User talk:OceanSplash: Difference between revisions

{{welcome}}-[[User:Platypus222|'''Platypus Man''']] <small>| [[User talk:Platypus222|''Talk'']]</small> 12:09, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

== Your edits ==

Hi Ocean, thanks for your note. The problem with your edits is threefold. (1) First, they are highly POV. This is not, in and of itself, a problem, because we want all majority and significant-minority POVs to be represented. However, we need to use good sources, and the more controversial or hard-hitting the POV, the better the source should be. (2) What counts as a good source is much debated, but most editors agree, and the policies state, that anonymous posters on personal websites can't be used, because we don't know who they are, or what their qualifications are for making the statement being attributed to them. We publish material only if it has already been published in a credible publication. (3) You're attempting to use the Ali Sina website in a number of different places, a website you're clearly connected to in some way, and self-promotion is poorly regarded here. See [[Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not]].

Criticism of Islam (and everything else) is welcomed, but it has to be written in a scholarly or encyclopedic style, well-sourced to academics, journalists, theologians, political commentators, and the like; and it shouldn't cross into bigotry. Someone who has made many of the points you're making is [[Nick Cohen]] of ''[[The Observer]]''. He might be someone you can use as a source. Cheers, [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] ^{<font color="Purple">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</font>} 21:54, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

:Dear Slim

:How can my contributions be personal POV when all I do is quote others? What I quote is the other side of the coin. They are of course different from the side that Muslims want to show. Nonetheless they are not MY personal views. They are views of a great number of people that I feel are not presented adequately in Wikipedia. Why they are not presented? Because Muslims delete them! That is censorship of thought. It happens only in fascistic states. It should not be allowed in democracies.

:Is the anonymity of Ali Sina a problem? How can he show his face when there are so many eager Muslims willing to slit his throat? Is Ali Sina notable? A Google search with “Faith Freedom International” results in 200,000 entries. The same search with “Tiger Wood” results in 268,000 entries and a search with “Ibn Warraq” results in 104,000 entries. By the way, no one has seen the face of Ibn Warraq either. At what point someone become notable enough so we can quote him/her? If FFI is not notable, what about my other citations? Why they are systematically being removed? Let us say I am a supporter of FFI! Does this disqualify me to post anything in Wikipedia? Does this allow Muslims to systematically revert the pages that I edit? Aren’t Muslims supporters of Islam to a much greater degree? I am not a follower of FFI, they are followers of Islam. There is something that does not add up.

:You say criticism of Islam is welcome but it should not cross into bigotry? You are implying that my contributions were bigotry. No offence taken. Just can you please tell me which part exactly, so I become more aware in future? Can you call a person bigot just because he has views contrary to yours? Isn’t it bigotry to allow only the views of Muslims and eliminate the opposing views? Can you please explain why you always protect the pages that I edit after Muslims already have reverted it? Is that a coincidence? Please restore my confidence in your impartiality dear Slim. I do not agree with any of your accusations about me presenting my personal POV. Since you have implied that, I urge you to be very specific and like a good lawyer go through my contributions and show me where I broke the rules of Wilipedia. Did I present my original research or did I give personal POV? Please don’t speak generalities. Please be specific. I disagree with all the charges you made against me and I am saddened to see that you always protect the pages favoring Muslims. This does not smell right! It is not an overwhelming evidence of you impartiality. I want you to stand behind your accusations and show where I broke the rules of Wikepedia. You stated you are not motivated by religious fervor. I want to believe you but please help me do it. Thank you, I will check Nick Cohen’s. I think I read something about him before. Cheers [[User:OceanSplash|OceanSplash]] (23:24 23 October 2005)

::Hi again Ocean, almost all your contributions have violated [[WP:NOR]] and [[WP:NPOV]]. I urge you again to read them very carefully, along with [[Wikipedia:Verifiability]] and [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources]].

::FFI gets 198,000 Google hits, but most of them are repetitive. It gets only 156 unique hits (this was 121 the last time I checked, in case you notice an inconsistency between posts). Tiger Woods, on the other hand, gets over six million, and I don't know how many unique ones, but a lot. I agree that it's a pity Ali Sina feels he has to hide his identity, but the problem is only in part that he's anonymous: it's also that he self-publishes on a personal website.

