User talk:GNU4eva

This is just my page

Replied on my talk page. —No-One Jones ^(m) 01:36, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

my lonely talk page

I'm just putting this here cuz my talk page looks so bare :p --GNU4Eva 28 June 2005 05:35 (UTC) (that and more accurately, I can't sleep)

my colourful name

I hope it is not against any policy that my name is multicolored (or colored at all for that matter). If it is, please feel free to tell me and I will change it right away. --GNU4Eva 28 June 2005 06:56 (UTC)

No there is nothing wrong with your name. Keep it, it looks good. --Anonymous editor June 30, 2005 05:24 (UTC)

lol ty, I just didn't want to offend the powers that be... whoever that is <g>. --GNU4Eva 30 June 2005 05:32 (UTC)

Striver

I don't know what to do. I'm not all that much more experienced. He seems to respond if more than one person talks to him. Perhaps a petition, from some of the other editors who work in Islamic topics, asking him to refrain from editing articles, but to communicate with us on the talk pages if there's something in the article that is Sunni-biased? I think there are a number of us who really do want to be NPOV in the Sunni-Shi'a debates, and would be willing to make changes, or add additional material, if we understood the Shi'a POV. Zora 30 June 2005 07:32 (UTC)

RFC

Salam!

Care to comment on this? Wikipedia:Requests for comment/London bombing

--Striver 15:42, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jihad

Inasmuch as I respect your opinion on such matters, can you please take a look at the editor's poll I posted at the Jihad talk page here? BrandonYusufToropov 16:14, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sidrat al-Muntaha

Hey, thanks! I did some edits and used http://print.google.com/ to find some references to cite for it. Interesting stuff. There's not really much information about it and it's only mentioned in passing so it really is hard not to get the bias of the author in your research... so I mentioned that it used Ibn Arabi's work to talk about Jesus' not attaining this station. Feel free to suggest if I need to fix it or something. gren 05:42, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

no apologies needed

After looking over the history for vote:Islam I concluded it must have been unintentional, whether by a software bug, double-posting, or whatever. Your edit was close in time to mine, which probably contributed. I mainly added my comment in case people mistook my 2nd edit for a double vote or something. Cheers. -R. S. Shaw 03:07, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My vote

You indicated confusion as per my vote. I voted as such because it has become clear to me that Wikipedia doesn't support free speech, it only supports the right kind of free speech. Wikipedia isn't an encyclopedia anymore than Slashdot's comments area is a UN meeting. This is an asylum run by vandals and antagonistic trolls. The whole point is to enforce a specific POV on subjects, and to drive our users who might disagree by harassing them, using personal attacks, and other such things. As such I don't feel the template represents the party line and is thus inappropriate because it doesn't represent the right kind of free speech. Agriculture 02:42, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Asif Hossain

Please see talk page for Asif Hossain. I think he qualifies to be considered not non significant -- not the most significant person in the world but for the matter of local politics, is significant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GNU4eva (talk • contribs)

GNU4eva (talk · contribs)
Asif Hossain

This article did not assert notability, and was thus deleted. It was also nominated for deletion a while back, with a concensus to delete, and the article at that time was longer. Cheers, Fang Aili ^talk 17:12, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't stand it any longer

I'm taking a wiki-break. I just couldn't bear it any longer. As WP gets more popular, it attracts more editors with strong POVs who believe that they have no POV, just the TRUTH. Many of them are NOT NICE people. Dealing with NOT NICE people is an extreme challenge and I keep losing my balance. I don't like feeling anger and contempt. Zora 19:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Hamachi_error.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Hamachi_error.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Rettetast (talk) 17:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I'll be doing a lot of work at WP

I am overwhelmed with freelance work, work at Distributed Proofreaders, and an effort to finish up twenty-years-worth of old sewing projects. Since I left in 2007, I've edited at WP a few times (usually as anon) but I can't face dealing with the POV-pushers ... who seem to be even bolder these days.

Libertarianism is strong in the geek community, and the early WP seemed to be an advertisement for a no-government, hands-off, let-the-people-do-their-thing philosophy. We're now seeing where that leads. WP as Somalia. Zora (talk) 22:22, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Dbtuna

A tag has been placed on Dbtuna, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the guidelines on spam as well as Wikipedia:FAQ/Business for more information. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Bk314159 (talk) 17:04, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When recreating this page, you mentioned in your edit summary "Returning it because I think DBTuna is a significant application in the DB monitoring realm." However, the problem with the old one, according to the deletion log, was that the file was deleted because it was "Blatant advertising", rather than anything to do with notability. Bk314159 (talk) 17:08, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Am I back? I'm not sure I'm back ...

Dear GNU, Thanks for the shoutout. However, I've been limiting my participation on WP. I don't want to get sucked into editing wars ... even though I'm horrified at what's happened to several of the articles on which I once spent a lot of time and energy. Partisans of certain sects/nationalities/ethnicities are doing their best to make WP reflect their POV, and there are too many of them to fight. So so sad. Zora (talk) 08:50, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Still here, but in a minimal way. Trying to work on obscure articles that aren't going to end up in flame wars. Thankee for the barnstar :) Zora (talk) 00:12, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Kyle Rehman has been accepted

Kyle Rehman, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Dan arndt (talk) 08:42, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hi GNU4eva! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

I've noticed that you've expressed an interest in the Arab–Israeli conflict. Unfortunately, due to a history of conflict and disruptive editing it has been designated a contentious topic and is subject to some strict rules.

The rule that affects you most as a new or IP editor is the prohibition on making any edit related to the Arab–Israel conflict, including discussing articles on talk pages, unless you are logged into an account and that account is at least 30 days old and has made at least 500 edits.

This prohibition is broadly construed, so it includes edits such as adding the reaction of a public figure concerning the conflict to their article or noting the position of a company or organization as it relates to the conflict.

The exception to this rule is that you may request a specific change to an article on the talk page of that article or at this page. Please ensure that your requested edit complies with our neutral point of view and reliable sourcing policies, and if the edit is about a living person our policies on biographies of living people as well.

Any edits you make contrary to these rules are likely to be reverted, and repeated violations can lead to you being blocked from editing.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! Longhornsg (talk) 03:12, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]