User talk:MalesAlwaysBest

Your recent editing history at Timeline of the Syrian civil war (from September 2012) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Discussion is ongoing, so stop reverting. Sopher99 (talk) 19:30, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The policy of the 2012 Syrian Civil War timeline articles has been to have no mention of the slogans, and you've sought to breach or change that policy with the current timeline article. Well if you want the change then you put the case and you marshal support for it. Still waiting to see that materialise: me and 8 others. And don't forget to supply one of those scolding templates that you're handing out in the exact same terms to your own talkpage. There's a pal.MalesAlwaysBest (talk) 21:05, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit war
I am complaining about you edit warring here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Yworo_reported_by_User:Doncsecz_.28Result:_Declined.29 Sopher99 (talk) 19:45, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Bring it on, bud. But wait, you won't. How could one have predicted that scale of cowardice from one of those associating with that corner?? MalesAlwaysBest (talk) 23:53, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Your contributed article, List of Syrian Civil War propaganda slogans


Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, List of Syrian Civil War propaganda slogans. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – Timeline of the Syrian civil war (from September 2012). Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Timeline of the Syrian civil war (from September 2012) – you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think that the article you created should remain separate, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:48, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

An Idea
If you delete this article and re create an article called

List of Friday names during the Syrian civil war

I can remove all those Friday names from the timeline and put it there. I will simply add a link on the top of the timeline page for the list of Friday names. Sopher99 (talk) 22:35, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I've defended your effort at the suppression of the documenting article which exists and is entirely needed and appropriate, and happy with the defence I've put. Knock yourself out with the attempts to kill, which started with your not even attempting to find and link to a known CSD rationale category. Your ultimatum's rejected.MalesAlwaysBest (talk) 22:45, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The subject matter of propaganda slogans of this war is not so broad that it needs splitting up and narrowing into just Friday names (which, my, would only document one side!). We have seen slogans which are not Friday names (eg. 'Christians to Beirut, Alawites to the coffin') and which are operational and campaign names held to by the people and their government in a number of the specific antiterrorism efforts against those styling themselves 'rebels'. Such things are not of the come-and-gone-in-a-week moldMalesAlwaysBest (talk) 23:45, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Darkness Shines (talk) 00:00, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

December 2012
Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to List of Syrian Civil War propaganda slogans. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Jeancey (talk) 00:11, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on List of Syrian Civil War propaganda slogans. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Darkness Shines (talk) 00:12, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
 * Gee, the Syrian Opposition seeks to rally people to its partisan goals with its unending stream of constantly shifting slogans boasting about itself or lying about its influence and blaming and vilifying others. That's controversial or somehow unverifiable?MalesAlwaysBest (talk) 00:33, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Ever heard the term "Two wrongs don't make a right?" If you are so sure that the titles are POV, then you have no reason NOT to wait for a new discussion to take place, since if it is so obvious then other people will see it too, right? Adding extremely POV statements to an article is NOT going to help your position at all. Jeancey (talk) 00:39, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Have a look on the talkpage of the Jan-April '12 timeline article and you'll see a discussion was had then and what the outcome was. Someone having a willingness to fuh-get that and restart a failed campaign doesn't make me a 'wrong' in what I've stood up and defended.MalesAlwaysBest (talk) 01:37, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of sixty hours for edit-warring and disruption at Timeline of the Syrian civil war (September 2012 - December 2012). Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. --  tariq abjotu  03:43, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

WP:NPOV
Read it, stop POV pushing. You just got off a block, do you want another? Darkness Shines (talk) 15:44, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you give me an example of any statement in the history of mankind that doesn't disclose a 'POV'. Keen to be informedMalesAlwaysBest (talk) 15:48, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * All men are created equal. There you go. Also read WP:NPA Do not accuse editors of dishonesty. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:55, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Wow, and that doesn't have the POV that implies involvement of a Creator or process which can be given the name of 'creation'. Oh wait maybe it does, however there's no other possible alternative viewpoints on that dependent idea, or upon the general concept expressed either. What's the 'personal attack' in highlighting the dishonesty of a powertrip bunch of raping murderers who seek to deflect scrutiny with the old playbook maneuvre of constantly shifting propaganda slogans demanding accountability of everything and anything but themselves?MalesAlwaysBest (talk) 16:34, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of List of Syrian Civil War slogans for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of Syrian Civil War slogans is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/List of Syrian Civil War slogans until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:50, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:06, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of a fortnight for move warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Salvio Let's talk about it! 16:32, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Write your reasons against the move and I will copy them over to the talk page. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:00, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Just cut out the silencing and step back altogether from the bullying which has started from the moment I came from block.
 * Propaganda is "a form of communication that is aimed at influencing the attitude of a community toward some cause or position by presenting only one side of an argument. Propaganda is usually repeated and dispersed over a wide variety of media in order to create the chosen result in audience attitudes." How oh how on God's earth is that not --exactly-- what every one of those worthless dishonest anti-Syria slogans amounts to?MalesAlwaysBest (talk) 16:56, 30 December 2012 (UTC)}}
 * Is that what you want copied over? Not a very compelling argument and not founded in policy. But if you want I will copy it over. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:11, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

