User talk:Luqmanskye

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Luqmanskye, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! AngelOfSadness talk 19:37, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Contents 1 AfD nomination of Christian Bible 2 Vas 3 Hello! 4 Please remove personal attacks 5 Vasoarrhythmia

[edit] AfD nomination of Christian Bible

Christian Bible, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that Christian Bible satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian Bible and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Christian Bible during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 16:07, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vas

Hello. I've undone your cut and paste move of Vas to Vas county. Please refer to Help:Moving a page for more info. Also, there was already a disambiguation page at Vas (disambiguation). Ewlyahoocom 17:27, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hello!

Hello Luqmanskye. How are you? I saw some of your comments on Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Vote/Newyorkbrad. I don't believe that Newyorkbrad will ever abuse his power. I think he is a good guy. However, I strongly agree that of late Wikipedia is moving in the direction of being overly litigious, with various rules designed to limit participation by new users and concentrate power in the hands of administrators. I also agree that three-revert rule is horrible. That's why I don't edit on controversial topics. When I was new, I tried to add some criticism about the selection of Al Gore as the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize laureate. However, my edits were reverted. The biography of Gore is very pro-Gore and if you try to add some criticism, you would be bullied! I have also seen admins blocking established users for some silly reasons. Power abuse is common. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:43, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please remove personal attacks

I am fairly certain we have never interacted before. But in the space of just a few lines in this edit to my talkpage you called me "irrational," and "unscrupulous," accused me of generating "bad blood" of trying to "trick" other Wpians, and of not being "honest." I'd like you to rewrite the post, sans personal attacks. Jd2718 (talk) 23:43, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Serious questions are raised by your voting behavior which could not possibly violate your "reasons and analysis" more fully, saying in your "reasons and analysis" that we should only support popular candidates, while supporting Raul and Giano, the two most unpopular candidates in the top-10, and opposing almost all others. Is this perhaps another example of dodging the "consistency of little minds?" Seems unscrupulous, though I fully accept it may not be, and you may simply have been having a bad day in the reasoning department. Luqman Skye (talk) 23:52, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

The three top vote getters are NewYorkBrad, Giano and Raul365 in that order. Jd2718 can speak for himself here, but I think you've been seeing conspiracies in the wrong places. Risker (talk) 23:57, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Raul and Giano received the most "Oppose" votes in the top-10. They are also running 8 and 10 in the ratios of Support to Total. They are two of the most unpopular candidates in the top-10, despite this last-minute push by a couple of you to change the community consensus. Luqman Skye (talk) 00:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Your oppose vote was one of the most poorly reasoned screeds I've ever seen on WP. You fail to assume good faith of hundreds of Wikipedians that voted for Raul and Giano. How you can call both men "unpopular", when both received over 58% support from the community, and both men were also second only to Brad as far as community members voting for them. This also means that a majority of Wikipedians think you're full of it with regards to both candidates as well. Will they be appointed to Arbcom? In Giano's case, no. In Raul's case, maybe. Either way, your oppose commentary was in poor form. Mr Which??? 00:37, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

You seem not to have understood the reasoning. I have nothing against the voters who voted for Raul or Giano. What I was bringing to everyone's attention was the fact that one user was opposing candidates with the sole given reason being "number of oppose votes" while at the same time supporting the two candidates with the greatest number of oppose votes in the top-10. This inconsistency was very suspicious, especially coming in the last hour. For a few brief moments, this user's "reasons and analysis" had boosted Raul ahead of Rebecca for the first time in the election. This hypocrisy by one user, that was having a marked effect on the election outcome, was what I was against. The user had already voted, but decided to switch a number of votes and publish links to his "reasons and analysis" in a clear attempt to influence the elections, and he had succeeded in boosting Raul ahead of Rebecca for the very first time (at least in two weeks). I did not mean to insult any voters for Giano or Raul. As a matter of fact, I had supported Giano until this seemingly unscrupulous attempt to boost his ratings. His comments, implying that I was acting in bad faith, along with his failure to comment against this last-minute hypocrisy, further cemented my opposition to his candidacy. Luqman Skye (talk) 00:54, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I changed three votes from support to oppose. I added three opposes to candidates. I did not remove my support for Giano, as that was symbolic of Giano's stance on several issues, most notably the Secret Evidence. I did not vote against Raul, as sitting arbitators seem to be measured differently; two years ago 3 were promoted with more opposition than other candidates. Nor, by the way, did I vote for Raul. I explained all of this, including the exceptions, on my vote page, which I linked to all 6 new and changed votes. You are entitled to disagree. You are entitled not to understand. You are not entitled to be incivil, to insult, to personally attack, which is what you have done here. Please remove the personal attacks. Jd2718 (talk) 03:01, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vasoarrhythmia

Another editor has added the {{prod}} template to the article Vasoarrhythmia, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 18:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)