User talk:Tannim

I slightly edited your addition to the IRC article. Didn't revert it, just a grammatical change to point out the "claim" was about "why" it was rejected, not "that" it was rejected. Sadena 15:08, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome Tannim. Please do not revert typos.

Welcome!

Hello, Tannim, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! NTK 20:44, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Air America

I deleted your sentence in the Air America article because it was not a fact. It is your opinion that the ratings bear out the previous statements. It doesn't add any value to the article. It's just a jab at the Air America's bad ratings. I personally don't care about Air America. I just don't like nonfactual mockery in articles. Sorry I left no memo, but I've deleted that line before. I just don't like it. Feel free to convince me otherwise.Noit 02:42, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"analysis" is not encyclopedic. Noit 18:08, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems my comment was accurate as they just filed Chapter 11.Tannim 21:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Accurate or not, your analysis doesn't belong here. Everything written in Wikipedia needs to be sourced. You don't always need to add the citation, but you should always be able to. This means you can only add information you read somewhere else, without adding any value or spin to that data. It's not a place to "write about" a topic, but rather a place to "gather data" about a topic. Your sentence, "The ratings would seem to bear this out," is not data. It is just a comment. Noit 00:29, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your Edits to Hugo Chávez

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits, such as those you made to Hugo Chávez, are considered vandalism. If you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the hard work of others. Thanks. JRSP 21:55, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How is it vandalism? I am sorry that you have a leader who does associate with a nutcase who fires missles over other nation's territories. The fact is that your dictator does associate with Iran, Korea and Cuba whose leaders stifle dissent

Your Chávez edits

As before, I have comments on your edits:

Please do not change the spelling of Chávez.
The Democratic People's Republic of Korea is not a rouge nation; it is a rogue nation. Spelling properly will help people take you seriously.
Please back up your assertions with verifiable references. You stated that you think that Chávez's alliance with various nations is common knowledge, but even if that were true I would want references to back it up, so others could properly gauge the relationships. In the current climate of uncertainty surrounding North Korea, any real ties between the countries would be meaningful.
Please treat the other editors with respect. This goes for JRSP, Gdo01, Sadena, Axlq, and anyone I forgot to mention.

I'm trying to assume good faith here, but it's difficult. If you have concerns about sourcing, please contact me on my Talk page and I'll help you decide what should pass as a good source. CRGreathouse (t | c) 23:47, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To CRGreenhouse: It seems to me with the exception of Axlq, the attacks have been coming from the others. If you look at Sadena's first post to me.

Of course, the requirement to be WP:CIVIL and assume good WP:FAITH from others is not removed even if they (wrongly) fail to reciprocate. But enough of that; I'm more interested in the article. Television is a hard source to cite, but if it's what you have it can probably be used. Don't just list the station and date, though; give a person's name. If you can find a link to a video clip or transcript, provide it; otherwise, use a direct quite (for those of us who missed the program). For example, I don't watch news on TV, so you'd have to give me the quote or I won't understand.

I've actually never cited a television show before that I can recall. I'm going to ask another editor or two for advice here. CRGreathouse (t | c) 00:02, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue a major news network Fox, BBC etc is just as relliable a source as a newspaper. Tannim 17:25, 11 October 2006 (UTC)TannimTannim 17:25, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not disagreeing, I'm trying to find information on how best to cite it. I lack personal experience, as I mentioned.

Personally, I think the BBC is one of the most reliable sources for news, and I would be thrilled to see it cited more often in the Chavez article (as well as in many other articles). CRGreathouse (t | c) 17:49, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stop reinserting your gossip

And you have inserted it 3 times already. The third time will be a violation of WP:3RR. This is not the place to have your personal vendatta and read WP:NPOV and look at the other warnings already issued to you. KittenKlub 21:26, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not gossip it is a fact reported by AP. Just because you're a fan of Barbara does not give you the right to edit criticsm of her behavior

Who says I am a fan of Barbra? That's the first part were you are wrong. But unlike you, I do respect a woman who had such an outstanding career. And where is the link if it is reported and it is totally irrelevant information as well. It's negative gossip and violates WP:NPOV. Your other edits make it clear, that you do nothing but insert negative stories. And you're a suspected sock puppet of a banned user as well. KittenKlub 07:06, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not gossip, the Associated Press is a major news reference source used by newspapers all over the world. As she has been taking pot shot at people for years she is open to criticism

You don't even supply a link. It should be verifiable. Insert the story once more and you are going for 3RR. KittenKlub 09:23, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked as well as your're the one who started the rediting.Tannim 17:12, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The first revert was by another user, so you are banned first. Therefore I always win. KittenKlub 17:20, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule on a page. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from further editing.