::Finally, I agree that some of your edits at [[Islamophobia]] should be allowed to stand. I suggest you agree to remove the Ali Sina quote, and then ask the other editors on the page if they will allow the other quotes. Finding a compromise is the way to resolve content disputes. Cheers, [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] ^{<font color="Purple">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</font>} 23:49, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

:::Hi Slim

:::My apologies, I think I misspelled Tiger Woods name in my search (I wrote Wood). So you are right. However, the point was not to compare a golf player to a writer. I also mentioned Ibn Warraq which is a more appropriate comparison. Anyway, what I am interested is to have the views opposing those of Muslims also posted with fairness. It does not matter if they are not Ali Sina’s. We can remove his citations if that solves the problem.

:::I also asked you to be specific how I violated the rules of Wikepedia. You repeated again your accusation without being specific. This is like a cop giving you a ticket saying you violated all the traffic law without telling you why, when and where. Such tickets will not stand in any court. Please dear Slim, once again, I urge you to be specific. Since you repeatedly accused me of violation of ALL wikipedia rules I beg you to be specific. Would you please do that or at least do that in future if you decide to accusing me of violations? Thank you again. Cheers [[User:OceanSplash|OceanSplash]] 00:50 24 October 2005

::::You've said here and elsewhere that I haven't explained how your edits violated policy. As I believe I wrote on [[Talk:Ali Sina]] and here, you must produce good sources for your edits, especially once they've been challenged. Ali Sina can't be used as a source (except in the article about himself), partly because he's anonymous but mostly because he self-publishes on his own website. If Ali Sina has an article published by a credible newspaper, then we can use him as a reference. Please do read our policies: [[Wikipedia:No original research]], [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view]], and [[Wikipedia:Verifiability]]. Also, if you're prepared to remove Ali Sina's material from [[Islamophobia]], the other editors might agree to leave the rest of your material, so you should make this proposal on [[Talk:Islamophobia]] and then perhaps I can unprotect it. I'm not allowed to edit the article myself because I've protected it. All I can do is make suggestions with a view to resolving the dispute. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] ^{<font color="Purple">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</font>} 22:30, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

==An RfA==

I thought that you might be interested in this request for adminship: [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Anonymous editor]] -- [[User:Karl Meier|Karl Meier]] 11:13, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

==Golden rule==

Hi Ocean. I don't understand your comment about the golden rule sentence in Ali Sina. I have nothing against that. I haven't touched that part here before [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ali_Sina&diff=prev&oldid=26318457] and after [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ali_Sina&diff=prev&oldid=26323681]. Actually, I have had nothing against all the edits in that article except our infamous debate about the Wikipedia rules on notability. Nothing else matters to me. Cheers -- [[User:FayssalF|Svest]] 18:51, 24 October 2005 (UTC) <small>[[User talk:FayssalF|<font style="background: orange">&nbsp;^{''Wiki me up&#153;''}</font>]]</small>

== Removing votes ==

It is imperitive that you do not ever remove text and or votes from an RFA, as you did here- [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Anonymous_editor&diff=prev&oldid=26371713] and here [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Anonymous_editor&diff=prev&oldid=26376407]. This is a very serious issue. [[User:Hipocrite|Hipocrite]] - [[User talk:Hipocrite|&laquo;<small>Talk</small>&raquo;]] 21:01, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

:Sorry, it was not intentional. I started editing and it took a long time. Meanwhile others must have updated the page but when I updated mine which was opened before they had started editing, their contribution was also deleted. I make sure to write in a word processor next time and don’t keep an edit page open for long time. Thanks for letting me know. [User:OceanSplash|OceanSplash] 21:08 24 October 2005

== Arbitration ==

Hello - I noticed your comment regarding [[User:SlimVirgin]], alleging she had imposed page protection in favor of a desired version of an article that she wanted. I reviewed some of the pages you referred to and it appears that SlimVirgin imposed page protection repeatedly on articles where she was a participant - an explicity no-no according to [[WP:PP]]. I have seen this same editor doing this previously and am currently seeking arbitration against her at [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Willmcw and SlimVirgin]]. Please take a moment to review this case and, should you wish, participate in the evidence gathering phase of this arbitration [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Willmcw_and_SlimVirgin/Evidence here]. Thanks. [[User:Rangerdude|Rangerdude]] 21:15, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

:Thank you. I certainly will. I noticed strong biased in her in my first interaction with her and eventually my intuition proved to be correct. She is now seeking her buddie to become an administrator. Please take a look if you haven't done it and make sure you read my comments.

