Reapor

Please see Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. In particular, it is not neutral to describe ANSWER as anti-American. If you had a notable source calling it anti-American you could note that "such and such says that ANSWER is anti-American" in it. JoshuaZ 14:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

It is entirely accurate to describe ANSWER for what it is. It condones terrorism against the U.S and Isreal. Always blames the U.S for any foriegn conflict and supports enemies of the U.S.Reapor 15:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted you again. I agree with you that it is accurate but that's a personal opinion, its my point of view. Wikipedia however works off of a Neutral point of view using reliable sources. Wikipedia doesn't function off of our personal opinions about what is accurate. JoshuaZ 23:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe it is just as valid as saying ANSWER's ralliy is Anti-Racist as there was nothing for them to claim about racism in american, so it is just as valid.

Re: Edits to Jimmy Carter

Your edit read, as a political statement from the Nobel commitee critcizing President Bush which is an unsourced statement. Unsourced statements of a non-neutral POV stance in a bio are usually standard reverts. You may have discussed them on the talkpage but they are not supported by anyone but you which does not indicate consensus. As you can see, another editor agrees with me and even reverted you calling it vandalism. Ronbo76 20:20, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

There was no reply on the discussion page, yet you and the other editor took upon yourselves to revert with talking.Reapor 22:30, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Hugo Chavez response

You wrote:

Please let me know why you edited my addition to the foriegn policy section of Hugo Chavez? Thanks.

Your addition was not written in encyclopedic style, and was too vague. Please be more specific and discuss major edits on the Talk page. (For reference this refers to the edit here.) CRGreathouse (t | c) 23:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I checked the edit guidelines and thought the way I did it was acceptible. I hope this means facts can be put on the sight, it seems that some ( not you) want this to be a worship Chavez page.Reapor 00:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm never very sure about Wikipedia policy, but in general that style isn't quite appropriate—a 'facts-only' approach is taken much better. As for the specifics, the article you cite gives many more details on the nature of the meetings and agendas between Iran and Venezuela but does not mention Israel at all. In a contentious article such as this everything significant must be cited, so the latter portion has to go (lacking a further citation, ideally with a direct quote from someone involved, as the Venezuelan foreign ministry). CRGreathouse (t | c) 02:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

You have been blocked

Please see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Decato for more information. Luna Santin 05:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Reapor (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Unjustfied and vindicatve checkuser request.

Decline reason:

Why is it unjustified? Vindictive? In any case, it proved this account is an abusive sockpuppet. -- Yamla 16:50, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

It was never proven to be abusive. It's only because I have been accused by politicaly correct user I have been given this tag. My edits have been backed up. And I will get back on and edit as I see fit. I do not recognize the admins right to violate the Pillars of Wikipedia.Reapor 18:26, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Once again the administrators play favorites they refuse to dicscuss rationaly issues and make threats. I am merely exercising my right to equal access.Reapor 00:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

You have no such right. Wikipedia is not run by the government. --Yamla 00:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is also supposed to give free access. Administrators are not supposed to block someone so information they do not agree with is not put in. I suggest you read the Administrator page. You are blocking me for P.C reasons and most of your and Luna Satin blocks are for the same reason.Reapor 20:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Unblock

Administrator abuse by Yamla and Luca Santin