User talk:Zw

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Excellent work so far on trying to get a NPOV on the anti-Zionism article. I like to go through the edit histories of the Zionists here and see what articles they've been editting, so I can nip their lies in the bud. I was delighted to find in one of their hisories the Zionism page itself yesterday so I could mention the "Zionism is a form of racism" resolution adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1975 (which was unfortunately rescinded in 1991). I see that the appearance of someone like yourself who does not follow the Zionist party line and would like to fix some of the more egregious lies on the page has freaked out the Zionists who have locked the page. Some of the spin is unbelievable, if I read Wikipedia for all of my information I'd think the Arabs were the ones who started the 1967 war (in which Israel was even bombing US ships like the USS Liberty. -- Lancemurdoch 17:42, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I hope you two are having fun plotting against "the Zionists." By the way, have you heard that Zionists like to kidnap Christian children and drink their blood? You don't read about that in the Zionist-capitalist-imperialist media, do you? I think you should add that to the Zionism article when you get the chance. Adam 04:15, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Incidentally, Zw, you might like to know that I have been opposing the moves to have you banned.

"Zw is not a Nazi and it is a stupid and offensive accusation to make. He is however a dogmatic and unco-operative inserter of grossly POV material (anti-Israeli in his case, but the topic doesn't really matter) into articles that other people have put a lot of work into. Both Zionism and anti-Zionism have had to be protected from his depredations. I don't think he should be banned but I do think he should be warned off in some way." (from Village Pump)

See how liberal I am? But don't push your luck. Adam 04:15, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

How nice of you, Adam! But I can't see why I should be banned. If someone should be banned, it should be the person who is calling other users nazis - at least I consider making a complaint against him. Btw, you know I would have done the same for you ;-) Zw

An Open Letter from Rex Mundi, co-founder of Brianism. Anjouli 13:21, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I never requested you be banned. I DID ask what the requirements for a ban were. I have also not said anyhting that I do not beleive to be untrue, and hence, will apoligise for nothing. Pellaken 03:11, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)

on second thought: in all honesty I did 'hint' that I thought you were a NAZI. I do agree with some of what you say, Zionisim can be seen as racisim, and anti-zionisim as anti-racisim, and they does deserve a mention, but it is not the "mainstream" NPOV. I apoligise for hinting at the fact that I thought you were a Nazi, however, I still disagree with anti-zionisim. feel free to disagree with me. Pellaken 03:39, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Please don't take offense to my reversion of your edits on the Stalin article. Right now, the intro is succinct and avoids the use of loaded terms. In the main body of the article, we deal with all the matters that you cited and discuss causality estimates.

On a related note, NPOV also applies to the Stalin article, which makes adherence to these polices in an article that attracts such immense anger and passion quite an uphill battle. If we don't keep the article concise and specific, the article could attract more and more loaded commentary, which poses the risk of converting it from an encyclopedic format to that of an essay. An essay is fine, but since we striving to adhere to the same standards as published encyclopedias, we need to keep this article's style more or less orthodox. 172 17:43, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)


Could you please add source or licence of Image:Ah berghof.jpg if possible? — Matthäus Wander 13:30, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)


The protection must have been accidental, I don't remember it. Morwen 09:01, Mar 28, 2004 (UTC)


Vandalism and POV are two different things. While I agree that cleaning up after Kenneth will be quite some work, accusing him of being a vandal and threatening him with banning is not the way to resolve this dispute. Vandalism is clearly defined and certainly not applicable here.—Eloquence 01:56, Mar 30, 2004 (UTC)

Kenneth Alan[edit]

Your comments would be very much appreciated at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Kenneth Alan. -- Decumanus | Talk 16:42, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Zw, there appears to be a content dispute in progress between you and User:Kenneth Alan. Do you want to seek mediation? -- The Anome 13:55, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Ah. I've just read the page above. It looks like this is a wider problem. Suggestion: a quickpoll if this user returns to abusive behavior, with a one-week ban as a suggested first remedy. I suggest not taking any other action in the absence of further abusive behavior. If this does not fix it, I suggest moving towards the formal banning procedure. -- The Anome 14:23, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

If there is a POV problem with an article featured on the main page, Template:Feature is not an appropriate form for trying to hash it out. Please don't get into an edit war there. Cheers, -- Infrogmation 05:31, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I should point out that you are in violation of the 3 revert rule. Continue adding that material at your own peril. →Raul654 06:05, Jun 13, 2004 (UTC)

Re Zionism: Spare me your dishonest and hypocritical lectures on POV. Do you seriously think a word like "atrocities" is NPOV? I know perfectly well what you are doing and I will continue to revert you. Adam 06:26, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

So will I. As for atrocities, look at the Holocaust article - du you think it is POV? Anyway, I'd be willing to accept "the much criticized Israeli policies in regard to the Palestinian people" instead of "atrocities", if that would make you change your mind. Zw

It would not. Adam 06:43, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Heads up[edit]

RK is demanding that you be banned on the Wiki-EnL list. You might wish to sign up for the list in order to respond. —No-One Jones 04:02, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Kenneth Alan[edit]

Kenneth Alan's case it now in arbitration. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Kenneth Alan. You may wish to add comment to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Kenneth Alan/Evidence Mintguy (T) 14:12, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)