Dynablaster (talk | contribs) |
→You recent reverts to Muhammad al-Durrah: new section |
||
Line 36: | Line 36: | ||
The Fact of weather or not Hamza is a fraud or not is subject to debate but the fact is that Number 1 Wikipedia is not for us to debate this and Number 2 is that Hamza is a source of intelligence for the government (he testified to the Senate Foreign Relations committee in 2002 in the lead up to the Iraq War) so that must obviously mean something. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Rezashah4|Rezashah4]] ([[User talk:Rezashah4|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Rezashah4|contribs]]) 22:43, 25 August 2009 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
The Fact of weather or not Hamza is a fraud or not is subject to debate but the fact is that Number 1 Wikipedia is not for us to debate this and Number 2 is that Hamza is a source of intelligence for the government (he testified to the Senate Foreign Relations committee in 2002 in the lead up to the Iraq War) so that must obviously mean something. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Rezashah4|Rezashah4]] ([[User talk:Rezashah4|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Rezashah4|contribs]]) 22:43, 25 August 2009 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
||
:It's really ''not'' subject to debate; the man exaggerated his credentials and told falsehoods about Iraq's weapons capability. [[User:Dynablaster|Dynablaster]] ([[User talk:Dynablaster#top|talk]]) 23:26, 25 August 2009 (UTC) |
:It's really ''not'' subject to debate; the man exaggerated his credentials and told falsehoods about Iraq's weapons capability. [[User:Dynablaster|Dynablaster]] ([[User talk:Dynablaster#top|talk]]) 23:26, 25 August 2009 (UTC) |
||
== You recent reverts to [[Muhammad al-Durrah]] == |
|||
Hi! You recently reverted my changed on the [[Muhammad al-Durrah]] article, linking to a page that has a list of articles and op-eds talking about various things. Could you please join the discussion on talk, and kindly list the ''specific'' parties that claim it was a hoax? Please note – '''I'm not asking for a list of sources'''; a bunch of sources that all say that the same people think that this was a hoax over and over again isn't helpful. We need a '''list of who considers the shooting to be a hoax''', with sources to support each person or group on that list. Thanks! ← [[User:George|<span style="color:#333;font-variant: small-caps;font-weight:bold">George</span>]]<sup> <nowiki>[</nowiki>[[User talk:George|<span style="font-weight:bold;color:#dc143c">talk</span>]]<nowiki>]</nowiki></sup> 15:27, 29 August 2009 (UTC) |
Revision as of 15:27, 29 August 2009
That was extremely rude
Your removing my changes from the movie "The Corporation" without telling me first or giving me any explanation as to why was extremely rude on your part. If you disagree with something I have added, you should have come to me first and said something. Because if you don't, what happens is, I presume the changes didn't take or the save failed, then I'm going to put them back again.
You should have said something to me first if you disagreed with my points before you pulled something out of an article lest you trigger an edit war. Do not do that again. I would have said "Please don't do that again" but your rudeness shows you need to be strongly told that you're making a mistake. I've been an editor here for three years, you generally don't make those kinds of changes without at least trying to act in good faith first. Paul Robinson (Rfc1394) (talk) 19:59, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
- My reply. Dynablaster (talk) 23:29, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Flag carrier
AeroSur is displayed on the flag carrier page as bolivia's flag carrier.And AeroSur is owned as a minority (48%) by the Bolivian government.Government majority may not necessarily mean 'flag carrier'. It would be okay to include 'along with AeroSur'. This case is not like the USA,which has no official flag carrier. I urge you to stop being rude and edit my editions improperly(I have researched on them properly).If you have problem with recognising Wikipedia's article on flag carrier(it is a reliable source),You can talk to me on my talk page. LeUrsidae96 (talk) 11:20, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- Please provide a reliable source. That is all I have to say. Dynablaster (talk) 13:04, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
NPOV tag
Please do not remove the NPOV tag until issues have been resolved. The Qana article is full of controversial assertions and incomplete information and is not reliable. In any event, NPOV tags should not be removed unless there is some level of consensus that the issue has been resolved, or - which is more often the case - those in opposition are bullied into submission. --Leifern (talk) 14:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Page number?
Since it is from a book, could you please add a page number to your Arnove citation in Iraq sanctions? DougHill (talk) 22:30, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- Sure. Dynablaster (talk) 22:46, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
I gave my reasons for the edit to Nurse Nayirah on the discussion page. It does not conform to wikipedia's standards —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.166.14.146 (talk) 14:29, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
World Soccer Daily
Wanted to give you a heads up that people are adding POV and unsourced material to the World Soccer Daily page in addition to the Steven Cohen one. The World Soccer Daily page isn't protected for some reason so there's the usual IP address nonsense as well. Mikerichi (talk) 03:07, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Khidir Hamza
The Fact of weather or not Hamza is a fraud or not is subject to debate but the fact is that Number 1 Wikipedia is not for us to debate this and Number 2 is that Hamza is a source of intelligence for the government (he testified to the Senate Foreign Relations committee in 2002 in the lead up to the Iraq War) so that must obviously mean something. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rezashah4 (talk • contribs) 22:43, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- It's really not subject to debate; the man exaggerated his credentials and told falsehoods about Iraq's weapons capability. Dynablaster (talk) 23:26, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
You recent reverts to Muhammad al-Durrah
Hi! You recently reverted my changed on the Muhammad al-Durrah article, linking to a page that has a list of articles and op-eds talking about various things. Could you please join the discussion on talk, and kindly list the specific parties that claim it was a hoax? Please note – I'm not asking for a list of sources; a bunch of sources that all say that the same people think that this was a hoax over and over again isn't helpful. We need a list of who considers the shooting to be a hoax, with sources to support each person or group on that list. Thanks! ← George [talk] 15:27, 29 August 2009 (UTC)