User talk:Andjam/Speedy1

Fatwas

Sure you have my cnscent to edit it even though it does say the same thing in the article. That a Jihadist has chosen the violent way to repond so he has nothiiing to offer but violent opinions! He does NOT have the credebilllity nor the credentials of a scholar adn would only repeat: Kill.... or Killl them in self defense, so again while technically it might qualify as a Fatwa, even though nobody asked him for it usually, there are 1.3 Billion Muslims on earth, some of them would atack his opinion or things like that. --The Brain 20:43, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ski resort information

Well, Marsden has removed the information about ski resorts that you added to the article, and now he's threatened to report me for "vandalism" for restoring it to the article. Jayjg ^(talk) 08:04, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Andjam, if you were to put the ski resort information in the Golan Heights article, it would belong. In an article about the Occupied Territrories, it is cr**, and it is a minor edit to remove it. Do you think the ski resort is germane to the occupation? Then surely you can see why it doesn't belong. Jay restored it -- saying, by the way, that it was "as material as the water cr**," in case you're keeping track of who has called one of your contributions "cr**" -- because he wants to make a joke of the whole article. Why did you put it there in the first place? Marsden 14:10, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Last Warning"

But Andjam, your ski resort edit was cr**. That's not a personal attack; it's a simple statement of opinion, and one that I think almost all reasonable people will agree with. Please don't make empty threats against me ever again -- it makes you look desperate and stupid more than anything else. Marsden 15:03, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

[Heh. Marsden is indefinitely blocked by Jimbo. Empty threats indeed ... Andjam 10:59, 9 March 2006 (UTC)][reply]

By the way, I'll begin a vandalism complaint against you if you re-insert the ski resort cr** without producing an independent source that names it as a consideration in Israel's continued occupation of the Golan Heights. Marsden 15:11, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please cease making ret***ed edits

The reason why CNN and BBC almost every day have news about things that have happened in the Occupied Territories or in the negotiations about them is not because of a ski resort in the Golan Heights. If it was not a ret***ed edit, you violated WP:POINT. In any case, the ski resort doesn’t belong in the article. --saxet 16:15, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it was a bit of a WP:POINT violation - even though I cited a reliable source, it was giving undue prominence to it. Andjam 17:27, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies.

I remembered only one person who announced that he had followed the RfC in, left one comment, and then apparently thought better of it and left. I didn't realize that you also had followed the RfC in. Marsden 00:57, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Would you clarify that your comment to me had to do with the accuracy of my recounting of the dispute resolution, and not with my statement, which is very particularly something else? Marsden 01:02, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. There are two main sections that I wrote at the RfAr: one is the "Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried" section, which included my comment that the RfC brought in only one editor. This, you have told me, is incorrect, and I changed it.

However, the other section that I wrote was the "Statement by Marsden" section, which includes my statement of the dispute to be arbitrated. You have not indicated any disagreement with anything I wrote in this section, although I certainly encourage you to do so if you think I am in error.

The comment that you added reads, "I've questioned on Marsden's talk page the factual accuracy of his statement." This suggests that you have disagreed with the "Statement by Marsden" section as opposed to with the "Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried" section, which is not what you noted on my talk page.

It's not a big deal, but I think it would avoid some confusion if you made clear that you had questioned my dispute resolution history and not my statement of the conflict.

Marsden 01:23, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Marsden 02:42, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Andjam, my direct reason for filing the RfAr are exactly as stated: SlimVirgin abused her administrator's priviledges. I think El C, Jayjg, and Raul654 also abused their administrator's priviledges when they blocked me on other occasions, but between having an obvious case and the time to deal with it, SlimVirgin drew the short straw with me.

Beyond the direct reason, however, are a couple of other things. In the first place, some people -- and SlimVirgin possibly foremost among them -- have adopted an elitist attitude about Wikipedia, including freely throwing about epithets and then claiming that the same words when used against them or their favored few ("editors in good standing") are personal attacks. And she has been, even if you can't see it, awfully abusive and harassing of me and of other newer editors who don't buy into her way of seeing things. The result of this is to make Wikipedia a closed project, where its systemic biases -- whether pro-Israeli or whatever -- get re-inforced rather than challenged and corrected.

Basically, though, I am giving Wikipedia an ultimate opportunity to demonstrate what it is about: I don't see that there's very much room for interpretation in the arbitration, and if the Arbitration Committee screws it up anyway, that would demonstrate to me that there's no real hope for Wikipedia.

