User talk:Dynablaster/Archive 1

George Piro
I am not a regular Wikipedia user, but that information on George Piro is valuable and I haven't found it anywhere. Where do you suggest that this information should be put?

Book by Huberman
I want to know why deleted my edit completely. Maybe it wasn't perfect and you are welcome to change things around (like I realized after comparing your edits to mine that I called liberals right-winged when I meant to call them left-winged, that would have been a perfectly understandable edit). But to delete an entire piece of text without explanation. That article needed references - I gave it references. It needed some expansion - I expanded it a bit. I tried to people in a neutral point of view as much as I could only stating facts that I found and had references to prove it. What in what I wrote bothered you so much you had to delete it entirely? I'm not going to change it back. But maybe in a few days I might if I don't get an explanation.Suly12 (talk) 18:06, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

October 2008
Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to Bullshit has been reverted, as it appears to have removed content from the page without explanation. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 00:13, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Propaganda Model
No, the dispute has not ended. The criticisms still in the entry are dubious at best, and the more authoritative criticisms referred to in the talk page are not included. Obviously I have my take on this section and I would like to see the two criticisms removed (especially the latter one as the simple reason for a large coverage of minute happenings in Israel is that there are more foreign correspondents in Israel than in all of Africa), but until the dispute is resolved I, and you, can't just go deleting things willy-nilly. Khawaga (talk) 16:48, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I wish it was that simple... but that part has been in dispute for quite some time now and simply removing the text, especially without an alternative text, is just asking for someone to hit the undo button and come with a tirade. If I had time I would sit down and write something substantial (either in the article or on the talk page), but as of now it's just not an option. If you feel you're up for it, I'll happily support you. Khawaga (talk) 23:09, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Michael Moore
I'm sorry you don't like criticisms of him, but they should go on the page since they're important to assessing the facts presented. The material I have posted is true (please read it, then explain why not on the talk page if you disagree). If you revert it again, I will have you blocked for 3R, and/or have an admin step in. Moore has not responded to criticisms, nor has he ever explained why his views changed on Afghanistan, so this should be mentioned.JJJ999 (talk) 22:11, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I've removed your vandalism, and added a reply. This really is your last warning.  The claim that the material I added is irrelevant is patently false, and the claim it was unsourced and is not sourceable is also false.  You do not own this page, you can't prevent additions of accurate and relevant material on your say so.JJJ999 (talk) 07:57, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I've since added sources btw.JJJ999 (talk) 08:12, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

November 2008
The recent edit you made to Fahrenheit 9/11 controversy constitutes vandalism, and has been reverted. Please do not continue to remove content. Thank you. Double Blue (Talk) 04:07, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Kindly explain your reasoning for re-adding improperly sourced material. Ta. Dynablaster (talk) 04:10, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I did not see your reasoning in the edit summary somehow. My mistake. Thanks for asking. Double Blue  (Talk) 04:13, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. JBsupreme (talk) 07:03, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The same question goes to the second editor. Kindly explain your drive-by tagging of my talk page. I have set out my reasons for removing improperly sources material on the relivant talk page. Dynablaster (talk) 14:31, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Only in your mind Dynaguy...

2 days
As an olive branch to stop edit warring I am giving you 2 days to propose an alternative wording for the "dispute". I am happy for DGG or some admin to provide oversight for this. If you don't do this by 2 days, the tag is gone, because your bait and switch tactics are not acceptable.JJJ999 (talk) 03:16, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Then stop deleting the tag before that deadline. Dynablaster (talk) 04:02, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring on Fahrenheit 9/11 controversy
This is the only warning you'll receive from me about this, and it goes to both of you. Stop edit warring over this article. Figure out how to work through your differences and don't worry about whether there is or isn't a tag. The next time I see reversion on this article, you'll both be blocked. I don't care who started it. WP:3RR is a bright line, not an entitlement. ++Lar: t/c 04:41, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Other users have advised me that this article is already the subject of an article content RFC, so I'm going to stay out of it. You might want to notice that if you are engaged in angry disputes across a range of articles that there just might be a more diplomatic way to achieve your aims. I don't know, or care to know, who is right in these content disputes. But I'm advising you based on some reasonably extensive experience with disputes like this that if you carry on stubbornly like this you will eventually find yourself banned. There is a way to get article content changes made, and pissing people off en masse is not it. I strongly urge you to dial it back and follow ordinary dispute resolution process, especially being mindful of the three revert rule. You have been warned about this already and you continue to edit war in the F911 article. That must stop immediately. Good luck, --Ryan Delaney talk 03:16, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I took a look at it. I think you have something reasonable to say here, as I'm sure he does too. What's at issue here, as far as I am concerned, is not who is "right", but how you (both) are conducting yourself(ves). There is absolutely no reason why editorial discussions need to get so heated and personal, and there is no benefit to Wikipedia when editors conduct themselves in that way. For example nothing constructive is added to the discussion with remarks like "With that in mind, let me spell it out for you one last time". I do think that there is some improvement here, and I thank you for sticking to discussion as the first step in the dispute resolution process. I'll be watching for his response. --Ryan Delaney talk 01:41, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

