User talk:Style

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! Hope you like it here, and stick around.

Here are some tips to help you get started:


 * To sign your posts (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type &#126;&#126;&#126; (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; (4 tildes).
 * Try the Tutorial, and feel free to experiment in the test area.
 * If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk
 * Follow the Simplified Ruleset
 * Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
 * Remember Neutral point of view
 * Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Good luck!

I like your style, Style! Thanks for your edits to ozone depletion. I had an inkling that the "weight" of freon wasn't the only factor. --Uncle Ed 17:39, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

No problem :), HTH. --- Style 08:42, 2004 Aug 12 (UTC)

As much as I deplore your effective abuse of the three-revert rule, I will of course abide by it.

That said, your edits are against Wikipedia policy in three areas. They're biased. They use weasel words. And they were done with absolutely no discussion, while being marked as minor.

As I said on the talk page, if you want to change the practice of classifying things as "terrorist", then feel free to start a discussion. Don't expect to get consensus - though you may well end up doing so. In addition, be prepared to change things across the board - as just doing so in a Palestinian sense is clearly and obviously biased. Ambi 12:43, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * I dispute the above as false, misleading and hypocritical, but I don't have to explain myself to Ambi, and I don't know why he posted this here. If anyone reads this and is curious about the context, see Talk:Violence in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict 2004 and judge for yourself. --style 08:28, 2004 Sep 2 (UTC)


 * Excuse me? He? Read my user page, thank you.


 * You didn't discuss anything. You came along, made major and controversial changes without a word of discussion apart from "This is what I'm doing so nyah" in the edit summary. In those circumstances, I believe the use of the rollback feature is appropriate.


 * Indeed, perhaps the fact that you appear to be being reverted by multiple people would suggest that you aren't necessarily a paragon of virtue here. I'm not necessarily disputing that the page is biased, and I would hope that that could be fixed in the interests of neutrality. Neutrality, however, is not helped by the selective use of weasel words ('militant'), which would appear to reflect your POV of that particular group. Nor am I necessarily opposed to removing the term across the board. What I am opposed to, is your unilateral removal of it in a Palestinian context. Out of politeness, I've refrained from reverting said removal myself once more, and stepped back from this, but it seems that you still want to have a go.


 * I am interested in removing any bias in Wikipedia, if possible. I've been trying to take down an anti-Palestinian editor who keeps starting edit wars adding material that is grossly pro-Israel. I happen to agree with his POV, but my own POV is irrelevant here.


 * I'm for neutrality. What I'm not for is biased, pro-Palestinian edits - of which I oppose just as strongly as what the aforementioned editor has been doing. Ambi 23:41, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * It seems strange that you seem to find the word terrorist so offensive, yet only appear interested in removing it in a Palestinian context. As I've said repeatedly, if you attempt to remove it across the board, then I may well support you, but to just do it here is biased.


 * You accuse me of personal attacks (what? calling you biased?), and then proceed to go far beyond that. Lovely. You also suggest that I'm the only one with a problem with your edits to this page. Somehow, I think MathKnight would disagree.


 * If you want to make this page neutral, fine - and if there's any way I can assist in doing so, I will. The answer, is not, however, replacing pro-Israeli bias with pro-Palestinian bias. And yes, that includes using unreliable sources. I wouldn't quote DebkaFile as bonafide fact in this area for exactly the same reason. Ambi 08:41, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I was referring to your comments in the Talk page. And your User page actually says you are leaving - I am merely supporting you in that decision. :) If you really want to see me in a bad mood, stick around. Adam 11:25, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hi Style- I saw that you are engaged in an edit conflict on the Lebanon war article. I think your edits may have merit, but you should discuss them on the talk page to justify why you think they are important. Your user page suggests that you might have had quite frustrating experiences at Wikipedia, which many other editors have also found when editing articles on the Middle East. Still the best reaction is not to become too defensive, but to discuss openly and assume good faith. - pir 21:17, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Civility and No personal attacks
Unlike your 4 deliberate reverts, I reverted only 3 times. The issue wasn't clarity, it was Wikiquette; "If you cannot give understandable reasons for your reverts, then I can only conclude they were a POV tactic to waste my time and any further such reverts on that page (and perhaps others) will have to be ignored." is a threat. Also, I'm rather tired of people who believe they can ignore Civility and No personal attacks, and I'm not inclined to respond to any who do. "Jayjg, perhaps you don't understand English." is a violation of both of those rules. If you have any civil requests you with to make of me, please do so. Jayjg 18:09, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

My condolences on your headache
He's the slimiest bastard AH on Wikipedia. Alberuni 15:32, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for removing your flames from Talk:1982 Invasion of Lebanon: that always helps to keep a productive discussion of the article going. &#8212;No-One Jones (m) 16:28, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Nice try, pal. You state it as a cited, undisputable, fact. Jayjg states it as a cited view. One is neutral; the other not. Ambi 09:15, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * I justified my reverts to you. You know perfectly well why I'm reverting - and you know perfectly well why that paragraph isn't neutral. If the cite is so important, add it in without trashing the article's neutrality. Ambi 09:44, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:49, 23 November 2015 (UTC)