:[[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Anonymous editor]] [[User:OceanSplash|OceanSplash]] 21:21 24 October 2005

::Thanks. You should also review [[WP:BITE]] - something she appears to be doing to you. [[User:Rangerdude|Rangerdude]] 21:35, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

::: Hi Rangerdude: Looks like SlimVirgin and Willmcw did to you exactly what SlimVirgin and AnonymouEditor did to me. I wonder whether Willmcw is also a Muslim and whether your disagreement was about a subject that involved Islam. If so, it confirms my claim that these Muslims are here with an agenda and that is to censor and silence cricical comments about Islam. The religious alligiance of these abusers should not be discarded as it is the real cause and part of the equation. I did could not figure out how to give comments or vote on your complaint [[User:OceanSplash|OceanSplash]] 22:08, 24 October 2005

::::I haven't encountered any indication of religion in their harassment of me. I have, however, encountered a strong political bias by those two editors. Willmcw is a very vocal promoter of a far left wing political viewpoint and most of my dealings with him involve his attempts to suppress other viewpoints or add political attacks against other viewpoints into articles. I gather that SlimVirgin is at least sympathetic to these politics, and as the RfAr complaint about their coordinated postings on my talk page shows, they definately work together to POV push. Honestly, I wouldn't mind either of them having an opinion all that much if they weren't so vehement about promoting it, denegrating everything that isn't inline with it, and constantly pestering other users who stand up to their coordinated bullying tactics. [[User:Rangerdude|Rangerdude]] 23:13, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

:::::Well that explains it. Far Left and militant Islam go hand in hand. They are suportive of each other as they have common enemies namely Israel and America. Read my contributions to [[Useful idiot]] and [[islamophobia]] SlimVirgin has protected this page, so go to history and read my latest comments before they were reverted. It does not matter if she has strong opinions. Don't we all? Her problem is that she is a bully and therefore unfit to be an administrator [[User:OceanSplash|OceanSplash]] 23:21 24, October 2005

== Warning ==

This is your only warning. If you continue to personally attack other users you will be blocked for 24 hours. [[User:Freestylefrappe|freestylefrappe]] 01:13, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

:We have a person who is seeking to become an administrator and has a track record of being bias. We have another person who has nominated him and as I have shown and proved is also biased. While she is nominating this person she is at the same time acting as the mediator between him and me. This is called conflict of interest. If I am not allowed to talk about this what else I am supposed to talk about? What is the purpose of saying anything if you are not allowed to point out the very problems? Can you also explain which part is "personal attack" that is not relevant to the case we are discussing? If I believe a person is not fit to be an administrator, shouldn't I say that? Please explain. I want to know exactly how you oppose the nomination of a person to become an administrator or the abuse of an administrator without pointing out to their flaws. [[User:OceanSplash|OceanSplash]] 2:42 25 Oct. 2005

:By the way Freestylefrappe, I realized you are also a Muslim. So how much impartiality should I expect from you?

:You referred to him as a despot. I'm not a Muslim. I'm a [[Nazarite]]. The block is for 24 hours. [[User:Freestylefrappe|freestylefrappe]] 01:56, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

::What? And you are so interested in Islam that most of your pages are about this cult? Holy cow! More Taqiyyah?

::You abused your power Freestyle. If you could catch me probably you would also kill me. You showed your real Islamic color. Ansewr the question that I asked you above if you can. [[User:OceanSplash|OceanSplash]]

:Well Freestyle you banned me from editting. True to your Islamic nature indeed. All these are nothing but evidence that Islam is very much akin to fascism.[[User:OceanSplash|OceanSplash]]

::"You referred to him as a despot" So? Despot means one who wants to have absolute power and does not allow criticism. Would it have sounded better if I gave the meaning of the world instead of the word itself? No dear Freestly you are an open book to me. These are lame excuses to cut me out. You do that to protect your religion. It is my opinion that you don't like not what I say. I said nothing out of ordinary or insulting. A person who does not allow opposing views is a despot. Do you have a different definition for this word? This also makes you a despot. In fact all Muslims are despots. Look at Islamic countries. Every house is run by a despot. [[User:OceanSplash|OceanSplash]] 2:42 25 Oct. 2005

