Jump to content

User talk:Qvxz9173

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome

[edit]
Hello Qvxz9173, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page — I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.

Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:

Need help?

How you can help:

Additional tips...

Qvxz9173, good luck, and have fun. --House1090 (talk) 01:05, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Assyrians are Not Arabs

[edit]

Fariuz's father came Mardin which was an Assyrian/Syriac city at that time ♥Yasmina♥ (talk) 11:42, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

[edit]
Hello, Qvxz9173. You have new messages at Dave1185's talk page.
Message added 02:23, 19 February 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Dave ♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™ 02:23, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{adminhelp}}

Issues at Talk:Arab_Christians_and_Arabic-speaking_Christians

[edit]

There are issues with civility and Wikipedia:No personal attacks by the user user:Lanternix and user:Miss-simworld. These user also are violating the no original research rule and dispute a clear case of original research. the user Lanternix has recently made a suspicious edit where he talks about himself in the 3rd person (as if he is the other user Miss-simworld).[1]. A checkuser was done on Lanternix but it failed to detect that a single user is using mulitple accounts. This may be a result of using methods of by passing detection of sockpuppetry by using multiple IP addresses or other methods. --Qvxz9173 (talk) 08:29, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Civility is dealt with at WP:WQA. Dispute resolution is this way. You may need a third opinion, which can be asked for. Sockpuppet investigations are help here. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:25, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

[edit]
Hello, Qvxz9173. You have new messages at Dave1185's talk page.
Message added 09:44, 19 February 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Dave ♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™ 09:44, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Civility

[edit]

Hello. Yesterday, while on RC Patrol, I came across Talk:Arab Christians and Arabic-speaking Christians. While reading over that page, I was impressed with your conduct. You calmly discussed the content of the article while repeatedly ignoring the insults and personal attacks levelled against you. Your professional approach to the situation made you look good. However, with this edit you blew it. Calling someone dishonest, while it may be your honest opinion, does constitute a personal attack. I understand how difficult it can sometimes be to remain calm and professional while someone constantly attacks you, but another person's actions do not excuse personal attacks on your part. You alone are responsible for the words that you place on Wikipedia pages. Please continue to be professional. As you have been doing until this point, please discuss the content, not the editor. Thank you. 152.16.59.102 (talk) 10:38, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

March 2010

[edit]
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours to prevent further disruption caused by your engagement in an edit war at Arab Christians and Arabic-speaking Christians. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.  Sandstein  05:57, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Qvxz9173 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I admit it is a very complicated issue and it would be very difficult for a 3rd party to determine who is wrong without spending considerable time. However, if the sources on the talk page are checked it would be found that the other user's edits are original research. If my edits are checked, they are based on attributable content in the source. If my edits are checked, they are constructive to the article. If the other user's edits are checked destructive. I could explain any edit that I have made recently and I could back it up. There's no basis for the other users edits and they're unjustified and they failed to explain their edits and insist to push their POV on the article. Check the statistics for the article, the other user made the most edits to that article. I attempted dispute resolution and other options, they failed. The basis of my edits should be understood, not the fact I am confronted by another editor who insist on making edits not based what reliable sources say, delete reliable sourced content, and other destructive edits. Am I wrong to counter them? (which will cause a destructive response from the other editor, I did consider other options) It should also be noted that the other user did not respond with reliable sources or directly answer to many issues raised on the talk page. The other editor does not care about consensus, wikipedia guidelines, or reliable sources (however I do as demonstrated on talk page), the other editor will edit the article how they see fit they don't care what I say or what a reliable source says. I've shown restraint in my editing compared to the other editor.

Decline reason:

None of this addresses the reason you were blocked: edit warring. --jpgordon::==( o ) 07:34, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Qvxz9173 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I understand that if I am unable to resolve a dispute with another editor I should consider all dispute resolution options including arbitration or other options and to avoid making repeated edits if I know they will be countered/reverted by the other editor. I understand that edit wars serve no purpose and will avoid them in the future.

Decline reason:

Following a request for adminhelp in Feb, I personally pointed you to WP:WQA and WP:DR. It appears that rather than follow that advice that you actually asked for, you took the situation into your own hands. As such, IMHO a mere 2 day block is a little low - that said, I will not extend it further, nor will I reduce it. When you ask for help and are given that help, use it. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:32, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

{{adminhelp}} The user Lanternix (possible sockpuppet [2] of Miss-simworld (currently blocked for same thing as I am) Also involved in the longstanding edit war, has just made controversial changes (some of which could be vandalism) in support of Miss-simworld: [3]. I'm just making note of this and will be pursing dispute resolution (instead of taking things into my own hands), but this edit includes original research, deletion of sourced content, deletion of a reference, but some changes such as full quotes debateable, but I agree with removal of the unsourced content. --Qvxz9173 (talk) 18:29, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edits

[edit]

[4]

Qatari based and funded Arab Television network,Al-Jazeera stated in their reportage online by Arab reporter Ahmad Ibrahim wrote in his view that Lebanon's existance is merely a creation by the French who attempted to create a state in which the inhabitants were promoted as being distinct, unique, or even that they were of another ancestry or ethnicity compared to their neighbors (i.e. Phoenician instead of Arab). The Arab reporter also goes on to state from his viewpoint that the Christians of Lebanon see themselves as "superior" to the Muslims of Lebanon.

Source: http://english.aljazeera.net/focus/lebanon2009/2009/05/2009527142833966266.html

  • Does this source say "Christians of Lebanon see themselves as "superior" to the Muslims of Lebanon? NO!
  • "Qatari based and funded Arab Television network" tries to suggest an agenda by this source
  • The source says the Phoenician myth was used in the creation of Lebanon
  • Originally this source was used as a reference for: "In Lebanon many Maronites and other Lebanese Christians sects,feel a stronger link and cultural identification with Phoenicians and show pride in the belief that their ancestry is linked to the Phoenicians." (by Miss-simworld)


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Qvxz9173&oldid=1143538312"