Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:57, 10 March 2006

Old Stuff

Seperatism

Your a supporter of unification of your island and you are against partitioning of the island. If you are so, why on the other hand do you support the partition of Serbia, with the independence of Kossovo and why you support Chechenya independence? If the Albanians of Kossovo must be seperated from Serbia and Chechenyans from Russians, the North Irish do not have that right? Don't you think your opinion is contrast? As an Irish and a person who suffers the seperatism of Northern Ireland, you should be the first who would be AGAINST the seperate Kosovo from Serbia and the seperate Chechenya.Otherwise support the existence of NORTHERN IRELAND!User:KRBN

If Kosovo should be independent, seperate from both Serbia and Albania owing to it's history and the recent bloodshed, then why not the same for Northern Ireland due to fights between catholics and protestants. Serbia sent in troops to viciously put down the Muslims because the Muslims did terror and struggled to create their own state. Shouldn't Serbs defend the entity of their country? Also don't forget that IRA also killed Protestants. That blood was covered in both religious groups. As for the majority of British people don't want it I don't think so. If there ever be referendum, be sure that the big majority of protestants are against the re-unification, like the Albanians in Kosovo who don't want to be under serbian control. The Republic of Ireland has been independant from Britain for a short time, why should the republic be free and not the other six counties? Well the answer is that protestants who live there (according to your logic) want to be seperate from you. As for ethnic cleanising, that didn't happen since other countries and minorities used to try to form their own seperate states and that with the help of big countries (one of those UK which holds the north ireland). Don't be sure that catholics never attack on protestants. I think you believe that my parallelism is not good just because you are Irish and you think that you have the right to be one entity and no other minority in the island does, while other countries like Russia, Serbia do not.

Personally I was finding fair the demand of Irish for giving them the north, despite what the protestants want, but really if the majority of Irish have the same thinking like you, I AM SORRY MY FRIEND BUT YOU REALLY DESERVE THE CURRENT SITUATION IN IRELAND AND I WISH NORTHERN IRELAND WILL REMAIN BRITISH!!!!

Unlike Serbia, The Republic of Ireland does not have a history of attempted Ethnic Cleansing of religious Minorities. As

Eid Moubarak

Hi Tom. Thanks and same. Cheers -- Szvest 18:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Eid mubarak to you too . F.a.y. 20:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Eid Mubarak to you too Tom! --a.n.o.n.y.m 00:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Eid

Thank you, Eid Mubarak also, and sorry for being late in responding :) --Striver 04:23, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Eid Mubarak! --JuanMuslim 16:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Eid mubarak

Best wishes to you Tom. Keep up the good work. BYT 15:50, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Belated thanks

I now have a few extra tabs at the top of my Misplaced Pages pages. Thanks for your comments on my RfA. One needs critics as well as friends, but better still, one needs a critical friend. To that end, if I come across a sticky situation, I hope you will not mind if I ask your advice; and if you see me do something questionable, I would appreciate your letting me know. Banno 08:18, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you!

... for cleaning up my userpage! (Again.) :) BYT 14:18, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Could you please take a look at the vote ...

... at the bottom of this talk page? Many thanks. BYT 15:00, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Typo

Hah, thanks for catching the typo. Babajobu 16:08, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you for your support in my RfA. I'm glad you like the bird lists. One day I hope for there to be one for every state and country and for them to all be featured lists. Dsmdgold 20:44, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Fair use images

I noticed you reinserted Image:Saudi-logo.jpg into Template:User against Saud. This was originaly removed because the images is tagged as being used under 'fair use' assumptions. Please note that according to wikipedia's fair use policy (see WP:FUC) images so tagged may not be used on userpages. I assume that you didn't know this, or have made a mistake, but please review the policy and be careful when inserting images. Repeated violations of this policy may get you blocked. --Doc 15:03, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Duas pls at Mecca! And check this out, if you will...

] -- ma-salaam, BYT 19:30, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Congratulations! :) I have emailed you too. --a.n.o.n.y.m 18:02, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Nikah

Surprise surprise, the edit war has been restarted by the usual people ... Yuber 03:34, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Moving Alexander in the Qur'an (Theory)

If you're around to read this, please drop by Talk:Alexander in the Qur'an (Theory); I expect you'll want to argue against moving it. Cheers, Melchoir 07:37, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

A Western Sahara-related vote

===>Here Make your voice heard. Vote or die. And all that. -Justin (koavf), talk 20:20, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Sex segregation

How many times are you planning to revert me without explanation? Melchoir 14:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

You understand that I'm Watching Sex segregation now, right? Melchoir 20:25, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

ArbCom case

FYI: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Hamas Zeq 19:48, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Request for edit summary

Hi. I am a bot, and I am writing to you with a request. I would like to ask you, if possible, to use edit summaries a bit more often when you contribute. The reason an edit summary is important is because it allows your fellow contributors to understand what you changed; you can think of it as the "Subject:" line in an email. For your information, your current edit summary usage is 18% for major edits and 13% for minor edits. (Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits in the article namespace.)

