User talk:Nwe

Israel
Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. HawkerTyphoon 19:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * You have a history of making PoV edits to articles, and I do believe that the edit you've made to the Lebanon article is in bad faith. You're not adding anything new to the article, you're just throwing in vague statements about how Israel are to blame for the war. May I suggest you make your edit into a single paragraph, and read it, re-write it, then add it as a large chunk? Most of what you're adding is already mentioned in the article anyway. HawkerTyphoon 19:56, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. As a member of the Wikipedia community, I would like to remind you of Wikipedia's neutral-point-of-view policy for editors. In the meantime, please be bold and continue contributing to Wikipedia. Thank you! yandman 15:54, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Please stop pushing pro-Fhizzballah propaganda into articles. That is not NPOV. Cerebral Warrior 11:02, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * CW, you are aware that Lebanon isn't Hezbollah, right? In the same way that Ireland isn't the IRA? yandman  12:25, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. --Strothra 14:42, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Please start behaving like a proper member of the wikipedia community.Nwe 14:50, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

For the record, this was the article he found too distateful and personally insulting to allow on his talk page. So far he has avoided any discussion whatsover on this topic, depsite several prompts and offers of compromise on my behalf.

"You're right it is ridiculous that you think my edits are "clear POV". Why don't you come onto the talk page and discuss this like a man if you feel so strongly about it?"

Nwe 14:54, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


 * For the record, you were not give the warning for that, you were given the warning for your edit summary stating, "strothra is a political vandal who clearly can't back up his edits with even the most prosaic form of debate." But yes, the comment which you stated is also provoking. --Strothra 15:01, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


 * You deny that you were avoiding any form of discussion with me over the article?Nwe 15:07, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Lebanon
I have a problem with editors who violate 3RR in order to push a POV. I also have a problem with editors who use personal attacks agianst other editors. when you are ready to become civil and abide by WP policy, I'll discuss the contents of your edits with you. Isarig 15:43, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I am not pushing POV, I am sailing close to the wind on 3RR but in order to push NPOV, and I do not make personal attacks, I was making a comment on the fact that that editor was making repetitively reverts and refusing to justify his them in discussion.Nwe 15:54, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Calling naother editor a 'political vandal' is a personal attaack. It is sad that you do not realize this. An apology to Strotha is in order. Isarig 15:59, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Accusing someone of vandalism is not a personal attack, merely an observation on the pattern of his edits. I would apoligise to Strotha if he/she apoligised to me for deleting my messages, which was what prompted me to make the comment in the first place.Nwe 16:01, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Calling another editor a 'political vandal' is a personal attaack. It is sad that you do not realize this. An apology to Strotha is in order. You are having a content dispute with that editor - they way to resolve it is through discussion on the talk page, not through repeated reverts and personal attacks. Isarig 16:07, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree completely, tell that to him and observe my many attempts to engage in discussion with him and on the talk page. Please, also, do not pretend that your motivation here is upholding the standards of wikipedia, you seem to dedicate you entire time on this site defending Israel in some way or another.Nwe 16:14, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * And you seem to be intent on pushing pro-Moslem, anti-Israel propaganda onto Wikipedia. Anti-Semitism will not be tolerated here. Cerebral Warrior 16:19, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


