User talk:24.26.178.121

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Regarding your edits to Riek Machar, the universities are demonstrable unaccredited and you reduce your own credibility as an apologist every time you try you try to remove this information. - BanyanTree 23:46, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. - BanyanTree 00:02, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removing material from Riek Machar

Regarding your removal[1] of cited criticism;

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits are considered vandalism, and if you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the work of others. Thank you. Arbusto 21:24, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. - BT 01:32, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

This is your last warning.
The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. - BT 05:14, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
This is the only warning you will receive.
Your recent vandalism to Riek Machar will not be tolerated. The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. [2] Arbusto 01:43, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Another one.[3] Arbusto 05:59, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

If you have issues with the page in question please discuss them on the talk page of the article. If you simply whitewash again, you will be blocked. This is your final warning. JoshuaZ 17:32, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hey, there

Hey, there. Thanks for your contributions. I see that you've attracted the attention of a few editors; this is in part because you've been making some pretty big edits without using talk pages to develop consensus. Some editors have expressed a concern that your edits lack reliable sources, as is generally required by our keystone verifiability policy. In line with policies to discourage edit warring, and as discussing edits is generally considered civil, please use talk pages in the future to discuss your edits. I don't know if your edits are valid or not; neither does anybody else. While we would love to believe you, it's difficult to do so when you won't talk with us -- so please do use talk pages, such as Talk:Riek Machar. If you have any questions, you can place a {{helpme}} on your talk page, along with a question, or visit the help desk. Thanks for your time, and please do use talk pages in the future. Luna Santin 22:09, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid I wasn't kidding. Please use talk pages, or I will be forced to block you from editing for disruption. Please reconsider your behavior. Luna Santin 22:37, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Santin/Luna,
I would be willing to discuss the edits with you. However, only if you are interested in the actual truth. I have changed the education portion so many times. The Sudantribune is a free for all paper which has no real criteria for its sources. the person who claimed Dr.Riek went to bedford, not bradford got it from this site as it was originally on here erroneously. so you see you are the original source of false information that an anonamous person then quoted on the Sudantribune in a diatribe against a political leader (go figure). If you care to call the school in England (Bradford, not Bedford) you will see that Dr. Riek Machar Teny Dhurgon has a PhD from them. Allowing a political attack on your site of such low character when I have given you the true information is really slanderous and just plain un-ethical. As far as calling his mediation of peace in a neighboring country "links to a terrorist organization", again, an attack from a political opponent which has no place in an encyclopedia which children will assume is true. You can search Riek Machar and LRA and you will see that he the Chief mediator. Giving such an organization money for food as part of peace negotiations is part of the process. The SPLA and the UN with several other national sponors are currently feeding and caring for the LRA in assembly points in Southern Sudan. Are they all supporting terrorism?
Again, the Bor masacre is part of a very long civil war which saw a great deal of civilian casualties. The book SPLM/SPLA Nassir Faction by Dr. Lam Akol is as close to the truth of that period of time for the SPLA and the SPLA Nassir as you will get. I have quoted it some because I am (without erasing what was said) balancing the perspective at least a little. The actual forces who went to Bor were under the physical command of Gordon Kong chol, who was one of the principal military commanders who led the Nassir Move. Dr. Riek was in Nassir believing his forces were going only to fight eight batallions of soldiers of Dr. John Garang. When he found out what was actually taking place he ordered his soldiers to come back, they pretended not to hear his radio messages. Later, Dr. Riek had Gordon Kong tried for his crimes against civilians which has led to Gordon's decision to join the Khartoum government which continues to cause problems for the South Sudan.
There are no simple ways to present the history of any political leader, especially one in Sudan. Dr. Riek is a very educated man who has sacrificed his whole life for the creation of democracy and rule of law in Sudan and Southern Sudan in particular. I can not sit by and let your "encyclopedia" slander him for someone's political scheme. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.26.178.121 (talk • contribs).
If he really does have a PhD then it should be cited. Please provide WP:RS. The article doesn't change until then. Arbusto 23:10, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Arbusto,

As you are not interested in truth, maybe you can understand logical progression. Go back and look. It was Wikipedia's uncited reference to Bedford before Dec 2005 that was the source of the author of the SudanTribune's statements. Why don't just remove any reference to his Phd rather than falsely making a mockery of it. He is a living person and this article is causing him harm. If you are not concerned about that, you should be!

As I'm sure the other editor will tell you, you're removing cited edits and replacing them with uncited edits. Without using talk pages to develop consensus, this is unacceptable. Please bring up these concerns at the article's talk page and follow the steps laid out in the dispute resolution process. Please stop edit warring immediately, and build consensus with your fellow editors, first. Luna Santin 23:12, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../2/4/2E/User_talk%7E24.26.178.121.html"