User talk:Giza D

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! Will (Talk - contribs) 04:00, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Censorship by Administrators
Administrators abuse their authority by banning anyone they disagree with. You are guilty untill proven innocent. Because I have proven that editors like Michael Busch, JRSP and others don't have their facts straight they had me banned.Giza D 20:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Cindy Sheehan
Hi Giza,

First, in the future, it is a good idea to post new messages at the bottom of a user's talk page. As for my revert, here is what you added:


 * Despite the even worse conditions for Cuba's political prisnors. Cindy Sheehan was silent and refused to meet with their families. www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1765168/posts

Please read WP:NPOV. This paragraph is asserting that Sheehan should have addressed the issue of political prisoners in Cuba and that she should have met with their families. Wikipedia can't take positions like this. We can say that somebody criticized Sheehan for something, although that criticism would have to be significant enough to warrant inclusion in an encyclopedia article, but we cannot (even implicitly) criticize her ourselves. GabrielF 19:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Would it be acceptible to say: Cindy Sheehans refused to critize Cuba for holding it's political prisnors?Giza D 19:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * As long as you state the facts precisely, thats okay. You can say something like "Damas de Blanco", a group made up of family members of Cuban dissidents, sent a letter to Sheehan asking her to visit Cuban prisons during her trip to the country. Medea Benjamin, the leader of Sheehan's group said that the activists had not seen the letter from Damas de Blanco and intended to focus only on Guantanemo." You can rewrite that however you want, but the point is that it has to say only what the source says. I would suggest sourcing it to the NY Sun rather than freerepublic. The original Sun article is here: http://www.nysun.com/article/46377 GabrielF 20:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

NPOV policy
Hi, I saw your comments in talk page of Hezbollah. I guess you are a newcomer, thus you aren't familiar with wikipedia policies. In the case of disagreement about one issue like Hezbollah we try to represent all of POV on the basis of WP:NPOV. According to NPOV policy "NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a verifiable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each."

After reading that policy carefully please read Talk:Hezbollah/Archive terrorist allegations. God bless you--Sa.vakilian 13:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I have read and it seems the majority agree that terrorist should be in the beginning of the artical. Wikipedia does not give equal weight to those who deny Global Warming.Giza D 14:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Global warming falls under the Wikipedia ArbCom decisions on science. Politics is a different can of worms. Michaelbusch 20:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Why not remove the alleged

 * The U.N bias is shown in the entry, that Israel is the only one not given full rights. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Giza D (talk • contribs)

In this context, bias implies unfair discrimination. It could be (and has been) argued that the actions of the UN are justified. Wikipedia should not pass judgement on this. Michaelbusch 20:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

But as Israel is the only one who gets treated this way, no Cuba, Zimbawbew Somalia, there is bias.Giza D 21:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * That is a political statement and constitutes WP:OR. Michaelbusch 08:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Your recent edits to United Nations
Please do not add material that violates WP:NPOV and has no consensus for addition. Michaelbusch 20:22, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me you are the one engaged in violating WP:NPOVGiza D 02:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

You may make this judgement, but the edits you are making have no consensus for addition and have considerable consensus for non-inclusion. I have explained that the current wording of the article is best from the standpoints of accuracy and neutrality. Please cease changing the article, or your activities might constitute Vandalism. Michaelbusch 08:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

No you are the one, I've explained why I put the additions on the page you can't argue facts.

If 7 countries are responsible for over 60% of the budget that shows theU.N is being contradictory to claim not dependence on one country. If the U.S and Japan left the orginization would need others to step up or go bankrupt.

Likewise Israel is the only member state not given full rights and is singled out so there is a no bias.

What this is a P.C argument against being critical of the U.N. Giza D 10:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

You apparently do not understand WP:NPOV, WP:OR, and the meaning of consensus. I have tracked your logic three times now, and I find no justification for your additions, on grounds of neutrality and original research. Similar views are held by a number of other editors. I accept all of the facts, but your conclusions are POV and OR and are therefore impermissible on Wikipedia (particularly since you ignored some facts that were relevant). Please cease attempting to add the material. Any further attempts will constitute vandalism. Michaelbusch 23:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Note also: your statements on User talk:UW are blatantly false and could constitute Personal attack, although I am not certain of this. So, again: cease trying to push your views on the UN article.  This will not be tolerated, and I would feel justified in requesting a block if you don't calm down, become civil, and accept Wikipedia policy. Michaelbusch 23:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Michaelbusch I feel the same about your actions, if you look at the financing discussion you are outvoted 2-1. Likewise the fact on the Anti-Israel bias support me.Giza D 01:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Your count is wrong. On financing, user UW and myself have objected.  User Buffadren gave initial support, but has not participated in the later posts.  That would be exact parity, and in any case consensus is not determined by straight straw-polling (esp. when total number is 4).  Again, I must remind you of Wikipedia policy.
 * Re. anti-Israeli bias: I have not disagreed that the facts support you. I have said that we cannot provide verifiable sources demonstrating the bias, and so the 'alleged' must remain.  Note: on the UN talk page, Users Buffadren and Ariedacton and myself have objected, and no-one other than yourself supports removing the word.  So: read and understand WP:NPOV, WP:OR and Verifiability.  I have explained Wikipedia policy four times now.  I am done. Michaelbusch 03:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Ariedartin, not Ariedacton. But I'm fine either way. =D Ariedartin JECJY Talk 03:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

You have explained nothing and do not listen to facts if they don't conform to your view. User Buffadren asked for facts, which are on the link to the alleged bias.Giza D 22:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Unconstructive edits are considered vandalism and immediately reverted. If you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the work of others. Thank you. Michaelbusch 00:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * You should take this to WP:RFAR. Will (Talk - contribs) 06:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Matteo 10:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

It was not an experiment, it was a correction describing a theft.Giza D 12:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * No it was not. Discuss it on the talk page Matteo 13:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Check Wikipedia's definition of theft. Castro is a thief.Giza D 14:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

3RR warning
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. JRSP 22:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

JRSP you try to block anyone who doesn't agree with you. I have checked your discussion logs.Giza D 10:49, 3 March 2007

Luna Santin my edits were not POV. Michael Busch and JRSP are.Giza D 10:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Unblock - The orginal chekuser has been discredited and Luna Satin, Michael Busch and JRSP are blocking me becuase they want to censor those who they don't agree with
 * Unblock Administrators refuse to answer allegation of bias
 * Unblock Administrator Abuse
 * Unbolck Administrator Abuse
 * Unblock I have recieved no reply Essjay is the original Checkuser and he has been discredited