User talk:Kirbytime

Good luck! -Chairman S. 23:47, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

No climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spiderman
You have been spotted climbing the Reichstag building dressed as Spiderman. At least one editor has reported this behavior as being in relation to a content dispute. As clearly stated in WP:NCR, you may not climb the Reichstag building dressed as Spiderman in order to campaign over a content dispute. This is your last warning. If you climb any further up, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

Please do not erase this warning. Doing so is considered vandalism.

My revert of your user page

Yeah, I was 85% sure that was the case, but because the entry was personal information, and because of the reference to "Big Brother," I thought that perhaps someone was harassing you, and figured you could always revert it again if it was just that you hadn't logged in. See you round, JDoorjam Talk 04:45, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

though your edit was minor, it makes me look like less of an idiot and i appreciate it fellow iranian. thanks. also in personal messages i don't really care about capitalization but in my user page i guess it makes sense.Amirman 04:33, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Unfulfilled Christian prophecy

Thanks for your vote! However, please note that the current third round of voting is much, much farther down the page, almost at the end. Please return and register your vote there. Here's a link. Talk:Timeline_of_unfulfilled_Christian_Prophecy Fortunately, the alternative you chose is still in the running. Best regards... Tex 12:29, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

As I told SurfDog.

Censorship is wrong. unsigned comment by User_talk:68.45.21.137

Not on Wikipedia Kirbytime 22:57, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

albatross

vandals keep inserting real-life personal info of wikipedians, repeatedly. We're trying to fixthe history of articles. don't move them please. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 03:42, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Alright I understand now. Darn vandals... ĶĩřβȳŤįɱéØ 03:46, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English

Do you have any idea what that Punjabi article might be about? I'll take to AfD soon otherwise (it's been two weeks.)

By the way, I'd really like it if you could check back at the page at least every week or so. We're sorely in need of people who understand arabic/farsi; we get articles in those languages from time to time and usually no-one knows what to do with them. Grandmasterka 04:09, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

There's a couple new entries you should have a look at if you're still available. Regards, Grandmasterka 06:16, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Strawberry

You can use it in your signature if you want, but it looks as though you've already found a better picture. RENTA^{FOR LET?} röck 23:39, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Image:KirbySig.JPG

Hi, sorry if this has already been dealth with, but please stop using this image in your sig, fair use images are not allowed on talk pages per Wikipedia's fair use policy, and if not used in an article will be deleted. Images in signatures in general are also discouraged (see Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages#Images and Appearance) though not outright banned (yet), however if you insist on using an image in your sig at least pick a free licensed one. Thanks. --Sherool (talk) 10:55, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Fair Use Images and user pages

Greetings, I'm writing you to inform you that I've commented out the section on your user page that showed this image as under Wikipedia:Fair use rules such utilization isn't permitted. Netscott 10:35, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Look at the Disfigurement of Iranian History

Are these okay edits on the part of this user?

[1]

[2]

The Azari-related articles are all massivly being deviated. Everyone should get proactive. The behaviour is anti-Iranian and anti-Azari (Azaris after all are an Iranian people) 72.57.230.179

Request for graph

Thank you for requesting a graph at Rational function. I moved your request to the talk page. Metainformation is more appropriate there, and less distracting than in the article. Thanks. You can reply here if you have comments. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 17:32, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I think your joke with "new messages" at the top of your page is making fun of other people, and if I were you, I would remove it. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 17:34, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Criticism of Muslims vs Criticism of Islam

Kirbytime, what you added was criticism of Muslims, not criticism of "Islam." Furthermore, all that paragraph was pure Original Research. --Aminz 08:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Kirbytime. I am Amin. Nice to meet you. I was wondering why you re-added the last paragraph here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Islam&diff=64626099&oldid=64626012

Regards, --Aminz 08:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Kirbytime, I'm just confused; we may have had an edit conflict. Thanks anyway. --Aminz 08:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Why did you revert? The source does not state 1.5 billion Muslims. Unless you can find a reliable source (preferably a book) that indicates 1.5 billion Muslims, please do not change it. BhaiSaab ^talk 20:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. BhaiSaab ^talk 21:04, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Hammasa_np6.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Hammasa_np6.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 08:40, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Feedback

Do you have any feedback here[3]? we are trying to write a mannual of style. Can you for example, provide a list of famous Sunni scholars whose works could be found on the internet? --Aminz 03:27, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Haman

I replied to your comments on Haman (Islam). I won't remove the tag until we're done talking. --Ephilei 01:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Islamic Barnstar Award

Please offer your opinion, vote, or whatever about your choice for the image to be used with the Islamic Barnstar Award at the Barnstar proposals page. Although there is consensus for the concept of an Islamic Barnstar Award, some editors would like to change the image for the award. I was just thinking you should be aware of this discussion because you have contributed to Islamic-related articles, received the Islamic Barnstar Award, or have contributed to the Islam-related Wikiprojects, etc.--JuanMuslim ^1m 02:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

diacritics

salam kirbytime. i noticed your comments regarding transliteration of arabic and persian. it seems to me that you also believe that the existing professional and academic standard (IJMES/MESA/EI) should be used, complete with diacritics. i have tried often to implement this standard when i edit, but i have found several articles reverted. the best example is Khālid ibn al-Walīd article which was reverted several times since i edited it and fixed up the poor grammar and improper language. i would appreciate some help in fixing this articles, since there's no point for me to correct the mistakes, if it will only be reverted! dgl 02:43, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Info on Islamophobic group

Hello,

What follows are the thoughts, expressed in their own words, and in the 'protest signs', of the obscure, very small, but very vocal 'activist group' known as "Protest Warrior".

