Revision as of 06:27, 29 July 2006 edit222.146.155.168 (talk) /* perhaps you should not delete facts from the article which are sourced - ie that Middle Easterns spat on primary children lining up for CHRISTmas Carols... this would demonstrate your non baised point of veiw in the matter, and also that you yours← Previous edit | Revision as of 02:43, 30 July 2006 edit undo222.146.155.168 (talk) /* perhaps you should not delete facts from the article which are sourced - ie that Middle Easterns spat on primary children lining up for CHRISTmas Carols... this would demonstrate your non baised point of veiw in the matter, and also that you yoursNext edit → | ||
Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
== perhaps you should not delete facts from the article which are sourced - ie that Middle Easterns spat on primary children lining up for CHRISTmas Carols... this would demonstrate your non baised point of veiw in the matter, and also that you yourself are not emotional - i mean, you are editing facts our which are sourced!! == | == perhaps you should not delete facts from the article which are sourced - ie that Middle Easterns spat on primary children lining up for CHRISTmas Carols... this would demonstrate your non baised point of veiw in the matter, and also that you yourself are not emotional - i mean, you are editing facts our which are sourced!! == | ||
I will pray to Allah that your daughter is raped or your son is stabbed for being Australian... then I will ask you not to be emotional - you tolerate what does not tolerate you ;) | |||
== Fight Dem Back == | == Fight Dem Back == |
Revision as of 02:43, 30 July 2006
Cronulla riots
please revert back to user 124.84.161.25... there were minor changes tp other parts of the article made before the peter debnam extensions which you are against. thank you.
For the article to be "Neutral Point of View" it it must be factual. As one user here has commented already, the articles linked to refer to Middle Eastern and in some instances explicitly state that, the article should therefore also state that where the source does ie there is is no source that Middle Eastern burnt down The Uniting Church hall in Auburn, (but you and I know who else would it have been... the chinese_) nonetheless, as there is no source, Middle Eastern should not be used as per wiki policy at the The Uniting Church hall in Auburn part.
however, where the source refers explicitly to Middle Eastern as at the St Joseph the Worker Primary School drive-by shots then so should the article.
we must use a consistent methodology - where the source states Middle Eastern then so should the article - other wise it is emotive and non-"Neutral Point of View"。I therefore ask you to change the St Josephs back to Middle Eastern but not the Uniting church.
Australian League of Rights
I notice you have reverted my edit. My objection is that your claims are not sourced or referenced. If you are able to find sources please include them and let us improve the article. A simple revert-revert war will prove counterproductive. Unsourced or unreferenced claims are often symptomatic of manifest bias within an article. You should therefore understand my hesitance at allowing their inclusion, especially when claims of Holocaust-denial and anti-Semitism are being made. Refer to the talk page for more. Thank you for your concern. Maximus Meridius 03:28, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
perhaps you should not delete facts from the article which are sourced - ie that Middle Easterns spat on primary children lining up for CHRISTmas Carols... this would demonstrate your non baised point of veiw in the matter, and also that you yourself are not emotional - i mean, you are editing facts our which are sourced!!
I will pray to Allah that your daughter is raped or your son is stabbed for being Australian... then I will ask you not to be emotional - you tolerate what does not tolerate you ;)
Fight Dem Back
I hope this is not going to become an ongoing saga. The reasons why I have re-written the FDB article are twofold. Firstly, The majority of the claims made on the website were unsourced, uncited and constituted original research, contrary to Misplaced Pages conventions. Secondly, the claims that were indeed sourced were sourced from the FDB website. While the FDB website may be an ideal source for trivial information, we should not be relying on it for information of critical importance. For example, we should not list campaigns sourced from the FDB site as there exists a self-serving bias. We would not rely on the Liberal party website for an evaluation of the Howard government, we would impartial and reputed seconday sources. As you can see from my edits, I have not written anything detrimental to FDB, I have simply relied on information from sources of good repute. Please read the Misplaced Pages article on references and original research and my point will become clear. Again, I would rather work with you than against you, but Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox, it is not a vanity, or a free advertising service. It appears the previous authors of the FDB site believed otherwise. Kind regards, Maximus Meridius 01:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree that the new article is not adequate, and I'm sure there exists greater information online (other than from the FDB website). My contention is however, that the earlier edit of the article was parisan, was based largely on unsourced material (hence my claims of original research). I think it is fine for the trivial information, like structure, members, etc. to be sourced from the original page (this is no doubt the purpose of the Misplaced Pages policy), but the FDB page is structured more like a blog than a reputable source. For in-depth analysis or examination of FDB secondary sources, like the Age, or the Toowoomba Chronicle are more suitable. If I had relied solely on information from the AFP website for information to edit, for example the AFP article I would be accused of misconduct and bias. My point is that it is self-serving for political organisations to propogate embellished claims on their websites, and therefore their own websites should treated with little or no creedence. Apply the logic that you would apply to other articles, and you will see that my actions are not called for. What I do suggest however, is greater inclusion of reputable sources and relying solely on these sources for analysis and information of high importance. Regards, Maximus Meridius 05:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Nazis
I only removed it from Neo-Nazism after User:Nordic-Cross removed it from Nazi-Skinheads. They didn't give a reason and I was about to revert it back when I decided to check the fair use status. It said it could be used on the NZNF article but that Any other uses of this image, on Misplaced Pages or elsewhere, may be copyright infringement (bold and italics in original). I replaced the one on Nazi-Skinheads with another pic that was GFDL, but I didn't feel a need to on Neo-Nazism since there were plenty of other pics already. I didn't know it had been discussed previously. I'll go look for that discussion. The Ungovernable Force 05:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Fight Dem Back AFD
This previous revision contains a seemingly non-partisan source. It looks like this version was reverted due to the massive content cut, and I see from the section above you've discussed it, but the reference does give independent verification of the group, so you may want to consider re-adding it to help it pass WP:V. Yomangani 00:14, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- I've changed my opinion to 'Keep' but please check my comments - addressing them may help prevent further edit warring, NPOV and WP:OR claims. Dropping or contracting these sections to only contain the referenced info may be a solution (I can't find any references for these parts after a quick tour round Google, but you may have other sources). If you need any assistance later on, drop me a note and I may be able to help. Yomangani 09:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Camp Sweeney
Camp Sweeney Drett 17:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Nitcentral
Thanks for the heads up. Nightscream 02:19, 28 July 2006 (UTC)