 * CW please go and educate yousrself on the issues involved in the middle-east comflict, try to challenge your anti-Muslim bias and then come back and make a useful contribution to these discussions.Nwe 16:22, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * In defense of Nwe, I do not see how his edits were pro-Muslim (not that there's anything wrong with being pro-Muslim, whatever that even means) and anti-semetic. I would say that his edits were POV in that it his edits paint Lebanon as an innocent victim.  It's unfortunate that all sides seem to be denying resposibility when there's plenty of blame to be spread around - this culture of victimization where no one wants to assume any responsibility (on both sides) is sad and only promotes POV edits such as this one.  --Strothra 16:31, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Strothra, where do my edits paint Lebanon as an innocent victim?Nwe 16:33, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Let's not forget who the real victims are. Cerebral Warrior 15:35, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * That's exactly the sort of polarization I'm speaking about. You would say that the lives of children and people killed (the deaths included many Christians) in Lebanon are worth less than those of individuals killed in Israel (who were actually mostly Muslim, not Jewish).  Such polarization, on both sides, gets no one anywhere.  Coming from an family who's had many people serve in the American Navy, I've never been sympathetic to Israel lest we forget the USS Liberty - I had an uncle who was wounded on that ship by the Israeli attack.  Neither side in this conflict, and in other Arab-Israeli conflicts, are innocent. The only innocent people are the many non-comabatans who have been needlessly killed on both sides. --Strothra 17:32, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * So the innocent Jewish women and children whome the Islamofascists murder are not innocent? Cerebral Warrior 11:36, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Strothra, stop trying to portray yourself as moderate when you continue to insist on a PoV background to the July War.Nwe 17:50, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Both of the versions are POV, but replacing one with another is not helping anything or contributing to the project. Also, it was not a war eventhough certain individuals have called it so.  A war is something that occurs between states, the Lebanese government did not engage in combat informally or formally. --Strothra 01:13, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Nwe, you can't compare Israel to Palestine. Israel is a democratic, free country which is recognised by the UN. Palestine is a non-existent state founded by a terrorist, and as such its illegitimate residents should consider themselves lucky to not have been annhiliated by Israel. As for Lebanon, any country whose residents vote for Moslem fanatics probably deserves to be bombed, in my opinion. Cerebral Warrior 11:36, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Errr... The USA was founded by "terrorists", as was Israel. yandman  12:05, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * "illegitimate residents"...interesting because that's exactly what Hitler considered the Jews in Germany right before he started to annihilate them...your ideas are only a step away from that. It doesn't bother you that you think like him?  Also, Haganah and Irgun were Israeli Zionist terrorist organizations which were instrumental in founding Israel.  For instance, Haganah was run my Menecham Begin (who became Prime Minister) and blew up a British embassy in order to get the British to leave.  They killed 17 people.  The Israeli bombing of the USS Liberty in 1967 killed nearly 70 Naval servicemen yet Israel didn't apologize for sinking the ship and Congress made no formal demands from Israel. --Strothra 12:22, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

User notice: temporary 3RR block
Regarding reversions made on October 28 2006 to 2006_Israel-Lebanon_conflict You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. The duration of the block is 24 hours.

No matter how strongly you feel on this, please stay within 3RR and avoid personal attacks.

William M. Connolley 16:39, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Evading your block with IPs is a bad idea. Don't do it again or your block will be extended William M. Connolley 18:15, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah man no matter how true your edit is, you should comply with WP:3RR. Keep struggling! Nielswik(talk) 17:35, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

3RR again, I am afraid
You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. The duration of the block is 48 hours. -- Avi 05:17, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Please comment (the Cerebral Warrior issue)
User_talk:Cerebral_Warrior crazyeddie 15:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

East Jerusalem
I can live without the mention of Jerusalem day, though I still feel it is relevant. However, unless you can cite sources about the "difficulties" of East Jerusalem residents, they should not be included. --יהושועEric 21:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Your East Jerusalem source, which displays heavy bias and is written by a religious group, makes no reference to the "daily human rights violations" that you imply. Please find a neutral source to back this claim. Limiting building restrictions is in the fair rights of a municipality. In addition, the limiting of access by non-citizen Palestinians is also completely legal. All Palestinians living in Jerusalem were offered Israeli citizenship in 1967. Those who do not have citizenship choose not to take it. Israeli citizens (including all legal residents of the Arab sections of Jerusalem) are granted full access to Israeli schools, health care, welfare programs, and free movement in the country. This is as with almost all free countries in the world. Limiting access by illegal residents is also usual, as takes place in the United States, for example, in dealing with Mexican illegal immigration. A fair source that can backup this claim with factual evidence is a fair request. --יהושועEric 22:07, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Where is the bias and is it inaccurate in the facts it states, and what's wrong with it being written by a religious group? I also never described "daily human rights violations", I believe the phrase to be accurate, but you used it, not me. Whether or not the Arabs of East Jerusalem are Israeli citizens has nothing to do with whether or not they experience hardship in their daily lives. Nor does the fact that the laws that cause this hardship are "in the fair rights of a municipality". You are forgetting that we are only discussing the accuracy of the claim that Arabs in East Jerusalem suffer as a result Israeli laws imposed on them, not the shoddy justification given for these laws? Nwe 22:28, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I added a new paragraph containing your addition plus sources describing Israeli actions specifically to aid Arab citizens, including those of eastern Jerusalem. --יהושועEric 22:33, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I did a bit of copyedit work and tried to balance out some of the wording, while still leaving in both the Arab and Israeli POV. I hope this one can be agreed upon.  Please let me know what you think. --יהושועEric 23:00, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Done. --יהושועEric 23:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You have no clue what you are talking about - do you even live in Jerusalem? I do. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Eliyyahu (talk • contribs) 11:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC).


