User talk:84.43.11.157

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I've removed your childish tantrum from my Talk page. If you'd like to leave an adult message with no personal attacks, you stand a chance of getting a response. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:25, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Idiot; you DIDN'T respond to my first message, DID YOU? Despite having three days to respond, you didn't have the courtesy or decency to give a respond on your unjustified vandalism/erasle of work which took considerable amount of time to draft; yet when you're subjected to rightful vilification, you pop up like a jack in the box. You are an idiot.

Your addition to the article was illiterate and badly formatted, and was original research. You offered no explanation for it, not even an edit summary. Your behaviour since doesn't inspire me to offer any more help. If you can bring yourself to act like a well-mannered adult and ask me again, I'll reconsider. If you just keep violating Wikipedia's policy against personal attacks, I'll ignore you. It's your choice. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:14, 31 July 2005 (UTC)


<<Your addition to the article was illiterate >>

Utter Rubbish. It was NOT illiterate. I challenge you to explain which bit in particular were "illiterate". Nothing about what I wrote was "Original Research"- anyone who is less ignorant than you would know that what I wrote is undisputed by all quarters. That it isn't commonly known is another issue, and is the most compelling reason for including this. The article sought to explain the the discrepancy whereby the quran stipulates lashes for adultery whereas under hudud law stoning is uniformly done. That was why a sub-heading of Adultery was used. And, yet again, I DID support the article by giving a full reference- which you deleted.

That Wikipedia empowers people like you to blithely vandalise people's work on specious grounds says a lot about the policy- and about you.

  1. The English (grammar, spelling, capitalisation, etc.) was very poor from beginning to end.
  2. You obviously didn't bother to read Wikipedia:No original research; please do.
  3. If you hadn't behaved as you did, a rewritten version of the material might have been in the article by now. Aggression and insult rarely if ever works. The door is still open for you to revise your attitude and manner. it depends upon how much you want the material added to the article and how much you prefer to enjoy your testosterone rush. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:06, 31 July 2005 (UTC)


>>The English (grammar, spelling, capitalisation, etc.) was very poor from beginning to end.<<

Utter Rubbish. You're just making it up as you go along, aren't you? Either that, or you've confused my article with someone else's. It wouldn't surprise me- the lax and irresponsible approach that you take to editing. I specifically asked you to demonstrate where the "grammar, spelling, capitalisation" were inappropriate. You haven't, have you?

  1. You obviously didn't bother to read Wikipedia:No original research; please do.

I have read the policy. Which bit of "it wasn't original research" don't you understand??? HOW many times do i have to say this? Which bit of that it is "common scholarly accepted knowledge" don't you understand?? Which bit of "i extracted the data out of "the shorter encyclopedia of Islam", published by Royal Dutch Press, Compiler: Gibbs , don't you understand??

>>If you hadn't behaved as you did, a rewritten version of the material might have been in the article by now.<<

Bullshit. You had no intention of responding to my original query. And now you've deleted my contribution, I can do nothing other than re-write from scratch, which I don't have the time to do. Either show me the exact issues (so called spelling errors, grammatical errors) you claim, or I guess you move on to deleting some other poor sucker's hard work because of your small dick complex.