"What's becoming clear is how the religion of Islam is addicted to war and mayhem. Not a radical minority, not a rogue sect, but its very essence is about submission and sacrifice and proving your worth by worshipping death in this life to gain a paradise of orgies and drunkenness. Their entire history is of warfare, and any accomplishments of their so-called Golden Age has been proven to be merely parasitic off the cultures they've conquered and reduced to dhimmi servitude. That every country under sharia is corrupt, belligerent, desolate and barbaric obviously gives them no pause, except to constantly drive them into further psychotic rage as they refuse to ever accept any responsibility for their conditions. They are akin to the powers in Orwell's 1984; there must always be an enemy. It's no surprise that women are treated like property in these countries as that's the only way Muslim men can feed their egos, to dominate others rather than ever actually produce something."

Kfir Alfia and Alan Lipton, founders of "Protest Warrior"

Their 'protest signs'...

Signs

I thought you might be interested in this group's sentiments. They are currently very actively editing their own article on Wiki and there is a lot of 'group think'. Perhaps you might want to become involved in the editing and discussion process on that page. If you do, please don't vandalize, and try to remain civil. Should you not want to involve youself, please forgive my intrusion.

Protest Warrior

Protest Warrior Discussion

NBGPWS 09:04, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Scientology logo

Please see the discussion at Template talk:ScientologySeries#Logo removal: "According to Jean-Baptiste Soufron, host of the Wikimania 2006 copyright forum, the logo on the template did not qualify as "free" and there is no way to create anything imitating the logo and consider it "free."" We've had specific legal advice on this issue, so please don't change the image again. -- ChrisO 12:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

If you please

I want you to think of a group which you have personally found helpful to you in your life. If the group has also been observed, by you, personally, to have been helpful to other people also, then that would be good too. Now I don't know the name of the group you have thought of. However, I am pretty sure that you have some allience with such a group.

• You made the statement, Are you done being a tool of Scientology already? --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 03:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC) [4]
• I want you to substitue the name of your group for "Scientology" and thereby understand that if I said, Are you, Kirbytime, done being a tool of ..... (your helpful group here) ..... that you might consider that to be a personal attack. Do you follow this reasoning ? Please be a bit more Civil. Terryeo 19:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo, I suggest you take your own advice. You were very uncivil to mediator Xyrael.--Fahrenheit451 01:19, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Terryeo on this. It is never acceptable to make this kind of attack, and clearly "tool of scientology" is intended to be an attack both on Terryeo's person and his religion. Consider this a warning. --Tony Sidaway 14:50, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

It's not a personal attack, it is a statement of fact. You are putting Scientology's interests before Wikipedia's interests by distorting facts. I don't even want to make the accusations myself. Here are the things that other Wikipedians have said:

Good grief. Is Terryeo really suggesting that Muslims, Jews and other religions are represented by the Christian cross? (Hint: there's a reason why it's called the Christian cross.) This is just... wow. -- ChrisO 12:34, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

To my knowledge, Scientology has never used any other version of the cross as a symbol other than their eight-pointed version, and Terryeo isn't suggesting that such a thing has ever taken place -- he's suggesting that the traditional "Christian cross" is actually a generic symbol for all religions, not a symbol of Christianity specifically. By the same logic as Terryeo is presenting, if we were for some reason unable to use the Star of David in a template on Judaism, or the inverted pentagram in a template on Satanism, it would be reasonable to use the Christian cross instead -- again, on the dubious premise that the Christian cross means "a generic religion" now. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

And of course, there's this whole thing that totally ruins Terryeo's claims of good faith

It is not a personal attack, it is a personal fact. The only one I was attacking is the corporation of Scientology, by claiming that they use Terryeo as a pawn. Honestly, look at his contributions, which is mostly Scientology related.

I certainly did not mean my comment to be offensive, and if any offense was taken then I apologize. But did that warrant this waste of Administrators' time at Wikipedia?

I feel somewhat honored that I'm being targeted in a smear campaign now, lol.

--Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 20:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

re: Islam and Slavery merge proposal

السلام عليكم

a while ago you proposed to merge into Religion and slavery per the afd on "Islam and Slavery". the thing is... that later on the religion and slavery article was stubbed per its own afd, so it's rather strange to merge into a stub [ ;) ]. furthermore, the article has undergone significant work.. would it be okay with you if i removed the merge proposal? thank you! (p.s. thank you for this also!) ITAQALLAH 07:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

گروه خلاقيت

Hi Kirbytime. I'm Fsotrain09, and I help out with Pages needing translation into English. Pages there have been discovered and listed for translation; after about two weeks without translation, they are deleted. Even if a page is translated, the same Wikipedia policies for inclusion, such as subject notability, NPOV, no spam, etc., apply. I was wondering if you could take a look at the article above, which has been sitting unattended for a week or so. First just check if it meets the basic requirements of inclusion. If it doesn't, leave me a note; if it does, kindly translate it and tell me when you are finished. Thank you so much! -Fsotrain₀₉ 02:53, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I know this is none of my business, but I think this page should be nominated for deletion. It is about a particular non-notable educational organization (probably private) in a small city of Iran. It is not encyclopedic. --Aminz 10:05, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, that's exactly the information I was looking for. --Fsotrain₀₉ 15:43, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Qur'an

I don't know why you removed the DMOZ directory from the Qur'an article. That was a compromise -- instead of dozens (and potentially hundreds) of links to different sects' websites re the Qur'an, we just send readers to a site that is nothing but links. If they want their Qur'an links in the article, they can make sure that the links are entered into DMOZ. This is the same compromise we're using at the Islam article. Instead of links to sectarian (and anti-Muslim) sites, we just like to DMOZ, with its hundreds of links.

If we pick what we think are the BEST Qur'an links, we're making religious decisions, and I don't think WP should be doing that. Zora 10:48, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Then submit some links to DMOZ. It's a community effort, like WP. If you can find a better Qur'an directory, we can add that too. An academic one would be fine. However, any directory that is slanted in a Sunni, Sufi, Salafi, Shi'a, whatever direction would not be acceptable. Zora 07:46, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Soldier In Iraq spraypainting.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Soldier In Iraq spraypainting.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 02:07, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

New York Times translation re: MA

The translation is that of Nazila Fathi of The New York Times. Please do not remove cited information from reliable sources, that is considered vandalism. Thank you. -- Avi 04:12, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

It was mentioned that it was the NYT many times on the talk page, and it is brought as wikiquote. I do not believe it is a POV issue, as it is one of the most reliable sources that exist, AND the translator is Iranian, I believe. I am sorry you have a personal problem with it, but it is not a wikipedia issue. -- Avi 04:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Edit conflicts

Wow, it looks like we are both working on the same part of the Proofs page at the same time. So I'm giving up for tonite. --MathMan64 03:42, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Terrorism

I saw you recently edited Talk:Terrorism. I have left a query there regarding terrorist groups. If you are familiar with any of them, please contact me. KazakhPol 18:14, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Hammasa Kohistani picture

Sorry for that. But the reason I added that picture there is that I removed it from the article Tajiks and so now that picture is not linked to any articles, and so instead of wasting it, I thought Id add it to that article instead of having the picture take up space for nothing. I'll add this to the discussion. Thank you.

E-mail

Salam, do you mind putting an email address in your preferences so I can contact you? BhaiSaab ^talk 05:17, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

You have mail. BhaiSaab ^talk 01:15, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Time out, man.

I deleted a blank page. Please don't come screaming bloody murder on my talk page. OK? - Lucky 6.9 06:24, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

No problem. However, do not come onto my talk page or any other user's talk page with that chip on your shoulder ever again or you're going to be taking a time-out. - Lucky 6.9 06:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

It's a hot-button issue. I saw what happened; an anonymous IP blanked the page and left a message claiming he/she was "offended" by the article. It came across as a zero-length article on the new pages section, so I blanked it as an experiment. It's back now. - Lucky 6.9 06:31, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

No prob. Good luck on the article. I'll leave word on the anonymous user's page because what that person did was just wrong. If you get hassled over the article, just let me know. You shouldn't have to take garbage from someone who doesn't even see fit to create an account. Sorry if I bit too hard. - Lucky 6.9 06:34, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

"Jesus" talk page

Sorry; I'm the one who deleted the page in order to give it a fresh start. It was hit by a vandal account, User:EightyOne, now permanently blocked. Again, good luck. - Lucky 6.9 06:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Soldier In Iraq spraypainting.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Soldier In Iraq spraypainting.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}. If you have not already done so, please also include the source of the image. In many cases this will be the website where you found it.

Please specify the copyright information and source on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. -- tariqabjotu 23:59, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Hammasa np6.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Hammasa np6.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}. If you have not already done so, please also include the source of the image. In many cases this will be the website where you found it.

