User talk:CltFn/Archive 6

WP:AGF

Wikipedia guidelines dictate that you assume good faith in dealing with other editors. Please stop being uncivil to your fellow editors, and assume that they are here to improve Wikipedia. Thank you. BhaiSaab ^talk 20:05, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not required to assume good faith of you, because you are a sockpuppeteer. Please read the policy. BhaiSaab ^talk 20:09, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When did I say I'm exempt from policy? WP:AGF states "This policy does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary. Actions inconsistent with good faith include vandalism, sockpuppetry, and lying." so it's part of policy that I'm not required to assume good faith of you. BhaiSaab ^talk 20:15, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My accusations are not without merit. Please take a look at your userpage. BhaiSaab ^talk 20:21, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Had you not been caught, you would have continued to use the sockpuppet, as you did for many months. It is hardly "the past." Again, I'm not required to assume good faith of sockpuppeteers. BhaiSaab ^talk 20:26, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You make a lot of accusations, but you don't show too much proof. BhaiSaab ^talk 20:31, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is precisely what I'm saying. BhaiSaab ^talk 20:40, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

More edit warring on multiple articles, after your previous week-long block and many, many bocks before. I'm reblocking for two weeks this time. You must stop edit warring if you want to continue editing at Wikipedia. Dmcdevit·t 20:49, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

CltFn (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was reverting on a living bio , to remove unsubstantiated , POV motivated material and per the biography tag the 3 RR does not apply

Decline reason:

Okay, first of all, your extreme history of edit warring has set you up for this 2 week block. Stop now, seriously. Do not edit war. You can be blocked permanently if you exhaust the community's patience and you are on your way. Second, even after over a dozen blocks you have violated the WP:3RR again. You KNOW it's against the rules, yet you still do it. Furthermore, you were not reverting vandalism, you were edit warring. Shape up. Reverting is very unhelpful to the editing process. Mango juice^talk 15:05, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Yes, it does. WP:VAND states that "Though [WP:NPOV additions are] inappropriate, this is not vandalism." (emphasis mine) . WP:3RR states "In cases of simple vandalism that is clearly not a content dispute" (emphasis existing in current policy). Therefore, you don't fall under the banner of reverting vandalism as an exception to the 3RR. I ask the administrator who judges this RFU take into account these facts from official policy, as well as this users' extensive block log for edit-warring, 3RR violations and other similar offences in the past. Daniel .Bryant 07:34, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note to the reviewing admin.

Please review my (http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Special:Contributions/CltFn) edits and you will see that they are not vandalism or edits in bad faith.
User BhaiSaab has for quite some time now has been following my edits trail and blanking them out or reverting them, and this is exactly what he did yesterday.
Yes I was accused in the past of having multiple accounts , and I was blocked for that. I learned the lesson and fullfilled the block period, but I expected a fresh start having paid the penalty. But at soon as I came back BhaiSaab began reverting all my edits, reverting them and outright stating that he does not need to assume good faith with me, but I should assume good faith with him. Check the my talk page for latest discussions with BhaiSaab.

Bahai got blocked for 24 hours and I get 2 weeks? How is that fair? We should both get the same block length for the same accusation!--CltFn 14:17, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

CltFn (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have been advised by admin netsnipe to file a second unblock request

I was following the WP:BLP rule , reverting unsourced , data from a living bio, and understood that the 3RR rule is overidden in those circumstances.
Please review my (http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Special:Contributions/CltFn) edits and you will see that they are not vandalism or edits in bad faith.
It should be taken into consideration that User BhaiSaab has for quite some time now has been following my edits trail and blanking them out or reverting them PURPOSEFULLY in bad faith. He openly admits that this is what he is doing see talk page above.
BahaSaab who was counter reverting me only got blocked for 24 hours and I got 2 weeks? That is not fair We should both get the same block length for the same accusation

Decline reason:

Given the apparent determination to continue the edit war and CltFn's refusal to accept that there is any problem with his actions, a block is self-evidently warranted. The history at [1] clearly shows that CltFn is under the wholly mistaken impression that revert warring is an acceptable way to pursue a content dispute despite previous warnings and blocks. WP:BLP does not apply in this case as the claim that Winn is self-published is backed by reliable sources. CltFn also reinserted a huge block of external links, depracated by the link guideline. CltFn also appears to perceive his own biases as neutral and shows all the signs of being a tendentious editor; an enforced break to cool off seems eminently sensible. Guy 10:04, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

"He openly admits that this is what he is doing see talk page above."