This is just a suggestion, and I hope that I did not appear impolite. You do not need to reply to this message, but if you would like to give me feedback, you can do so at the feedback page. Thank you, and happy edits, Mathbot 18:01, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Dublin Riots of 2006

Hi, I am not a bot, but I am writing b/c I want to know if the IRA are not "drug barons", what were the Colombia Three doing in the jungle out there.

God Save the Queen.

(one of my old sockpuppetes was called "Taigkiller", but they made me get rid of it; however, Fenian Swine and Tiocfaid, etc. didn't seem to offend anyone.

Love, 24.136.99.194 01:32, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Peter Tatchell and the Hijab quote

What does it have to do with Peter Tatchell? Amir Taheri wrote it and it appears only in the background of a very long briefing which Peter Tatchell didn't write. David | Talk 11:42, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Poisoning the well

It's not 'poisoning the well' to point out that the criticism of Baroness Cox came from a Lyndon LaRouche supporter, it's fact. Ditto it's not an attack on 'Friends of Al Aqsa' to say they are pro-Palestinian (oh crime). Not explaining the context of these criticisms is on the other hand to leave the casual reader none the wiser as to who Baroness Cox' opponents are. Please stop blindly reverting this change and discuss it if you have a problem. David | Talk 18:08, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Page Move

Please discuss major changes to an article before jumping right in and making them. There has already been discussion on the Cat Stevens page move, and no concensus was reached. See Talk:Cat Stevens/Archive 1. I reverted your move. Mrtea (talk) 23:07, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Let's avoid revert wars, please.

Irishpunktom, I don't want to get involved in a revert war. Is it not better for us to discuss the content rather than unilaterally reverting other editor's work? Please reply at UK Islamist demonstration outside Danish Embassy (talk page). Veej 22:26, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Adam Yosef and Peter Tatchell

Do you have any source which shows Peter Tatchell had criticised Adam Yosef's Decemer 2005 column about gay marriage before Yosef's January 2006 column attacking Peter Tatchell appeared? Because I can't find one. Until there is, we cannot say that Yosef's attack on Tatchell was in any way motivated by the response to the previous column. (An OutRage! press release which does not quote Peter Tatchell himself is not good enough) David | Talk 20:21, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

UK_Islamist_demonstration_outside_Danish_Embassy

Hi, User:Veej asked me to take a look at the dispute you've been having on Talk:UK_Islamist_demonstration_outside_Danish_Embassy, could you take a look at the talk page and make some more suggestions/comments? Thanks :) - FrancisTyers 17:28, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Unclear reason for reverts

You just reverted a bunch of carefully commented out and thought out edits I did on the MEMRI page without explanation. I not only commented out individual edits, but described my reasoning behind doing this on the talk page for the article. Could you consider using the talk page to address what you plan to do rather than reverting? elizmr 15:11, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi, you didn't comment on the above, although you did comment on my note below, so I'm assuming you saw it. Although I am sure this was not done purposefully, it doesn't look like your revert was in keeping with Misplaced Pages guidelines on Misplaced Pages:Reverts. I think it is fair to request that you explain the revert.

elizmr 21:28, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

not a minor edit

In addition, you characterized a revert which changed a bunch of stuff as a "minor edit". I believe this is against Misplaced Pages rules elizmr 15:11, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm pasting your reply on my talk page here, as continuation of above:

According to Jayjg, all reverts are minor --Irishpunktom\ 15:13, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I replied:

fair enough.

I was basing my remark on the following: Misplaced Pages:Minor edit which states: "Whether to use this flag is somewhat a matter of personal preference. The rule of thumb is that an edit which is confined to spelling corrections, minor formatting, and minor rearrangement of text should be flagged as a "minor edit."..."Any "real" change, even if it is a single word, is a major edit." and "Reverts to a disputed page are unlikely to be minor". Of note, the MEMRI page is disputed. The Misplaced Pages page states that, "Marking a real change as a minor edit is considered bad behavior, and even more so if it involves the deletion of some text"

elizmr 15:43, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Tom, please see this: User_talk:Elizabeth_M_Ross#Reverts_are_minor. Jayjg 19:24, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Some Articles

Can you help with Dhimmi , Jizya , Rules of war in Islam , People of the Book , & now Kafir. Its one user with a severe anti-Islamic POV , who is insistent on pushing his POV . F.a.y. 13:10, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Joan of Naples

I have deleted your contribution because it seems to me it is not backed up by a realiable historical source. Can you please refer what is the source of the information you posted.