Please specify the copyright information and source on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. -- tariqabjotu 00:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Hammasa Picture

Hey thanks for the notice, but actually I did not upload that picture. The user that uploaded it is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kirbytime. Hopefully he will do something about it, it is a wonderful picture and would be a shame if we had to remove it. So please try to contact him. Thanks a lot. Parsiwan 10:37, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

lmao, lol. Sorry for that. Unfortuantly I dont. But the user "Tajik" is an expert here in Wikipedia. I think asking his advice would be the best answer. So if you can, just ask "Tajik", I think he knows the answer. So try him, and Godspeed! Parsiwan 10:49, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Islamic extremist terrorism

You recently expressed views that were not based on political correctness, and actually paid attention to Wikipedia policies. Hence, I believe your input on this matter would be valuable. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Islamic extremist terrorism. KazakhPol 04:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! KazakhPol 03:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair use images not allowed on userpages

I have removed a fair use image from your userpage, replacing it with a link. Fair use images are not allowed on userpages because that's not "fair use". Please see Wikipedia:Fair use. --Dgies 21:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I celebrate Newtonmass myself

Isaac Newton was born on December 25. May the blessings of calculus be upon you. Zora 00:23, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's Farsi References

Would you mind verifying the Farsi references on the MA page? That would be really cool -- we've been looking for someone that reads Persian for a while now to verify those links. Vir4030 21:52, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Christmas in the media

Sure, by all means, if you know what you are doing, go ahead and revert/edit my edit. I did a revert because I was quite concerned about how ... Belcantobach had removed so much content.=) Sorry for the misunderstanding.--Qwerty 02:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Kirbytime/America

Hi, I think you should consider asking for this part of your userspace deleted considering it has nothing to do with the encyclopedic purpose of this site as listed on WP:USER. Thanks in advance, Yanksox 06:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but your interpretation of WP:USER is a bit off. You state that it allows for "archives of user talk," which is correct, however, it does not apply in this circumstance unless someone else posted it on your talk page. You really need to read this and in particular, "Extensive personal opinions on matters unrelated to Wikipedia, wiki philosophy, collaboration, free content, the creative commons, etc." and "Polemical statements." Thanks, Yanksox 12:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Um it makes no difference if it is on the usertalk or userspace, according to the history you posted it there. So unless you provide a link to me, that means your lying. Yanksox 22:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah, yes, I appreciated your beautiful behavior and your badgering back. Thanks for the comments, I've sent this up to MfD. Yanksox 00:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I nicely asked you to delete this and then pointed towards policy and reminded you that we should keep an encyclopedic mission in mind. Meanwhile, you are dragging your feet into the ground and calling me every name possible in a juvenile fashion. And yes, I am an admin, meaning I do what I can to keep everything running smoothly and nothing goes ajar. This isn't the first time that you have had major incivility issues. Honestly, if you are unafraid to call someone an "asshole" or to "shove (something) up (their) ass," I have to question what you are like outside of this. If you help with Wikipedia, that's one thing. However, harassing and bickering in a senile manner is another. I think you need to relax and, to be frank, stop being a complete hothead. Thanks, Yanksox 04:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Saddam Hussein blackandwhite.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Saddam Hussein blackandwhite.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 08:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

re:That comment was to a user who was banned for spamming

I understand how frustrating it gets with vandals and the like (users who get themselves banned), and I have on numerous occasions typed hostile responses into the edit box but removed them before saving. It was a long time ago and you haven't made comments like that in months (I think) so it's no big deal but it caught my eye when I was searching the history of your talk page for the contents of your subpage. James086^{Talk | Contribs} 03:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

OK

Check your mail. >Radiant< 10:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Islamist Terrorism name.

Hi there. Just wanted to say thanks for your support on the Islamist Terrorism talk page.

I really think this definition "Islamist Terrorism" has to go; it pushes a particular worldview and it is full of negative connotations. It also lacks any real meaning.

Do you think the term "Muslim Radicalism" would be more acceptable?

Thanks again Alexander.Hainy 12:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Your signature

Kirbytime, might you consider simplifying your signature? It is distracting, and takes up two full lines in my edit window. Additionally, your religious commentary is unnecessary, and may cause others to question your willingness to remain neutral towards the topic to which you refer.Proabivouac 07:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

"What exactly would you want me to change about my signature?"

I would first get rid of the non-ascii characters, which are ugly noise, and then the religious link, with or without the green heart. That is just my opinion, naturally.Proabivouac 09:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

You need to participate in the talk page discussion instead of making incessant reverts to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The article won't go anywhere positive otherwise, and you may be acted upon for disruptive editing. Please discuss with the objecting editors before you revert or change the contentious sections again. Thanks The Behnam 04:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not stalking you; don't make baseless accusations, and don't levy careless threats. Frankly, you keep reverting even as people complain that you don't discuss your changes on the talk page to reach consensus. So what if I have edited Ahmadinejad? It's not like I didn't discuss my proposed changes on the talk page. I don't accuse you of decimating the article, but your edits aren't productive unless there is consensus to have them stay. Please discuss the edits in question on the talk page, thanks. The Behnam 05:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

hmm

Could you let me try out your program? the jave one you needed help with --D.H. • (A)•(E)•(I)•(O)•(U)•(Y) 23:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Well...

I cannot test it if I cannot locate it. Cheers, --D.H. • (TextMe)•(MyWork) 20:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Youtube links

If you go to WP:EL, you will see that the page says there is no official ban on google on youtube videos. However, it states that you have to abide by this policy; "If you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work." I believe that the music video was posted without permission, and that the purpose of music video is only for promotion, so thus it is a violation of copyright. I know that this is only my educated guess. For more information, I recommend that you go to WP:EL. Good day=) mirageinred 20:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

?

