User talk:Adeladel

Yvonne Ridley

Thanks for your input on the Yvonne Ridley page, but I'd just quickly like to point you in the direction of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Your input is encouraged and always wanted, but Wikipedia aims to be as neutral and unbiased as possible and articles must reflect a balance of opinion. I hope you will continue to contribute to Wikipedia, cheers. Driller thriller 17:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Please do not remove content from Wikipedia; it is considered vandalism. If you want to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Driller thriller 17:07, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Your recent edit to Yvonne Ridley has been reverted, removing properly referenced and NPOV text because you don't agree with it is not the way to go about presenting your point of view, if you provide a balance in the text that both sides can be happy with then that is preferable to both sides. Please do not remove content from Wikipedia; it is considered vandalism. If you want to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Driller thriller 17:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule on Yvonne Ridely. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from further editing. Peter G Werner 17:30, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's NPOV policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did to Yvonne Ridley, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Furthermore, reinserting the same commentary multiple times may cause you to violate the three-revert rule, which can lead to a block. Peter G Werner 23:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

research it

If you did your research thoroughly you would find that the Zarqawi article FIRST appeared on [www.muslimsweekly.com] which I have tried, unsuccessfully, to include in the interests of accuracy but my keyboard is malfunctioning. The Saddam Captured article was first written about by her when she was working for Al Jazeera in Qatar and when she was interviewed here by VOA and another US radio station about her article from her office in Qatar. Vain she may be but she was right which is why on Russian radio December 2003 Talibani reacted angrily to her story. She is many things but an anti-semite is not one of them but she is an anti-Zionist. Today I downloaded her TV show live and she had a New York rabbi talking about Israel, and during the show he ripped up the Israeli flag on air. By coincidence she did say on the show something like: Not all jews are zionists and not all zionists are jews. I hope now you will see me as an impartial observer and not some felon colored by Ridleys antics but I am a bit anal when it comes to being exact and factual just not a great master of dexterity.

I absolutely appreciate your attempts to improve the Yvonne Ridley article and support Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers. However, the problems with your edits are not a matter of dexterity, they are a matter of maintaining the encyclopaedic standards of wikipedia. The objection to the use of the term Zionist in the article is not on the grounds that Ridley is or isn't an anti-semite, it is on the grounds that it is in and of itself an extremely POV term which not only does not add to the article, but can instead only prejudice its content. Its use is absolutely necessary when describing her opinions about "Zionism", whatever she might mean by the term in her own statements and her own opinion, and its incompatibility with the RESPECT programme, however saying that she has been criticised by "Zionists" is an ad hominem argument of an extremely questionable nature. Of the claims you make about the Saddam Captured article and [www.muslimsweekly.com]'s claims to the origination of the Zarqawi article: if you can reference the first then that must be included in the article, if not then there is no reason to change what is already in the article, an unsubstantiated, whether true or not, claim; and regarding the Zarqawi article, if it was first published there, then by all means change the link and reference it properly, the objection was to you blatantly crediting a source that wasn't linked. I hope this is all helpful, I, for my part, will have a look over the point you've made and see what I can salvage from it. All the best. Driller thriller 00:22, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I just checked your claim that the Zarqawi article was published at Daily Muslims first, and I'm afraid to say you're mistaken: the article was posted at that site on November 27, the same day it was archived at FreeRepublic.com, however it was originally published at Tajdeed's website on November 23. Hope this helps. Driller thriller 11:20, 1 July 2006 (UTC)