Please don't just add links. We have forged an agreement with much blood shed over the issue. If you would like to bring it up again in discussion you may go to Talk:Islam but don't change before consensus is built. gren グレン 06:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, Grenavitar! Freedom Fan 16:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Please regard WP:NPA; edit comments such as this violate it - flinging allegations of vandalism around for good faith edits with which you disagree is unacceptable William M. Connolley 21:03, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Duly noted. Thanks. Freedom Fan 23:40, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Interesting indeed UBer: No "inconsistency" here. LOL.Freedom Fan 22:36, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Please see "Criticism" in the discussion section. Thanks. Freedom Fan (talk) 04:37, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to Eurabia appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe our core policies. Thank you.
Also, please read and heed WP:OR. Specifically, I'm asking you not to cite sources which don't relate to the topic of the article - even if you personally think that they're relevant. <eleland/talkedits> 23:03, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, welcome to Wikipedia. I have restored this content; please see explanation under the Eurabia talk page- Comments from the Islamic World. Thank you.Freedom Fan (talk) 01:38, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm a huge fan of this woman, but I don't see how WP:BLP relates to your recent edit. Weren't these sourced, verifiable comments? And didn't this lead to her loss of a place in the legislature? Yes, she was eventually 'forgiven', but it is a fact that she was accused of these things, which is what the edits said? Mind you, I have no intention of reverting, as I disagree with those claims. But I don't understand citing BLP for removing them. If you have time, please explain. Cheers. Unschool (talk) 06:20, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes hi Unschool. The remarks were inappropriate because they merely call Ms. Ali unflattering names, without adding any substance. One gratuitous comment called her a liar yet her misrepresentation, on an application for asylum in her attempt to escape oppression, have already been covered at length redundantly in a previous section.
The other comment called her a "chameleon" without providing explanation. This section clearly violates the BLP principle. If someone has some additional criticism of substance, sure bring it. But let's lose the pointless name calling. Thanks.Freedom Fan (talk) 07:15, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Ayaan Hirsi Ali. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Please don't remove well referenced and sourced content which are there for several months, without proper discussion. Suigeneris (talk) 08:24, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, welcome to Wikipedia. My reasons for removing the content was explained above and meets the criterion for instant removal consistent with the Wikipedia policy BLP. I will also move the comments to the talk page per your suggestion. Thank you.Freedom Fan (talk) 15:32, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Comments may be unflattering, but if they are referenced, they will stay - You may have many reasons of your own to feel like removing a sourced content, but consistently removing sourced contents amount to vandalsim. Suigeneris (talk) 21:51, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
The comments may or may not stay, but accusing another editor, who acts in good faith, of vandalism is a direct violation of the Wikipedia policy of "no personal attacks" WP:NPA.
My edits have been made in good faith because I have documented my reasons for the edits in accordance with Wikipedia policy. Hopefully we can resolve this disagreement without administrator mediation, but that will be up to you. I am allowing for the required cooling-off period for now. The verifiability of the sourcing is irrelevant.
Again my points are these:
1) Accusing Ms. Ali of "fraud" is redundant because she has already admitted the misrepresentation on her application for asylum. This has already been covered at length in an entire section devoted specifically to this issue, where Ms. Ali's explanation also appears. So redundantly including this point twice distorts the neutrality required of Wikipedia articles, which I am willing to believe for the time being, would not be your intent. As a compromise, if you want to merge this into the main section dealing with this, I would not have a problem with this.
2) Calling Ms. Ali a "chameleon" who reinvents herself is meaningless without any additional explanation. I am not even sure if it is a compliment or a smear. As a compromise, if you want this to stay, you need to qualify this so that it has some meaning without requiring the reader to go read the source.
The ball is in your court.Freedom Fan (talk) 03:06, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for reverting Loonymonkey's edit at the Rezko article. If you ever need support for a consensus to keep information like that in at the article, please contact me because I'm interested in the subject. I'm busy with edits about Bill Ayers and the Obama-Ayers controversy articles, so I'm not able to pay as much attention to Rezko as I'd like. Cheers, Noroton (talk) 19:20, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Noroton. I also entered similar text into the talk page in the event that it requires more discussion. I realize some subjects can be controversial as we near the election, but Wikipedia must get it right. Freedom Fan (talk) 21:01, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
About the mediation. Thanks, Noroton (talk) 23:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, hate to be such a rookie, but I don't know how to find your email address. Please advise. Freedom Fan (talk) 04:00, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Article, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Talk:Barack Obama/Article probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.