It's hard to assume good faith with you

Removing Jewish Defense League from terrorist organizations even though it is known terrorist organization and has been identified as such and more politically motivated entries. It is very hard to assume any good faith in your edits since they are all biased and politically motivated. KittenKlub 10:12, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No it is not, a terrorist orginization is one that send homicide bombers into cafes. That is a terrorist orginization. You just don't want opposing facts

It is listed as a terrorist organization - even though the US didn't think so - and carried out quite a number terrorists acts. Just because it is Jewish doesn't make it any less a terrorist organization than Hamas. Terrorist organizations are organizations who carried out acts of terrorism. They committed assassinations, burglaries, and even tried to bomb somebody. That's terrorism. KittenKlub 12:18, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing to add poorly referenced defamatory information

You have made an edit that could be regarded as defamatory. Please do not restore this material to the article or its talk page. If you restore this material to the article or its talk page once more, you will be blocked for disruption. See Blocking policy: Biographies of living people. KittenKlub 11:11, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not defamatory it's a fact. Read the artical then if you have a problem talk about it.

Once again you fail to provide a functioning link thus making it unverifiable. Just like the last time. Add to that that you have failed to make ANY positive contribution to Wikipedia and are a suspect sockpuppet of a banned user, it makes that further attempts at disrupting wikipedia and defaming people will be handled accordingly. And I don't negotiate with people who are supportive of terrorist organizations. KittenKlub 11:29, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are proof of the PC and intolerance of some people here. You can't handle the truth and refuse to discuss. Stop harrasing me, you have been reported.Tannim 13:13, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not the place to slander people. Comments should be neutral, but negative comments always should avoided unless relevant (and these comments are not relevant). It needs proper sourcing (and it is not properly sourced). And using AOL IPs to prevent detection is sockpuppetry. And you do not discuss anything, you keep inserting your slander on all pages. KittenKlub 17:35, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Slander is when you lie about someone or malign them unfairly. I have done neither. Tannim 18:47, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User notice: temporary 3RR block

Regarding reversions[1] made on October 15 2006 to Barbra Streisand

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

The duration of the block is 24 hours.

I've blocked you for 3RR. But I could have probably have blocked you for vandalism - please *don't* add your sig to article pages; and adding a month name to a date makes little sense

William M. Connolley 09:24, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By some accident, I blocked you for 3h instead of 24. Since you're returned and just started reverting again, I have really blocked you for 24h now William M. Connolley 16:01, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the record your ban is unjustified, did you ban the person who started this?

Warning for almost breaching 3RR again

You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule on a page. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from further editing. KittenKlub 21:24, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have no authority to lecture you are breaking the rules and reverting my additions. Go away.Tannim 21:45, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User notice: temporary 3RR block

Regarding reversions[2] made on October 17 2006 to Hezbollah

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

The duration of the block is 48 hours.

Congratulations! You're up to 48h. If the next is soon, it will be 1 week

William M. Connolley 17:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As you have been selective in your blocking I will just block annomosly wather you or Kitten Klub like it or not!!

P.C POLICE - It is obvious the only reason William Connolley and Jaranda have blocked me is because they disagree with my edits. Both Kitten Klub and Count Iblis were guilty of the 3 revert rule first. Hezbollah is a terrorist orginization and for stating that I am being blocked.Tannim 13:13, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Terrorist groups

We are not denying anything. Denial would a a statement like "Hezbollah is *not* a terrorist group". On wikipedia we must stick to verifiable facts. There is no place for propaganda on wikipedia. There is a good reason why you cannot include your POV in wikipedia however convinced you are that you are right. Just think about what would happen to articles about Israel, the Iraq war etc. Cindi Sheehan could write her POV opinion about Bush, Rumsfeld etc. on the respective pages. Without rigorous rules barring such edits, you couldn't successfully revert some of these opinions if a majority of the people believes in that.

