User talk:69.138.16.202

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, 69.138.16.202, 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:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! Marlith ^T/C 04:43, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Re:Al-Qaeda

Yes, I do agree they are terrorists. But it's still a point of view - there's the old adage "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" - and thus should not be in article-space. We can say they are classed as terrorists by country X, Y, and Z, but we can't convery an opinion themselves. Will ^(talk) 11:52, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Please read this: "Let the facts speak for themselves" - this is what I'm trying to say. There may and probably is be a sizeable portion of people who think al-Qaeda are doing the "Right Thing™" and are not terrorists, so the word remains POV unless otherwise. Will ^(talk) 12:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

There is. Will ^(talk) 12:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Still, can you explain why the word "terrorist" is not a POV term? You can hold the point of view that al-Qaeda are terrorists, but it's not fact until al-Qaeda themselves say they are. They are a militant organisation as they've admitted that much. But we can't say they're terrorists as people can say easily say they're freedom fighters. (both terms are as extreme as each other, and the opposite POV can be held by millions in the Middle East) Will ^(talk) 12:40, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

With your last post, you're just trolling. Consider yourself ignored. Will ^(talk) 12:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

December 2007

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Debt money. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Nol888_(Talk)^(Review) 17:09, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Re: Debt-based monetary system

I have been at Wikipedia for some time, and I know that there is usually a formal AfD discussion before an article is arbitrarily redirected. Also, as an IP user, I wonder what formal experience you have to make these decisions. Excuse me if that sounds rude, just, this seems to conflict with what my experiences tell. Nol888_(Talk)^(Review) 17:15, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

There was no formal decision to redirect the page. Wikipedia is about being bold, but such unwarranted changes as a page redirect is not covered under that policy. Nol888_(Talk)^(Review) 17:25, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

It is not up to you to determine if the article is "junk" or not. Wikipedia is community-based, and such decisions need to be decided upon by the community first. Nol888_(Talk)^(Review) 17:30, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to Debt money, you will be blocked from editing. Also, you broke the three-revert rule on that one. -- Vision Thing -- 20:47, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I only reverted three times. Each revert is clearly numbered. I did not violate WP:3RR. 69.138.16.202 (talk) 22:16, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

---