| Revision as of 04:55, 11 November 2006 edit71.162.66.250 (talk)No edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 11:56, 11 November 2006 edit undoPalestineRemembered (talk | contribs)5,038 edits Why did you revert Palestinian Exodus, reinserting wildly POV information that is almost certainly false and is very unbalancing?Next edit → | ||
| Line 40: | Line 40: | ||
| ==Mustafa Kemal Ataturk page and your interference== | ==Mustafa Kemal Ataturk page and your interference== | ||
| I suggest you check the talk page of the article for the citation you thought was missing as well as your misinterpretations of restoration of other's vandalism as subject to 3RR rule which has nothing to do with the specifics therein, not justifying your interference. Thanks. | I suggest you check the talk page of the article for the citation you thought was missing as well as your misinterpretations of restoration of other's vandalism as subject to 3RR rule which has nothing to do with the specifics therein, not justifying your interference. Thanks. | ||
| == Why did you revert Palestinian Exodus, reinserting wildly POV information that is almost certainly false and is very unbalancing? == | |||
| Why did you revert Palestinian Exodus with the comment: ''Back to Shamir1 , why the mass removal of info? If anything here is not sourced then add a {{fact}} tag, if it's not neutral then add a neutrality tag, but please don't erase everything!'' | |||
| Katz is not bringing information to this topic, because he is (and always has been, since his time as propagandist for Irgun) in the business of denial. He has no reputation or qualifications as a historian (he has one acclaimed book on Jabotinsky, he's approving of the guy who wrote ''"... Zionism is a colonization adventure and therefore it stands or falls by the question of armed force. It is important ... to speak Hebrew, but, unfortunately, it is even more important to be able to shoot - or else I am through with playing at colonizing"''. | |||
| And the "information" he brings is very distorting of the article, swamping the real account of the emptying of (by some accounts) 408 villages. His claim that the refugees fled on instructions from their own is virtually untrue (some 5 or 10% are thought to have done so, against constant radio pleas not to do so), and is irrelevant. It's a propaganda claim - if it were to be included, there would need to be a strict balance with the opposing "so what - when are they going to be allowed home"? | |||
| I suppose I could add a neutrality tag, but it's a lot more important that the article be fit to be in the encyclopedia. It was dreadful before, it's even worse now! | |||
| ] 11:56, 11 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 11:56, 11 November 2006
 | User:ManiF is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries. |
Farabi
http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:193.140.214.67&redirect=no
Hi you give me a warning. I am wondering if you have given same warning to Tajik? And why is my edit reverted then? Are you a Persian? Are you one of the Turkophobists?
I am going to revert and add Turkistan as birthplace to the article. Because it is from reliable source. So you have to deny Britannica and all the other historians with some scientific work.
Muchas gracias
Hey Mani, thanks a lot for supporting me in my recent RfA. It succeeded, and I am very grateful to all of you. If you ever need help with anything, please don't hesitate to ask. Also, feel free point out any mistakes I make! Thanks again, —Khoikhoi 05:07, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Composite images
Hi, are you certain that the components of those images are copyright? If so, they should be deleted -- I believe they would be considered derivative works and not acceptable with regards to copyright law/policy. If you can identify which image in each is still under copyright, I'll feel comfortable in removing them. Thanks. --Improv 14:39, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
- That'll do. I've removed the images. Thanks for letting me know. --Improv 01:17, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Dialogue
I am open to discussion. As I said before, if verifiability must apply to the Arabs of Khuzestan article to the extent that views of some writers are excluded, then it must also apply to the Khazal Khan article, where I have removed an unsupported POV statement. Discuss this please. At least ensure consistency.--88.110.190.21 21:03, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
al-Farabi
Thx for your contribution. I'll continue to have an eye on the article. Unfortunately, I am quite busy with Afghanistan right now, where User:NisarKand is vandalizing the article. He had already tried to vandalize Iran. Tājik 15:52, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Protection
The thing is, all parties in the edit war are older than four days, so a semiprotection will just result in the edit war starting again. The fact is, looking through the diffs of the edit war neither the persian or the arab version have ref'd cites to back the claims up- edit summaries saying "just look at the talk page" aren't really convincing evidence. I'll remove protection, but please be sure to add references in the article to see if it will defuse the edit war. Borisblue 21:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi
Please see uncyclopedia and its articles on Iran and Iranians. Full of insults instead of humor! Fooladin 21:27, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Mustafa Kemal Ataturk page and your interference
I suggest you check the talk page of the article for the citation you thought was missing as well as your misinterpretations of restoration of other's vandalism as subject to 3RR rule which has nothing to do with the specifics therein, not justifying your interference. Thanks.
Why did you revert Palestinian Exodus, reinserting wildly POV information that is almost certainly false and is very unbalancing?
Why did you revert Palestinian Exodus with the comment: Back to Shamir1 , why the mass removal of info? If anything here is not sourced then add a tag, if it's not neutral then add a neutrality tag, but please don't erase everything!
Katz is not bringing information to this topic, because he is (and always has been, since his time as propagandist for Irgun) in the business of denial. He has no reputation or qualifications as a historian (he has one acclaimed book on Jabotinsky, he's approving of the guy who wrote "... Zionism is a colonization adventure and therefore it stands or falls by the question of armed force. It is important ... to speak Hebrew, but, unfortunately, it is even more important to be able to shoot - or else I am through with playing at colonizing".
And the "information" he brings is very distorting of the article, swamping the real account of the emptying of (by some accounts) 408 villages. His claim that the refugees fled on instructions from their own is virtually untrue (some 5 or 10% are thought to have done so, against constant radio pleas not to do so), and is irrelevant. It's a propaganda claim - if it were to be included, there would need to be a strict balance with the opposing "so what - when are they going to be allowed home"?
I suppose I could add a neutrality tag, but it's a lot more important that the article be fit to be in the encyclopedia. It was dreadful before, it's even worse now!