:: Dear Freestyle. I thought you should also take a look at [[useful idiot]]s

:::You've said nothing out of the ordinary or insulting? You've accused other editors of being fascists, Islamists, and despots, and Freestyle of being someone who would kill you if he could catch you. Please use your 24-hour block to review [[Wikipedia:No personal attacks]], [[Wikipedia:Civility]], and [[Wikipedia:Disruption]]. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] ^{<font color="Purple">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</font>} 02:29, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

SlimVigin, Whatever I said about Muslim is true. I am not sure whether Freestyle is a Muslim. If he is then it is his duty to kill me. This is what Muhammad said Muslims should do. If he is not a Muslim then he is playing a dangerous game defending them. He thinks despot is an insutl. He should check his dictionary. [[User:OceanSplash|OceanSplash]] 3:35 25 Oct. 2005

:Calling someone a despot is calling them oppressive &mdash; to me, that is an insult. Also, your view about Islam does not make it incumbent upon Freestyle to do anything (if he were Muslim, he said he was a Nazarite). Maybe this makes him a bad Muslim in your eyes, or maybe he accepts different traditions. Oh so many possibilities and none of them involve you telling him what he should be doing. Wikipedia's main purpose is to bring people together to write an encyclopedia, not speculate on the social habits of its users. Whether you believe you are correct or not it is considered by the vast majority as insulting. Saying that you are correct does not change this issue so please cease and desist from calling names. Let's write an encyclopedia and you can argue with someone about their viewpoints, that is fine, but their POV and writing is what matters, not the perceived reason for such POV. Just be friendly about it, non-confrontational and then we can help to make this encyclopedia better. [[User:Grenavitar|gren]] [[User talk:Grenavitar|グレン]] 03:11, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

::Please be aware that any sort of religious bigotry will not be tolerated on this encyclopedia, and has in the past resulted in a perminant ban from editing. [[User:Hipocrite|Hipocrite]] - [[User talk:Hipocrite|&laquo;<small>Talk</small>&raquo;]] 13:27, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Despot is a person who tries to impose his will on others disregarding the opinions of others. Democrat is a person who allows opposing views and does not use force to impose his views but argues with reason. Neither of these words are insults. Of course one is better than the other. I am a democrat. I don’t mind to be called that way. If someone thinks despotism is wrong then it is up to him not be a despot. In other words he must strive to control himself and not try to force his view on others or silence others through force. Take the example of freestyle. He determines on his own that the word despot it insult and gives a warning and banes in the next minute. Why he does that? First of all his understanding of the word if flawed. Secondly he enjoys the sensation of exercising his superior power. He becomes the judge they jury and the executioner. This gives him a feeling of omnipotence and he feels very much fulfilled and empowered. This of course the sign of weakness of character and not strength. The person with strength of character is capable of controlling himself first. All despots are weak people and this show of power is in reality to cover up their inner insecurities and weaknesses. What they say is basically this: "I set the rules. I decide what is right and what is not. And since I have more power than you, you must do what I say or I will chastise you." This is how little people with gigantic egos operate. A person with strength of character does not fear criticism. But he is capable of responding to criticism logically. Most of the ill affecting mankind is caused by little men with gigantic egos. They are everywhere and wikipeida is no exception. These people interpret the rule as they wish and then exercise the power and in this way get a huge gratification. Whether despot is insult or is the definition of someone who is intolerant of other peoples view is matter of opinion. (and perhaps literacy) Nonetheless the actions are clear. Freestlye and AnonymousEditors are intolerant of other people’s opinions. They can disagree and that is their right, but when ban and remove views that they don’t like, that is the sign of despotism? There is no other definition for that.

Whether Freestyle is a Muslim or a misguided Jew protecting Muslims whose only objective is to wipe out the Jews is not the issue. He is a man who cannot tolerate views contrary to his and gets high by exercising his powers. The first thing that comes to his mind is to ban. Why? Because he has no tolerance for opposing views. How can we say this in one word? Yes. That is it: "Despot".

“Wikipedia's main purpose is to bring people together to write an encyclopedia, not speculate on the social habits of its users.”