The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you. -- Brothejr (talk) 12:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Please note that I have created an RfC to discuss the matter of whether, how, and where we should use and cover the designation "terrorist" describe the Weathermen and their former leaders. It is located here: Talk:Weatherman (organization)/Terrorism RfC. The intent is to decide as a content matter (and not as a behavioral issue regarding the editors involved) how to deal with this question. I am notifying you because you appear to have participated in or commented about this issue before. Feel free to participate. Thank you. Wikidemon (talk) 20:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi my name is BountyHunter2008 and I was wondering if you could give me some information on the case of Eurabia as to what exactly has been going on so we can try and sort this out without having to go through the proper process of mediation. Many thanks BountyHunter2008 (talk) 11:15, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, BountyHunter2008. Please allow me to address this in the article talk page, as my answer will be comprehensive. Thanks for your interest. Freedom Fan (talk) 15:14, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
This is a message sent to a number of editors, and following WP:CANVASS requirements: Please take another look at Talk:Weatherman (organization)/Terrorism RfC and consider new information added near the top of the article and several new proposals at the bottom. If you haven't looked at the RfC in some time, you may find reason in the new information and new proposals to rethink the matter. -- Noroton (talk) 02:23, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
The website of a book, a bookseller, and YouTube cannot be considered reliable sources. Do not add contentious material without getting proper sources. Consider discussing on the talk page before edit warring. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:53, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
I will take this discussion to the talk page. Thanks. Freedom Fan (talk) 00:17, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
I've opened a request for mediation, and you are invited to contribute. Thanks. Freedom Fan (talk) 17:11, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Please see this, and reflect on this. There I have warned you not to repost content that has been removed for BLP reasons. Other editors have asserted that this is a BLP problem, and at my prompting they have explained it reasonably. As a consequence you need to find better sources, and probably also be more cautious in how it is represented. The next time you engage in edit warring rather than research on these Obama related pages, you will be blocked. John Vandenberg (chat) 00:54, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
While I attempted to address this on the talk page, WikiDemon has now censored even that, so I will restore the discussion here:
There is an obvious solution: report the 2/16/1970 pipe-bomb murder of San Francisco Police Department Sgt. Brian V. McDonnell as attributed at the time to Weather or to the Panthers but remaining unsolved. No mention of any individual suspects need be included. Removing the very mention of unsolved acts of violence from this Wiki article distorts the historical record, and brings this article out of factual concordance with a wide variety of sources, especially the FBI FOIA files. I suggest there be a section in the article on unproved acts of violence attributed to Weather, and that the McDonnell murder be included there. What is lost by removing it? Here's what--The credibility of Wiki as a fair and complete source. Anyone looking up the Weathermen can find a reference to the unsolved McDonnell murder--except now in Wikipedia. This diminishes Wikipedia's credibility. For another source on the McDonnell murder, see-- http://books.google.com/books?id=_hEoAAAAMAAJ&q=%22Brian+V.+McDonnell%22&dq=%22Brian+V.+McDonnell%22&pgis=1 Ajschorschiii (talk) 04:03, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Please make your arguments for removal of material on the talk page and not edit summaries. There is an ongoing discussion that you appear to be ignoring but are more than welcome to chime in on. I'm considering reverting.Cptnono (talk) 14:17, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Let's leave this section non-controversial or remove entirely until consensus is established. Freedom Fan (talk) 14:24, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
I have reverted one of your edits to this article because it appears to violate WP:NPOV. Please discuss your issues with the section on the article's talk page. Thank you. --N419BH (talk) 13:42, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Please do not continue to change the section heading in Tea Party movement, against consensus and without discussing it on the talk page. You have done it three times now, despite being asked each time not to. Scolaire (talk) 22:09, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
This sort of talk is unacceptable: "Maybe in Ireland you have a peasant caste who must bow before royalty, whose words are given more weight than peasants in a court of law (or an encyclopedia), but that's not the way it works in America. In America you have concepts which must seem very foreign to you such as 'presumption of innocence until proven guilty', and 'equal protection under the law'." If you don't take prompt steps to retract it, I will raise it at WP:ANI. --Scolaire (talk) 07:37, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
- As for your earlier statement that "There is a presumption that elected representatives do not wantonly and maliciously lie in order to bring an organisation into disrepute. To accuse them of maliciously lying, or even to infer that they did by the use of the word "claim" is a BLP violation."