 * What an anti-Palestinian Israeli "thinks" is not relevant to the creation of an accurate, unbiased article. Do you deny that after both 1948 and 1967 Palestinians were forced out of their homes and new Jewish settlements set up in their place? That, to me, is theft. It's true that the boundaries are a bit arbitrary, but the point you seem to be missing is that the Arabs are entitled to a respectable proportion of the former British mandate of Palestine simply along the lines of equal rights, including part of Jerusalem, and the accidental borders created by history will have to do, in truth the whole of the West Bank and Gaza is the least they are entitled to considering there were more Arabs living in the area than Jews upon Israel's foundation. Masses of information and common sense back up my "inflammatory rhetoric"(give examples of this could you, certainly my version of the article, which is what my source backs up, could not be described thus). I'm really saying nothing new or, at that, anything that should be controversial to neutral ears. As I have said, what you "think", or what I think for that matter, is really irrelevent here. Far less funding will still be provided to Arab areas for health, education or infrastructure. Arabs have an infant mortality rate twice that of Jews. Human Rights Watch has found that "Government-run Arab schools are a world apart from government-run Jewish schools. In virtually every respect, Palestinian Arab children get an education inferior to that of Jewish children " Arabs who do receive good education often find it difficult to receive professional Jobs. Both Teddy Kollek and Ehud Olmert openly and proudly trumpeted their disdain for East Jerusalem's Arabs. And planning laws openly keep Arab residents under siege, leading to cramped living conditions. Meanwhile Palestinians who do have Israeli citizenship can't even legally marry their compatriots in the West Bank.As for my source, can a site a that calls for "a lasting peace...that provides justice and security for all peoples living in the region" be termed as "anti-Israel"? And can being run by a non-heirarchical religion that seeks world peace and inner sancity really by used against it? As for apartheid, in so far as "apartheid" implies racial segregation and discrimation, the term is quite accurate. By the by, don't you at all find the PA's position on Jerusalem so much more moderate than your own government. It recognises your right to exist, you guys won't even let Palestine exist, or accept Palestinian refugees' right to return to their stolen homes. And they only claim half of Jerusalem, whereas you INSIST on it all. But that's all probably beyond this discussion.Nwe 23:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Your info about infant mortality is nonsense - have you compared Palestian infant mortality to that of Arab contries? I can assure you it is far smaller, in fact, the reason why Arabs moved en masse to Palestine in the beginning of the 20th century was because of educated Jewish doctors that would treat them. Because of the terrorist war and kidnapping unleashed agaist Israel, Israelis (Jews and Arabs alike) are currently not allowed to travel to the PA areas, regardless whether they want to marry anyone - this is only reasonable, and is for their own safety. As for people being forced out of their houses during the 1948 War of Independence, it happened on both sides, for example Jews being expelled from Gaza and Hebron in 1929, or Jerusalem Old City and Gush Etzion in 1948.
 * If you want to talk about apartheid and discrimination, just look at the way Ottoman Turks for five hundred years were running the place before the British mandate - only Muslims got building permits and Jews and Christians were rarely allowed access to their holy cites. Or maybe you think Romans ran this country better? Or the Byzantines? Assyrians? Jewish rule is the most humane and the only one justifiable historically. Don't tell me the PA recognises Israel's right to exist because they openly say that they don't - Israel is here by historical right and if you have complaints, you should complain to the One who is in charge of history. The Jews and Christians are barred from living in Saudi Arabia, even though Khaybar, Medina etc were originally Jewish cities. On the contrary, Jerusalem is open to all religions, although if we went by the Bible, only Jews should be allowed here (I am not advocating that). The bottom line is that Muslim Arabs have 21 states in the regions - and are trying to take over the formely Christian Lebanon - this struggle is all about pride - they cannot be reconciled with the tiny industrial and progressive Israel in the midst of a backwater mediaeval region run by fanatical mullahs and dictators of the Assad/Saddam mould. Eliyyahu 14:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Nwe, you say "the AFSC is not anti-Israeli" (or anti-Israel, as I wrote). I invite you to Google < American Friends Service Committee anti-Israel > and see what comes up - especially the "ON CAMERA" column. You might be surprised. Hertz1888 15:33, 30 June 2007 (UTC) Hertz, Believe it or not, the assertions of a devoutly partisan blog are not regarded by WP policy as proof of an organisation's position. The blog also calls Amnesty International anti-Israeli, but I doubt that would be accepted on their page, in fact it would probably be regarded as vandalism. A group that calls for "a just and lasting peace for Palestinians and Israelis"( see ) cannot be called anti-Israeli.Nwe 15:57, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Israel Occupied Territories - Gaza
Please explain how Gaza is still considered occupied? All Israeli forces withdrew and all Jewish families were forcibly removed from the area. --יהושועEric 21:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You can see yourself on the actual article on Gaza itself, Israel still controls maritime access and airspace.Nwe 21:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: 2006 War in Lebanon
I moved your comment to and replied here.  Tewfik Talk 18:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know if you noticed, but I removed that version so that it does not read kidnap any more per your message. You don't like that word, and the other side doesn't like capture. Compromise means both sides give a little, and neither is completely happy. The options are either using both words, or using some other formulation. As you think the first option is even worse than before, the only other choice is a third word. Abduct was chosen as an in between; George suggested "took hostage" (I personally don't like it, but I was willing to accede), but I again remind you that if you can figure out some other language, by all means bring it to the table. Cheers,  Tewfik Talk 07:30, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