And what happens when one view is banned constantly not on the bases of its validity but because it offends the sensibility of a certain group? You say we should not speculate about the habits of those who constantly censor your views with lame justifications. That is absurd. How can you not speculate that these people have hidden agendas? The case is clear. They are Muslims and do not like any view contrary to Islam be aired. Don’t Muslims kill those who express a view contrary to Islam? Isn’t this what Muhammad did? Muhammad massacred 750 Jews of Bani Quraiza. Why? Because they did not accept him as a prophet. This intolerance exists in all the Muslims. Are we supposed to believe that when they come to Wikipedia they suddenly change? [[User:OceanSplash|OceanSplash]] 08:35 27 Oct. 2005

:OS, you're welcome to edit here if you make constructive edits to articles within our policies, whether they're critical of Islam or not. Intelligent, well-sourced criticism is welcome. But if you're going to spend your time on talk pages insulting editors and making sweeping generalizations about certain religions, you will be blocked from editing. We have a rule called [[Wikipedia:Don't bite the newbies|don't mind the newbies]], but I've given you about as much leverage under it as I'm prepared to, so I'm afraid this is the last warning. From now on, please concentrate on improving ''content'', and stop the attacks on a certain group of editors. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] ^{<font color="Purple">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</font>} 08:48, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Let us talk about speculating the motives of the people. It is naïf to believe all people have pure motives. Many people have agendas. In fact I would say all of us have biases. I am against Islam. This is my bias. I am not prejudiced or Islamophobe because I know Islam and I was a Muslim one day. Nonetheless my understanding of Islam has made me very biased against this belief. The believers are also biased. That is obvious. So how do you write an unbiased encyclopedia? Only if you allow both views to be expressed freely! If one group constantly censors the views of other side, of course the result will be distorted. Anytime I tried to post anything, I faced fierce resistance by Islamists and their excuses were utterly unjustifiable and contrary to the norms set by Wikipedia. (I can prove everything I say). This is bullishness. Then we had someone like SlimVirgin who showed up and acted very unfairly every time taking the side of my opponent. I started suspecting her motives. Then I found that she is at the same time is nominating AE, the person whit whom I had trouble and she came to mediate, for administrator. It does not take an Einstein to see she has breached the norms of ethics and impartiality. How can she be impartial between me and AE if at the same time she is so supportive of him? Isn’t this a conflict of interest? Only a fool will fail to see that she has acted unethically when she accepted to intervene as mediator between AE and me. [[User:OceanSplash|OceanSplash]] 09:02 27 Oct. 2005

“OS, you're welcome to edit here if you make constructive edits to articles within our policies,”

Come down please from your high horse Ms. SlimVirgin and answer my charge against you. If you liked AE so much that you were nominating him for administrator why you imposed yourself as the mediator? Why you were so unfair to me from the start and broke ALL the rules of Wikipedia. Now you accuse me of the same. I repeatedly asked you to be specific. You failed because you can’t. But I can. I can show you broke the rules of Wikipedia on many instances. Instead of lecturing me, you must apologize for being biased.

“sweeping generalizations about certain religions?” So you don’t like any criticism about your religion do you? What part of my criticism of Islam was sweeping generalization? I have been very specific so far and tried to provide opposing views to Islam. You simply do not have the tolerance for that. That is why you decry my contributions and call them “sweeping generalization” or try to dismiss them as Islamophobia. Are views contrary to Christianity Chistianophobia? Do we have anyone crying Judaismphobia, Hinduphobia or Buddhistphobia? Why only Muslims make that claim? It is to silence any voice of opposition. You did that here and you even sided each time with my opponent to ban my views. This is unethical. Is that an insult? Am I allowed to say you acted unethically? Or would I be banned again? If this is not despotism what it is? Of course you can’t jail or kill me. But you do what you can. You censor me, violate my rights and ban me.

Go ahead. Block me. That is all you can do. You are unable to respond to any of my accusations against you. So using force is all you can do. [[User:OceanSplash|OceanSplash]] 09:02 27 Oct. 2005

:First, I didn't act as a mediator. I protected the pages against your very poor editing, which is understandable as you're new here, but nevertheless it couldn't stay in the encyclopedia. Secondly, the suggestions I left on the talk pages actually favored your view to a large extent, if you'd only go and read them without such a jaundiced eye. Third, you identified me as an Indonesian, and then Iranian, Islamist. You might want to ask yourself whether you're a little quick to judge people, and whether that might apply to others you've judged too.

