User talk:FightCancer

Citation templates formatting

In regards to this edit, could you please put the citation templates all on one line so they don't expand the article source code so much? In particular don't put newlines between the opening curly braces and the actual template content. This isn't computer programming, it's Wiki writing. Thanks. --Cyde↔Weys 02:45, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please? You just did another template in the same style even after I wrote you this previous message. --Cyde↔Weys 02:57, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia suggestions on citing sources. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources/example_style FightCancer 03:30, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's the example code, where the parameters are broken out by line for increased readability as an example. In practice, though, the whole template is one line. By the way, I know a thing or two about references and citation templates, seeing as how I'm the guy who wrote the program that converts old-style references to the current <ref> system ... so it's not necessary to quote usage pages to me, I already know all of them by heart. --Cyde↔Weys 03:33, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not everyone on Wiki is programmer. Please be patient. FightCancer 03:36, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit signature

Regarding this edit, signing the Edit Summary doesn't work and it not necessary because your username is shown in the history. --Deenoe 03:52, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. FightCancer 04:31, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Negotiations for ceasefire

Please keep your edits to this section in line with the it's topic - Negotiations for ceasefire. Whether or not the US's involvement is against the wishes of its populace are irrelevant to this. Sorry, but feel free to reply. Tewfik^Talk 04:59, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia was not designed for opinionated users to censor information. IMO, it is extremely relevant when national leadership is doing the exact opposite of what an overwhelming majority wants. Such acts do not befit a superpower who bombs the world spreading democracy. FightCancer 17:31, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

US Aid

The difference being that we don't also include who is funding Lebanon etc., because if it is at all relevant, the relevance is to the greater Arab-Israeli conflict. Hezbollah's funding is relevant because that funding is for arms which directly contradicts an SC resolution calling for its disarmament, as well as numerous states considering it a terrorist entity. This information is not included, so there is no question that the US funding is hardly relevant to the Israel-Lebanon hostilities. Tewfik^Talk 17:20, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you're mistaken. Please see the section titled "Position of Lebanon" which discusses "the support [Lebanon] gets from Syria and Iran". This link may work. 2006_Israel-Lebanon_conflict#Position_of_Lebanon FightCancer 17:25, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There may be 5 words inferring something. There is certainly not a detailed exposition of Lebanon's chief supplier of foreign aid, and for good reason - it is not directly relevant to this article, as has been explained by others on talk. Please stop adding these passages, as they are really not constructive. If you still believe that they should be added, then make your whole case on Talk, and others will weigh your rationale. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 17:53, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Inferring means to draw a conclusion. "Imply" is the word you want. Regardless, it's not an implication. It's an explicit statement, and it's being recited daily by US politicians. I have been making my case on Talk for an hour now. It would be nice if you would have joined us sooner. FightCancer 18:00, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. Tewfik^Talk 18:21, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just like the word "infer" above, you're confused about what "revert" means. Please read Wikipedia:Revert. "To revert is to undo all changes made after a certain time in the past." I've never reverted even once, let alone 3 times. FightCancer 18:39, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that, as Tewfik has already stated, that the policy also refers to the manipulation of the process in order to reinsert an old edit. Your actions have been placed up for review on the admin notice board. --Strothra 20:12, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you look carefully, my edits are rarely, if ever, the same. FightCancer 21:37, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Block

Hi. You've been blocked from editing for 12 hrs for violating 3RR. Please ensure that no further reverts are made for 24 hours. Thanks. El_C 21:39, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"If you have the capacity to tremble with indignation every time that an injustice is committed in the world, then we are comrades." --Che Speaking of injustice, the least you could do is provide proof. FightCancer 21:56, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1st revert: 2006-07-23 12:49:03
2nd revert: 2006-07-23 13:05:30
3rd revert: 2006-07-23 13:15:33
4th revert: 2006-07-23 13:43:11
5th revert: 2006-07-23 14:09:05

--Strothra 03:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did you notice that none of those 3 edits are exactly the same? FightCancer 03:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They don't have to be exactly the same. The policy isn't enforced on technicality, it's enforced on common sense. The content, subject matter, and idea of the section were reverted back to with no substantial editing or changes in a manner which would have complied with concensus and thus were likely considered reversions. You should be aware that continuing this behavior after the end of the block will most likely result in a more severe one. Attempting to manipulate the system for your own agenda is not appreciated. You cannot expect to repetitively reinstate your changes to the article when they're disputed by everyone else editing the article - doing so is a disruption of Wikipedia and is insulting to real editors attempting to contribute in a positive and constructive manner. Although you are encouraged to be bold in your edits, you should not disregard warnings and concensus. --Strothra 03:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What I expect is for people follow the posted rules and not some random user's interpretation of common sense. FightCancer 10:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

POV-check Removal

In the article 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict you removed the POV-check tag without consulting the Talk page. Would you mind joining me there for a brief discussion on why I posted the tag? TIA! FightCancer 19:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No I did not: it was Cyde [1] Please check the diffs before making accusations. --Jobrahms 08:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised

...by this decision. What purpose does warning a user who is violating 3RR serve for a veteran user who is already warning other users about 3RR while violating it himself? Clearly, the user was aware of the rule as he was warning others. 6 reverts in just over 5 hours by a veteran member merits a warning? I accept your decision but do not agree with it. FightCancer 12:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reasonable point, but also be aware that the 3RR is a means of stopping sterile revert wars, not punishment. The reverts in question happened over 36 hours ago. Stifle (talk) 13:05, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Removing Unsourced Claims

While it is true that the {{citation needed}} tag is sometimes useful, not every claim that is posted is necessarily deserving of remaining up. In general, it is determined by how controversial the claim is. In this case, it was both unsourced, contained possible original research (which obviously can't be verified due to lack of citation), and poorly written. Also, the lack of a source prevents us from seeing how notable the name is, even if it is truly used. For more information, check Wikipedia:Citing sources. Tewfik^Talk 20:29, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Harmless is relative. Saying that one side calls it the event a war is a major claim, and there's no reason to include something so controversial without any sources. Feel free to research it, but I found no record on either the Israeli Foreign Ministry or the IDF Spokesman. I believe {{fact}} is a deprecated tag and should be replaced with {{citation needed}}. Tewfik^Talk 20:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

revert dispute International reactions to the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict

Hi, There is an dispute in International reactions to the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict. The dispute is over inclusion of the AIPAC reaction to a US House of Representatives Resolution expressing support for Israel. Various accusations are being thrown around by Comrade438 eg. im being accused of trying to paint a "zionist conspiracy".

Comrade438 has made few silly edits, and comments, along with what might be a threat. It degenerated to Comrade438 blocking the page without consulting WP:RPP, then reverting last changes. I am trying to alert other users who have edited the article to this dispute as I believe the detail should be included. Is it possible you can look and see if you agree that AIPAC's reaction should be included in the article? I dont believe its a content issue and is possible trolling. I previously highlighted the problems on wikipedian noticeboard [2] 82.29.227.171 21:22, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why shouldn't the reaction of the APAIC be listed on the International reactions to the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict page? Is this issue still occurring? Thanks, FightCancer 14:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation Cabal

Hey FightCancer, I wanted to know if you still need my services as part of the Mediation Cabal? LawrenceTrevallion 23:30, 13 August 2006 (UTC) This one is a dirty racist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.169.11.130 (talk) 08:36, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]