User talk:NormaLisa

To Malik Shabazz, Why did you reversed the human shield page?

As I explained in my edit summary and on Salutti's talk page, it violate's Wikipedia's policy regarding neutral point of view. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 21:21, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's "neutral" about your stand in damning Israel and not highlighting Palestinians' use of own children which is so dufferent as salutti pointed out?

NormaLisa (talk) 21:24, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article already discussed the use of Palestinian children as human shields in neutral language. Please read the policy, and then read the article. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 21:27, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It (your version) does not discuss it BEFORE Israel's use of enemy, it's totally different and it happened before, chronologically! (The year 2000 use by Palestinians is before the year 2002 use by Israelis), it makes a blend of both things, Palestinians use of own population and Israel allegedly used once or twice people of the enemy side. - Your version is NOT neutral and incorrect

NormaLisa (talk) 21:32, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NormaLisa--typing in bold is not a substitute for following Wikipedia guidelines for articles. Please refer to WP:NPOV, WP:RS, and WP:OR for help on how to edit within the guidelines. Thanks. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 21:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

September 2008

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Human shield. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 21:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Human shield. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 21:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see, thanks, Is this warning for Malik Shabazz as well? How many times did he reverse it without any real explanation?

NormaLisa (talk) 21:51, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Salutti for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 22:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]