How did you get that on your page? tell me! that message box--Lolicon(Anti Child Porn)Saikano 17:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Apostolic Writings

Messianic Judaism commonly calls it the Apostolic Writings, not the "New Testament", which as a matter of fact we consider to be an offensive name because it would imply that the "new" somehow replaces an inferior "old" testament. Please ask these things of a Messianic Jew/Gentile on Wikipedia (such as myself, or Inigmatus) before assuming that you understand minutiae of our Torah theology better than we do. Noogster 01:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Vandalizing User Talk pages is not legitimate

Does WP:Civil ring a bell? I have removed your comment on my talk page because it is in flagrant violation of this foundational principal of Wikipedia. Please do not post insensitive comments on mine or anyone else's talk page.

It's nice to know that you believe in a mockery of an absurdity. Judaism itself is already bad enough with the invisible man in the sky Please refrain from POV remarks that attempt to harm or ridicule the beliefs of certain groups. It is not appropriate. In case you care, Judaism's covenant is not with the "invisible man in the sky" but with ha-Sheim, G-d, who exists outside our definable universe and its timestream, created it, and set in motion all the processes that would allow lesser concepts such as "man" and "sky" to develop.

but now you gotta falsify the messianic prophecies? Messianics (again, if you care) do not "falsify the Messianic prophecies". Attempting to falsify information is against Torah. We believe that the Messianic prophecies of the Tanakh undoubtedly point to one particular Palestinian teacher in the first century.

You don't own the fucking template. Watch your language. Furthermore, I neither "own" the template nor anything on this website. However it would be completely reasonable to state that, with a great deal of certainty, adherents of Messianic Judaism are probably going to know more about the details of their religion than people that are not Messianic. Noogster 22:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Disagree

You did not explain why you disagree on each of those tenets .?--CltFn 01:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

If you are against revert-wars

Please take a look at Criticism of Muhammad where Arrow is removing sourced material. [5]. --Aminz 01:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Let me explain what is going on behind Arrow's edits. He wants to remove the following from Encyclopedia of Islam:

the really powerful factor in Muhammad’s life and the essential clue to his extraordinary success was his unshakable belief from beginning to end that he had been called by God. A conviction such as this, which, once firmly established, does not admit of the slightest doubt, exercises an incalculable influence on others. The certainty with which he came forward as the executor of God’s will gave his words and ordinances an authority that proved finally compelling."

He wants to remove the following argument from Muir regarding sincerety of Muhammad in the Meccan peroiod:

"It is strongly corroborative of Mahomet's sincerity that the earliest converts to Islam were not only of upright character, but his own bosom friends and people of his household; who, intimately acquainted with his private life, could not fail otherwise to have detected those discrepancies which ever more or less exist between the professions of the hypocritical deceiver abroad and his actions at home."

--Aminz 01:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Please also note Arrow's distortion of Watt: "but they acknowledge that some of the material came from "beyond his conscious mind." While Watt in The Cambridge History of Islam, doesn't say "some of the material", but all of them. He says Modern historians must accept that the material came from "beyond his conscious mind." --Aminz 01:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Good thing I found my way here. The article you have mentioned should not be weighted toward the apologetic side. Also, Watt is not the only person commenting on the issue of the source of Muhammad's works. Others have taken a more circumspect approach and have used language like "some." I seem to remember Welch being one of those people. So changing it to "some" while still citing Watt is acceptable, as he is one of the sources for the content of that sentence, but not the only one. Arrow740 02:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

"Others have taken a more circumspect approach and have used language like "some."" Any sources? --Aminz 04:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Please don't carry this debate here. Use the talk page of the respective article. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 04:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Your claim of being a Former muslim

You claimed on a User's page that you are a Former muslim. Can I know some of the reasons why you left Islam? thanks! --Matt57 20:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Why is Ali an idiot? For example he says that Mohammed married nine year old Aisha and for that reason Ali labelled him as a pedophile. Do you agree or disagree? Also, what makes you think Mohammed was not a messenger of Allah? Also, you dodged my question: Did you not find any defects in Islam before you decided to leave it? This is what I was asking for obviously. --Matt57 23:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

You're not answering my questions. Can you show me on your blog, a page where you mentioned your leaving Islam and why you left it? I'm not believing for one instant that you are a former Muslim. I dont see any signs of it on your blog. You have not criticized Islam anywhere and your indifference to me asking you why you left Islam, or whether you found any defects in it - shows that you are not a former Muslim. Also I find it strange that you're an Iranian with the name of "Jason Maker", but thats ok, but its a pen name. Its not significant. So can I ask you the question again and hope to get an answer this time? ---> Did you find any defects in Islam before you left it? What is there in those 4 words you mentioned (naturalistic hedonistic egoist utilitarianism) that you did not find in Islam? You either return a product becuase its defective, OR you return it becuase you found a better one. I want to know why you returned this product "Islam". Your way of responding to this query will tell me whether you are still a Muslim or not. You should know that it is always better to tell the truth. --Matt57 04:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll look forward to reading that debate. If you remember, let me know when you post that link. --Matt57 05:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Kirby, why do you have that Heart linking to Islam in your signature? This is Taqiyya. It backfires, you should know. You should be proud of the fact that you are a Muslim, instead you claim to be a former muslim. Now I know why you hate Ali Sina so much because he's Iranian but an ex-Muslim. Look what the soldiers are preparing for your "freedom fighters", the name you lovingly gave to the terrorists. You should join them and get the 'rewards' they are promised they'll get when they die. --Matt57 13:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Kirbytime, since you say you are a former muslim, you might want to correct your comment here.--Sefringle 23:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I had forgotten about that. Done. --Ķĩřβȳ♥♥♥ŤįɱéØ 23:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello

Hi Kirbytime,

I have been reading your posts on wikipedia recently. I would be happy to have a religous dialog (not a debate), one that you can put on your blog :) How does that sound? :) --Aminz 06:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Great. Just one point, I feel I need to do a lot of research for this dialog. For example, I may need to find/read what different scholars have said about the issue in discussion. So, I may be a little bit slow for which I would apologize at the begining. BTW, I am also Iranian :) Cheers, --Aminz 06:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I will send you a wiki-email. Cheers, --Aminz 06:16, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Sure. If we can do that in persian, that would be great :) --Aminz 07:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Too bad I won't be able to read it. This might be a good place to start with your "debate," Kirby: [6]. Arrow740 07:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

That's ok, I don't need a 12 year old's arguments to debate Islam. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 08:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

A 12 year old is all it takes. Arrow740 09:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think Muslims would understand a 12 year old's arguments though. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 18:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I thought most of them would understand that the Holocaust happened. Maybe I was wrong. Arrow740 04:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to see this debate link when you guys are done. Is this what you were talking about, Kirby? --Matt57 13:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Happy Pi Day!!

Happy Pi Day Kirbytime! Having any Pi today? :) [Mαc Δαvιs] (How's my driving?) ❖ 07:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Faith Freedom International

I wondered if you had any ideas on how to improve this article further. --Matt57 18:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Username

Thanks. Your username quite unique also. Leafyplant 19:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your math-ness

Thanks for the reply on the integral I posted over at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Mathematics. I had not tried parts, but will give it a go. Thanks in any event. --TeaDrinker 20:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Militant Islam

Hello Kirbytime. Are you sure you've got the right editor? I don't recall ever editing on that article. Thanks. (→Netscott) 23:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Sure enough...thanks for the diff. I'll give the AfD serious consideration. That article wasn't on my watchlist and so I must have come across a POV pusher and did some investigating surrounding that edit. Thanks for notifying me. :-) (→Netscott) 23:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Notability of 1/4 + 1/16 + 1/64 + 1/256 + · · ·

A tag has been placed on 1/4 + 1/16 + 1/64 + 1/256 + · · ·, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable, that is, why an article about that subject should be included in Wikipedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert notability may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is notable, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (below the existing db tag) and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Finngall 19:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

• I agree that the tags were wrong, and it looks like they've been removed by a third party. I'm still not convinced of the need for these series to have their own articles (and I'm a math nerd myself), but I won't pursue the matter further. Thank you for your time and patience. --Finngall 20:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Bouncy logo

Kirbytime/monobook.css: replace

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Bouncywikilogo.gif

with direct link:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6c/Bouncywikilogo.gif

— Alex Smotrov 23:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: Logo

You can change the Wikipedia logo on your PC by editing your monobook.css. Logical2u_{Review me!} 00:06, 16 March 2007 (UTC) And the code you need is something like this in your monobook:

• #p-logo {
• background: url('Image URL') no-repeat;
• display: none
• position:absolute; /*needed to use z-index */
• top: 8;
• left: 100;
• right: 65;
• height: 0;
• width: 0;
• padding: 0 0 150px 150px;
• overflow: hidden;

}

Hope this helps... Logical2u_{Review me!} 00:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Re:Jayjg's comments

Moved to User_talk:Kirbytime/munafiqun (Still an open discussion). Matt, you have no right in reverting my talk page. --Ķĩřβȳ♥♥♥ŤįɱéØ 20:33, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Islam and slavery lead

Dear interested editor:
Please visit here: [7] in the next few days and give your vote and your proposals on how the lead may be reworked and reformed to meet GA criteria before next nomination.DavidYork71 04:12, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks I note your comments. I know what it is to be wikistalked. It's when certain users pop up to edit what you've edited where there prior discernibile interest was not in the subject but in you. It gets weirdest of all when its coming from an anonymous IP source.DavidYork71 09:48, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

ENjoy!

Trampton 20:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC).

Trampton has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Just a suggestion!

I suggest changing it from "Old messages, earliest change" to the the new common one "New messages,earliest change"Just a suggestion, though!Trampton 23:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC).

Your speedy deletion of the Death to america day redirect has been undone, as I have turned it into an actual article.