Instead, what you see on wikipedia is that editors who don't like the Iraq war, will still revert anti-war POV edits. Note that I did revert anti-Israeli POV edites before. This makes wikipedia a reliable source of information. Count Iblis 16:09, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Warning for almost violating 3RR again

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing in International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement. 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.. Please note that the use of sock puppets like your AOL IP 152.163.100.8 will be counted. KittenKlub 17:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will consider doing that, will you do the same and not involve others as proxies?Tannim 09:17, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits are violating Wikipedia policy and people have a right to revert it and since you cannot make any valid argument for your edits nor supply verification for your so-called facts, it will reverted and as you have noticed, it is reverted by almost all editors. And the only thing you do is make personal attacks, and keep on reinserting material which violates policies like WP:NPOV, WP:BLP, WP:OR, WP:V. The reason that others support my decisions to revert you is because you happen to violate policy. That's called consensus. KittenKlub 10:12, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That all your edits to all pages including your previous incarnation have been reverted by many editors should indicate that your edits violate policy and are unwanted. KittenKlub 10:13, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hezbollah article

Dear Tannim, Thank you for your supporting during a time when much of the world is against the Jewish state. One way you could help even more is by not getting emotionally involved in an argument over a Wikipedia article. You must keep a level head and not use Wikipedia in a way that you might with your own personal blog as anti-Israel Wikipedians are so inclined to do. Instead of reverting edits you don't like, or purposefully rocking the boat with your own POV edits, I suggest calmly disecting false accusations on the talk page without resorting to their straw man and ad hominem tactics. Feel free to browse my user page for examples of this kind of healthy "pro-activeness." Lastly, remember that not all criticisms of Israeli policy is anti-Semetic or necessarily wrong. Have enough courage to treat a true claim with respect, even if you do not agree with the claimer's conclusion. And keep informed on Israel and read about her history. --GHcool 05:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GHCool - I am trying to be reasonable it seems that your remarks should be sent to Count Iblis and Kitten Klub who are reverting everything I have done. I'll try to take your advice but you must admidt that these pages are not unbiased.Tannim 09:15, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You were just inserting your POV without discussing it seriously. Editors on wikipedia should not draw their own conclusions but must simply write about the world by taking information from sources and then attribute that information to the sources. So you can't write: "X is true", just because Y says that X is true. You must instead write: "Y says that X is true". If such an edit by you get's reverted then you should go to the talk page and ask why they reverted you. If your edit was reasonable, then you should be able to get the support of other editors. If that's unsuccesful you can ask for mediation and if that's unsuccesful too you can ask for arbitration. Count Iblis 22:05, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

November 2006

Edit to Fidel Castro reverted. Please stop. CMacMillan 21:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tannim, your truth and someone else's truth are not necessarily the same. Please remember that Wikipedia is not your view, but is an encyclopedia. Sourced comments are what determine the direction of an article. Why is this hard for you to connect with? CMacMillan 16:56, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CmacMillan it is you who need to be reminded about POV. By Wilkipedia's own definition Cuba is not a republic, I have put in state which is a neutral position.

Blocked

You have been temporarily blocked from editing for repeatedly violating Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. If you wish to make neutral and unbiased contributions, feel free to do so after the block expires. Please try to write in a measured, nuanced, encyclopedic and factual way. Excessive and tendentious edits might disturb the work of other editors and be reverted. You might find reading WP:POV useful in this respect. Thank you. -- Szvest 12:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Once again the P.C police have struck without discussion. You are the one imposing your views with out facts.

There is a moral cowardness among many administrators who don't allow facts to disuade them from their wolrd view.Tannim 15:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems obvious that the administrators are dominated by a cabal of self important administrators who refuse to discuss disputes. I have tried to contact the administrators who are unwilling to discuss the dispute. They resemble the intolerant students who refuse to allow dissenting facts or points of view. I can only conclude that they have no confidence in their ability to discuss issues rationaly.Tannim 13:23, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinitely blocked for mailing to the unblock-en mailing list As the administrators seem to be given favored status and are allowed to abuse editors and their rights even though Wikipedia is supposed to be a free editing source, I will do as I see fit.. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:39, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]