You have reverted 3 times today. You have already been warned earlier this month. Why haven't you learned? Please stop now, or you will be blocked.-Andrew c [talk] 02:17, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Sicko
Hi. I responded to the concerns over the Criticism section here. Let me know what you think. Nightscream (talk) 07:15, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * In addition to being a prominent conservative pundit, I retained mention of him because he, along with Kurt Loder, provided a context for mention of Stuart Browning and Blaine Greenberg's film. Loder mentioned one of them films, but Hannity interviewed Browning and mentioned the other one. It seemed a good way to condense the section without deleting any of its salient details. Nightscream (talk) 06:31, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

December 2008
You have been blocked from editing for in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for engaging in an  edit war. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text below.


 * See above where I warned this user and the other party, see also User_talk:Lar and User_talk:Lar (these will be in User_talk:Lar/Archive 49 eventually) ... no one can say you guys weren't warned. You should have taken MBisanz's advice (as given on my talk page in reply to your second thread) about how to move forward on resolving the issue. ++Lar: t/c 20:02, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * So where are these sources?JJJ999 (talk) 01:25, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I was planning on editing the article this weekend, but we were advised to cool off, and the page was locked, so I decided against it. We need somebody to arbitrate. That appears to be the only thing we agree on. Dynablaster (talk) 01:39, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for respecting my imposed cooling off period. I've left some comments and a plan for how we can act constructively on this at Talk:Fahrenheit_9/11_controversy. I'd appreciate i if you could contribute to this. Cheers, --Ryan Delaney talk 03:55, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Are you going to be able to comment on this any time in the near future? We are still waiting for your input. --Ryan Delaney talk 11:22, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

In the past two weeks I've been very busy with holiday travels. If you are interested in seeking mediation elsewhere, you might try the mediation committee for the official dispute resolution outlet, or the mediation cabal for a less formal approach. If you do get a case opened, let me know so I can provide them some background on this. --Ryan Delaney talk 20:30, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Leona Lewis
If you don't like the current format on Leona Lewis, please take it to the talk page and start a discussion. However, there is nothing wrong with distinguishing between on X Factor and off X Factor. John Sloan (view / chat) 21:27, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

do you have a reference to say that clive davis has denied that leona and justin are recording "i will always love you"? if not it stays cause we have a reference saying that it is happening. (Lil-unique1 (talk) 22:47, 7 March 2009 (UTC))

Chomsky and the evolution of language
Chomsky wrote a paper on the evolution of language which was then attacked by Pinker/Bloom. Chomsky rallied two biologists to his side and wrote the HCF paper which was then contested by Pinker/Jackendoff. I used the term "clarification" because many felt that Chomsky's original paper was vague and confusing. New points were raised in HCF, and then attacked by P/J. The two exchanges were different in content. What the article really needs is a rundown of P/J's objections to HCF, which I may get around to doing eventually. CABlankenship (talk) 02:02, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

You can change it to "The Chomsky/Hauser/Fitch paper has been challenged by Pinker and Jackendoff" or something along those lines. CABlankenship (talk) 02:37, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

January 2009
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page The Green Children has been reverted.

Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove unwanted links and spam from Wikipedia. The external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. The external links I reverted were matching the following regex rule(s): \byoutube\.com (links: http://www.youtube.com/user/thegreenchildren). If the external link you inserted or changed was to a media file (e.g. a sound or video file) on an external server, then note that linking to such files may be subject to Wikipedia's copyright policy and therefore probably should not be linked to. Please consider using our upload facility to upload a suitable media file. Video links are also strongly deprecated by our guidelines for external links, partly because they're useless to people with slow internet connections.

