regards the vandals: "Farhansher" is simply an Islamist hack (as is evident in the Discussion pages); and "Anonymous"' agenda is no different despite having wormed his way to an administrator position at Wiki; Anonymous is also not above lying, as he continually re-asserts (in comment fields) that the pertinent quotes from the Quran and Hadith (which he finds inconvenient and RVs away) are "unsourced" (despite the fact that they are sourved in the article); Grenavitar (see above comment) rounds out the duplicious trio. These gentlemen have shown no interest in comprehensiveness, let alone accuracy, and every interest in obfuscation.--Mike18xx 01:19, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The other editors were not vandalising the page. They and you were disagreeing about content. I have blocked you for twenty-four hours for violating the three-revert rule. To avoid additional and longer blocks, please avoid making personal attacks. Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:54, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.