User talk:Ultrabias

Welcome...

Hello, Ultrabias, 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:

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

Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! Abbott75 ☺ 10:49, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Please sign your posts

When you post a message on a talk page, or at other discussions (such as WP:ANI, please sign your posts like this: ~~~~, in stead of leaving an {{unsigned}} template. This will make it easier for other users know who left which message. Od Mishehu 07:49, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Please also stop using titles for placing the main part of the message. The title should be a brief summary of the main message, and the message should contain enough information to make sure other users understand the point the user is trying to make. Od Mishehu 08:00, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Tim?

Is you're name Tim?--Kitrus 09:07, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Not me, bud.Ultrabias 04:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Disrespectful Edit Summaries

I'd ask that you please try to word your edit summaries more respectfully. I don't necessarily object to the substance of your edits (although I did remove the WP:PROD you placed on Ali al-Rida), but some of your edit summaries - things like

• "Great 'religion of peace' we have in this Islam. Every spiritual leader meets a very nasty end as far as i see. This bio subj included."
• "Shi'a biographical articles take the cake for unsourced statements and being a POV-disgrace. They are invariably an embarassment to the quality standards of Wikipedia.",
• "now so much less ridiculous and embarrassing to the reputation of Wikipedia (Peace Be Upon It) *vomit reflex stifled*"
• "i smell more more uncritical Shia BS and a great sucking sound"

are, frankly, offensive. Please confine whatever POV you express in the edit summaries to the merits of your edits, and do not touch upon subjects such as the merits of Islam or any perceived tendency on the part of Shi'a contributors to ignore elements of Wikipedia policy. Sarcasticidealist 13:50, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

We have a policy called WP:NPA which protects people, as editors, from being frankly called for their credulity and ridiculousness. It's not a policy that protects a series of articles (the Twelve Shi'a imams & other Islam content) from being called for demonstrating the same qualities.

For a laugh read the stories of these creeps after and then before i've brought some WP-realism to them.

First thing you notice is 'hmmm, all these people mythologised about as perfect examples of Islamic peace, virtue, and harmony and they (almost) always make enough enemies to be killed or stabbed or poisoned in nasty ways.'

The other things are the content being completely unsourced (the standard of Shi'a scholarship), laughable hagiography and a focus on arselicking worship comments about the subject and his family members and cronies. Add in a repetition of elaborate retellings of trivial anecdotes designed to show that the subject was someone who was in every way better than all the rest of us.

But speaking personally, I've never found anyone feeling the need to stab or behead or poison -me-. Funny, that.

So yes, the whole story - 'occluded' child Imam and all - strikes me as complete BS; a scam to exploit massive credulity and extend the influence of a corrupt royal dynasty that started with The King of All Cons.

And I'll say it.

Ultrabias 23:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Besides WP:NPA, we have a policy called WP:CIVIL, which specifically prohibits "religious slurs". I think it's pretty obvious that your behaviour violates this policy. Beyond that, Wikipedia is not a message board, and edit summaries are to explain and, if need be, justify the edits they are summarizing. They are not intended to make extra-wiki arguments, even if they are civil, which yours are not. I am asking you again to please change your behaviour in this regard. If you persist in making this sort of edit summary, I will begin the dispute resolution process with WP:WQA. Sarcasticidealist 00:21, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Begin it. Because I have continued to make edit summaries as I see most fit, sternly disregarding your expressed viewpoint and any political correctness campaign that you are pushing in regard to it.Ultrabias 04:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry that you have chosen not to take seriously the legitimate and civilly-expressed concerns of User:Dina and me. The WP:WQA posting is here. Sarcasticidealist 14:04, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey there

Look, I absolutely agree with you that Muslim honorifics have no place in articles. They inevitably crop up when new, or very religious editors feel they are missing. Similar things happen in Christian articles, when religious folks misunderstand that encyclopedia articles exist to, for instance, describe Jesus, not to "praise" him. However, do you really think that edit summaries like "removing islamic ridiculousness" are best for the project? Come on now, there are plenty of Muslim contributors to Wikipedia who have spent more time than you have working on these huge numbers of articles to try and get them POV neutral. There's obviously a lot more work to do. And then some anonymous IP comes along and drops in an "Allah bless him and give him peace" (yes, in total violation of MOSISLAM) and an entire culture needs to be insulted? Your work is fine, but why be so aggressive when it's not necessary? Cheers Dina 13:20, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

The lesson Islam = Ridiculousness (should be obvious)

Dear Dina,

Thank you for expressing your concern above. I only call it 'removing Islamic ridiculousness' because I am, um ... removing, um ... Islamic ... (abundant) ridiculousness! & working to create a less Islamic and correspondingly less laughable and much less ridiculous Wikipedia into the bargain.