If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 21:50, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

re:Leona Lewis
That album was already up for deletion before, so they both qualified for a speedy delete. As for the category, if it's not needed, I believe you'll need to depopulate it first. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 19:51, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Jayjg
Referred it to WP:ANI - please add your comments. I can see no hope of making any headway with his stance. GrizzledOldMan (talk) 22:00, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:3RR
Hi Dynablaster. You've just violated WP:3RR; that is, you've reverted four times on the same page in under 24 hours. I strongly recommend that you revert yourself: otherwise you might end up being blocked for 3RR violation. Jayjg (talk) 05:36, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text below. Sandahl (talk) 06:14, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

WMD conjecture in the aftermath of the 2003 Iraq War
Please do not restore the previously deleted sections in WMD conjecture in the aftermath of the 2003 Iraq War unless you are willing to expand them properly. As clarified in the previous discussion: it is not that Salon magazine fails WP:RS but rather the the tone of the text pointing to the source is inappropriate. If you want to put something along the lines of "so and so disagrees with x remarks because of y and z (see citation for confirmation)" that's fine. But as it is written now it can't stay. SJSA 05:30, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem is not one that it only has one line. It is the content of that one line. I'll make it easier for you

From the first source: "In that interview, Al-Tikriti makes one very basic but very major misstatements of fact: he says that despite some differences Syria and Iraq “remained the closest of allies… I know Saddam's weapons are in Syria due to certain military deals that were made going as far back as the late 1980's that dealt with the event that either capitols were threatened with being overrun by an enemy nation.”

I suppose Al-Tikriti’s apparent ignorance can be forgiven by the fact that he was defecting at the time, but he seems to have forgotten one key point: in the first Gulf War, Syria joined the coalition fighting against Iraq. As the State Department’s website on Syria notes, “Syria's 1990 participation in the U.S.-led multinational coalition aligned against Saddam Hussein marked a dramatic watershed in Syria's relations both with other Arab states and with the West.” During pre-war peace talks, Saddam even made Syrian withdrawal from Lebanon a condition of his withdrawal from Kuwait." You can easily paraphrase that into one sentence. SJSA 15:44, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Kauffner
I've filed an AN/I report about the problem editor here. Please be careful about 3RR, even when dealing with seeming bad faith editors. You may wish to declare here or somewhere that you will not revert the editor further pending the outcome of the AN/I report. Wikidemon (talk) 05:00, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Why are you such an ass?
You know damn well Michael Moore is a left wing propaganda machine. It is just unfortunate you continue to undo my edits. The Red Peacock (talk) 16:35, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Leo Strauss and the BBC
Can you please explain [this edit], and similar ones previously? If Leo Strauss was mentioned by the BBC, that is something which should not be deleted, surely? I am not saying I agree with the documentary, but if we go around deleting such things we are pushing personal POV and this just leads to problems. Your editing remarks are hard to interpret. If your reasoning is complex shouldn't you post you explanation on the talk page?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:46, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Did the version you deleted even claim that "the documentary misrepresents Strauss"? If not then why delete it for not sourcing this? Concerning sources I believed there was a link to the BBC, which is a reliable source, especially for its own programs? Practical question anyway: if I understand you correctly then why not insert a link to the BBC website for the documentary, and change the wording to make sure there is no independent opinion expressed about what is right or wrong? Deletion seems like a blunt instrument in such a case?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:46, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, rather than deleting the whole section one more time can you use tags to show any specific problems in the new version?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:31, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * No problem. Let's try to fix it. Please understand I came to this section noticing there was a lot of editing back and forth. I have no particular position. Deleting a whole section as a way of expressing concern about a particular issue will always create problems.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:34, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

re: United States support for Iraq during the Iran–Iraq war, Iraqgate
I enjoyed reading these two articles. The only problem I have with them is that they're quite unbalanced. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and so stuff like this can only be included if it has both sides of the dispute included. I'm sure that not everyone feels the way you do; including evidence that runs contrary to your argument might actually serve to strengthen your message. Just something to consider. --Mblumber (talk) 22:32, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Chomsky and evolution of language
Please do not remove the link to the Pinker/Jackendoff response, as it is critical to the debate. I put that section together, and it is not complete without noting that the P/J paper was the last of the exchanges as Chomsky has thus far not responded. CABlankenship (talk) 00:41, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for cleaning my mess, Dynablaster
Yesterday I had to leave Wikipedia. I shall ask for your opinion once User:Randroide/Sandbox is finished, before moving the article to principal. CU Randroide (talk) 11:03, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Deleting blog posts

