Talk to me![change source]

Welcome to Simple English Wikipedia[change source]

Hi Chosongul, welcome to Simple English Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out the Help section of Wikipedia or leave a message on my talk page. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! J Di 19:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Started
How to: edit a page • write Simple English articles
Getting Help
Frequently Asked Questions Request administrator attention
Policies and Guidelines
Neutral point of view • Verifiability Citing sources • What Wikipedia is not Copyrights Image use policy Spam • Vandalism • Deletion policy

The Community
Assume good faith • Civility Community Portal • Simple talk Announcements • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Things to do
Peer review • Join a WikiProject • Cleanup
Miscellaneous
Useful templates • Stubs

POV pushing[change source]

Your revent edits have been pushing towards a particular point of view. It is good to avoid this. Also, can you explain to me why you are banned on english? PullToOpen ^Talk 20:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Calling the US govournment a regime is extreme POV. I do not agree with the US American politics, but on Wikipedia people should stick to the facts. For own opinions use a blog. The life of brian 21:03, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is not true: "For instance, the United States has one of the oldest regimes still active in the world, dating to the ratification of its Constitution in 1789. Although modern usage often gives the term a negative connotation, like an authoritarian one, Webster's definition clearly states that the word "regime" refers simply to a form of government." [1] Tomalak geretkal (talk) 15:54, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop pushing your anti-American point of view on articles. We adhere to a neutral point of view policy here. Wikipedia is NOT a place for propaganda. I see that is exactly why your sockmaster got blocked on English. PullToOpen^Talk 21:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well here we have a pro-american, but never mind. Chosongul 20:17, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind that this is more than anti-american and pro-american. Only a fool deals in absolutes. Wikipedia is not a place for politics. If you don't like it, then leave. PullToOpen^Talk 20:57, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about we take this to Simple Talk? Chosongul can say the articles he/she is concerned about and we can all talk about finding a neutral balance to suit everyone. Archer7 - talk 21:00, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regime[change source]

think the word regime should only be used with governments that do not allow free votes. The life of brian 13:52, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, this is not correct: "For instance, the United States has one of the oldest regimes still active in the world, dating to the ratification of its Constitution in 1789. Although modern usage often gives the term a negative connotation, like an authoritarian one, Webster's definition clearly states that the word "regime" refers simply to a form of government." [2] Tomalak geretkal (talk) 15:49, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there![change source]

Hi. While I might agree with your POV on some of your recent edits, I think you are just trying to start a squabble. Can we work on rewording these, or are you just a troll? Sue W 13:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's start with the United States Army. It is clearly not NPOV to say its main job is to murder & torture which is clearly untrue :-) (Often armies do those things as a by-product of putting a bunch of kids with guns into a frightening situation.) Its main job is to extend the power of the U.S. government by means other than diplomacy, if you understand Clausewitz :-) So reword it, please. Sue W 14:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV[change source]

Hello, this wiki has a WP:NPOV policy just like all Mediawiki projects. Please read it carefully to learn what a "neutral" edit is (it must be able to be supported by facts not opinion), because you have now been warned a few times about POV pushing, and users who continue to ignore this rule have been blocked before. Thanks, Blockinblox - talk 14:15, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. You must know that your edits carry a significant anti-American bias. It's fine to add facts about this sort of thing, but you're not citing any sources, and the comments you're making are incredibly contraversial. You cannot state that Guantanamo Bay is a "concentration camp for Muslims" for example, as it's status has not been confirmed as a concentration camp, and the statement implies that the USA plans to lock up all Muslims there. That's just not true (and no, I'm not from the USA). I'm afraid this has gone on so long, and you've had so many warnings that if you carry on you will be blocked. Also, please don't delete warnings from your talk page. Archer7 - talk 16:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you show me where you've cited the sources for your statements in United States? I can't find them. Archer7 - talk 16:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

