User talk:McLieberman

How do I file a Dispute? Where and How?

I will not tolerate being accused of posting falsified or personal view information, when all have been posting is VERBATIM from facts and links by publishing and media outlets. I included the links to the information to backup my edits. Is this how WIKI works? Anyone can be accused of Falsehoods, even though the text and information is valid, accurate, and verbatim from printed media and historical articles?

I would like to file a dispute against the owner of the: Dwight D. Eisenhower WIKI page.

Thanks

September 2009
Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Wuh Wuz  Dat  12:46, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Wuh Wuz  Dat  12:46, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

This is the final warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. The next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Wuh Wuz  Dat  12:50, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

How do I file a Dispute? Where and How?

I will not tolerate being accused of posting falsified or personal view information"...by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles...", when all posting is VERBATIM from facts and links by publishing and media outlets. I included the links to the information to backup my edits. Is this how WIKI works? Anyone can be accused of Falsehoods, even though the text and information is valid, accurate, and verbatim from printed media and historical articles? The Truth must be known to all and there's extensive, valid, and accurate historical information on this very important part of history.

I would like to file a dispute against the owner of the: Dwight D. Eisenhower WIKI page.

Thanks


 * First, there is no "owner" of the article. Second, Wikipedia has a neutral point of view policy, saying that different points of view must be represented fairly. Evil saltine (talk) 13:42, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I have read the NPOV... it does not apply to what I edited... It was verbatim text of the subtitle and a extensive publication with detail facts, print and pictures of evidence. Next, if Google analytics comes back with almost 80,000 "HITS" on "EISENHOWER DEATH CAMPS".. plenty of facts, information, avenues of historical information in Print and archives... The whole description of 'neutrality' doesn't even apply to historical facts and documented information.

Who decides what facts are filtered out and what is filtered in? Does the information go to an international panel on World War II history to mediate/arbitrate/Censor/Publishing of facts? Is there an arbitrary board that sits down and rules not to post this Factual and Critical portion of historical evidence?

If that's the rebut, I presume WIKI rewrites history to THEIR liking or is there another motive like the highest donator or by a powerful organization or influence? Maybe... just delete the facts that hide the: bad press or side/disasters/skeletons in the closets/demons of famous presidents?

Heaven forbid anyone censor Holocausts post or pages... BTW, your WIKI page on Abraham Lincoln is another inaccurate deletion of historical facts page that appears to be quite censored or should I state "neutral".

It's apparently sad... maybe the WIKIPEDIA site should be changed to: WIKIReWriteOfHistory.org or WIKINEUTRAL.org a popup window warning viewers to put Rose-Colored glasses On, prior to viewing this site.

It's all verifiable... research it, I did.
 * The claims you are making are addressed in the article Other Losses. If you would like to add information to the Dwight D. Eisenhower article when your block expires, please discuss it on the talk page instead of getting into an edit war. Evil saltine (talk) 23:50, 8 September 2009 (UTC)