Nick-Rowan

Please stop adding nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you were just trying to experiment, then use the sandbox instead. Thank you. -Carabinieri 14:47, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. -Carabinieri 14:55, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I intervened in order to defend indecent attacks to another gentlemans honour .

It is unheard of to use derogative terms about living persons in the very beginning of their CV's and should not occur in any encyclopedias.

What is more, he does not deny the holocaust, so the text is factually wrong. He questions certain elements in it, and generally he makes a living of questioning and being critical towards sources. He is absolutely certain that it is HIS view that will prevail in say 20 or 30 years time (unsigned edit by Nick-Rowan)

That David Irving is a Holocaust denier is not a "derogative term" but a factually correct assertion. An Austrian court has found that he is indeed a holocaust denier.--Carabinieri 15:17, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. -Carabinieri 15:07, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

You have absolutely no saying in relation to me you ridicoulous self-appointed carabinieri, with a most ridicoulous name.

Since I visited Wikipedia a week ago and accidentially stumbled acrooss the text about Davis - and as a matter of course deleted offensive text dis-honouring him, I have for the first time in my life been accused of vandalism, which off course is totally un-acceptable, when I as a gentleman only was intervening in order to restore the honour of another gentleman.

Izehar 15:23, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Please desist in your vandalism. By all means make constructive alterations or propose meaningful changes on the talkpage. Altering the text in this form will not lead to substansive changes to the article. It takes around 15 seconds for an editor to revert vandalism such as this and there are literally hundreds watching this page due to its controversial nature. If you are concerned over misrepresentation please discuss it on the talkpage. Not only is vandalism disruptive, it simply cannot help you achieve your goal of amending the article. --Davril2020 16:09, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

........................................

Nick Rowan responds:

Here is the 4 paragraphs from the beginning of the text, which I continue to delete, because they are 1) unsubstatiated claims and 2) Highly subjective, opinionated claims with the intend of smear, which is in-appropriate in the beginning of any persons Curiculum Vitae:

>is a British Holocaust denier, who for many years had the reputation of <

>From the late 1960s to the mid-1980s, Irving was considered<

>In the mid-1980s, Irving began openly associating with neo-Nazi and extremist groups.<

>Among Holocaust deniers, Irving is perhaps the only one who for some time managed to maintain the reputation of a serious, if controversial, historian. He is considered an icon by many in the Holocaust denial camp.<

Thanks for experimenting with the page David Irving on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks.

Fuck the Holocaust...

...and all the biased so-called "editors" tools that continue to propagate such bullshit. I used to think Wikipedia was a good idea until I saw many an instance of fucktards acting all high and mighty and using their strength in numbers to silence those that don't fall in line with their agenda.

I feel obligated to stand up for someone who can clearly think for himself (Nick-Rowan) and isn't a sheep like most of the rest of you. You assholes apply your slanderous views to every article that even remotely deviates from your narrow-minded take on the world. The David Irving article is no exception. Nick is just doing what any sane person would do by removing your POV trash, but sanity seems to run short around this side of web it seems. Someone who doesn't accept what others want him to believe and searches for the truth has insults like "holocaust denier" thrown at him much in the same way you'd call someone a "Nazi". You can believe what you want, but the Irving article reeks of bias and a derogative slant.

But my beef isn't so much with the Irving article. Otherwise, I would have posted this on the David Irving discussion page. My beef is how one can't even make edits that they feel is right without being called a vandal and treated with such disregard and outright elitism. Trying to do anything constructive on Wikipedia is, ironically, much like trying to collaborate with the Nazis.

Well anyways, that's my two cents. Don't let these Wikinazis piss you off, Nick. - 216.78.102.188 11:14, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Whay are you bothering to defend this looser?

Anyone see the Irony in referring to your opponents as "wikinazis"?

Irony? Who are you? Well, whatever. I'm just an unregistered visitor who comes less and less to wikipedia, and I agree with what the guy above the stupid phrase said. Wikipedia by now is just as incompetent and biased as every other media. And yes is not only with Irving (I don't actually care about him, though I do believe the way people try to fuck him is totally hipocrital). In E-V-E-R-Y single article about any kind of theory and in most of articles in general this disturbed so called editors challenge our IQ and run away from reality adjusting the truth whatever they feel like (sometimes they are sutile and the reader doesn't argue, ends up being manipulated, THAT'S the monstruous part) Those who think in the same way get together and smash all the opposition, so just don't try to do anything, don't be part of it. Just fucking burn wikipedia down.

Have a nice day, stranger.

User notice: temporary 3RR block

Regarding reversions[1] made on May 21 2006 (UTC) to David Irving

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

The duration of the block is 24 hours. William M. Connolley 15:31, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

On closer inspection, it wasn't in 24h. A somewhat close call, but I'm going to unblock you: please don't edit war in future, though William M. Connolley 16:49, 21 May 2006 (UTC)