In fact, only one word can describe the enormity and persistence of the ridiculous we're dealing with here. The word is "Islam": the biggest threat to the credibility, seriousness, and scholarship of Wikipedia that i've yet encountered.

Can it be doubted?
Ultrabias 13:48, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm just trying to give you some good advice. Your clearly know a thing or two about the topics to which you contribute and have a passion for making these articles as neutral is possible. So in that sense, you are doing some important work in an area that seriously needs that kind of attention. But at some point you're inevitably going to encounter some people with perhaps less patience, and almost certainly, more personal investment than me in some of these issues. And your approach (including your username, which skates along that boundaries of an acceptable one) are going to seriously ruffle some feathers. And instead of working to make better articles, you might well just find yourself drawn into protracted battles over who said what when and who is biased and who is not. And complaining about political correctness, or whatever, won't really help you when your style is so undeniably confrontational. Your stated goal of clearing up this POV will become more difficult or impossible. So why not save yourself the trouble? It's your edit summaries that are the issue after all, not your edits. Change "ridiculousness" for "POV" in most of them and they are basically fine. But as it is, you are coming off as just plain "bomb 'em back to the stone age" anti-Muslim, something I suspect oversimplifies your position. You don't have to take my advice, but I hope you do. Cheers Dina 14:07, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I endorse this good advice. I would like to see you and others continue removing the religious additions, since I consider that appropriate for a neutral and secular encyclopedia. There is no disrespect involved in removing such terms... but there is disrespect in comments that speak of "Islamic ridiculousness", etc. I think maintaining neutrality in the edit comments will make the changes more effective, as well as being more in line with guidelines. As it stands, you risk undermining the simple fact that there is no disrespect involved when an encyclopedia omits or removes the terms such as "sawas", etc. -- Duae Quartunciae (t|c) 14:51, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

While I am personally inclined to agree with many of your criticisms of Islam, I do think it would be a good idea to make the edit summaries more of a boilerplate description of the specifics of the edit. As a simple matter of practicality for making edit-checking easier, good descriptions are very helpful. If (to make a neutral example) I remove hagiography from some terrible local politician's page, I'd say something like "cleaned hagiography to conform to neutral standards" instead of "This guy is a crook and that description was laughable", even if the latter is entirely true. It just makes it easier for other people to find out what I've done. Seriously, we need good editors who can clean up the pbuh-type style violations that crop up all the time. But as a matter of practicality and to avoid others needlessly getting bent out of shape (this is Wikipedia after all), more dispassionate summaries would make your goal of better Islam articles easier to attain. Best of luck! Vonspringer 18:20, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Edits but not the summary

I noticed that in at least a couple of instances that you are forgetting to redo the sentence. Where you remove "the prophet Muhammad" you leave "the Muhammad" an example of that is here and here. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 22:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Purely unintentional, hope you can forgive, & TY for amending.Ultrabias 23:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Username and page

Fair warning As a heads-up, this username and the content of your userpage are probably going to be considered too inflammatory. Don't be surprised if you get contacted by an admin (I am not one) From Wikipedia:Username policy:

"Offensive usernames that may make harmonious editing difficult or impossible, including but not limited to:

• Usernames that promote a controversial or potentially inflammatory point of view."

Again, this is just fair warning. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 02:10, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

My concern about your username

Hello, Ultrabias, and welcome to Wikipedia!

I hope not to seem unfriendly or make you feel unwelcome, but I noticed your username, and am concerned that it might not meet Wikipedia's username policy. After you look over that policy, could we discuss that concern here? Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 02:11, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

No. Ultrabias 02:17, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay Whatever. Just don't be surprised if someone else is more confrontational. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 03:24, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Buh-bye.Ultrabias 03:49, 21 July 2007 (UTC)