User talk:AmandaParker

Your article on White Christin Terrorism has been proposed to be deleted. I think the article needs to eliminate POV, be cleaned up, and gain an expert opinion. I'll will assist you. Yanksox 15:59, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated before, I DIDN'T tag WCT for deletion. I placed the tags for improvement and point of view. As I stated before I am willing to fix it. The only reason it is proposed is because it is disorganized and it first person. Yanksox 18:04, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited WCT so that it redirects to Hate Crimes, White Christian Terrorism as a term itself really doesn't pop up any where on the internet. However, I will make a note of it on the Hate Crime page. Thank you, again feel free to contact me. Yanksox 18:12, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have thought about this topic for a little while, and I really feel secure about the fact that it exists as a hate crime. The term, "White Chrisitan Terrorism," doesn't really pop up by itself. It seems to be more of a crime that is racially, ethinically, religious, economically, etc. motivated. Hence, a hate crime. Yanksox 20:41, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spam

Could you please not do that anymore? Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:35, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are being biased. AmandaParker

Not at all. I dislike spam no matter where it comes from. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:44, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are. Why did you revert the page of White Christian Terrorism to Hate Crime. You are trying to show that white folks are the victims. AmandaParker

I reverted your work because you spammed several article talk pages with copies of an identical editorial screed. That's disruptive, and I'd appreciate it if you'd not do it again. Also, Wikipedia has a policy of no personal attacks. Saying, "You're biased" could be easily mistaken for such an attack, and it is certainly uncivil. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:49, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This encylcopedia is filled with examples of crimes by white Christians. However, the term "White Christian Terrorism" receives 1 google hit. When it becomes a real term, then there can be an article about it.--Bill 20:49, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See. How many Christians jump in to defend themselves. Calling 1.2 billion Muslims "terrorist" are one of the biggest and worst Hate Crime and Personal Attacks. I am not talking about "crimes" here. I am talking about White Christian Terrorism. And if Google doesn't have any link for this term. It doesn't mean that White Christian Terrorism doesn't exist. Few years, there was no term of "Islamic Terrorism" and now everybody is using it. AmandaParker

If "Islamic Terrorism" can be tolerated then why not White Christian Terrorism. Is wikipedia only for the white folks?

AmandaParker

Wikipedia is blind in regards to religion, race, political alignment, etc. "White Chrisitan Terrorism," does not make one single hit on google. The only hit is "White Christian(s), terrorism." What you are trying to create is something that is considered a hate crime and racism. Yanksox 20:46, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Hate crime"? "Racism"? Calling 1.2 billion muslims "terrorists" and allowing the terms like "Islamic Terrorism" is not a "Hate crime" or "Racism". Taking off innocent Muslims off the planes coz the fellow passengers didn't feel "comfortable" or making movies to criminalize innocent human beings is not "hate crime" or "racism"? Asking from muslims to continuously apologize for 911 and other acts which were committed by some lunatics and yet not apologizing for White Christian Terrorism is not "hate crime" or "racism"? It is time for the White Christian Terrorists to have the taste of their own medicine which they shoving down the throat of others for centuries. What you guys are doing is harrassment and forcing me to stop contributing to wikipedia which claims to be neutral and yet allow 1.2 billion human beings to be called "terrorists" and yet White Christian Terrorists crimes against humanity, genocide, holocausts squat free. It is double standard and hypocrisy. AmandaParker

AmandaParker, "White Christian Terrorism" isn't a real term yet. It has yet to pop up, it's a hate crime. What occurs with Muslim Extremists are actual attacks on US Soil (like Embassys), that is attacking another nation. When the term pops up, then maybe it will get an article. But it's just a term that you have made up. I would classify it as racism and a hate crime because that is what it is. Take the cause of creating "White Christian Terrorism" to the world of academia, which is where it should be, Wikipedia is just a record keeper and not an official source. Write an article for a paper, not an internet site that tracks information. You have the right idea and the right cause. You just have the wrong medium. Yanksox 00:47, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Al-Ahbash page

Re your message: If the reverting gets out of hand, I suggest making a request to semi-protect the article at WP:RFPP. -- Gogo Dodo (talk)

Thanks for the suggestion. Best regards. :) AmandaParker (talk)

March 2012

Your recent editing history at Al-Ahbash shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Darkness Shines (talk) 08:30, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the result of an edit warring report about you at WP:AN3#User:AmandaParker reported by User:Darkness Shines (Result: Warned). I recommend that you be more careful. If this happens again in the future a block is likely. EdJohnston (talk) 15:13, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkness Shines (talk • contribs)

April 2012

Thank you for your contributions. Please remember to mark your edits, such as your recent edits to Al-Ahbash, as "minor" only if they truly are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes, or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. Sudo Ghost 03:48, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are suspected of sockpuppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AmandaParker. Thank you. Osarius Talk 10:48, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]