User talk:Loomspicker

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Hello, Loomspicker, and Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking if shown; this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field with your edits. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Howicus (talk) 18:13, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Getting started
Getting help
Policies and guidelines

The community

Writing articles

Serious problem[edit]

Read WP:ADVOCACY. Wikipedia is not for you to push your media-induced anti-Islamic paranoia on. The overwhelming majority of Muslims, like the overwhelming majority of atheists, Buddhists, Christians, and Hindus, are normal people who don't want to hurt others. There are crazy people in each group. Pointing out a few crazy people and portraying the majority as being the same because of their religion is at best foolish. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:09, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I have used,, and as sources of my information. Can you tell me which of these is not reliable? I will look for more quality sources, but I don't think any amount of sources I produce would convince you.--Loomspicker (talk) 19:20, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
It's not the sources alone, it's your POV-pushing. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:26, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

August 2013[edit]

Information icon Welcome to Wikipedia. At least one of your recent edits did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. You don't have to like it, but "Islamophobia" is an accepted term. Your recent edits are disruptive.Roscelese (talkcontribs) 16:41, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

  • Heads Up Roscelese is an militant extremist leftist and uses her snarky comments to intimidate new editors as she has done here to you. See WP:BE Bold and for Roscelese she should be more careful to not bite newcomers so hard but she has done so many times before so nothing new to the above comments. (talk) 00:12, 5 October 2013 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Loomspicker. You have new messages at Roscelese's talk page.
Message added 17:28, 31 August 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Roscelese (talkcontribs) 17:28, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Holy shit - they're doing it again![edit]

I was looking at your recent edit at Ruder Finn and thinking of reverting it, but after visiting your user page have opted to talk about it again. If you do a search for "Ruder Finn" and "Fitna" you will find the same story told again and again that seems to me to more or less support the statement that you removed. Please give it a look. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 18:31, 31 August 2013 (UTC)


Hi Loom. I'm just letting you know that you forgot to put Wikipedia:Featured article review/Mosque/archive1 up at WP:FAR. I did it for you so hopefully you'll remember next time. GamerPro64 00:11, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

September 2013[edit]

Information icon Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 20:20, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

And I've just noticed some of your other edits. Do not remove sourced information because you personally dislike the word "Islamophobia." There is no separate article for "anti-Islamic" incidents. If you continue to edit disruptively, you will be sanctioned. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 20:24, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
If the title of a section is accusations of A, then it lists accusations of A, B, C and D, then the title is wrong. Anti-Islamic prejudices, demonising, attacks are not the same as islamophobi(a/c). I also find your lack of assuming good faith and threats disturbing.--Loomspicker (talk) 20:27, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Information icon Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 20:42, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Looks like you put it on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard, not the incident one.--Loomspicker (talk) 20:45, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Also find it ironic you are giving me a warning for introducing incorrect information, when in fact you re-adding the unsourced information I remove, because apparently "I disagree with it".--Loomspicker (talk) 20:52, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I see you have discovered the true Roscelese so soon. She will attack anything that does not fit her political agenda which is extreme left radical. I suggest reporting her agenda warring before reediting as she is a skill manipulator of Wikipedia and has a cast that includes Binkinternet and even an admin Mark Ashten who is quick to block editors who squabble with Roscelese. He says he is neutral but his blocks show a clear support of the liberal agenda that dominates wiki pedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:20, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Just noting that this IP was blocked for 3 months for personal attacks and block evasion. Not by me or Mark Arsten. Dougweller (talk) 11:33, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Roscelese 'arguments' against loomspickers edits[edit]

  1. "Do not remove sourced information because you personally dislike the word "Islamophobia."
  2. "Loomspicker's personal crusade against the use of the word "Islamophobia"
  3. "his personal disagreement with the word"
  4. "Don't change the meaning to something completely different because you personally disagree with a term"
  5. "You need to stop removing sourced information because you don't like the term "Islamophobia"
  6. "but I suppose you don't personally disagree with the existence of anti-Mormonism"
  7. "You need to read the sources and not remove things because you disagree"
  8. "Your personal opinion is not shared by reliable sources"
  9. "pushing your own personal POV instead of adhering to policy"
  10. "Your personal feelings about the word "Islamophobia"

Wonderful.--Loomspicker (talk) 22:03, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Islamophobic incidents[edit]

I was asked by The Red Pen of Doom to do this - why did you revert me? "Users may determine whether pages should be merged. In most circumstances, a local discussion should be started to attract sufficient input. This should include the proposal itself, the list of the affected pages, and a merger rationale." "On the destination page, add the following template to the very top of the page or section:". What's the problem in doing it properly? I'm assuming you were confused when you removed the templates and am reverting the improperly done 'merger'. What's the problem with waiting a week? I'm also concerned about a merger where I see no merging going on. Please let the proper procedure be followed. Trying to circumvent this was not a good idea. Dougweller (talk) 11:20, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

I couldn't see any reasonable arguments from R. Just look yourself, I'm sure you'll agree. They are just "if a source exists for it, a page must exist, no matter how trivial the subject matter".--Loomspicker (talk) 11:26, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
That's not my point. Actually there are two points. One is that a merger must involve merging, it's not a substitute for AfD. If you think this article shouldn't exist, take it to AfD. Secondly, as I've said, editors at the target article need to be involved. That might actually bring in more comments and end up with a better article or if the merger doesn't take place, both articles improved. Or not. Dougweller (talk) 12:11, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Attempting to orphan a page as evidence for a merge is a really poor choice. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 16:38, 13 October 2013 (UTC)


Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Loomspicker again. Thank you. - MrX 01:35, 21 October 2013 (UTC)