Just wanted to let you know. Salad Days 23:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

No personal attacks

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks (see [8], [9]) damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. --Matt57 22:38, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

re:Question regarding the picture you made

Is there a reason why you didn't color in the spaces between the loops in the numbers? I looks rather silly that the inside of the loops of the numbers is white. Could you please fix that? Thanks.--Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 11:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that. What happened was that we asked a professional map maker to make one. So this was intended to be temporary for just a few days, so I just made it quickly. We were expecting him to make it in a few days. But now its been months and he still hasn't finished. So after a while I just fixed it. Yes it did look very silly, I totally agree. Now it looks good. Thanks for pointing it out. --Behnam 09:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

File:Languages of Afg based.JPG

Unsourced Template

My mistake, just pulled that version randomly out of the history. Best, Mackan79 22:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Animal pictures on Islam and animals

Do you have any suggestions for the animal pictures on Islam and animals? I noticed that there's a strong objection in Islam to eating pig meat, but the article mentioned only one line on it so I went ahead and dressed up the article a little bit by including a picture of a pig. Feel free to improve it and add to the text on this issue. --Matt57 02:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Enough already

Enough already with the pic requests. Requesting photos for Statutory rape, Child pornography and so forth was funny the first time, it's lost its edge, let it go. Herostratus 02:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• But it's not funny, now it's just routine and dull. Enough with the trolling, we're busy. Any more trolling and I'll block you from editing. Herostratus 02:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Your statement that my accusation of trolling is itself trolling, is trolling. Herostratus 03:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

If you ask once more for illegal or inappropriate pictures I will block you. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 04:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

So let me get this straight: you want to block me, NOT because I'm vandalizing Wikipedia, NOT becuse I'm disrupting the article, but for discussing possible additions to an article on a talk page? Don't you have real vandals you should be blocking?--Ķĩřβȳ♥♥♥ŤįɱéØ 20:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

If you can't see why we object to your requests for illegal and immoral pictures in the articles, perhaps you should see your requests as just exhausting the community's patience. The Behnam 06:31, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored! There is no such thing as "immoral" when editing Wikipedia. I have NEVER asked for any illegal pictures. I have asked for pictures; it is Matt57's sensationalist vendetta against me that keeps repeating the same lie over and over again. I have NEVER asked for illegal pictures. I asked for SOME pictures, something relevant to the article(s). Matt has a history if misrepresenting me (saying I denied the Holocaust), so I don't see why you're taking his word this time?--Ķĩřβȳ♥♥♥ŤįɱéØ 21:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I understand that Matt57 may not be the most neutral of your critics, but still, dude, I can see the requests. Wikipedia does have to abide by certain laws, and there is a law against child pornography. Sorry, but I think you should stop pressing for illegal pictures here. The Behnam 23:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Kirby, was I the one who called you a troll or was it the administrators of Wikipedia? Or was it both? The latter is true. I dont care about your edits and I dont stalk you but when you started making picture requests for those child sex related articles, your motives were clear and I perfectly understand them. The admins have been lenient by just giving you a warning. If you're looking to improve articles by putting in pictures for article, why are you not doing for OTHER non-controversial and non-sensitive articles? Why specifically Pedophilia related articles? Your motives were clear and no wonder you were called a troll by admins. You were either pushing buttons or if you were not, then that is pretty disturbing. I hope you have healthy sexual preferences. Anyway lets close this discussion: I hope you will continue seeking for pictures for articles other than those related to pedophilia. As an example Chris Hansen doesnt have a picture in his article. See if you can get one, I love that guy. There are so many other relevant articles that need pictures (the child sex related ones do NOT, and if you cant understand that well - as Behnam said, Wikipedia has to adhere to certain laws) and you wont face opposition from people if you bring in those.--Matt57 00:20, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Utilitarianism

Hi. Thank you for your answer to my question at the reference desk. I think that you may be correct in questioning whether Kant ever made such a criticism of utilitarianism; he certainly criticised theories that treated people as means rather than ends, but having another look I do not think that he ever said that utilitarianism (the word itself of course not being in use at the time he was writing) was such a theory. It is later writers who have applied Kant's theory as a criticism of utilitarianism. Thanks for highlighting that for me.

My interpretation of what the statement is getting at is whether utilitarianism can recognise that there is an intrinsic value in a human life, as Kant believed. Does it recognise that those individuals that it "uses" (as a means) are also those that it must serve (as an end)? The end of utilitarianism is usually seen as being the greatest happiness of all individuals combined. There is no distinction drawn between individuals; the end is merely seen as a "pool" of all happiness. Thus individuals can suffer greatly to contribute to the overall good: utilitarianism sees no moral difference between ten people being (say, if we could quantify happiness), 5 out of 10 happy or five people being 10 out of 10 happy and five being 0 out of 10 happy. Utilitarianism can only see that there is a total of 50 happiness, it cannot recognise that in one scenario there is great suffering.

Is this your interpretation of what the statement is suggesting? Do you think that it is a valid criticism of utilitarianism? You say that rule utilitarianism has some cases where individuals have to be treated as ends - could you clarify what you mean here?