John Prescott: Contentious events
Please stop removing the summary of this article from John Prescott. If you want to summarise the subsidiary article in a better form that is fine but it must be summarised and that you have not done. If you disagree then take the matter to the talk page. BlueValour 16:54, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Kadima
Why do you bother sticking in templates to articles like this when it takes a minute to find a source on google? It would be far more helpful to wikipedia to do that rather than demanding references for facts that most people recognise to be true. Number  5  7  08:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but the claim that kadima is regarded as centrist by most of the western media is extremely dubious and subjective, and it is absolutely not recognised by most people, certainly not by me, to be true. An unsourced claim such as that is a threat to Wikipedia's neutrality and verifiability.Nwe 17:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You still haven't answered the question: Why didn't you take a minute to go and find a source on google and actually improve Wikipedia? Number   5  7  08:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Because I do not want to spend my time attempting to verify a claim that I believe to be false. If other people believed in that dubious statement, it was their responsibility to back it up. There are other areas of wikipedia far more deserving of my time.Nwe 19:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

August 2007
Please do not add unsourced or original content, as you did to Iraq War. Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. ''Don't add this unsourced nonsense to articles. Happy editing!'' VegitaU 16:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I am tempted to remove this extremely uncivil message, but for the time being I will leave. This post is a nonsense and demonstrates undue aggression on the part of this user. For the actual edit to which he is objecting, see here
 * BTW, I replied to your post on my talk page. -- VegitaU 17:11, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Jenin
I know that this now may make it look like an exhortation to gang up and help each other in the editing process - but I did just want to say thank you for (unintentionally) making me feel today that I am not alone or mad when it comes to dealing with this crazy article and some of the people who seem to think they have taken charge of it and seem impervious to any rational debate, or statement of the obvious, which happens to contradict their own deeply held beliefs. And to think I only started here (anonymously under an old IP address) editing out typos in film articles. Btw I have also posted this on G-Dett's talk page --Nickhh 19:49, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

