User:JBW/Messages from User talk:NPz1

''The following contains, I believe, a complete (to date) archive copy of the messages which have been posted to User talk:NPz1. The user talk page has repeatedly been blanked, making it difficult to follow its history. I have assembled the messages together to make it easier to see what has been said on the page. I have done this for my own convenience, but naturally any other user is welcome to read it. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:34, 28 January 2011 (UTC)''

January 2011
Welcome to Wikipedia. The project's content policies require that all articles be written from a neutral point of view, and not introduce bias or give undue weight to viewpoints. Please bear this in mind when making edits such as your recent edit to Camp Ashraf. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:19, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please be aware of Wikipedia's policy that biographical information about living persons must not include unsupported or inaccurate statements. Whenever you add possibly controversial statements about a living person to an article or any other Wikipedia page, as you did to Edolphus Towns, you must include proper sources. If you don't know how to cite a source, you may want to read Referencing for beginners for guidelines. Addition of material which constitutes a commentary or expression of an unsupported personal opinion is never acceptable, but in the case of a negative statement about a living person it is totally unacceptable under Wikipedia policies. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:24, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

POV/BLP
You are stretching the references by claiming that individuals are "supporters" of a U.S.-designated terrorist organization. This introduces a specific point of view into the biographies, and as a separate matter is a violation of biography of living persons policy. Such a charge must be backed up, and must not introduce undue weight, as this is clearly not a matter central to the biographies of these individuals, but a personal view on your part, and the declaration that someone is a supporter of a terrorist organization is clearly inappropriate. Please do not edit-war to introduce your point of view.  Acroterion  (talk)  13:04, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I have added sources to all those people, if you want Al Qaeda off the terrorist list, you support their cause and therefore aslong as Al Qaeda is on the terrorist list you support terrorism. NPz1 (talk) 13:05, 4 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I'd say the above statement summarizes the problems with your edits neatly.  Acroterion  (talk)  13:20, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Please elaborate.


 * You are making an unsupported synthesis by stating that a politician's interest in removal of an organization from the U.S. terrorist list automatically makes the individual a supporter of the organization, or worse, a supporter of terrorism. Please read and understand WP:SYNTH, WP:BLP, WP:RS and WP:NPOV. These are core policies of Wikipedia.   Acroterion  (talk)  13:33, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Like I said I have added sources to these articles which shows a clear support for the MEK cause. Like I said if you want Al Qaeda off the terrorist list, you obviously support Al Qaeda, and since Al Qaeda is designated as a terrorist organization you are a support of terrorism. Its very simple. NPz1 (talk) 13:45, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Your Comments
Thank you for your efforts. I am concerned about many things in your posts, but first off you really need to address your spelling and punctuation. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 13:26, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

What is of your concern? My spelling? NPz1 (talk) 13:32, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

January 2011
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, but at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Harold MacMichael, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted (undone) by ClueBot NG.
 * Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Note that human editors do monitor recent changes to Wikipedia articles, and administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism.
 * ClueBot NG produces very few false positives, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made should not have been detected as unconstructive, please read about it, [ report it here], remove this warning from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
 * The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Harold MacMichael was changed by NPz1 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.895962 on 2011-01-07T22:02:44+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 22:02, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

hey!

Removing discussions from your talk page does not mean you have not been warned about POV before. Your edits to Gaza War were inappropriate since they cherry picked lines, presented one view on the topic, added a subsection with a questionable need and title when one already existed, and listed an edit as minor when it may not have been. I have reverted your edits. The bulk of your edit may be OK in this article but might be even better in an article discussing this aspect of the conflict while only a summary is provided at Gaza War. And this is another warning about POV. The topic area is under greater scrutiny due to how contentious it is. You are free to use the talk page and maybe there will be a consensus but further disruption will result in a request for an admin to admonish/council you on your behavior then a request for a topic ban if it continues.Cptnono (talk) 09:21, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


