User talk:Politicallyincorrectliberal/Archive1

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Politicallyincorrectliberal/Archive1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! - FrancisTyers 12:39, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Sina Page

What's going on over there??? what's with the copyvio problem? seriously, do you have a quick explanation for what happened? There doesn't seem any logical reason to have the article blocked, other than politically correct B.S. --FairNBalanced 05:21, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I liked your version on the template page, so I put it up and removed the copyvio. No I am not a wiki-admin :) --FairNBalanced 10:32, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cox and Forkum

I can't find the source saying that Cox is not an Objectivist at the moment; I'll keep looking. I don't really think it's a big deal either way, really, since he certainly seems to sympathize with Objectivism. When I find the source, I'll cite it. LaszloWalrus 07:35, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I found the source. Here it is: [1]. LaszloWalrus 11:40, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Upon looking at it again, I might have been wrong; Cox could well be an Objectivist. Just liking The Fountainhead doesn't make one an Objectivist, however (by the way, it's a great book).

ouch

Thanks for helping out with some work on the Parvin Darabi article; I'm sorry to hear you feel that way about Islam though. Friends of mine feel the same way, but I feel it's important to distinguish between those who derive the good in religious teachings and those who would use their religion as the justification for horrible acts of violence. Basically, there are shades of gray in everything. I mean, there was the Catholic priest scandal, and yet many Catholic priests and nuns volunteer in missions across the world to help others. - McCart42 02:00, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response. To be honest, I'm fairly ignorant about the religion of Islam and the requirements of its followers. My next question is, what do you propose to do in reaction? The reason I disagreed with your opinion on the religion is mainly because most of the people who hold similar opinions advocate actions which I feel are extreme in response to a religion they consider extreme. This doesn't sound like a sound solution to the "problem", if indeed there is one. - McCart42 22:55, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Many people have quoted the Bible, particularly the Old Testament, to demonstrate that the Christian God is a vengeful one and that he encourages his followers to stone nonbelievers, or some such. I don't feel like posting links, but if you haven't seen the excerpts from the Bible you should look into it - there is quite a bit of encouragement of violence in it, and looking at history, one finds in the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, etc., that Muslims have not been the only religious people who acted out violently based on their religion. I'm one who believes that people can say what they would like to say and believe what they would like to believe so long as they don't take harmful actions against others or incite such. The only question I would like you to answer is where is this all going? You obviously believe very strongly that Islam is evil - what do you plan to do about it or encourage others with more power to do about it? - McCart42 18:33, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK: so what's next? What should we do to remedy the situation? - McCart42 03:31, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your post to User:Azate

Your post to Azate is a violation of both WP:NPA and WP:Etiquette. Wikipedia rules do not allow posts simply meant to offend people. Valentinian ^(talk) 19:30, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personal Attack Warning

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. In the future do not post similar "good riddance" message as you did on User:Azate's talk page. You are welcome to archive this warning however it is not to be deleted. Thanks. Netscott 01:42, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Asma bint Marwan

I noticed that you have previously edited the article regarding Asma bint Marwan, and I thought that I might ask you to offer a third opinion regarding BhaiSaab's most recent edits there? It seems to me that he insist on removing large amounts of important and referenced information, just to make some point about an unrelated edit in the Islamophobia article. I made a comment on his recent behavior on that article here: BhaiSaab's recent edits -- Karl Meier 06:19, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]