Please do not lie. BhaiSaab ^talk 15:23, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bat Ye'or

Is she dead? BhaiSaab ^talk 05:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You removed from her from the living persons category. BhaiSaab ^talk 05:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it's supposed to go on everyone that is living for the purposes of following WP:BLP. BhaiSaab ^talk 05:17, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Asra Nomani Images

Hi. I saw nothing on the site that says that they are anything but copyrighted. That means (unless you can get them to somehow release the images as free which I doubt will happen) you can only use them under fair use. That means you could read over WP:FUC. Sadly, I doubt they can be used because they aren't even really promotional pictures since they are released by the university for the event. I also don't think we can stretch it to historic event (like the copyright tag used for Image:WW2 Iwo Jima flag raising.jpg) because... well, it appears that there were four people praying with her and what Amina Wadud did got far more press. I doubt there is much that can be used from there... but, there is probably some place (maybe on the FUC talk page) that you can ask more knowledgeable people.

I'll take a look at that AfD ... but, I'm not sure if I'll weigh in, yet. gren グレン 10:37, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on Truckin'

You might be too young to get the cultural ref but I just thought you might like a few kind words. I certainly am seeing a pattern here in the way contributors are treated. Clearly some points of view are more equal than others. Hang in there.AnneCr 02:20, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I second that. Arrow740 08:17, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the Bat Yeor article, please see http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Bat_Ye%27or#Thomas_Jones_Review. Tidaress 09:56, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spencer

Please don't remove the criticisms of Spencer --Aminz 09:56, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

afd

Hi. I have afd'd your article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti Dhimmitude. Peace. --Striver 10:38, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

You don't know me, but I have noticed that you have had troubles with User:BhaiSaab in the past.He has filed an RfA against me:

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#User:Hkelkar

And the question of his extreme partisanship has been raised by an admin.If you would like to contribute to that page then please do. Thanks.Hkelkar 00:43, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your post to my RfA. I appreciate it.Hkelkar 07:42, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your posts on WP:AN

I had deleted that page, but some other users did not agree to it; so I undeleted it again. Please proceed with an MfD for that page and put up all the evidence of solicitation, and notify me on my talk page. Thank you. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 15:02, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mm, I hope you don't mind this on your page. Copy the code and post this on the page for deletion and then follow the instructions that follow on WP:MFD. Please endeavour to produce all the evidence you can. Thank you. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 17:34, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Remove this template from your page when the work is done. Thanks. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 17:44, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You need to produce the evidence (diffs) like you did the last time. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 10:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moving pages

Please refrain from renaming pages by cutting and pasting their content into a new place. There is a move tab available for you to use, and using it moves the edit history of the article to the new name. If a page cannot be moved, please use WP:RFPM or ask an administrator. It is also a good idea to wait for consensus before moving pages. Thanks. _JD^talk 12:51, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please reply to messages here, not on my talk page. The sockpuppet thing was an accident, I was thinking about something else at the time. Sorry. About the page, I'm not going to move it so I'm suggesting you read this section of Wikipedia:Requested moves, as the move you are proposing appears to be controversial. If you read the first few paragraphs of the article, you'll see that female genital mutilation is a term used by people opposed to the act of genital mutilation. Female genital cutting appears to be a neutral name; but I am not an expert on the subject. _JD^talk 12:58, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --CltFn 12:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:RobertSpencer.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:RobertSpencer.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. -- Chowbok ☠ 23:28, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Hkelkar

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Hkelkar. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Hkelkar/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Hkelkar/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Thatcher131 12:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Srdja.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Srdja.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --Chowbok ☠ 21:05, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]