User talk:70.23.104.48

I can't believe you guys delete 75% of what I say about Malcom X -- it's all true. In fact, supported by documents supplied by the FBI. The same guys who wiretapped his phones, intercepted his personal letters, infiltrated his 'mosques' with informants, researched his tax records, and interviewed him and his associates extensively.

Discuss these changes on the Talk page. You're putting your stuff in in weird places (besides insisting on changing exact quotations.) Just because things are factual doesn't mean that they can't be used in a POV fashion. It would also help if you would get a username so we could communicate better. Thanks! --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:36, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That wiki is already heavily slanted. I could cite numerous places that the 'facts' have been mistated to create an impression of Malcom X which simply isn't true.

You just keep deleting the truth about Malcom X, because it doesn’t fit in your own politically-correct interpretation of who Malcom X was.

Discuss these changes on the talk page; that's what it's for. --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 16:24, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As far as deleting exact quotations goes, you have done it yourself. I have posted several exact quotations on there that you have deleted, and they all were very relevant.

Please cease immediately from vandalizing Wikipedia, or you may be blocked from editing. Thanks. El_C 00:17, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just because it doesn't fit in with your foolish radical chic philosophy doesn't make it vandalism.

I am uninterested in your characterizations, please refrain from these in this discussions. Also, adhere to WP:NPA and WP:CIV, and cease from adding "like Hitler," unless you are able to cite and verify that such a parallel is employed by reliable and authoritative sources. El_C 00:29, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You are one very funny guy. Having to cite references that Hitler or Hale engaged in identity politics is about as ridiculous as having to cite references that Ronald Reagan was a Republican.

Please try to remain professional. The issue isn't with the identity politics bit, that's a strawman, I find. It is drawing the comparison with Hitler, that is the parallel you need to cite. Otherwise, it's a crude POV statement with obvious narrow and wholly negative aims. El_C 02:48, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As I've said several times already, discuss these changes on the talk page; otherwise, you're going to get reverted. This article has been repeatedly target by racist vandals, so we keep a close and skeptical eye on contributions from brand new users -- especially ones who insert consistantly negative information. Your entries are far more likely to get accepted if you discuss them first. --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 01:14, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You don't consider Malcom X to be a racist? You don't consider people who try to write positive information about a racist like Malcom X to be racists?

Maybe you better go back and read the FBI documents cited on this wiki. You will see that Malcom X made statements that were openly racist. I think that your efforts to conceal the truth are racist.

Others have insisted that I provide specific references to support what I post on here, and I HAVE. By deleting the stuff I post with references, you are doing wrong -- not me.

Please come and discuss your changes on the talk page. --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 05:08, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Malcolm X

If you wish to discuss the article and recent changes made to it by jpgordon and myself, please do so on the article's Talk page. It's unlikely anyone will see the comments on Josh's page other than you and Josh (and me, since his user talk page is on my watchlist). Thanks.—chris.lawson (talk) 23:54, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you.—chris.lawson (talk) 06:40, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just because I add something to Wikipedia that doesn't make sense to you, doesn't make it nonsense. I happen to be a very educated person, one who has studied Malcom X in a university. I would be willing to wager neither you nor jpgordon have even really spent much time studying Malcom X, except through some casual reading. I have no need to experiment in a 'sandbox'.

Please come discuss your changes on the talk page. --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 02:23, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

- Why can't you take this to the talk page? --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 03:32, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Very simply because if this was a wiki about sailing boats, you wouldn't be giving me this raft of shit. You are prejudiced, and you need to either take a neutral point of view, or be removed.

I think maybe it is time for you to be removed.

Take it to the talk page. --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 04:03, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is time for you to have a look at Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, as well as Wikipedia:Cite sources and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Please do not make any more edits to articles until you have read and understand these pages. Failure to comply with this request will likely result in you being reported as a vandal, which, if you persist, may result in your being blocked from editing Wikipedia pages. Thanks.—chris.lawson (talk) 04:10, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Consider yourself reported. I am going to take action against you. You need to go.

Please, let me know how that works out. Until then, refrain from pushing a point of view on the Malcolm X article.—chris.lawson (talk) 04:32, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Three revert rule

Wikipedia policy is that you may not revert any page more than three times in a 24-hour period. For more on this policy, please see Wikipedia:3RR. You are in violation of this policy many times over, and have been reported to the administrators' noticeboard. Please cease your revert warring and discuss the edits you wish to make on the article's Talk page so that community consensus can be achieved. Thank you. —chris.lawson (talk) 05:22, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You have been temporarily blocked for clear violation of Wikipedia's three revert rule after having been warned. When the block expires, please make use of the talk page at talk:Malcolm X to discuss suggested changes. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me by emailing me here. — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 18:44, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Civil

If you cannot be civil, you will likely be blocked again.

Until you learn how to properly cite reliable sources, your edits will continue to be reverted.

Furthermore, Alex Haley is not a germane topic to Malcolm X. Please refrain from attempting to impugn his credibility on the Malcolm X page. Thank you. —chris.lawson (talk) 00:53, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Still at it, eh?

I see that your recent discussions with Asbestos and your 24-hour block for violation of the 3RR have had absolutely no effect on your unwillingness to discuss this edit with other Wikipedians on the article's Talk page.

A word to the not-so-wise and oh-so-racist: you'll get a lot further in life if you're willing to talk things through with people, rather than stonewalling. Anonymous editors who insist on stonewalling people find themselves blocked, for increasingly long periods of time after each incident.

If you believe you have something useful to contribute to Wikipedia, you will change your behaviour and learn to work within the guidelines and policies established here. If not, well, don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.—chris.lawson (talk) 05:31, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

But I haven't done anything wrong . . .

This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address.