It is suspected that this user might be a sock puppet or impersonator of 136.152.170.134. Please refer to contributions for evidence. See block log.
Welcome!
Hello, Nr9, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place ((helpme)) on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Fuhghettaboutit03:56, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am not vandalizing. Note that most articles have been careful not to call Al qaeda or bin laden "terrorists" since that term is not NPOV. It is bettter to call 911 coordinated attacks instead of coordinated terrorist attacks and to call al qaeda a islamic fundamendalist group instead of an islamic terorrist organization Nr910:34, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is vandalizing when you change the facts of a article to fit your needs. If you want to dispute the article do it the correct way. You can't remove facts and simply say its not your way of thinking and think its still correct. --Scott Grayban11:01, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Calling something with a negative connotation such as terrorism is clearly not NPOV. Its the same thing as if the article was "The September 11 attacks were a crusade against american imperialism." It is NPOV to just call it "attacks."
I believe i am blocked incorrectly
Unblock denied, you were warned, the time to discuss the issues was when you were first warned, not continue until blocked. Regarding some of your other ideas regarding what the NPOV policy actually means please see WP:WEASEL. --pgk(talk)18:09, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, I stopped when i was warned.
Wrong gain. I had to revert twice in a row with you. Then you argued with me about the NPOV issue. The history shows that. When a RC Patroler reverts a change its for a reason. What you should have done after I reverted it was ask me why and I would have told you to make your case the proper way. Instead you wanted to hammer in that you were right by reverting my first rv and me having to go back and rv again. One day I am sure you will learn that you can not force your own thoughts as being the only one valid here. --Scott Grayban19:32, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't know you are a RV patroler. I dont know that much about wikipedia. I thought you were just some random guy deleting my changes, which i didn't think were controversial at all (i thought they were matter of fact corrections.) I reverted before you sent me a warning message and after that i stopped editing the main page. Nr902:31, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well the issue of the socketpuppet has to be dealt with still and that is up to a admin here. But the next time a revert was made by anyone and not just a RC Patroler here ask first on the talk page. You are more then welcomed to disagree or think that something should be changed if everyone working on that article agree or the majority do. As far as the reverting issue I have no problems with him being unblocked now. I hope he has learned a lesson on that. --Scott Grayban17:09, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry i did not knkow wikipedia protocol, i will not do that in the future. As for sock puppetry, I am not a sock puppet Nr922:06, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at the block log and it seems that User:Curps has blocked you indefinite for constant abuse. I'm pretty sure only he can unblock you. Sorry but I don't think there is much I can do here now. Good luck --Scott Grayban22:17, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reasons:
It's been around six months since your original block; while I can see some rationale behind your original block, I also believe it's been a long time, and per the assumption of good faith, I'd like to give you a second chance. Use it wisely, eh? ;)
Request handled by: Luna Santin23:08, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding ((hangon)) to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. LegoTech·(t)·(c)05:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]