 * FYI, when you are removing links to dead or unacceptable sources, you may want to add a fact tag to indicate that the statement needs another source. Cheers, --Ryan Delaney talk 13:03, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Hugo Chavez & terrorism
You could have moved my additions to the appropriate page, instead of deleting them. Thanks for pointing to the correct entry anyway.Alekboyd (talk) 23:17, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Bombing survey
You are making edits to Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki that seem as if you think one of the paragraphs was pure opinion, as in WP:OR. The opinion and conclusions are from How effective is strategic bombing? by Gian P. Gentile, pages 113 to 115. I'm letting you know so that you understand why I will bring it back in when you are done with this round of editing. Binksternet (talk) 21:45, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The part I restored has been greatly trimmed back and copyedited, such that it resembles very little the part you took out... Heh heh. I think you'll appreciate the new paragraph; it adds to the "Militarily unnecessary" argument. Binksternet (talk) 00:11, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

thanks
thanks for saving the con coughlin quote on the Habbush Letter article, it was a bit interesting to see someone say 'who cares what these people think, these are weblogs' in reference to Coughlin. . . it would seem that these days, some professional journalists will make blog postings....Decora (talk) 21:06, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

"Removing sourced information"
Please tell me how was I "removing sourced information"? I would really like to know. I changed the source to one that cites the writer, producer, and original singer. If anyone is "removing sourced information" it's you. You removed the sources about the chart positions and re-added original research. JoJo singing the song first is CLEARLY written in the article and sourced. Since JoJo's version of "Note to God" didn't chart nor was it released JoJo deserves to be mention, while Charice has more prominence because it WAS released as a single AND it charted. If you are going to accuse me of "removing sourced information" and revert it to the version WITHOUT the additional sources show exactly where I removed sourced information, because it's all source every last thing on that page is sourced. 月 (Moon) と  暁 (Sunrise)  00:51, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The song was written for and originally recorded by JoJo. You erased The Guardian footnote (dated 2007) and relegated this information. Charice's recent cover version (2009) has no bearing on the history of the song. Performers will be noted in chronological order, not by personal preference or greater airplay. Please understand that the article is principally about the song, not any one particular singer. Dynablaster (talk) 03:04, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Information.svg|25px]] Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit that you made has been reverted or removed because it was a misuse of a warning or blocking template. Please use the user warnings sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. Thank you.  月 (Moon)  と  暁 (Sunrise)  03:22, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That isn't as you claim "removing sourced information". I just replaced it with one that covers the whole lead. The only time the artists are listed in chronological order is when the artist releases the song first and then other do the same. For example A World to Believe In. Celine Dion recorded the song for her album but it was later released in Japan as a duet is the main focus on the article not who recorded it first and who covered it. It's not a "personal preference" because 1)I don't like the artist and 2)I never even listened to the song. Also, I haven't violated the 3RR. I reverted twice look at the history. 月 (Moon)  と  暁 (Sunrise)  03:22, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Removing my comment from Talk:Bleeding Love
Do you mind explaining why you just did that? Thanks. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 17:19, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm sorry. I was having a bad day I guess. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 21:17, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: Soviet support for Iraq during the Iran–Iraq war
I understand your desire to keep the article Soviet support for Iraq during the Iran–Iraq war neutural, but here are some facts; 1)While the Iran-Iraq War lasted between 1980 and 1988, these years do fall within the range of 1973 and 1990. 2)The news footage of Ba'athist-era military parades that are almost entirley dominated by Soviet vehicles and weapons are very much appropriate as solid evidence. DanTD (talk) 01:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes but SIPRI data from 1973 to 1990 must obviously include major armaments sold before the war commenced, therefore this table cannot be used as a source for which nation supplied the most arms between the years 1980 to 1988. The Soviets were Iraq's biggest suppliers before 1980, and probably afterward too, but we need a specific source. France might push the Soviets very close. I made exactly this point some weeks ago on the International aid to combatants in the Iran–Iraq War talk page. The SIPRI database is more flexible these days, so if you want to input the data, please go right ahead. Dynablaster (talk) 02:01, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't know if it's my PC or what, but the SIPRI link you're trying to show me isn't loading up, and hasn't been for the past few days. I would've loved to use this one, but I have to make due with what I've got. DanTD (talk) 02:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The link is active for me. Try a different web browser. That sometimes works. Dynablaster (talk) 02:36, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * How's this (http://armstrade.sipri.org/arms_trade/values.php)? Incidentally, while I should've tried a different web browser as you suggested, IE 7 seemed to work just fine for me today. DanTD (talk) 18:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Can't argue with that. Dynablaster (talk) 18:52, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Hugo Chavez
