User talk:Nwe: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 18:15, 28 October 2006

Israel

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. HawkerTyphoon 19:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have a history of making PoV edits to articles, and I do believe that the edit you've made to the Lebanon article is in bad faith. You're not adding anything new to the article, you're just throwing in vague statements about how Israel are to blame for the war. May I suggest you make your edit into a single paragraph, and read it, re-write it, then add it as a large chunk? Most of what you're adding is already mentioned in the article anyway. HawkerTyphoon 19:56, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. As a member of the Wikipedia community, I would like to remind you of Wikipedia's neutral-point-of-view policy for editors. In the meantime, please be bold and continue contributing to Wikipedia. Thank you! yandman 15:54, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop pushing pro-Fhizzballah propaganda into articles. That is not NPOV. Cerebral Warrior 11:02, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CW, you are aware that Lebanon isn't Hezbollah, right? In the same way that Ireland isn't the IRA? yandman 12:25, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. --Strothra 14:42, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please start behaving like a proper member of the wikipedia community.Nwe 14:50, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, this was the article he found too distateful and personally insulting to allow on his talk page. So far he has avoided any discussion whatsover on this topic, depsite several prompts and offers of compromise on my behalf.

"You're right it is rediculous that you think my edits are "clear POV". Why don't you come onto the talk page and discuss this like a man if you feel so strongly about it?"

Nwe 14:54, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, you were not give the warning for that, you were given the warning for your edit summary stating, "strothra is a political vandal who clearly can't back up his edits with even the most prosaic form of debate." But yes, the comment which you stated is also provoking. --Strothra 15:01, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You deny that you were avoiding any form of discussion with me over the article?Nwe 15:07, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lebanon

I have a problem with editors who violate 3RR in order to push a POV. I also have a problem with editors who use personal attacks agianst other editors. when you are ready to become civil and abide by WP policy, I'll discuss the contents of your edits with you. Isarig 15:43, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not pushing POV, I am sailing close to the wind on 3RR but in order to push NPOV, and I do not make personal attacks, I was making a comment on the fact that that editor was making repetitively reverts and refusing to justify his them in discussion.Nwe 15:54, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Calling naother editor a 'political vandal' is a personal attaack. It is sad that you do not realize this. An apology to Strotha is in order. Isarig 15:59, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Accusing someone of vandalism is not a personal attack, merely an observation on the pattern of his edits. I would apoligise to Strotha if he/she apoligised to me for deleting my messages, which was what prompted me to make the comment in the first place.Nwe 16:01, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Calling another editor a 'political vandal' is a personal attaack. It is sad that you do not realize this. An apology to Strotha is in order. You are having a content dispute with that editor - they way to resolve it is through discussion on the talk page, not through repeated reverts and personal attacks. Isarig 16:07, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree completely, tell that to him and observe my many attempts to engage in discussion with him and on the talk page. Please, also, do not pretend that your motivation here is upholding the standards of wikipedia, you seem to dedicate you entire time on this site defending Israel in some way or another.Nwe 16:14, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And you seem to be intent on pushing pro-Moslem, anti-Israel propaganda onto Wikipedia. Anti-Semitism will not be tolerated here. Cerebral Warrior 16:19, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CW please go and educate yousrself on the issues involved in the middle-east comflict, try to challenge your anti-Muslim bias and then come back and make a useful contribution to these discussions.Nwe 16:22, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In defense of Nwe, I do not see how his edits were pro-Muslim (not that there's anything wrong with being pro-Muslim, whatever that even means) and anti-semetic. I would say that his edits were POV in that it his edits paint Lebanon as an innocent victim. It's unfortunate that all sides seem to be denying resposibility when there's plenty of blame to be spread around - this culture of victimization where no one wants to assume any responsibility (on both sides) is sad and only promotes POV edits such as this one. --Strothra 16:31, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strothra, where do my edits paint Lebanon as an innocent victim?Nwe 16:33, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User notice: temporary 3RR block

Regarding reversions[1] made on October 28 2006 to 2006_Israel-Lebanon_conflict

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

The duration of the block is 24 hours.

No matter how strongly you feel on this, please stay within 3RR and avoid personal attacks.

William M. Connolley 16:39, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evading your block with IPs is a bad idea. Don't do it again or your block will be extended William M. Connolley 18:15, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah man no matter how true your edit is, you should comply with WP:3RR. Keep struggling! Nielswik_(talk) 17:35, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 48: / Line 48: @@
 <!-- Template:3RR5 --> The duration of the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=&page=User:Nwe&action=edit&section=new block] is 24 hours.
-No matter how strongly you feel on this, please stay within 3RR.
+No matter how strongly you feel on this, please stay within 3RR and avoid personal attacks.
-[[User:William M. Connolley|William M. Connolley]] 16:39, 28 October 2006 (UTC)</div>
+[[User:William M. Connolley|William M. Connolley]] 16:39, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
+: Evading your block with IPs is a bad idea. Don't do it again or your block will be extended [[User:William M. Connolley|William M. Connolley]] 18:15, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
+</div>
 Yeah man no matter how true your edit is, you should comply with [[WP:3RR]]. Keep struggling! '''[[User:Nielswik|Nielswik]]'''<sub>[[User Talk:Nielswik|(talk)]]</sub> 17:35, 28 October 2006 (UTC)