User talk:86.130.68.75

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Facial expression

Thanks 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. Thanks. (re: this edit)

Please refrain from adding nonsense to Wikipedia, as you did to Facial expressions. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Jude(talk,contribs) 11:08, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Haven't we been through this before?

The readers of this article can work this out for themselves;

  • In this one sentance, the MCB managed to completely contradict their previous statements on freedom of expression

This is your own analysis;

  • the use of the word "xenophobic" (a fear of foreigners) suggests that the council believes that Danish newspaper cartoons were targeting Muslims of Arabian origin, rather than Islamic views as a whole. In this statement, the MCB showed themselves up as racists, since a member of any race can follow the beliefs of Islam.

Wikipedia is not the place for your analysis unless this work has published elsewhere to a large audience. This isn't significant evidence to alledge racism either. When the term racism is thrown about wily-nily, it dilutes it. You end up damaging genuine victims of racism. In Sacranie's sentence, he attributed 'a xenophobic tone' to the Western Media as a whole rather than to Jyllands-Posten specifically. I genuinely don't believe that the MCB would argue against a member of any race converting to Islam. Veej 05:22, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Stop adding commentary and your personal analysis of an article into Wikipedia articles. Doing so breaches Wikipedia's NPOV rules and so is considered vandalism. Users who are seen as vandalising articles may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. (ESkog)(Talk) 11:59, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Please stop reinserting the same material into Muslim Council of Britain. Be aware that we have a policy against re-inserting the same changes into a page more than 3 times in a 24-hour period. (ESkog)(Talk) 21:07, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] please register

you're obviously interested in the media & politics. why don't you register & get a username? people on wikipedia are very helpful & forgiving to new users & we'll show you the ropes & help you to make positive contributions. you'll be treated differently to an anonymous user, I assure you. Veej 01:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] vandalism

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, as you did to Facial expression, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. (ESkog)(Talk) 21:08, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] don't you find this boring?

we could go on indefinately with these reverts. where is gonna get anyone? how about discussion? Veej 03:18, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] One-sided attacks

Hi. I notice you've added very one-sided comments to both Daily Mail and Julia Goldsworthy. Please do not add comments like these. Wikipedia should be written encyclopedically and is not a forum for pushing a political view. Please see the neutral point-of-view policy. —Whouk (talk) 21:19, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Please now stop attemptig to add your comments to these articles. These contributions do not meet Wikipedia's requirements for articles to be objective. If you continue to make these edits, other users will continue to revert them and you will likely be banned from editing. Please consider making constructive edits instead. Thanks. —Whouk (talk) 20:01, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] BBC

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, which you are more than welcome to do. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 20:14, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oxfam

Your edit to Oxfam, pushing a biased point of view with no attempt at balance, about which you have already been warned, has been reverted. Additions to Wikipedia must be objective and articles must be balanced. Please familiarise yourself with the neutral point of view policy before making any further edits. I'm afraid to say that this is your last warning. —Whouk (talk) 10:03, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for violating Wikipedia policy against neutrality. To contest this block, please reply here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock}} along with the reason you believe the block is unjustified, or email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list. Note to sysops: Unblocking yourself should almost never be done. If you disagree with the block, contact another administrator.. This is a 24 hour block. If you continue to make tendentious edits against consensus then you will be blocked again, and for longer. Please engage with other editors on the article Talk pages and do not continue to add content which has been removed with good cited reasons. Just zis Guy you know? 12:19, 6 April 2006 (UTC)