The reason I used the word "fleeing" is because that's the word that was used in the source. For you to remove the word and claim that this is not accurate violates the wikipedia rule that articles must match the source. Also, you removed a bunch of other stuff, claiming that it "needs to be attributed." I did attribute it - I cited verifiable, credible sources. Grundle2600 (talk) 15:39, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * No, honestly, you did not. Your source may use the word fleeing but you copied this into the article without quotation marks or making it clear whose views you are passing off as fact. A reliable source alone is not sufficient. You need to attribute specific view points to those who express them (e.g. "According to X...", "X said..."', "X responded...", etc). Dynablaster (talk) 15:59, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Not only did you remove the word "fleeing," even though it was in the source, you also added the word "prominent," even though it was not in the source. The price controls apply to all sellers, not just prominent ones. The word "prominent" does not appear in the source. In both of these cases, I changed the article to match the source, and you changed the article to not match the source. Articles are supposed to match the source. Grundle2600 (talk) 16:08, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I have not added any words to the article. You must be confusing me with someone else. My involvement is restricted to removing unattributed material. Please slow down and take the necessary time to understand what is being said to you. Dynablaster (talk) 16:18, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Your edit added the word "prominent" to the article, which is not in the source. The price controls apply to all sellers, not just prominent ones. Grundle2600 (talk) 16:27, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * For the last time, I honestly did not add a single word to the article; I merely reverted the article to a previous state, removing the material you reproduced from Investor's Business Daily, because you failed to make clear in the article whose opinion you are repeating. Why don't you take the time to understand what is being said to you? Dynablaster (talk) 16:40, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Hugo Chavez and terrorism
Before deleting my edits please provide specific examples of remarks or sources with which you disagree. If you have a problem with the BBC, Bloomberg or US government agencies as being unreliable sources, please raise the issue in the appropriate section.Alekboyd (talk) 14:54, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Non sequitur. Kindly re-read the message I posted to your talk page and address the specific point made. (diff) The section you have created is completely one-sided. Other (reliable) sources say that Hugo Chavez wants recognition of FARC not because he wishes to join or support them, but rather to commence peace talks -- freeing hostages and ending the violence, once and for all. No serious editor would create a section under Tony Blair named Links to terrorist organizations, observing that he commended senior IRA members (i.e. child killers), without providing context for his remarks. POV pushing and selective quotation hurts Wikipedia. Please, I ask you once again, not to ignore this point of view. It's no fun talking to a wall. Dynablaster (talk) 15:55, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Please spare me your condescending tone. I did read the message in my page and responded in yours with another one, asking very specifically that you point out which remarks/sources you don't agree with. If you have a problem with sources quoted or think that the section is one sided, provide balance, that's what one does when one doesn't agree with something, instead of editing out perfectly valid information.


 * As per unrelated comments re Tony Blair, perhaps you can enlighten us all with examples of him breaking relations with the UK's second commercial partner, say France for argument sake, over the capture in the streets of London of internationally wanted narco-terrorists. Or better yet, perhaps you could point out when was the last time that Blair nearly went to war with another country for the assassination, by a third country, of an international wanted narco-terrorist. I also remember having asked you to back up your spurious allegation that the BBC published Greg Palast's account, which, to date, you haven't done. So go on mate, knock yourself out. In the meanwhile, and in the absolute absence of arguments demonstrating that the information I have quoted does not comply with Wiki etiquette, I am reverting my edits.Alekboyd (talk) 19:16, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Sourcing is not the only issue. Adherence to WP:NPOV is equally important. A third editor has now removed the offending material. Dynablaster (talk) 21:53, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

removal of content without discussion in article's talk page
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from. When removing text, 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 text has been restored, as you can see from the. 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.Alsoam (talk) 07:56, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:ANI notification
Notice: see Administrators'_noticeboard. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:08, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

That was extremely rude
Your removing my changes from the movie "The Corporation" without telling me first or giving me any explanation as to why was extremely rude on your part. If you disagree with something I have added, you should have come to me first and said something. Because if you don't, what happens is, I presume the changes didn't take or the save failed, then I'm going to put them back again.

