User talk:VictimsWife

Welcome to Wikipedia. A page you recently created, Terrorism by Caucasian Extremists, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for new pages, so it will shortly be removed (if it hasn't been already). Please use the sandbox for any tests, and consider using the Article Wizard. For more information about creating articles, you may want to read Your first article. You may also want to read our introduction page to learn more about contributing. Thank you. Please review WP:NPOV. NawlinWiki (talk) 03:18, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand: why deleted? It is a topic of significance, and no such article exists in the wikipedia. Why did you destroy my work before it was finished? VictimsWife (talk) 03:22, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your contributed article, Terrorism by Caucasian Extremists

Hello, I notice that you recently created a new page, Terrorism by Caucasian Extremists. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as yourself. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page - 2010 moscow bombings. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will to continue helping improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at 2010 moscow bombings - you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think that the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 03:23, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I belive this should express the atrocity of these attacks and the cowardly terrorists. But this this neutral. See what has been written about Al Qaida, another clan of terrorists who keep killing innocent people of the United states. There is no way to describe the terrorists, other than "killers." VictimsWife (talk) 03:25, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know guidelines of Wikipedia. Can you help me in writing this article? VictimsWife (talk)

I'm not a person that endorses terrorism, but how can you call these acts of cowards?? I think it takes a lot courage to strap on explosives, knowing that they will kill you, on your body. Fighting for Justice (talk) 04:36, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

People like that are why Wikipedia has such strict guidelines about excluding personal opinions from articles. As if suicide bombers were anything but suicides, taking the coward's way out. "Fighting for Justice", would you say that teenage girls who slit their wrists are brave? At least they have enough courage to feel the knife cut them. No, the real brave ones are the people who lose so much to the terrorist attacks and can still go on fighting. Wnt (talk) 05:17, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, VictimsWife, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one of your contributions does not conform to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV). Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media.

There's a page about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

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 have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Hell In A Bucket (talk) 03:26, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

March 2010

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 03:31, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong in removing my insertion. It is not my commentary, but this has been said by many experts, including experts in wikipedia's "world police" country. VictimsWife (talk) 03:34, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wild rants about wikipedia being world police doesn't help you with the argument of NPOV. Please stop, read WP:SYN] Hell In A Bucket (talk) 03:36, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand anything. I told as you was asked, and provided a source, which is this: [1]. I do not understand why you are attacking me. VictimsWife (talk) 03:43, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No one is attacking you. Please take a few minutes and read WP:SYN and WP:OR. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 03:46, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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 several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 03:47, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The content you're adding belongs in that article. But you're running into trouble over with some of the technical rules of Wikipedia. They want encyclopedia articles that sound like an encyclopedia. And if you keep adding the same exact section any more they're going to say that you're violating "WP:3RR", a rule that limits how many back-and-forth changes people can make.

I believe that you are truly a victim's wife and that you have every reason to come here and start editing as fast as you can and I wish you all the luck and sympathy this world can give for someone in such a time. But because all the accounts are basically anonymous no one really knows that, so they're not going to treat you with the sort of respect that you deserve. Please try to have a little bit of patience for Wikipedia, which is a morass of arguments like this, and we'll try to get said what needs to be said.

Your perspective so close to the event will help everyone in the world to understand more, once the misunderstandings are put behind us - thank you for joining Wikipedia. Wnt (talk) 03:55, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A note to Hell In A Bucket, please remember not to bite the newcomers. LokiiT (talk) 04:31, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Terrorism by Caucasus Extremists

The article Terrorism by Caucasus Extremists has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Highly vague and unnecessary article, but apparently a vehicle for a highly charged point of view.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Glenfarclas (talk) 04:24, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did to Shamil Basayev, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Glenfarclas (talk) 04:29, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've added this information back to Shamil Basayev, citing ABC News which called him "one of the most-wanted terrorists in the world". VictimsWife's version was unsourced, but not inaccurate. Wnt (talk) 04:48, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]