Also, in response to your comments on Bentham's attitude towards animal cruelty, surely he was simply proposing that we treat them as part of the end, not an end in themselves? An analogy can be drawn with the way it treats humans. To take a simple example, Bentham's utilitarianism would suggest that if there were ten people of nationality x and five people of nationality y, and you had to decide whether to torture the x or the y in the group, you would torture the y, as it would (prima facie) cause less unhappiness - it would lead to only five people suffering rather than ten. The y people are being treated as merely a means to an end, and not the end in themselves. Surely the same could be said of your animal example; if it would maximise the happiness of all living beings as a whole that the (non-human) animals were treated badly, then it would still be morally correct to treat the animals badly; the animals would still be merely a means and not an end. Anyway, I look forward to your comments, and thank you for the help you have given so far. TP86 13:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Due to inconveniences beyond my control, I was unable to give a swift response. I apologize. Nevertheless, here it is:

In your scenario, yes, it is true that utilitarianism doesn't distinguish the 0/10 happy and so forth. But most utilitarians would say it doesn't matter, because there is the same amount of suffering in each case. (Torturing someone with 2x intensity for 3 hours is just as bad as torturing someone with 3x intensity for 2 hours.) Also, this is not merely a criticism of utilitarianism. It's a criticism of quantifying happiness, per Mere addition paradox. And think about it: what would a Kantian say about your scenario? Did the ones who have 10/10 choose to take the happiness away from the ones with 0/10, or did the 0/10 generously give it away, etc. etc. Ultimately, more specifics are needed in order to evaluate the case more efficiently.

I think it is a valid criticism of many forms of utilitarianism. But as I said, it doesn't apply to all forms, and more specifically rule utilitarianism. For instance, a rule utilitarian would say something along the lines of "we should have a rule where we should treat people as ends in themselves rather than means to an end, because it is likely to maximize good".

Regarding Bentham's animal rights: I guess it could be said that Bentham argued for animals not to be treated as means to an end for the purpose of inflicting pointless pain. I'm sure he ate meat, so obviously he supported treating animals a little bit as a means to an end.

But I think this has a more fundamental digression; what exactly does it mean to treat something as a means to an end? If I go to the store and buy a bag of chips, and pay the cashier, am I treating the cashier as a means to an end? Kant would say no, because each person in the transaction is respecting the other's end. And then there's the case where a police officer forces you out of your house because there has been a recent earthquake and the house is very dangerous. Is the officer treating you as a means to an end? One could say, "he's treating you as a means to your end, to keep you safe". Kant doesn't discuss this kind of case. Another case would be a draftee during a war. This is similar to the case of the police officer in that it involves paternalism. What if the draftee refuses to fight? Let's assume that the war will prevent the destruction of his country. Is he being treated as a means to an end (forced to protect the country), or is he being treated as an end in himself (the government is trying to save his life by preventing the other army from reaching his house and killing him)?

Interesting questions you have raised. I have very much enjoyed this. If you need further discussion, I am more than happy to offer myself.--Ķĩřβȳ♥♥♥ŤįɱéØ 16:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Islam and animals

Since you're a former Muslim, I wonder if you had any opinion of this new section I made on Khomienie's opinions about sex with animals and stuff: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_animals#Scholars - These are the only quotes I knew of. Also somoene tried to remove the pig's picture from the article, the one you had changed to so I put it back. --Matt57 15:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Edit: ItaqAllah removed those quotes saying we dont have a reliable source for those quotations. I'll try to find some.--Matt57 15:25, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

You message on my talk page

What are you talking about? The Behnam 23:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes that is correct. You were right in removing his stupid post. The Behnam 23:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for 48 hours

Per this. You've been warned in the past about this sort of thing. Maybe this time it will stick.--Isotope23 17:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Kirbytime (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

What policy did I violate? What was I warned for? I followed exactly what it says in WP:TALK; discuss changes on the talk page before making a controversial edit to the article. You have blocked me for following Wikipedia policy. This block is utterly pointless. At the most, you could have RfC'd me and forbade me from editing articles relating to sexual issues. As an avid contributor to the Ref Desks[12], your block of me will only hurt Wikipedia. Also, deciding admin please note my contribs, where the vast majority of my edits are not related to sexuality: [13] Thanks.

Decline reason:

Sure, you made a request on the talk page, but that doesn't give you carte blanche in what kind of things you can request. If you were just joking around, then a block is necessary for trolling. But it is clear that you are serious about this, and for that you should be blocked, too. Certain things are completely out of bounds, so far out that it can almost be considered disruption, and, in addition, being possibly harmful to the project. I believe requesting simulated images of child pornography to illustrate the subject falls into that category, and a 48 hour block doesn't seem like enough. —-Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 21:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Pederasty has many pictures of a similar nature. But this is going in circles. I asked for a specific Wikipedia policy that I have violated, and you have failed to produce one. WP:TROLL is an essay. Enjoy upholding the block of a substantial editor of Wikipedia.--Ķĩřβȳ♥♥♥ŤįɱéØ 22:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC)