Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:37, 14 November 2006

Israeli shelling of Beit Hanoun

Israeli shelling of Beit Hanoun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article should be deleted because: (1) it is a POV fork of Beit Hanoun November 2006 incident created by a known POV and edit warrior named Striver in an attempt to shoehorn material that violates WP:NPOV into the article it forks, (2) the images used by the page are all copyright violations. RunedChozo 16:06, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep and merge: RunedChozo, the articles should be merged. You are a POV pusher who is attempting to white wash the "unpleasant" aspects of the "incident" on Beit Hanoun November 2006 incident. This request is done in bad faith, and you simply dislike the pictures, there is no copyright violation, which you dont really care about in my opinion.--Burgas00 16:24, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Despite your blatant show of bad faith Burqas,, I'll note I have edited only once on the normal article, and never edited on the POV fork your buddy created, except to nominate it for deletion according to Misplaced Pages's policies. I also note you were one of a muslim group who keep trying to POV-push the title of the forked article into "Massacre". Go push POV somewhere else.RunedChozo 16:27, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

If you really are interested in my religious background I inform you that my family is Catholic. Yes I feel massacre is the appropriate term but I will also agree with "killings" as a consensus title.--Burgas00 16:48, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with the title of the main page, this is an AFD about deleting the POV-pushing fork created by Striver. Please do not clutter the AFD page. He and his pov pushing guild will probably be here soon enough to do that. RunedChozo 16:52, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - POV fork, unencyclopedic (especially the images) and propagandist. ←Humus sapiens 23:51, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and merge Please read WP:POV fork and WP:ASG before claiming that creating a article the same day the event was reported is a violation of consensus. If nom would had bothered to check it up, he would have noticed that it was ME that added the merge requests, and soon as i became aware that another article existed. Funny, the OTHER article became ground for revert move wars, while my article has had a stable title, even being presented as a good title by somebody in the other articles talk page. I feel offended by the blatant bad faith accusations made against me here. You owe me an apology. --Striver 00:08, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

btw, the other article was created 13:05, my was created 22:18, and this is how the other article look liked when i created mine: . At 22:56 i added the merge tags. What sounds more logical, that i created a bad-faith consensus dodging article just so i could merge it 48 minutes later, or i had no idea the other article existed? You owe me an apology. --Striver 00:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Nobody owes you an apology or anything else. You knew, or should have known with a simple search, that an article already existed on the same topic. You created yours anyways rather than add to that article, even though you're trying to claim the preexisting article was somehow inadequate. Assuming Good Faith is being a Simplistic Gullible Idiot to think you were doing anything other than creating a propagandistic POV fork. NotAWeasel 03:17, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

This policy does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary. - taken from the Assume Good Faith page. And your edit history and behavior are perfect evidence that you're not behaving in anything close to good faith. NotAWeasel 04:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Somebody needs to look at this, preferably an admin. --Striver 00:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Like who? I see nothing wrong with the comments. They edge the line of civility but assuming good faith only goes so far before you're acting delusional, and it is quite clear that you and other editors are engaging in deliberate, coordinated pov-pushing behavior. NotAWeasel 03:17, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete this POV fork ASAP. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 02:49, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete POV fork. REminder to Striver and his buddies, we "strive" for NPOV meaning Neutral POV here, not MPOV meaning Muslim POV. NotAWeasel 03:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep/Merge - there's nothing wrong with showing the atrocities committed by the Israeli government. BhaiSaab 03:19, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh look: a proud member of "The Muslim Guild" of POV pushers. NotAWeasel 04:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, you're right. I'm sorry. Remember: "Assume good faith" is a nicer restatement of "Never assume malice when stupidity will suffice." Try not to be stupid either. I'll just assume you're a misguided, stupid fool then. NotAWeasel 04:37, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep this massacre is notable event. to runed: please WP:CIV and WP:AGF . Peace. --Nielswik_(talk) 04:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

And we have a better article for it: Beit Hanoun November 2006 incident. POV forking is not allowed. Do some reading on policy and stop being deliberately dense trying to help your POV-pushing Muslim Guild brethren. NotAWeasel 04:24, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• AfD debates (Society topics)
• AfD debates