Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:40, 4 August 2008

New beginnings, please discuss new items here. Arzel 03:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Formatting references

Before continuing to add additional formatting to the reference sections of articles, please take a look at the usage instructions for {{scroll box}} and the deletion discussion for {{scrollref}}, found within Misplaced Pages:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 June 11. Formatting the reference section in such a way breaks the page formatting for many users, and thus shouldn't be done within article space. Thanks, - auburnpilot talk 04:52, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, I wasn't aware it caused problems or was up for deletion. I just thought it was a nice way to make pages with huge reference lists more readable. Arzel 14:02, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

One of the biggest problems it causes is that the references are hidden when an article is printed. It's not so much an issue when actually viewing the article, but still an issue that needs to be worked out. It also creates an accessibility issue for some, and adds an additional unwanted scrollbar for unknown reasons. It makes reading the references nearly impossible. I know Silly rabbit (talk · contribs) was trying to figure out a work around, as well as a couple others, but I don't think anyone has found a fix. - auburnpilot talk 21:12, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Fox News Channel

Regarding your edit here, please do not use the edit summaries to attack other users. I realize that this is a contentious issue, but please try to remain calm and civil. Thank you. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 16:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Why did you take out my contribution to the page? You left the comment "no youtube" and that was it... who are you to decide this? Is there a rule about linking to certain websites that I am unfamiliar with? The link is permanent and it was a video clip posted by the source (Greenwald)... I fail to see how a person is supposed to reference something said in a video without linking to the video itself... User:FloridaJarrett —Preceding comment was added at 11:13, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Proposed Essay

I'm trying my hand at essay writing. I've completed a very first rough draft and would like your input on whether it is a worthy topic, things that should be added etc. It's located in my workspace. Ramsquire 19:21, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Re.Bill O' Rielly

THAT is NOT "vandalisim" at all. I WATCH THAT SHOW. 205.240.146.131 02:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Bill repeats that there ARE people in those states who do NOT want "Jessica's Law" passed on his show. 205.240.146.131 02:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of what he says, you can't insert it into the article as personally commentary, which is what you did. Arzel 15:01, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

You have violated the three revert rule, which is a blockable offense. Plesae consider this a warning. Jimintheatl (talk) 18:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

No I have not, you inserted Original Research in violation of a BLP. Even so, my first edit was not a revert. Arzel (talk) 21:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I have not inserted original research. If you had bothered to read the citation before you reverted, you would have seen that the citation was a transcript. My edit directly referenced the transcript.Jimintheatl (talk) 01:56, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I did read before I removed, I have responded on the talk page. Arzel (talk) 05:00, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

No offense taken

I take no offense at your comments (WP:AGF). I am a computer science major and a communications officer. I am quite aware of the capabilities of even the most basic of PCs today, much less a well-designed system or better... The problem is the lack of properly made software designed for this purpose. There isn't much money in it (let's face it, you sell it once and you're done) and there is little incentive to innovate much. A lot of Aggies are in computer graphics and simulations (over half of the special effects wizards at Industrial Light and Magic and Dreamworks are Aggies; a little trivia for you. If you look closely at the newest Star Wars movies, you will find there are lots of little aTm logos all around, but you have to know where to look. The Toy Story movies are the same way. I think the problem is more in phrasing and I think we can find a reasonable compromise. Look forwad to talking to you. — BQZip01 —  02:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Fightin' Texas Aggie Band

Suggest you visit the POV discussion over at Talk:Fightin' Texas Aggie Band. ThreeE 22:49, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks

You've received countless warnings in the past.

This is your only warning.
The next time you make a personal attack, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. /Blaxthos 19:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I have reported this action to WP:ANI. Arzel 00:44, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

It appears they resolved it properly. Hopefully the fact that they agreed with and explicitly justified the warning will give you pause before continuing your pattern of personal attacks. Thanks. /Blaxthos 23:47, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Tim Pawlenty.

I've attempted to remove some of the more blatant POV statements. The rest I won't remove, as it does add a bit to the article. You should discuss any other concern you may have with Reaverdrop, or someone else who is active on the page. If they don't reply on the article's talk page, ask them on their user talk pages. · AndonicO 00:16, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Note Re: Edit Summary

Please don't take this the wrong way. I come bearing the fruits of good faith. Please allow me this small word of advice: try to only use "rvv" in the edit summary when it is blatant vandalism. Many editors take "claim" out of articles on the grounds that is a word to avoid. Ramsquire 23:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Opps, didn't even realize I put two v's on my note, but your advise is well taken. Thanks. Arzel 23:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Made me laugh!