:I'm glad you acknowledge your bias, and it's not in itself a problem. All you have to do is edit within our policies. Write in a dry, encyclopedic style. [[WP:NOR]]: Don't insert your own opinions (whether in the name of OceanSplash or Ali Sina). [[WP:V]]: Cite your sources for any edit likely to be challenged, and make sure the source is a good one. [[WP:RS]]: No websites, no blogs, no forums. Cite books, scholarly papers, newspaper articles. Stick closely to what they say and don't elaborate. [[WP:NPOV]]: Be evenhanded and as neutral as possible. [[WP:FAITH]]: Respect other editors who are doing the same, even if you disagree with their POV profoundly. [[WP:Civil]] and [[WP:NPA]]: Be civil, and don't engage in ''ad hominem'' arguments on talk pages.

:Do all these things and you'll find that admins will leave you alone and good editors will come to respect you. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] ^{<font color="Purple">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</font>} 09:25, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

::SlimVirgin wrote:“ I protected the pages against your very poor editing, which is understandable as you're new here.

::My editing was not poor as anyone can see it for him/herself. But let us take you for your word. You protected the page against my poor editing which is understandable because I am new here. Oh really? Can you show me where in the rules of Wikipedia says protect a page against a newcomer if his editing is poor? Who decided my editing is poor? You! Based on what? Based on your religious fervor! There was nothing wrong with my style that would contravene the standards of Wikipedia. It was the content of what I wrote that you could not stand. You keep justifying your biased action against me hiding behind the rules and fail each and every time to say exactly which rules I broke. There is no rule that I broke. You know that. That is why you constantly act like a mommy talking to a child. “if you behave good we will let you play”. Be specific Ms. SlimVirgin. I can show the rules that you broke. Can you show me the rules that I broke. Can you be specific for once? Why not apologize and demonstrate that you can also be a great person?

::“Secondly, the suggestions I left on the talk pages actually favored your view to a large extent”

::Are you trying to insult my intelligence?

::So you are Indonesian, the same country MENJ comes from and all those death threats were issued against Ali Sina that you could not tolerate. Well it is difficult to see the nationality of a person through the Internet. However it is not that difficult to see the bias. In fact most Iranians are now anti Islamists. I guess they had enough of Islam.

::You did enough of lecturing Ms. SlimVirgin about how I should apply the rules of Wikipedia. I read those rules before making my first contribution. You should read it again to refresh your memory. I have accused you of being biased against me and have proven it. There is also a complaint against you by someone else. So I am not the only one receiving you sting. Instead of lecturing me why don’t you answer my charges? These lecturings are smoke screens behind which you try to hide your own sins. [[User:OceanSplash|OceanSplash]] (09:57 27 October 2005)

::“OS, you're welcome to edit here if you make constructive edits to articles within our policies,”

::Whoever wrote this: My contribution here is extremely constructive. Apart from my work in the three pages that I tried to edit and was constantly censored, I point out to the abuses that take place here by some administrators. My contribution is very constructive because it calls for accountability. There is abuse going on here. I have pointed out to those abuses. If you don’t want anyone rocking the boat then you don’t like me. But if you really care to set things straight and make Wikipedia a fair and unbiased encyclopaedia where both opposing views are treated with the same consideration then I am the right person here and my contribution are extremely valuable. It all depends what is most important to you. If you want to have a good encyclopaedia then my criticism of these abuses are very helpful. If all you care is to have a groupie of people who would do whatever they want and if someone complains they ban him then obviously I am in the wrong place.[[User:OceanSplash|OceanSplash]] 09:02 29 Oct. 2005

==CfD==

If you got a minute can you take a look at [[Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 November 7#Category:Soviet spies to Category:Aed Soviet spies]]. This is a challenge to the sourcing of Venona project materials & direct related article series. Thank you. [[User:Nobs01|nobs]] 21:02, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

==Karmafist==

You're featured on [[User:Karmafist/users to watch]]; recently described by another editor as a "hate page". [[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]] 11:09, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

:Now recreated at [[User:Karmafist/kittens and sunshine]], with the same content, but no redirect from the former. [[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]] 08:58, 15 November 2005 (UTC)