Marsden 16:47, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No personal Attacks

Please visit this [1] Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy: There is no excuse for personal attacks on other contributors. Do not make them. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that you may be blocked for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. The NPA rule applies to all users irrespective of their past history or how others regard them. Thanks. 13:34, 11 April 2006 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by PSYCH (talk • contribs)

I would ignore this warning. It is by a bad faith editor who is not interested in wikipedia:NPA, except where it suits his selfish purposes. Xtra 14:32, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Xtra please stop wikistalkimg me. seems you think personal attacks are acceptable, I guess the rules apply to me and not you. PSYCH 05:53, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My Userpage

My userpage is as it is, and while I appreciate your concern, I feel it necessary to let certain known abusive personalities both cabal and otherwise know in the strongest possible terms that I won't stand for their shenanigans. 190 Proof 20:54, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[190 Proof turns out to be a sockpuppet of a banned user]

Stop stalking me.

Stop stalking me and get off my page. 03:00, 10 May 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 190 Proof (talk • contribs) .

Care to explain this?

So you edit out my request for a picture on the Harlequin site and use "Comment out bad-faith request for image" as an example? You ASSUME without asking me first that my intention was in bad faith, and you cite the fact that I made a comment on the discussion section for ogrish.com as a reason, eh? Real cool. Real cool, dude. --JOK3R 04:03, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edits to Arbcomm

I find your edits to my arbcom case to be laughable. Your gripes over content isn't worth anything in an arbcom case. Now if you would suggest I broke some rule while editing, that might be relevant.The pdf document I cited does in fact commend CAIR. Whether that commendation is a wise one or not is not for me to support or deny. And yes, editing to include original research without providing supporting reasons can reasonable be called vandalism. Ami Bidhrohi 17:25, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Save it for the arbcomm. Andjam 12:03, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now he's been banned for six months. Won't be threatening me with a block for a while... Andjam 12:26, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And is currently blocked indefinitely. Andjam 17:27, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your trolling and harassment

Please stop trolling and harassing Rebecca. It is generally frowned upon to use the canned warning templates on established editors. The edit summary warning you left her today was for a four month old edit summary. Your behaviour is harassment. Knock it off. Sarah 13:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is a big place. Please leave her alone. I have been watching you periodically show up on her talk page for months now and I consider your behaviour harassment. Sarah 14:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but I won't withdraw anything. I've also seen you request that of Rebecca and I certainly won't be playing into that myself. Sarah 15:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My response to the comments above and elsewhere

In response to the comments above, and elsewhere, I have the following to say:

Although I have used template messages with Rebecca in the past, I did not use a template message in the message referred to.
I wish to categorically state that an unsuccessful attempt to meet Rebecca in real life did not influence my behaviour towards her. I have had disputes with her before and after the attempt to meet her in real life.
In the past, I used to warn Rebecca for what I regarded as incivil comments towards people other than me. I have no interest in doing so any more.
I complained about an edit summary I found incivil the day that I noticed it. I was not storing my complaint for a strategic time, even though the edit summary was months old. I shall avoid complaining about old edit summaries in future.
In future, I shall try to avoid communicating with Rebecca via her talk page (and I'll won't use email either).

Andjam 17:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removing articles without reading them

Noted you tried to remove the Troy Williams article.

Before you do this suggest you do a literature / web study. All of the information there was readily available. By the way, seems he sticks ups for gay rights.

Do Wiki a favor, either add to the research or drop dead. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by OzTruth (talk • contribs) 10:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

you sound scary!!!

after reading this thing about rebecca, yet anyways, i dont think you understand, adding reference to a major british newspaper, and clarifying what they said about conservapedia as an example of a paper commenting on it, is totally valid...all i did was state a line from them, and i mainly just copied exactly word for word definitions from wikipedia and conservapedia, the only people that could sue for plaigerism would be wikipedia and conservapedia!!! plus i directly cited the article!!! 83.78.181.214 03:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

your edit on CAIR

I have been reading Wikipedia articles for a while, and looked at CAIR before. I noticed the drastic change, and saw your edit on the history. I wasn't familiar with you or your work, so I confused the change for vandalism. Sorry for that, but your edit of undoing years of work did seem a bit extreme. Coldbud 23:30, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet of banned user His Excellency, aka Amibidhrohi. Andjam 17:27, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]