minor edits
Please remember to mark your edits as minor when (and only when) they genuinely are minor edits (see Minor edit). Marking a major change as a minor one (and vice versa) is considered poor etiquette. The rule of thumb is that only an edit that consists solely of spelling corrections, formatting changes, or rearranging of text without modifying content should be flagged as a 'minor edit.' --Oneiros 18:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Huh? I didn't mark any edits to Gulf War as minor.Nwe 16:44, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I haven't got a response on this, I'll take it it was a complete mistake, i'll leave here for the craic for the moment.Nwe 20:39, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Bertie Ahern
Please stop removing Bertie Ahern's highly controversial suicide remarks from his entry on Wikipedia, they are very relevant to the article and please use your time to do more constructive editing besides removing details like this. --Netwhizkid (talk) 13:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * They were not "highly controversial" they were in the news for one day and barely anyone no remembers them. I advise you to check-up on WP:IINFO. Its also inadvisable to make comments on the edits or time-comsumption of a particular editor, seeWP:NPA.Nwe (talk) 15:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Persecution of Christians
I noticed you removed an image from Persecution of Christians, with the comment, "that's related to the persecution of an ethnic minority which is different, we also have context in a case like that, we also have none here &the image is misleading terms whole article". I was wondering if you could expain this--I'm not really an expert on Spanish history. Which ethnic minority is being persecuted in the photo? And how is the desecration of a statue of Jesus by anti-clericalists to be parsed from persecution of Christians? A lot of religious persecution has ethnic persecution at its root. Thanks for your help. MishaPan (talk) 01:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi, you misunderstood my edit summary, I was responding to your parallel with Nazi persecution of the Jews, pointing out that I felt this was an inappropriate parallel, since that's ethnic persecution. It's not a big point I want to pursue, I just feel that it's a false analogy. My main objections, I think, to the use of this image is:
 * 1. It's disputable whether vandalism of this kind counts as religous persecution, from my point of view religious persecution should consist of attacks on people or communities for their beliefs.


 * 2. We have no evidence, or none that I've seen, that this image is anything more than a symbolic announcement of defiance against the Church, since while there was a large amount of church property in the Civil War, actual persecution of clergy was less common.


 * 3. The Spanish Civil War is itself a bad illustration of persecution of Christians. It was more an attack on the institution of the Catholic Church in Spain for its political views, not on Christians for their religion so to speak. In fact there is at least one description I've heard of people burning churches and then the same people proceeding to attend religious services in its sinders a week later.Nwe (talk) 01:29, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Nwe. I see your point. There is certainly enough ambiguity with regard to motive to warrant the image's removal. Thank you for your time. MishaPan (talk) 01:38, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Milton Friedman & the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences
Since you restored text about Milton Friedman to the Nobel prize controversies article, could you please comment about it in Talk:Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences? I moved the text to the Controversies and criticisms section of the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences article but another editor keeps removing it stating that it's not true. Thanks! –panda (talk) 14:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Economic Freedom:3RR
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.--Doopdoop (talk) 23:17, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * My apologies for the 3RR breach. In my defense, it was by four minutes, I was aware that it was my second revert today, and that i'd made two yesterday, one quite late, however I was not aware that they over-lapped as they did. Further in my defense, it was in my continued attempts to maintain an NPOV opening paragraph, which was being obstructively reverted with no adequate explanation and no engagement on talk. Nwe (talk) 23:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Query on edit to Frederick I, Holy Roman Emperor
Hello, I have a question for you regarding this edit you made to the Frederick I, Holy Roman Emperor article. Specifically, I am not sure what this is supposed to mean: ...Frederick further appeased Henry by issueing him with the Privilegium Minus, granting him unprecented entitlements as Duke of Austria, in the hopes [On June 9 1156 at Würzburg, Frederick married Beatrice of Burgundy, daughter and heiress... On the assumption that the ", in the hopes [" part is extraneous, I have deleted it. However if this is incorrect, please revise as you see fit. Thanks, Kralizec! (talk) 22:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Milton Friedman, again.
Perhaps you ought to read the articles people suggest--rather than just the summaries--before insulting them. I recommended a multi-page whitepaper on Klein and you accuse me of dismissing Klein based on four paragraphs, moving on to suggest that I am incapable of judging criticism of people with whom I substantially agree. By my standards both your decision to lie about my source and your insinuation that I am not capable to judge criticism are profoundly rude. Perhaps, where you are from or in your profession you have a lower standard of decency. It looks given the contents of this talk page that you have a history of bad behavior on Wikipedia. Bkalafut (talk) 09:00, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Even people having psychotic episodes can edit Wikipedia, too, but as long as you believe that others believe that Milton Friedman is a god, as you wrote on that article's talk page, don't expect to be taken seriously. Take your meds, chill out a bit, research the topic a little more, then come back and join the discussion.  Of course, if you can find some reliable sources documenting a cult/"new religious movement" centered on a deified Friedman, start an article (and I'll eat my shoe!)Bkalafut (talk) 01:11, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Since you are wondering what you did to offend me:
You began by telling me that I based my assessment of the merits of Klein's book on four off-the-cuff paragraphs, a brazen attempt to make me look like an idiot. You moved on to suggest that "supporters of Friedman" can't fairly judge his critics, as though our intellectual capacities go out the window. And then, a few posts later, there was that Friedman/God thing. Don't be so sanctimonious as to invoke Wikipedia etiquette when it was you who first came out with fists swinging. Quid pro quo is fair. If you want to roll in the mud, I'll roll in the mud.