This edit summary made me smile. Keep up the great work! --TeaDrinker 05:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, a little levity is nice thing. Arzel 04:39, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Proper television formatting

Hello...you recently undid my edit to the John Gibson article:

• On the May 31, 2007 broadcast of The Big Story, Gibson, commenting on the tuberculosis infection of Andrew Speaker, remarked, "It seems every time a story pops up about somebody who has suddenly contracted some strange or incurable disease, it's somebody who is either from the third world, or was traveling through some godforsaken hellhole, and somehow managed to contract ooga booga fever."

on grounds that it was not properly referenced. Perhaps I misunderstand the policy, but the citation is included...the 5/31/07 broadcast of his television show. Is it a question of verifying? Jakerforever 16:31, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

You included this in the criticisms section, however there is no reference to which would indicate that he was criticized for this statement. I was not questioning whether it was a valid statement, it may very well be, but I am questioning whether it is something of note that others have criticized. By including statements like that, without any context, it looks like an attack on the person, something which must be avoided within WP:BLP articles. Arzel 17:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough...I just googled "ooga booga fever" and just looking at the first page of results is all reaction to the incident. The first result is a link to the media watchdog group Media Matters' website write-up of the incident. Media Matters seems to be used as a regular citation of the other criticims...would putting the link as a reference be sufficient? (actually, there's already a precident, unless those are wrong, too...) Thanks so much, I've taken a long wiki-break and forgot lots of protocol... Jakerforever 19:43, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Elizabeth Kucinich

I see your point. Self-reverted. Thanks for the note. /Blaxthos 18:17, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Mitt Romney

Just as an FYI, I've started a thread at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR regarding recent editing of the Mitt Romney article. Notifying Qworty as well. Mbisanz (talk) 19:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Arzel - your edits on Mitt Romney, while technically under 3RR, were clearly edit warring. Though I agree with you that BLP and NPOV concerns are present, there was insufficient effort made to resolve this on talk pages (article and user) compared to editing the article back and forth.

In the future, please remember that WP:3RR is a hard limit, not an entitlement to edit that much. It is always better to talk on talk pages and resolve disputes that way than to edit war article contents back and forth until someone or everyone are 3RR violators.

Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Criticism of Bill O'Reilly

You're coming awful close to violating WP:3RR, and there are clearly many editors who have reverted your scrubbing of sourced material (which invalidates your claim that there is consensus to remove). You've been around long enough to know better, and I suggest you stop post haste. You may find my reply here. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 16:07, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I would note that you didn't even read the section. If you had you would have at least removed the signiture on the article page. Arzel (talk) 18:12, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Request for supporting information

Hello Arzel and Happy Holidays. Just to clear up any potential confusion, I am the one who wrote the O'Reilly Malmedy section. I had a user account set up but I forgot to sign in when I posted that section. In your user profile it states that you feel too much attention is paid to small controversies which is certainly in agreement with our dealings. My own view is that I will go to Encarta if I want concise information. My favorite aspect of Misplaced Pages is it's comprehensiveness. People can judge the headings and decide if they'd like to read the sections for themselves. You have made a few assertions which have prompted requests for validation. You alluded earlier to the fact that you are pretty busy as of late so I am not sure if you have missed the requests or haven't had time to respond to them. In any case, I'd like to repeat the requests for support of your claims:

1.) You have stated that general consensus exists that my section shouldn't be included but I still haven't found the discussion that concluded with this consensus. Could you please clarify this and send me a link to the relevant discussion?

2.) You also mentioned that O'Reilly has acknowledged and corrected the gaffe for which the section was written about. Again, I have found no evidence of this. If your claim is accurate, could you please provide me with a citation and reference to your source?

As for the section, I have understandably been busy for the last few days but my inactivity should not be confused with capitulation. I still feel strongly that the section is warranted and I will press this issue until I agree with your assertion that general cosensus rejects the section. I do however agree that care needs to be taken regarding the BLP issue and out of respect for concerned editors like yourself, I will post a draft proposal on the discussion page when I get a chance that attempts to address some of the concerns raised by yourself and others before adding it to the article. --Benevolence one (talk) 14:11, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Elizabeth Kucinich

I disagree with you; please see the lengthy discussion at Talk:Elizabeth_Kucinich#Tongue_piercing. TJRC (talk) 03:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Arzel, you're just rehashing arguments already made. See the talk page referenced above. I won't participate in this one-on-one discussion on our talk pages further. The article talk page is the correct place for it.--TJRC (talk) 04:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Since you deleted my response to you on your page I'll repeat it hear. Why don't you discuss on the talk page then? You didn't respond to my comments, you just reverted my changes without comment...nice. Arzel (talk) 04:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

References

It seems you think that references must be hyperlinked and accessable via the web -- absolutely not. In this diff you cited the revert reason as "You linked back to WP". Actually, the reference cites a specific broadcast of Countdown with Keith Olbermann as the source, and only hyperlinks to the Coundown article as a courtesy. The reference need not be accessable via the web to be valid. Please take a little time to actually read what you're doing instead of acting upon knee-jerk reactions. Thanks. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 19:24, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Stop. I'm getting tired of your repetitive scrubbing of negative content from all things related to FNC. I'm just about ready to call a community-wide review of your conduct, and I'm asking (one last time) that you reconsider your actions. Thanks. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 09:24, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm getting a little tired of your repetitve accusations and threats against me. You inserted "multiple times" a statement WITHOUT a linkable RS in violation of WP:V, furthermore the information you inserted was factually INCORRECT, a synthesis of material. Arzel (talk) 02:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

