User talk:Will314159/Archive 3

Casus belli

Hey Will,

Per my removal of "alleged" and similar qualifications on the casus, that is because not all claims have equal validity. At this point, the UN, EU, G8, and mainstream media, including Al Jazeera, have all characterised the Hezbollah action as "cross-border." Moreover, while there were a few reports that initially claimed the raid had taken place in Lebanon, I haven't seen any current reports from those agencies or other WP:Reliable sources repeating that claim. If you check the (admittedly difficult to navigate =D) archives, you will see that this has been discussed numerous times. To return to what I was saying previously, a minority claim which at this point is not backed up by mainstream sources does not deserve equal weight to the consensus accepted by such a broad spectrum of international organisations; anyways, our pronouncements are subject to WP:Verifiability, not truth. If you do find some new mainstream sources, the debate should be reopened on Talk. If you have any questions about this or anything else on Wikipedia, feel free to approach me. Happy editing, Tewfik^Talk 03:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We all know when it comes to Israel, logic is inverted. Black is white and White is Black. As the Walt & Mearsheimer study has brought out, any debate is stifled due to overwhelming pressure and spin. The facts are the origin is DISPUTED; therefore, alleged is appropriate. Look at all the WMD bull we just went through with the Irak war. The whole thing smells of the SS operation blowing up the German Radio station and blaming it on the Poles that set off World War II. Supporting evidece is that a three week operation had been long planned and the extremely disproportionate response to civilian infrastructure. Best Wishes! Will314159 10:10, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: Leó Szilárd

Please refrain from reverting good faith edits with a reason of Vandalism. This reasoning should only be used when actual vandalistic changes are made. The changes made in the Leó Szilárd article may be disputed, but they are far from vandalism.

Another point, please discuss your reasons for reversion on the article talk page so that the other editors can get an understanding of your concerns. Please be sure to provide citations for your position.

Thanks for your attention in this matter.

Torinir _{( Ding my phone} _{My support calls} _{E-Support Options )} 18:26, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is vandalism when a revert is done without prior discussion on the talk page. And that's why I called it exactly what it was. Will314159 18:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

There's a lot of discussion on the talk page, but your comments for the reversions are not present. Please take the time to show reasonable support for your position. It helps to try and achieve consensus. Torinir _{( Ding my phone} _{My support calls} _{E-Support Options )} 19:09, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just FYI, making edits without talk page discussion isn't, IMHO, vandalism. See what vandalism is not. I know it's convenient to call a lot of edits vandalism to try to get around 3RR, but the vandalism page is clear that vandalism refers to edits "made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia." It may not be good editing policy to make controversial edits without talk page consensus, but it's certainly not vandalism. TheronJ 20:04, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(To clarify, I don't have an opinion about whether Will or Hi There is correct in their reversions -- I just don't see any evidence that Hi There is engaged in vandalism. I agree with Torinir that it would be better if both Will and Hi There discussed their reversions on the talk page, either prior to or after their edits) TheronJ 20:07, 11 August 2006

(UTC)

Wikit time registration 9:36 EST Will314159 13:37, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

The Likud Regime of Israel and its members that protested that abadonment of the Gaza settlements according to Juan Cole, a professor who specializes in Middle Eastern studies, meet several factors he has identified as fascist. 1) Radical nationalism. 2) Militarism and aggressiveness. 3) Racism. 4) Favoring the wealthy, punishing the poor. (He maintains "in all the territory dominated by Israel, the poorest subjects are the Palestinians, who have been made poor by Israeli policies.") 5) Dictatorship. (He maintains " they have long favored Israeli military rule, which is to say, dictatorship, over the Palestinian population.) [1][2]

3RR and Neo-fascism

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. 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. Intangible 16:55, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Isarig Will314159 17:11, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

AN/I and Neo-fascism

I have reported you to WP:AN/I for your continuing edits to the Neo-fascism article. Intangible 23:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thank you Isarig Will314159 23:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not Isarig, and just to note, I have put you again the noticeboard. Intangible 00:57, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for violation of WP:3RR

You are blocked for 24 hours for violating WP:3RR on Neo-Fascism. I suggest you take this time to cool off and when the block expires discuss the matter rather than revert. If you feel you can't have a constructive discussion with other editors, I suggest you take a look at Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution.--Konstable 11:01, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]