Hello Keiko234! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. You may also push the signature button located above the edit window. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. This is considered an important guideline in Wikipedia. Even a short summary is better than no summary. Below are some recommended guidelines to facilitate your involvement. Happy Editing! -- Kukini05:42, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it 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. Please do not delete cited entries without discussion on the talk page or at the very least an edit summary. Kukini05:42, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You continue to revert cited statements and replace them with conjecture and citations from blogs. Please study the links in the welcome box above to improve your edits. Kukini16:47, 14 September 2006 (UTC)(response from Keiko234: The same rule is broken by original writers of this article.)[reply]
Thank you for your message on my user talk page. Please address any concerns you have about specific articles to the talk pages for those articles. I am not the person responsible for the content you seem to object to, and I am not the only person keeping an eye on deletions. Lagringa02:27, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the quote from the vandalism section: "Edits that blank all or part of a biography of a living person may not be vandalism, but instead an effort by the subject of the article to remove inaccurate or biased material. Even when such edits are inappropriate, they should be treated as content disputes, not vandalism. In particular, vandalism warning messages should not be left on the talk page of the editor."Keiko23404:16, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'm going to be the mediator for this case. Could you indicate precisely which sentences currently in the article are disputed. Thanks, Addhoc15:08, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Everything related to Max's article is based on quotes taken out of context. So I would also like to remove the mention of TFI, since it did not finance The Path to 9/11. The only contribution was to allow six interns to be on the film set. Interns are not paid, they just learned the workings of the film industry.
In a Yahoo.com News opinion column, Max Blumenthal (author for The Nation) reported, in June 2005 Cunningham's TFI announced it was producing its first film, titled "Untitled History Project."[9] From a TFI volunteer's website, members read: "Simply being referred to as: The Untitled History Project, it is already being called the television event of the decade and not one second has been put to film yet."[10] By July 2005 the New York Post noted, "At the moment, ABC officials are calling the miniseries 'Untitled Commission Report' and producers refer to it as the 'Untitled History Project."[11]
````
Thanks, I've tagged the Fox news and volunteer citations, because they don't appear to be working. Are there references to support your info about funding? Addhoc18:35, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Peace to you. Perhaps some misunderstanding is occuring.
I just added some verifiable references to the David L Cunningham page, and you removed them all with no notes in the talk page. I am not sure, but it appears that you did a massive edit to the page, reverting many, many changes.
As far as I know, this is not being a good wikipedian. I think that this massive change should be undone, and if you have any issues, they should be discussed point by point.
here is some information from the wikipedia Revert page:[2]
Do
See also Wikipedia policy should follow the spirit of ahimsa
Reverting is a decision which should be taken seriously.
Reverting is used primarily for fighting vandalism, or anything very similar to the effects of vandalism.
If you are not sure whether a revert is appropriate, discuss it first rather than immediately reverting or deleting it.
If you feel the edit is unsatisfactory, improve it rather than simply reverting or deleting it.
Don't
Do not simply revert changes that are made as part of a dispute. Be respectful to other editors, their contributions and their points of view.
8Do not revert changes simply because someone makes an edit you consider problematic, biased, or inaccurate. Improve the edit, rather than reverting it.
I will also add this information to the talk page for the article. In the interest of good faith, I am not going to immediately revert your massive change, but I probably will try to find someone to bring this up with.
I ask you to undo your reversion, since it violates the recommendations for doing a revert. Please take this matter up in the talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boscobiscotti (talk • contribs)