in the edit summary Chosongul 16:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, you need to cite them in the article using proper templates (en:WP:CITE). I'm afraid another Wikipedia article can't be used as a source, as it's just as unreliable as we are. Also, Amnesty International (while being a well-respected organisation) write from their own personal point-of-view, so we can't use their definition that Guantanamo is a concentration camp. Archer7 - talk 16:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Concentration camps was a term invented by the British during the Boer War describing a place to put "undesirables" (or the families of such people) to keep them out of the way or to stop them causing "trouble". The lack of judicial process is probably key here. It is certainly possible to argue that the place in question is such. Perhaps the scale is less. If the article is rewritten to say that "A well-known human rights group (AA) calls X a Y, but not everyone agrees with this." is that not a reasonable entry? Sue W 18:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we could agree on "Internment camp for those people the U.S. government thinks are dangerous. These people are mostly Muslims captured during and after the invasion of Afghanistan."Sue W 18:44, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And another thing. Clearly another wikipedia can be used as a source. Most of the articles that I have found here for cleanup etc. were copied/extracted from the English Wikipedia. I think the level of fact-checking and reliability of references there is probably far higher than here. Sue W 18:44, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it definitely can't. Copying the information over doesn't mean that it's reliable, and the English Wikipedia has many, many factual errors. Some of these have even gone on to legal proceedings. Archer7 - talk 22:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I meant that the en:wiki can be used in that is has been used for a large number of pages here. Also pages have been imported from other wikis in translation from Portugese, German etc. This person is doing no worse than lots of others (apart from not negotiating about the POV stuff). Perhaps we should take this to Wikipedia:Simple_talk to discuss further. Sue W 00:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted edits again on the United States page. I am as liberal as they come (having worked for the Democrats in Iowa) and roundly reject the foreign policy of the Bush Administration. However, I still feel the claims about the goals of U.S. foreign policy and a "concentration camp for muslims" are not accurate. While I may personally agree with the undertones with the statement, ie: the United States is trying to make the rest of the world like us, I still believe it is unencyclopedic. I also think the Gitmo camps are illegal, however I would not refer to them as concentration camps, especially with the connotation that word carries. I, as with everyone else I'm assuming, does not want an edit war here, but Amnesty International and a neutrality disputed article on English wikipedia are not going to stand up. I'm sympathetic to your wording, but still have to ask you to stop. Thanks, Browne34 15:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The world is bigger than Wikipedia, this is an information site, not life! I need to get this stuff out into the world, don't you people understand they have to be stopped before it's too late???? IM NOT A TROLL, IM A VICTIM, I'VE LOST FAMILY TO THEM! - - -STOP USA BEFORE THEY GO TOO FAR! Chosongul 16:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No-one is disputing the the USA have done terrible things, like many other countries, and I do feel sorry for you if that last statement is true. However, we can't let our own personal feelings and opinions interfere with the actual information here. I'm afraid if you are only here to put across a negative view on the USA, we will block you. We must uphold our NPOV policy, and as far as I can see, your edits will never be NPOV. I'm afraid this is your final warning from me, as this is getting really out of hand now. Please, take a look at what other articles you can help out with that you don't hold such a strong opinion. Look at a topic that you're really interested in and tell the world all about it. We'd love to have you stay on as an editor, but we can't let this current situation continue. Wikipedia stays out of politics. Archer7 - talk 17:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Images[change source]

I just fixed the image on Guantanamo Bay so that the words show up in a frame, for some reason this wiki doesn't use exactly the same format as the main English one. I don't know how to get thumb and left to work at the same time, but to get a right frame with words, this seems to work. Sue W 21:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again[change source]

I had another go at Concentration camp, trying to do some simplification and adding a few historic references. I tried to make it neutral, although it's hard to do...Researching this stuff is pretty horrible. Can you review this for me? Sue W 02:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why have you added a statement to Guantanamo Bay in comment tags? Archer7 - talk 13:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring[change source]

Chosongul, you didn't even look at the changes I made to Guantanamo Bay. Don't revert without looking it over because many of the changes I made were capitalization, italics, and rewording that should stay. You can't revert an entire set of edits just because you see the word allegedly. If you have a specific issue with a wording I chose, change the word, don't revert all the changes. Also, I might mention that it's pretty uncourteous of you put a personal attack in your edit summary. Allegedly is not a "right wing weasel word". Yes, it's technically a weasel word, but it's standard practice when regarding accusations to use the word allegedly unless it's been proven in a court of law. And I might add, not that it's any of your business, but I'm pretty far left. You don't know a single thing about me. I don't know much about you besides your editing habits, but I personally think you don't have this encyclopedia's best interests at heart. Anyone, no matter what their political leanings or opinion of the United States' policies, is a detriment to this project if they're only pushing their point of view. Unfortunately, I believe that includes you. Tygartl1 15:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tygartl1, if you have a bunch of edits where some are grammatical and some are rewordings, you should make these edits separately. Then the rewording can be debated whilst the grammatical changes remain uncontested. Tomalak geretkal (talk) 15:51, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked[change source]

You have been blocked for 24 hours for continued violation of Wikipedia's policy on NPOV. Consensus has now been reached to say that Guantanamo is not a concentration camp. By reverting (again), with that edit summary, you have said that you are not willing to follow the community consensus. You are welcome to continue editing once the block expires. You will probably receive less warnings before future blocks, or maybe none at all for major violations. I'd like to ask you one more time, please try to move away from America-related topics and find another area which you can make great contributions to. Archer7 - talk 16:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]