User talk:Loneranger4justice

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hi, Loneranger4justice - I noticed some of the edits you've been making to pages like Feminazi and radical feminism, and I reverted some of them due to POV issues. Right now, the Feminazi article in particular has a lot of POV wording and unsourced material. Please work on a more neutral point of view and provide some more citations as you edit. Thanks! - Tapir Terrific 23:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: your message: Adding other perspectives can be great and can really add to a reader's understanding of an article, but that's not quite the same as POV. Let me be a bit more specific about my concerns:
  • your word choice often does not reflect a neutral point of view. Words and phrases like "capriciously," "perverted the justice system," "biased hate speech laws," etc. - these are all value judgments and are not very encyclopedic.
  • you haven't referenced much of what you wrote. For instance, when you say, "arranged matters so the privileged group who harmed, or even murdered, members of the target group were shown leniency - and often applauded," I honestly have no idea what that's about. Statements like that need to be backed up with statistics, verifiable examples, etc., not just to negate POV but to give the reader a clear idea of what you're talking about.
  • many of your edits seem off-topic to me. For instance, feminazism is a very specific term, and except in cases of hyperbole is usually used to refer to a very specific group of people or specific ideology. In your edits, however, you cover an extensive number of subjects under the heading of feminazism. Most of the people I know advocate one or more of the things you mentioned in your extensive list - does that make most people I know feminazis? If not, then those aspects of the article don't really help illustrate what the term means.
Anyway, I may be offline for a while and unable to reply to any comments. Thanks. - Tapir Terrific 00:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] thanks for the feed back

for me to source all the commentary would turn this topic into a novel, I'll exclude some of the titles for now, then add then later when I dig up sources. My point is that the term 'feminazi' is widely used in the father's right's & men's rights movements, probably more so than anywhere else, but this perspective is ommited from the wikipedia page, which just seems to offer some vague and fuzzy feelings about the word or how it was used once or twice in the media. the laundry list of parrallels is used to illustrate how, in collective, the essence of 'nazism' exists in radical feminist methods and propaganda,. to illustrate the clear parrallels with the nazis & kkk who also had the 'priviledged class' vs. the 'targeted class'.


[edit] Sick

You're a sick puppy.--Onedayoneday 21:06, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Where you go I will find you. You are not safe anywhere.--Onedayoneday 21:09, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't know why you're so mad at women after your divorce. You were a dog to your wife and she is lucky to get away from you.--Onedayoneday 21:14, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Who initiates Divorce" in Divorce

An editor reverted your addition, and I have reinserted it for reasons given on the talk page. Mr Stephen 22:12, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright issues

[edit] Medea complex

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Medea complex, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to be a direct copy from http://www.mmpi-info.com/medea.html. As a copyright violation, Medea complex appears to qualify for speedy deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. Medea complex has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message. If the source is a credible one, please consider rewriting the content and citing the source.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GFDL, you can comment to that effect on Talk:Medea complex. If the article has already been deleted, but you have a proper release, you can reenter the content at Medea complex, after describing the release on the talk page. However, you may want to consider rewriting the content in your own words. Thank you, and please feel free to continue contributing to Wikipedia. —Brim 04:21, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

{{Medea Complex was paraphrased from the credible article inlcuded as a reference, I am aware of no direct copyright violations. Loneranger4justice 10 Oct 06

[edit] wp:NPOV

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Operator50 21:58, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's NPOV policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Operator50 22:34, 10 October 2006 (UTC)



[edit] April 2007

This is your last warning. The next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, as you did to 2006 Duke University lacrosse team scandal, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. You've been warned of this multiple times, but Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. Please comply with WP:NPOV and WP:NOR in your edits. -- THF 05:19, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I am requesting that this matter to be escalated for review of the POV policies that you alledge. We may disagree on our POV, but the purpose of this format is to provide a balanced viewpoint, and for you TedFrank to delete my edits because you disagree with them violates, in my view, the POV guidelines. A 'neutral' view is not simply your view, there are often many differing views on an issue, and all reasonable, documented, and sourced views should be acknoledged, and views that you happen to disagree with should not be deleted. Please escalate this. Loneranger4justice.

[edit] wp:3RR

You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule on a page. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from further editing. Operator50 22:32, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:NPOV [1] [2] [3]

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. If you continue to re-insert unsourced, original research violating WP:NPOV you will be blocked.--Cailil talk 23:42, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

If you wish to discuss these edits or inquire why editors are disputing this content please drop me a line--Cailil talk 16:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

This is your last warning.
The next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

Please stop reinserting disputed and POV content to wikipedia. [4][5][6]--Cailil talk 18:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Note from the Administration

This is an administrative note concerning the way you edit in violation of WP:NPOV and WP:OR (see WP:SYNTH). I advise you to read and understand the policies listed above before you delve in any edit warring. It has been noted several times by different editors within a period of a year or so. Please edit carefully or you'll be blocked for violating two of the fundamental policies of Wikipedia. Thank you. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 03:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)