User talk:Curiosity

Thankyou for contributing to Wikipedia. I would like to point out that we operate a strict netral point of view policy, unfortunatly I have had to remove your recent edits as they have not comformed with this policy. We would welcome further contributions from you if they are made from a neutral point of view, thankyou. Rje 23:09, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

Israeli terrorism
Hello Curiosity, can you state a reason why have you removed the link to Amnesty International's article covering the situation in territories occupied by Israel in the misc. section of the Israeli terrorism article? Without such I tend to understand it as another violation of the NPOV Wikipedia's policy, which should be reverted. Oneliner 09:44, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * In fact, Amnesty International's credibility in the human rights and governmental oppression is far firmly established than of any of us here. The fact that AI usually publishes very critical materials which certainly do not fit well in any government's PR should in no way be a reason to remove the link. Most governments would love to mute AI, however we are a free and open society here and should not need such fascist like methods when dealing with unpleasant facts. Now I see, you already started a really rude flamewar with another editor sharing my opinion. Please, be reasonable. You won't help anything or anyone by spitting harsh words and by changing article's POV without consideration and the necessary consensus. Oneliner 23:01, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * The fact is that Amnesty International is discredited by many as promoting its own agenda under the guise of the protection of Human Rights. It publishes political material, which is indisputably biased towards gthe opinions of those who run the organisation. It is hardly changina an article's POV to remove an incredibly POV and biased link.