From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Abuse Page 1.1 Your edits 1.2 Islamic Invasion of India 1.3 No Personal Abuse 1.4 {{Catholic-link}}

[edit] Abuse Page

A page to remove the abusive postings form the Main Talk Page.

[edit] Your edits

Hello. You have made a number of edits today that remove single words or small portions of articles. I am going to revert these. Please take care in editing Wikipedia.

Charles Matthews 12:20, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I second what CM has written. -Willmcw 19:23, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Also, when adding people to categories, you should know that they will automatically be alphabetized by their first name unless you take the extra step of putting something like this in the category tag:

Category:Editors|Spencer, JA]]. -Willmcw 21:17, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

So now Paleoconservative appears back in Conservatism rather than the Paleoconservative category. Good Work! Anyway I'll stop the pointless revert war here. I've added the Paleoconservative category tag back on the main article because that reversion was particularly pointless, but perhaps others will try to reconstruct that category. JASpencer

Pointless revert war? Can you explain why you removed the word terror from the article? Or why you made the various other deletions of words like racism when you were adding the Paleoconservative category to articles? Yes, Charles Matthews did do good work in reverting vandalism. -Willmcw 02:05, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Surely removing the Paleoconservatism category tag from the , ahem, Paleoconservative article was a particularly blatant illustration of the pointless and indiscriminate. However this unsolicited (by me) flame war stops here.

Good. Flaming is not the issue. Making Wikipedia a good encyclopedia is the issue. As for the categorization, there is a certain logic to having an article that is also the head of a subcategory listed in both the category and the subcategory. But this has nothing to do with categories and everything to do with reckless and destructive edits, which left broken wiki links and ungramatical sentences. Maybe it was caused by a bug in your internet browser. Whatever. Also, remember that it helps keep the category lists alphabetized if you do the extra lastname, firstname step when adding people to a category. I know it's a pain. Thanks for your contributions to Wiki. -Willmcw 11:41, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'd like to point out (a) that I have not done other than explain the reverts I made and (b) I went through your edits in that period looking not for the addition of the category, on which I have no comment one way or the other, but for other changes to the pages. I left any page untouched where you had added a category and made no other change.

Charles Matthews 07:49, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I have now looked through your edits of 21 December, in which the same pattern of isolated deletions occurs. I am reluctant to assume lack of good faith in your edits. On the other hand two other Wikipedians have had to change back these deletions of odd words. As was mentioned above, this is conceivably a technical failing causing unintended effects as you edit. I am, however, now concerned. Please address the main point being made to you. It would be helpful if you used at least a brief edit summary, and did not use 'minor edit' until this matter is cleared up. Charles Matthews 08:05, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

All I've tried to do is add in categories and not change words. I am totally bemused by all this. JASpencer

OK. You are not being abused. Your good faith is still being assumed. If you examine the two groups of problematic edits it should at least be clear why concern is being expressed. Charles Matthews 19:12, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It's over now, but accusing someone of vandalim is not a good way to assure him that good faith is being assumed or that he is not being abused. I've been working on Wikipedia for a while and I was shocked at being accused of vandalism (by Willmcw not Charles Matthews). JASpencer

I apologize if I shocked you. Vandalism was occuring, even if you weren't aware of it, and now it appears that you've tracked it down to some software on the computer you were using. Thanks for finding the source of the problem. And thanks for your contributions to Wiki. Cheers,-Willmcw 22:05, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Islamic Invasion of India

I would like to add more to your relying on anti-Islamic sites and adding stuff to wiki. You added this quote to Islamic Invasion of India

It appears from your letter that all the rules made by you for the comfort and convenience of your men are strictly in accordance with religious law. But the way of granting pardon prescribed by the law is different from the one adopted by you, for you go on giving pardon to everybody, high or low, without any discretion between a friend and a foe. The great God says in the Koran [47.4]: "0 True believers, when you encounter the unbelievers, strike off their heads." The above command of the Great God is a great command and must be respected and followed. You should not be so fond of showing mercy, as to nullify the virtue of the act. Henceforth grant pardon to no one of the enemy and spare none of them, or else all will consider you a weak-minded man.

There are some differences between that quote and as the quote appears on even neutral Indian sites, such as

O my cousin; I received your life inspiring letter. I was much pleased and overjoyed when it reached me. The events were recounted in an excellent and beautiful style, and I learnt that the ways and rules you follow are conformable to the Law. Except that you give protection to all, great and small alike, and make no difference between enemy and friend. God says, 'Give no quarter to Infidels, but cut their throats." "Then know that this is the command of the great God. You should not be too ready to grant protection, because it will prolong your work. After this, give no quarter to any enemy except to those who are of rank. This is a worthy resolve, and want of dignity will not be imputed to you. Peace be with you [1] [1]

Notice this is not pro-islamic site. It's Indian site. This is just one example of adding POV stuff without checking the source. I don't know how much more falsehood exists in these articles about Muhammad Bin Qasim and others that you added. OneGuy 23:58, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] No Personal Abuse

WP:DICK I'm not too fazed by the personal abuse in the edit summaries. Imacomp 21:46, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

In case anyone's wondering Imacomp is refering to this edit, which he deleted. JASpencer 21:51, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

No I'm not. I'm pointing out WP:DICK to you Imacomp 21:56, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

No need to go away mad. Just go away (and do not initiate personal abuse, if you do not like it back). Imacomp 23:16, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] {{Catholic-link}}

None of this excuses your ramming an unsightly and mostly factually incorrect template onto hundreds of articles, many with no particular religious connection, then refusing to respond coherently either on your talk-page, or the project page, or the template deletion page (now you suddenly break your silence). As a Catholic myself I found your eventual ludicrous outburst there highly offensive; I'm afraid it's people like you who are responsible for many negative feelings about Catholicism. Johnbod 18:19, 14 January 2007 (UTC)