 * There was nothing arbitrary about it. You chose to highlight some information while disregarding others. Furthermore, long details would be better in a sub article. Such details should also include the rebuttal which were also in the source which you chose not to include. A single line in an appropriate subsection might work so I suggest you make a discussion on the article's talk page. And don;t bother blanking your page since it is all in the history.Cptnono (talk) 11:10, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * And this is your final BLP warning based on Tom Tancredo and Antonio Cassese. You have made multiple BLP violations. Possibly edited as an IP to evade scrutiny. Made cherry picking edits under the guise of requesting sources in a topic area that had editors banned recently. ANy further disruption will result in a request for your block. It looks like you are learning the rules but possibly not quick enough. There also might be grounds for accusations of meat puppetry or even sock puppetry but your track record on a newer account is good enough to ensure that you need to take note of this heads up.Cptnono (talk) 11:24, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You are also active in two topic areas currently subject to discretionary sanctions. Supreme Deliciousness also being on multiple articles as well raises eyebrows. Please stop being disruptive since you are already on thin ice. Cptnono (talk) 11:35, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You also deleted information that was easily found in a quick search. It was a quote so I understand but consider looking next time if you did not. I have restored it. You also added niformation on articles with what you ight consider sources but which more than likely do not meet the standard here with little professional structure ensuring factual accuracy while having a disregard for neutrality. These have bee removed.Cptnono (talk) 11:56, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Apologies for all the type-os. I assume you got the point. Please see the blanked warnings for the links regarding biographies of living persons. From there you an also find links to both reliable sourcing and neutrality standards. If you do not understand "cherry picking" due to English as a second language please let me know or find it on Wiktionary. Cptnono (talk) 12:06, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


 * See the edit summaries and the history of this page. I don't know what bits you are actually arguing since there were so many and I do not want to spend the time listing them all in a lengthy linked discussion on multiple topics. This is primarily due to the fact that I simply don't trust that you will actually click on the links since you obviously have not done so in the past. Spending time reiterating standards that you could/already have easily find/found on your own after so many warnings is something I am not interested in. I have each of the articles I removed concerns in on my watchlist so feel free to ask there with specifics and I will gladly provide them.Cptnono (talk) 12:18, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

As I said, my talk page is not the place for this. Use the talk page of the article. Please also read the edit summaries. If you have read them in full and still do not understand I will be happy to respond within a day.Cptnono (talk) 12:30, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


 * No I do not. Please reread the BLP and verifiability standards. Also, WP:BRD is a good thing to follow even though it is not necessary. You got reverted. Go to the article talk page. And I did not see you on that one particular talk page since I was to busy wading through the messes you created. I will make sure to take a look and respond later.Cptnono (talk) 12:35, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Then you misunderstand the process and what you consider accusations. I am off to catch a bit of sleep. I have the day to myself so I will make sure to respond then. But since it looks liek you have still failed to click on a single blue link sent to you, I hope you will take the time to do so because I do not look forward to explaining the rules to someone who does not really want to hear it but instead just wants to complain and add POV. Cptnono (talk) 12:49, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It is very simple. You have made problematic edits. I took care of them. You have been given the information you need already to research why they are problematic. You have failed to do so. I have little reason to suspect that you are actually trying. And now instead of presenting reasoning for your obviously problematic edits you are instead changing the scope of the concern to my waiting to explain it to you. That is what happens when you make POV edits and continuously disregard policy. Your best option right now if you actually want to see those edits go live is think about why they were reverted. And as I said, after some Zs I will lay it out simply for you. Right now it seems like you still do not really care since you are still assuming that the process is something that it is not and have failed to provide a single reason for your edits (which is what is considered good form under BRD). So I will get to it when I get to it and you will simply have to wait and stop disrupting the project since any further disruption should be frowned upon. You will have all of the links and reasoning you need when I wake up. I doubt you will actually read it but I would be happy to be wrong. Until then, stop wasting my time since it is only more time that will be wasted explaining your errors in detail/ You really should already know but I do understand there is a chance you do not.Cptnono (talk) 13:03, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I have responded at the Gaza War and Tom Tancredo talk pages. In regards to Antonio Cassese:
 * "Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone. Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints; the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all. Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation and section headings are broadly neutral. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association, and look out for biased or malicious content." is spelled out directly in the WP:BLP policy.
 * The "Controversy" section did not present the material responsibly, conservatively, or in a disinterested tone. There was zero mention in the press release or from state.gov saying it was controversial so we cannot simply say it is.
 * A complete section was a disproportionate amount of space for an unverified claim that may or may not be noteworthy enough for a complete section.
 * I question the reliability of earthtimes.org
 * "Wikipedia's sourcing policy, Verifiability, says that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation; material not complying with this may be removed. This policy extends that principle, adding that contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. This applies whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable, and whether it is in a biography or in some other article." - WP:BLPSOURCES
 * Is there a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." as discussed at WP:IRS? I see no reason to believe that that site's organizer should be assumed to be a reputable publisher like The New York Times would be.