The slogans are all boastful, dishonest, manipulative, and various shades of aggressive and threatening. None of them make any overture at reconciliation, or acknowledge the viewpoint and core human dignity of their opponents, or the sanity of the desire of most people to have nothing to do with their ideology of spoiling into the cockfight. In short: atrociously, and blatantly one-sided with deliberacy of intention to be that way. Just google 'Syrian Civil War propaganda' and you see what I mean. There is no way 'The only terrorist in Syria is Assad' is not pitching to be propaganda.MalesAlwaysBest (talk) 16:56, 30 December 2012 (UTC)}}
 * The neutral point of view policy is one of Wikipedia's most important rules. Should all articles with 'slogan' in the title be changed to 'propaganda,' or only the articles related to the Syrian Civil War?  Why? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:35, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Let's face it. All these slogans come from the bad guys for their anti-Syria purposes. Outside of these, sure, there are slogans that aren't of the character of propaganda. The Rumble in the Jungle is an example; it just raises the profile and awareness of a sporting event. Even in relation to war, there are non-propaganda slogans such as "The War to End All Wars", "Great War", and "World War I" which all belligerents to that conflict approved as accurate enough and objective. But the Syrian Opposition rapes, murders and propagandises like you or I eat, sleep and breath. These Friday names all variously put out the message that their opponent warrants no mercy, that they are the only people wronged, that their opponent has inferior human dignity which makes them undeserving to enter dialogue with, that your neutrality from them is a mark of evil, or that they are the only martyrs and the only ones who speak for God. It becomes a DISservice not to acknowledge things of that spirit as propaganda. Only bought and sold sheeple indoctrinees of their own camp would raise an effort to deny it.MalesAlwaysBest (talk) 22:45, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Your argument - that most slogans should remain 'slogan,' but slogans of the Syrian Opposition should be renamed 'propaganda' because they are the bad guys- might be true. However, because it doesn't meet the requirements of the neutral point of view policy, it will be ignored at Wikipedia.  If, as you say, you think that it is evil to write about this subject in a neutral way, then you should avoid writing about this subject at Wikipedia - you won't be able to follow the rules without violating your own conscience.  Instead, write about subjects that you can approach in the spirit of the neutral point of view policy.  Don't feel badly; we all have subjects on which our feelings are so strong that we cannot remain neutral, and most of us avoid those subjects or engage in them very, very carefully.  -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:23, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Were you listening, and thinking at the same time, at all? It -lacks- 'neutrality' to describe actual propaganda slogans, of which you seem to accept the arguability of their quality as that, as some euphemism short of that. It would be like renaming 'List of Syrian Civil War battles' to 'List of public places where opposing armies in the Syrian Civil War met each other'.
 * But with the new year I'll give a thought to not 'feel[ing] badly' that when you dream up a propaganda slogan to enable a band of rapists in their onslaught against a country, you can have it classified as something blander and less than that for the sake of a fear of controversy and the wanting to make a show that there can be some sort of illusory evenhandedness between pure evil and corrupt-and-distant-but-at-least-not-harmful. After all, no-one can be all bad & everyone has their reasons. Even rapists are nice to their own dogs, right? And one gang's outrageous claim to be soldiers of God, can at the same time be another gang's self-evident revelation of the Truth which could not conceivably be admitted to have the character of propaganda by an encyclopaedist standing objectively. Not.
 * Why is the above still not being added into the talkpage rename discussion, and why should I accept the humiliation of having to sit in the naughty chair and talk to myself for two weeks when it's not yet been concluded that I'm incorrect? I'm yet to be personally convinced that I am & it might even be there.MalesAlwaysBest (talk) 02:35, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Who knows? Maybe consensus will agree with you that 'propaganda' is the right word, especially if you can show that it is entirely neutral and factual.  When your block expires, you can still make that argument, and see if others will agree with you that it's the most factual, most neutral term.  But don't repeatedly revert other users until you have consensus- that's the behavior that keeps resulting in you being blocked, and unable to participate in reaching consensus. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:24, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The name that I moved the article to is the name it remains to have and which is also the name it originated with and which it must continue to have while the deletion debate remains unfinalised (because who ever heard of the topic of a debate being changed before the debaters had finished debating it). Continuing to silence me the for pretext offered is therefore a hypocrisy and a demonstration of corruption. What will -you- do about it?MalesAlwaysBest (talk) 02:02, 1 January 2013 (UTC)