User talk:JuJubird

Sourcing that material requires only watching the nightly news. Please stop POV-based edits. • Ling.Nut 02:34, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Six-Day War

Please be advised there is a WP:1RR rule in effect on that article, do not get into revert wars with people or you may be blocked. I would encourage you to bring the discussion to the talk page and not in your edit notes.

Finally you also need to be aware of the following, I merely make you aware of it since you seem to be new to editing the article and there is an active dispute there:

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose, at their own discretion, sanctions on any editor working on pages broadly related to the Arab-Israeli conflict if the editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. If you engage in further inappropriate behavior in this area, you may be placed under sanctions including blocks, a revert limitation or an article ban. The committee's full decision can be read at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Final decision. --WGFinley (talk) 13:57, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

the 40-plus sources

I did not add those sources. Jiujitsuguy did. I have been wanting to rmv most of them for a long time (but) it wasn't high on my priority list, and childish bickering on the talk page has always and everywhere intervened.
I did not engage in a personal attack, though I did speak firmly. If you interpret firmness as a personal attack, then I am sorry that I have violated your personal definition of WP:NPA.
All info is easily sourced. calls to delete it have (in the past) all been quite firmly situated in POV-based editing. I hope you are not going to engage in the same. The problem with this article is the endless, endless, endless bickering by POV-based editors from both sides.
Thanks! • Ling.Nut 03:16, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These are the sources that you have been arguing for. You are telling us that these sources support the sentence I challenged. Of course having 40+ sources is silly, but it also illustrates that some people apparently feel the need to validate the sentence bigtime. While there are some reliable & verifiable sources that support calling it "p-w," they are in the minority. There are many more reliable& verifiable sources that support calling it "p-s." However you seem to have a problem with changing anything in the lede as said very clearly to me to "stop obsessing about the lede." If you check the meaning of obsession here or in your dictionary you will see that it perfectly meets the definition of a Wikipedia personal attack. It is not "my personal definition." Your firmness appears to me to be intended to quash all further discussion or change to the lede as it stands. I had legitimate concerns you dismissed as obsessive; you accused me of not looking at the sources; of "speaking from my own perceptions," as if having a perception that might be different from yours is somehow a personal sin. I don't appreciate having my thoughts and evidence that I have spent my personal time thinking about, researching, and writing labeled as "endless bickering" or "obsession." That's all I really want to say about it at this time. Regards. JuJubird (talk) 04:03, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's been a lot of bickering going on there for months now and it's clear the lead still needs work but the air needs to clear a bit before that can happen. I wouldn't take what Ling is saying so personally. --WGFinley (talk) 14:19, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

prior accounts

Have you ever had a prior account on Wikipedia? nableezy - 21:27, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean? I don't have an account here. JuJubird (talk) 01:38, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]