Your edit there was not inline with the following policies:
 * WP:NPOV
 * WP:VERIFY
 * WP:OR

Please note that neutrality is one of the five pillars of Wikipedia (WP:FIVE) and that all articles must strive for verifiable accuracy: unreferenced material may be removed. This is essential when working on biographies of living persons and I urge to to read even just the opening paragraphs of the BLP policy.

And:

Adjective problematic posing a problem; difficult to overcome or solve debatable; open to doubt unresolved or dubious doubtful or uncertain in its outcome

See

Cptnono (talk) 22:59, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Editors at Gaza war are restricted to one revert per 24 hour period. You just breeched that. Please self revert or I am reporting you for edit warring.Cptnono (talk) 14:38, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

January 2011
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from House demolition in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. When removing content, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the content has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.  brew crewer  (yada, yada) 22:17, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Final warning
You have accumulated many warnings this month. The next time your editing is considered disruptive and another editor leaves you a warning, you may be blocked without further notice. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 22:25, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Your edit to Sheeba Farms slightly misrepresented the source depending on the interpretation of your subtle changes to the wording. An admin needs to block you for your violation of 1/rr (reported here: Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring) and you need to be officially notified/warned/counseled on Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles if you are going to continue to edit in the topic area.Cptnono (talk) 01:45, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:ARBPIA
As a result of an arbitration case, the Arbitration Committee has acknowledged long-term and persistent problems in the editing of articles related to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, broadly understood. As a result, the Committee has enacted broad editing restrictions, described here and below.


 * Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process.
 * The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.
 * Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.
 * Discretionary sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently WP:AE), or the Committee.

These editing restrictions may be applied to any editor for cause, provided the editor has been previously informed of the case. This message is to so inform you. This message does not necessarily mean that your current editing has been deemed a problem; this is a template message crafted to make it easier to notify any user who has edited the topic of the existence of these sanctions.

Generally, the next step, if an administrator feels your conduct on pages in this topic area is disruptive, would be a warning, to be followed by the imposition of sanctions (although in cases of serious disruption, the warning may be omitted). Hopefully no such action will be necessary.

This notice is only effective if given by an uninvolved administrator and logged here. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 01:57, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello, NPz1. I have been looking at the history of your disagreements with various other editors, particularly in connection with the article Gaza war. I do not wish to become involved in the dispute or take sides, and I am not here to either support or oppose your point of view or anyone else's point of view in the dispute. However, looking not at your opinion as to the content of the article but rather at your handling of the dispute, unfortunately I see much to be desired. You have edit warred, although only slowly, without numerous reversions in a short period. It was pointed out to you that you had technically breached an editing restriction and you were asked to self-revert, but you did not do so. Although you have several times posted to another user's talk page, you have not made any attempt to take part in discussion on the article's talk page, despite more than once being asked to do so. I have no reason to doubt that you are editing in good faith, and I believe that you sincerely believe that the point of view you are supporting in your editing is correct. However, Wikipedia contains editors from many different backgrounds, holding a range of points of view, and we do not settle differences by each of us repeatedly pushing our own position in the hope of beating those who disagree with us.

You have been given a final warning, letting you know that you may in future be blocked without further warning if your editing is considered disruptive. You have also been notified of a decision of the Arbitration committee under which any editor who "fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process" may have sanctions imposed, including blocks. Despite this, you have continued to edit in the way which has been considered disruptive. This edit, which followed both of those warnings, repeated, in part, changes you had made in the following edits:, ,.

I am not taking action against you at this time, but you need to realise that you have now reached the stage where you could have been blocked for your latest action without further warning, and it is very likely that you will be blocked if there is another occurrence. Please discuss any edits you make which may be controversial on the relevant article talk page, and do not persist in unilaterally repeating the same edit which has proved to be controversial. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:25, 28 January 2011 (UTC)