Thanks --Enzomartinelli 21:56, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Peter Tatchell

You keep adding the claim that Adam Yosef referred to statements Peter Tatchell has made about the Sydney riots. So far as I can find, Peter Tatchell has made no statements at all about the Sydney riots. The Desi Express apology does not refer to a statement made by Peter Tatchell; it simply states that the "back to Australia" comment referred to the riots. Could you clear this up? David | Talk 15:58, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I have read Adam Yosef's statement. He does not refer to statements. He says, in a sentence with confused grammar, "my comments relating to him returning there were made to compare the his views with the Islamophobic riots which recently gripped Sydney". So he was comparing Peter Tatchell's views about something else with the riots. If Peter Tatchell made any statement about the riots, (a) what did he say, and (b) where is the source? You need to cite it. David | Talk 16:05, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

It is a ludicrous statement to say that what Peter Tatchell said is irrelevant. This is Peter Tatchell's biography under discussion. You have now made three reverts and making another may lead to you being blocked under the Three Revert Rule. David | Talk 16:11, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

3RR violation

I'm reporting you for a 3RR violation on Peter Tatchell. David | Talk 16:25, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked you for WP:3RR on this. Please discuss this here if you wish to William M. Connolley 17:20, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Where is the fourth revert, and what, exactly, is it reverting? - And why hasn't David been blocked, considering he has made at least four simple reverts in the past while? --Irishpunktom\ 17:22, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

You have 3 unquestionable reverts, though the 1st is not marked as such. After that, the re-insertion of "alledgedly" (sp) counts; and the fact tag. Also, this is vandalism/disruption or whatever. As for Dbiv... fair point, I'll check William M. Connolley 18:01, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Its not vandalism, its fact, and is there bracketed out to draw attention to the lack of sourced reference material to back up the allegation. Secondly, the removal of the request for a source was because the source, and a quote from such, was added.. Isn't that what youn are suupposed to do? - Further, it didn't revert to a previous version, it was a completely new one, so, no, it is not a revert.Alledgedly, while spelled wrong, was not "re-inserted" - that was the first time it was added, so, no, that too was not a revert. --Irishpunktom\ 18:08, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with you: you repeatedly re-inserted the a-word; and also the fact-tag. BUT after further checks I've decided to unblock you; apologies for the inconvenience. See the 3RR page William M. Connolley 18:10, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

- Err.. I'm still blocked.--Irishpunktom\ 18:23, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll sort that out in about 15 mins. You deserve that much anyway :-) William M. Connolley 18:47, 8 March 2006 (UTC) Its the autoblocker, which kicks in if you try to edit (anonymously?) while blocked. I'll remove it William M. Connolley 19:01, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. If this is an IP address, and it is shared by multiple users, ignore this warning, but aviod making any reverts within 24 hours of this warning in order to avoid any confusion. Voice-of-All 18:37, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Tallaght

Tallaght's is a strong Sinn Fein area i know. Was just questioning the statement 'Areas of Tallaght west of The Square tend to vote for Sinn Féin, while other areas generally vote otherwise.' Are their results available that show how specific areas within the contituency voted? Honestly, I'd be interested to know. A source of that nature would be interesting to me anyway, being from west of the Square.Slán

Dhul-Qarnayn

"Dhu" means "he of...". l is "the". -ayn is the dual ending "two". qarn can mean horn, century, generation, or summit; the usual interpretation in this case is "horn", but others are possible. - Mustafaa 10:37, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

AfD

If you could write "AFD" or something similar in the edit summary when nominating an article for deletion, it would be much appreciated. Pepsidrinka 12:27, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

About that Mohammad proverb.

(moved from a thread on the JP-Mohammed cartoon controversy): Problem with that book, because it was Muhammad II, you know, the guy who took Constantinople from Christendom, who famously demanded the mountain come to him. It didn't --Irishpunktom\talk 11:57, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Not that it's terribly important one way or another, but I like trivia. Where did you get that information from? Azate 13:30, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Inexplicable edit summary

Why do you put in an edit summary "go to talk" when you never go to talk yourself? Your editing is very POV and you are very reluctant to enter into discussion which makes it difficult to co-operate with you. Please don't just revert, explain what it is you think is wrong. David | Talk 15:50, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Three Revert Rule

You've just made your third revert to Ken Livingstone. David | Talk 16:49, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Please avoid such things in future. Please. --Bhadani 16:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Go to Talk:Ken Livingstone

It's now ten minutes since you made your third blanket revert to a highly POV, manifestly inaccurate and entirely misleading version, and you have yet to explain any of it on the talk page. I want to work constructively with you but it really is very difficult when you behave like this. David | Talk 16:57, 10 March 2006 (UTC)