You should have said something to me first if you disagreed with my points before you pulled something out of an article lest you trigger an edit war. Do not do that again. I would have said "Please don't do that again" but your rudeness shows you need to be strongly told that you're making a mistake. I've been an editor here for three years, you generally don't make those kinds of changes without at least trying to act in good faith first. Paul Robinson (Rfc1394) (talk) 19:59, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * My reply. Dynablaster (talk) 23:29, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Flag carrier
AeroSur is displayed on the flag carrier page as bolivia's flag carrier.And AeroSur is owned as a minority (48%) by the Bolivian government.Government majority may not necessarily mean 'flag carrier'. It would be okay to include 'along with AeroSur'. This case is not like the USA,which has no official flag carrier. I urge you to stop being rude and edit my editions improperly(I have researched on them properly).If you have problem with recognising Wikipedia's article on flag carrier(it is a reliable source),You can talk to me on my talk page. LeUrsidae96 (talk) 11:20, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Please provide a reliable source. That is all I have to say. Dynablaster (talk) 13:04, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

NPOV tag
Please do not remove the NPOV tag until issues have been resolved. The Qana article is full of controversial assertions and incomplete information and is not reliable. In any event, NPOV tags should not be removed unless there is some level of consensus that the issue has been resolved, or - which is more often the case - those in opposition are bullied into submission. --Leifern (talk) 14:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Page number?
Since it is from a book, could you please add a page number to your Arnove citation in Iraq sanctions? DougHill (talk) 22:30, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure. Dynablaster (talk) 22:46, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks! DougHill (talk) 05:30, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I gave my reasons for the edit to Nurse Nayirah on the discussion page. It does not conform to wikipedia's standards —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.166.14.146 (talk) 14:29, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

World Soccer Daily
Wanted to give you a heads up that people are adding POV and unsourced material to the World Soccer Daily page in addition to the Steven Cohen one. The World Soccer Daily page isn't protected for some reason so there's the usual IP address nonsense as well. Mikerichi (talk) 03:07, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Khidir Hamza
The Fact of weather or not Hamza is a fraud or not is subject to debate but the fact is that Number 1 Wikipedia is not for us to debate this and Number 2 is that Hamza is a source of intelligence for the government (he testified to the Senate Foreign Relations committee in 2002 in the lead up to the Iraq War) so that must obviously mean something. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rezashah4 (talk • contribs) 22:43, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It's really not subject to debate; the man exaggerated his credentials and told falsehoods about Iraq's weapons capability. Dynablaster (talk) 23:26, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

You recent reverts to Muhammad al-Durrah
Hi! You recently reverted my changed on the Muhammad al-Durrah article, linking to a page that has a list of articles and op-eds talking about various things. Could you please join the discussion on talk, and kindly list the specific parties that claim it was a hoax? Please note – I'm not asking for a list of sources; a bunch of sources that all say that the same people think that this was a hoax over and over again isn't helpful. We need a list of who considers the shooting to be a hoax, with sources to support each person or group on that list. Thanks! ← George [ talk  ] 15:27, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I actually have no idea if these people are crackpots or not, or how many of them are. I just have an allergic reaction to weasel words that editors haven't provided sources for. I don't plan to revert you right now either. I'm really hoping that someone will reply on the talk page with a properly source list of who exactly considers the event a hoax. Then we can decide what the proper wording of the statement in the lead should be. Cheers. ← George [ talk  ] 01:42, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

AfD review
I can see what you mean about some of those guys (particularly Equazcion and DownloaderProf). Sojourner has other Torrent related edits, though. And Equazcion actually noted an objection to Prof (that it was his only edit). Plus no one voted object, so it wouldn't alter the AfD result. Definitely bring it up at Sockpuppet investigations if you really suspect these accounts. Staxringold talkcontribs 14:44, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Your revision on Jimmy Carter
Please do not revise when I explain the reasons.Tannim1 (talk) 11:26, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Your edit summary is circular. Dynablaster (talk) 12:14, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

You may be interested
Given your post here, in User talk:Asteriks. What are your thoughts? I will watch your talk page. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 18:17, 14 September 2009 (UTC)