User talk:SeiteNichtGefunden

Welcome
Hi, SeiteNichtGefunden. You seem to be new here so, first off: welcome. Secondly, as to your edits on Guantanamo Bay, they're just not consistent with policy here. You might check out WP:NOT and WP:TIGER to see what I'm talking about. If you have any questions about what I'm saying, don't hesitate to leave a message here or click on my signature and leave a message on my talk page. Oh, and you should be aware that there is a rule here called WP:3RR, which says that you may not revert an edit more than three times in a 24-hour period. Cheers. IronDuke 15:04, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks so much for getting back to me. If you click on the picture itself, you see the image with the original caption which reads:

"'Detainees in orange jumpsuits sit in a holding area under the watchful eyes of Military Police at Camp X-Ray at Naval Base Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, during in-processing to the temporary detention facility on Jan. 11, 2002. The detainees will be given a basic physical exam by a doctor, to include a chest x-ray and blood samples drawn to assess their health. DoD photo by Petty Officer 1st class Shane T. McCoy, U.S. Navy.'"


 * Nowhere does the original caption mention that the detainees are in pain. Is it possible that some of them are in pain? I think it's highly possible. But we aren't really allowed to speculate. It would violate WP:OR and WP:NPOV, which you should read if you have not already.


 * A few points that may help you. 1) Try to sign all you talk page posts with four tildes, ~ . Also, you should probably stop trying to change the caption for now, even if you are right. If you violate WP:3RR, you may be blocked, and I think your next edit would constitute a reversion. Please let me know if you have any more thoughts or questions on this or any other topic here. Cheers. IronDuke  17:19, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Your message to Aude
Hi, I'm going to remove your message from User:Aude and put it on User talk:Aude instead. It's quite a common mistake, especially for newcomers, but user pages are not for communication. Thanks. ElinorD (talk) 08:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

How to sign
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! ElinorD (talk) 10:20, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Atomic bombing of Japan
Hi, I noticed that you've made a few edits labeling the atomic bombing of Japan as a terrorist attack. I'm fairly new to Wikipedia, but it seems like they have a really strict policy about not labeling events or organization as objectively "terrorist". I disagree with this policy myself, but I'm trying to work with it until it gets changed. In the meantime though, it would probably be best to discuss edits like that first, simply because if nothing else they are issues that are emotionally charged for both sides. Feel free to respond on my page. Thanks! --Dchall1 13:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your replies. Let's look at the two issues seperately:
 * Jessica Lynch - How about this - keep the line "Jessica recently accused the military of lying and inventing stories about her heroic acts for their own benefit" in the intro. Change the second edits to "Some major media outlets". And then remove the "illegal" description of the war. Yes, I know Anan said it was illegal, but so are nearly all wars, and we don't tag them as illegal as well. To do it here is POV-pushing. Also, we should probably move this discussion to the talk page of the article.


 * Japan - I agree with you that the policy is inconsistent. But as I'm sure you've noticed on the Sept. 11th pages, the best we can do is state that the attacks are considered terrorist attacks by certain governments. Even such groups as Abu Nidal, which is undisputably a terrorist organization, can't get any stronger than that. In addition, the bombing of Japan doesn't fit the definition of terrorism on that page, because it was an act of war between two governments. If we want to include the bombing on that page, either we need to change the definition of terrorism, or specifically include acts of war and war crimes on that page.


 * Just curious, but what's your background? I ask because I study international relations and we spend a lot of time arguing about the definition of terrorism. Thanks! --Dchall1 13:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry about that, I was finishing finals. I saw the revert on Jessica Lynch. I put the same proposal we discussed on the talk page, but no one responded. I honestly don't care so much about that article, so long as the word "illegal" isn't used in connection with the war. On the Japan issue, there's a debate going on, with the consensus leaning towards classifying it as a war crime and not terrorism. I'd say to just let the debate play out a bit and see where it ends up. Ok? --Dchall1 21:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The three-revert rule
Please have a look at the three-revert rule before you undo anyone's work. Tom Harrison Talk 22:34, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. -SpuriousQ (talk) 21:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

You have been blocked
 You have been blocked for vandalism and edit warring at Flying Spaghetti Monster. To contest this block, please reply here on your talk page by adding the text along with the reason you believe the block is unjustified, or email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list. – Luna Santin  (talk) 21:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Please stop
Don't remove information from articles for no reason, especially sourced information like you removed from the article Israel. This is not helpful and your edits will be reverted asap. If you feel that the article is biased, a comment on the talk page will go much further to strengthen your position. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 19:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

You're invited
RuneWiki     777

Please stop now
The edits you are making at improvised explosive device are problematic and appear to advance an agenda, which is a problem in itself, and you appear to be reverting excessively, but much worse is using vandalism reversion tools and edit summaries in pursuing this battle. If you continue this behaviour you may be blocked to prevent further disruption. Guy (Help!) 10:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * You need to go to the talk page and achieve consensus for the changes you want to make, because they are clearly disputed. If you revert the article again you may be blocked for disrupting Wikipedia. This is your last warning on that point: do not revert again. Guy (Help!) 19:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Blocked
You have been blocked from editing for in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for. Please stop. You're welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text below.

Anti-American bias
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.

Most of us here on Wikipedia are here to represent events and topics in an objective and neutral manner, so as to share knowledge with one another and with the world. It would appear that you are instead here only to push an extremely liberal and anti-American agenda. I don't know what kind of bone you have to pick with that country, but I assure you that Wikipedia is no more a grounds for some imagined pro-American ideological imperialistic conspiracy than it is a platform for your particular brand of nonsense. I sadly have to deal with attitudes like yours on a daily basis, and it makes me very upset sometimes that people can be so misguided. My point is *not* to argue any kind of pro-American agenda; my country has fucked up royally in a variety of ways in the last few years. But so have a lot of other countries and groups and individuals. A neutral point of view is not automatically pro-American, a politically centrist point of view is not automatically pro-American, and a view that opposes an anti-American bias is likewise not necessarily part of any pro-American conspiracy or ideology. Please recognize these facts, and please consider the problems you may have with the current American administration in perspective and not allow those problems, those issues, to color your view of all that constitutes the United States all throughout history.

We have policies on Wikipedia against using Wikipedia for your personal agenda, against edit warring, expressing a biased point of view, and deliberately introducing factual errors. I invite you to read about these policies, to seek an understanding of what they stand for and why they are in place, and to become a constructive contributor. You seem to have a lot of passion and energy, and I am sure that directed in the right ways, you could become a great editor. Please abandon your political agenda and join us on the side of producing objective and productive material. LordAmeth 23:10, 8 July 2007 (UTC)