Maybe in Ireland you have a peasant caste who must bow before royalty, whose words are given more weight than peasants in a court of law (or an encyclopedia), but that's not the way it works in America.In America you have concepts which must seem very foreign to you such as "presumption of innocence until proven guilty", and "equal protection under the law". Also in America, the standards for establishing libel are much higher than in Ireland, and the standards are even higher for "public figures" such as politicians. Freedom Fan (talk) 02:54, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
See also section
Hi Freedom Fan, Is there some reason you keep added Tea Party Movement and Protests back into the see also sections of these articles? TIA --Tom (talk) 16:26, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Your continuous reverting is still edit warring. The fact that you come dangerously close to 3rr without passing it within 24hrs is still disruptive. If you revert the heading again you will be reported for edit warring. No more warnings on this.Cptnono (talk) 03:00, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, but as you say the issue is "complex". After studying the Wikipedia policies extensively, it becomes apparent that the most important "non-negotiable" principal for editors to follow is to try to achieve a "neutral point of view", and this has been established from the beginning as one of the five founding pillars of Wikipedia.
Furthermore, since libel exposure can be involved, NPOV is doubly important when describing living persons or groups of living persons, and pursuant to WP:BLP such material must be "removed immediately and without waiting for discussion". Also note that there are photographs and videos of specific persons described here, such as the man alleged to have accidentally "spit" upon Rep. Cleaver, so there is little doubt that BLP is an issue in this article, and it is important to get it exactly right.
Obviously Wikipedia has little tolerance regarding straying from this founding principal and "editors who repeatedly add or restore contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced may be blocked". In addition, WP has now established a task force to deal specifically with violations of BLP. The Wikimedia Foundation has established a direct reporting mechanism to deal with BLP violations to ensure that we take "human dignity and respect for personal privacy into account when adding" material.
Even without the BLP policy, it remains a fundamental principal that editors must strive to achieve a neutral point of view WP:NPOV. As if it weren't already obvious that using, loaded, "contentious labels" like "racist" to describe living persons, violates NPOV, there are several examples in Wikipedia policy which strongly recommending avoiding this specific word.
For example, WP:Words To Avoid specifically states that it is unacceptable to use words such as these, even in describing obviously racist organizations such as the KKK, because "such terms, even when accurate, often convey to readers an implied viewpoint". So:
I don't think it gets much more clear than that. Similarly, Wikipedia:Words to watch advises against use of "Contentious Labels", and specifically the word "racist":
I have no doubt that the BLP policy pertains to groups of living persons because when I worked on the Weatherman article, I was severely reprimanded by an administrator for attempting to use strongly sourced material which put unnamed members of the group in an unfavorable light. Even a vague mention of the sworn Congressional testimony considered a BLP violation and was immediately removed from the talk page by the administrator.
If you disagree, I would welcome your finding an administrator to explain why this particular article should be an exception to the WP:NPOV policy, one of the five founding principles of Wikipedia. Furthermore, I would like to understand whether the BLP policy should be strictly enforced when describing a left-wing organization, yet disregarded when describing a right-wing one.
If you argue that somehow the size of the organizations exempts it from WP:BLP, then I would like to know if it would be acceptable to take the unsavory actions of a few individuals and start a section in the Democratic Party (United States) article similarly entitled "Reports of Racism and Homophobia". I have a feeling that this might meet with a WP:Undue or WP:Recentism objection because"
Clearly when you are dealing with a growing movement supported by 24% of Americans, the actions of some loon on Twitter are not notable and inclusion would violate WP:Undue.
Thanks for your contributions to this article. Freedom Fan (talk) 17:00, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Please go to the TPM talk page and vote for title of section. Thanks.Malke2010 18:52, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for this, it's much appreciated. :) SlimVirgin talk contribs 16:07, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:45, 23 November 2015 (UTC)