We have what seems to be an intractable disagreement on Wikipedia's policy regarding reliable vs fringe sources. I maintain that "fringe" is context dependent, you maintain that we as Wikipedia editors must treat all popularly notable opinions the same regardless of their context. (Correct me if I'm wrong re: your position.) Ancillary to that, I stand by my contention that in the context of economic history, Klein's views are fringe.

By the way, having read your post to my talk page, I'm now more convinced of both your good faith and your sanity. Bkalafut (talk) 07:13, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

such a party pooper
he IS darth kirchner. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.30.155.114 (talk) 18:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Suggesting Changes to Milton Friedman Article
I've requested a reassessment of the good article status of the Milton Friedman article based on lack of neutrality, and have added a POV tag to the article. Please join the discussion, if you are interested. Thanks. Jdstany (talk) 03:48, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Palestinian territories
D'oh! I didn't notice that the sentence referred to the Jordanian/Egyptian occupation, so of course it should refer to the Israeli occupation. I thought it only used the word captured in both instances. Sorry about that. — Malik Shabazz 19:07, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Animal Farm Jewish refutation
I dunno, somewhere along the line there was the suggestion that it was Zionist or something, so I added it in saying it was not. I agree it's not necessary; but there was a reason for putting it there-- I am glad it's taken out of the equation. Best wishes SimonTrew (talk) 03:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually thinking back, I think I just got so fed up with this article getting vandalised I thought I would do a little myself just to see what happened. That's not like me, but this must be one of the most vandalised articles on Wikipedia and I just lost my rag. It is the fairly well established Orwell did not know about the Jewish Holocaust, very few people in England did, and I think in his later diaries he says so himself, though I can't pin that down in my own mind right now. Even so it should be referenced etc. So, it was factually correct, but perhaps a bit of a teaser. SimonTrew (talk) 03:17, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Centre-left
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Centre-left. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Articles for deletion/Centre-left. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:13, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Breakfast Cereal
WP:OR, WP:CITE, WP:OPINION. Thanks, RaseaC (talk) 23:55, 26 November 2009 (UTC).
 * Assuming/opinion, same thing. Just because something isn't sourced doesn't mean other unsourced facts should be added. If any historian is able to tell me that then finding a source should be real easy. Thanks, RaseaC (talk) 00:02, 27 November 2009 (UTC).
 * I would argue not if, as you say, fixing the problem would be so easy. RaseaC (talk) 00:10, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 'a simple fact of history that every historian will tell you' if it's simple it's easy. Googling '17th cnetury dietry habits' is probably a good place to start. I have no interest in the subject and so have no interest in looking for a source, I'm interested in you citing your edits. Anywho, IAR applies in most circumstances so this discussion is essentially moot. RaseaC (talk) 00:31, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

It appears you're unfarmiliar with how Huggle works. Basically it throws up a bunch of pages (one every two seconds or so) and allows an editor to revert glaring inaccuracies (such as uncited opinion). Even an editor with the most diverse interests is going to come across something they're uninterested in if they're looking at 30 pages a minute. The fact of the matter is you made a claim and didn't provide a source. End of. It's unfortunate that you've chosen to reply with such incivilty and in light of that I'm done with this discussion until you can conduct yourself in a way that's more compatible with this community. Thanks, RaseaC (talk) 00:55, 27 November 2009 (UTC).

Occupied Territories
Hey dude, Could you come to Occupied territories and weigh in on the discussion raging regarding your past link edit. Thanks NickCT (talk) 03:23, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:04, 23 November 2015 (UTC)