User talk:Chifumbe
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Welcome!
Hello, Chifumbe, 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:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- Tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
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:Where to ask a question, 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! Feydey
Contents |
[edit] Farakahn Revisions
Hello, Iamconcerned about the revisions your are making onthe Farakahn page. You keep adding long sections of quotes of NOI doctrine and long quotes of Farakahn not answering the race question. I've noted them in a space consious way that gives the source due notice in the section. It seems you have an agenda on the page and I ask that you please not revert again without us coming to a consencus as a community on what was actually said by Farakahn on the subject of race inferiority or racism. Please keep all other quotes out of that specific section. Create a new section if you think a certain aspect of the man is not being represented. Thanks. Peace. --DjSamwise 03:00, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Edit summary
Hello. Please remember to always provide an edit summary. Thanks and happy editing.
[edit] Please don't remove warnings and block notices from your talk page
--Mantanmoreland 13:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 |
You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. |
Ashibaka tock 16:50, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
my reason for unblocking is I have several times offerred and invited wikipedians interested in the the article Louis Farrakhan to contribute to its talk ( see religion and category and article page on changes. They have not given any detailed explanation. I have added material which is factual, relevant and from reputable sources to the article which other users claim is a POV and original research without giving reasons. For instance, if I say farrakhan was married in 1953 is that original research, POV. No it is just a fact. Please review this because this edit war is getting out of hand Muntuwandi 12:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- The reasons the content you keep attempting to add is objectionable have been repeatedly explained to you by several editors. But you just keep ignoring those explanations and keep on reverting, just as you keep on violating 3RR.--Mantanmoreland 12:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- Seems to be a typical edit war. Edit warring is bad, don't do it. Try to understand the other side and find a compromise, or try dispute resolution. A block for WP:3RR seems to be valid in your case. Kusma (討論) 13:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- The "edit war" includes this user's repeated efforts to insert in the article a link to the talk page, which he only stopped after an administrator intervened. When last blocked, the block notice was removed and is still gone. [1].--Mantanmoreland 13:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
What I would request is for those who disagree with the material to give a detailed explanation as to why facts that I have added are considered POV. If possible sentence by sentence by sentence. for instance once again why are details of Farrakhan's family being edited out. What kind of biography fails to mention family details. Please explain to me why adding that Farrakhan has been married since 1953, a fact, is a POV or Original research.
Let me give am example of what I believe is Original research
1)fact- Farrakhan married betsy ross in 1953
2)original reasearch- farrakhan married betsy ross in 1953 therefore they are a very happy couple.
3)POV- farrakhan marriage to betsy ross was a good decision
Correct me if I am wrong but I believe 1) is a valid wikipedia entry 2) and 3) are not.
- Stop the nonsense. Don't pretend you don't understand the rules you have violated. You know perfectly well that the fact that Farrakhan was married in 1953 is not what is at issue. It is your responsibility to learn Wikipedia policies. Do so. You're just further proving your bad faith. If you continue to POV push and violate 3RR and edit war, and continue to remove warnings and administrative notices from your talk page, you risk further and lengthier blocks. Use the time of this block to learn the policies.--Mantanmoreland 13:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
If his marriage is not the issue then why has it been edited out.There are many issues but that is one of them. his quote is another issue. Mantanmoreland yourself said it was not OR (see category). You wrote that it is not OR but that it was unencyclopedic so why do you still accuse me of POV pushing. The quote is cited from reputable sources and the best way not to spin it is quote it in entirety.
- Asked and answered many times. You couldn't care less about his "marriage." The goal of your edits is to whitewash Farrakhan by removing negative material and adding things like the text of a prayer to which you add your spin. I am not going to keep repeating myself, and I am done with this.--Mantanmoreland 14:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Mantanmoreland your goal is the absolute opposite. You will not allow any edit that has anything positive said about Farrakhan, even if it is true. Let us just state the facts, the readers are intelligent enough to make their own conclusions. you are not adding any new material, but I am, which is better for the article.
Wikipedia has systemic bias which it admits itself.(see origins of bias) Generally the typical wikipedian is a white male who is technically inclined etc. Therefore articles about black people are generally smaller, of lower quality and biased against them. Particularly those blacks directly involved in civil rights. I have seen the same issues with other leaders such as Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton.
With regards to Farrakhan chances are white people would have a more unfavorable view of him than Black people. I being black am just interested in redressing the bias against articles involving black people.
- The purpose of Wikipedia is to produce neutral articles, not to "redress wrongs." You are here to push a POV and should not be editing until you learn to adhere to Wikipedia policies. If you decide to resume editing upon the conclusion of your block, you should heed the administrator's suggestion and discuss changes on the talk page before making them. --Mantanmoreland 15:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I beg to disagree, that is why wikipedia has the project countering systemic bias to redress the natural bias that will occur in articles
Please do not remove content from Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Spring3100 02:50, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Chifumbe -- Spring3100 and "Giuliani Time" are clearly the same user and are playing rough -- but please stay cool, and their game will self-destruct. Don't worry about it! bikeable (talk) 04:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Sign your comments please
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button 
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! Punkmorten 09:12, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Blanking on Louis Farrakhan
Please do not remove sourced sections of articles if you consider them to be "unencyclopedic," as you did here.[2]. If they are not properly written, rewrite them. Do not remove them. That is considered vandalism. --Mantanmoreland 14:23, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
- Despite my warning you again removed sourced comments, In their place you inserted a lengthy quote from a Meet the Press interview. Please stop removing sourced content. If you want to include Farrakhan's views on race from that article, you can add them in an abbreviated summary style in the relevant place in the article. --Mantanmoreland 15:33, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
You didn't rewrite, you replaced quotes on his racist statements with a lengthy self-serving rant from the "Final Call" newsletter. You are the one POV pushing, not me, pal.--Mantanmoreland 13:00, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Also "Final Call" absolutely would not count as a reliable source under WP:RS.--Mantanmoreland 13:02, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Query
Are you a Giants fan? IronDuke 15:06, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] WikiProject Zambia
Hi Mungomba, I've noted your edits to Kaunda and Sata, and thought you may be interested to know that I was thinking of creating a WikiProject Zambia to coordinate efforts on expanding Zambia-related topics in wikipedia. What do you think of the idea, and would you like participating? Ciao,--Aldux 17:12, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Let's...
...dance the rumba. No, let's talk. — mark ✎ 22:07, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Please do not add nonsense to Wikipedia, as you did to Jesse Jackson. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. Mhking 22:51, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Jesse Jackson
Most specifically, your edits replacing God in quotes with Allah; as far as I am aware, Jackson referred specifically to God in those quotes, not Allah. Unless you can cite the specific quote, that change is what I have construed as potential "vandalism." --Mhking 22:47, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