It's back up again. What can be done? HaroldZoid 129.15.131.248 (talk) 22:11, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Haha, hey man

I notice that you've ran afoul of Admins who stringently enforce the edit policy only as it applies to their viewpoints. Don't worry, I was recently blocked for asking for cites to show me that my position was incorrect. Ironically LooneyMonkey was involved in that dispute as well and I see he is involved in the Media Matters for America dispute as well. I don't think it's a coincidence that in BOTH situations he is taking up a position on the left. In your case I notice two other editors who are threatening you with censorship. You also need to be on the lookout for a Gamaliel, I had someone write on my page that he was a rabid censor. However, I will let you know there are some good editors out there, specifically one "Knulclunk" who approached the situation with an open mind and compromised. Good luck now that LooneyMonkey has gotten involved, you might as well hang up your argument and goose step in line.Chairman Meow (talk) 15:32, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Haha, never mind about Gamaliel..I was reading through your talk page and I noticed he was there. I really don't think it's a coincidence AT ALL that 2 of the 3 admins who were against me are also against you and it involves a leftist position. I've been with wikipedia for three years and I swear that I've seen a jump up in Left POV of people who are admins. It' saddening because it used to be such a good place.Chairman Meow (talk) 15:37, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect 3RR warning

Regarding this accusation, please read WP:3RR, which states that more than three times is against policy. I again caution you to actually read (and understand) policies before hurling accusations, as more often than not you end up looking foolish. Also, I will take this removal as acknowledgement of the request that you ask before removing content. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

You may have not violated it, but you are treading on it. As I have stated before, there is no need to ask to remove material that is in violation of wp policy, I didn't realize all changes needed your approval. Arzel (talk) 00:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Not my approval, Arzel... but they need the community's consensus. Please respect WP:CONSENSUS and ask before making changes like that. Thanks for striking the warning. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 06:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Kieth Olbermann

Arzel, as has been explained to you in the past, you can't just remove Keith Olbermann's criticism from articles because you think his "opinion is irrelevant". By now you should know better, and if you continue I think there is ample evidence to show that you're trying to be disruptive. Please refrain from making edits like this. Thanks. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 17:03, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

The article is not Olbermann's opinion of O'Reilly. He simply regurgitated the opinion of MM, there is no reason to stack his biased comments on top of them. If you want an article about Oblermann on O'Reilly maybe you should create one. Arzel (talk) 17:17, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

NewsMax Media‎

I enjoyed your Holy OR Batman comment to your deletion. Thanks for removing all of the speculation, pro and con. David Traver (talk) 17:01, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, and hello to a fellow UW Allumni. Arzel (talk) 02:24, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

John McCain presidential eligibility

Please do not delete definitions of "natural born citizen". If you looked at the references you would see that 1) you are deleting a reliable source - just because you don't agree with it does not make it unreliable and 2) that US law is based on the writings of Sir William Blackstone in the mid 1700s which is why that reference is so important. "The Commentaries are often quoted as the definitive pre-Revolutionary War source of Common Law by US courts; in particular, the United States Supreme Court quotes from Blackstone's work whenever they wish to engage in historical discussion that goes back that far, or further (for example, when discussing the intent of the Framers of the Constitution)." What I was unable to find, however and would like help finding, is references to other meanings of "natural born citizen". If you could find any I would appreciate it. In the meantime I would ask you to put back the ones that you removed from John McCain presidential eligibility. I strongly suspect that you are only removing them "because you don't like what they say". The purpose of the article is not to "say what you want it to say" but to include all sides of the issue. Since you seem to think that McCain is a natural born citizen, please find a reference for a definition of natural born citizen that would include him. I wasn't able to find any. But first put back the only two definitions that we do have. 2ndAmendment (talk) 08:13, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Here is the problem you are dealing with. The first reference is not a reliable source. It is an opinion piece and the opinion of the author is that McCain is not elligible to be president because he was not born in the US, and the author defines natural born to prove that McCain is not elligible to be president. The second reference may very well be used by the SC, but it is meaningless without the first part, and it makes little sense to include a section which clearly states it is based off England into a section on the president of the United States. You are introducing WP:OR and within WP:SYNTH by using the first section to define the issue and the second to prove your point. One must be very careful when writing articles to not try and prove what you are trying to say. WP is an encyclopedia, not a research paper. It is fine to present the issues at hand, such that there are questions regarding McCain's elligibility. However, when you start to present material which presents evidence that he is not as factual, you have passed the line from encyclopedia to original research. Arzel (talk) 13:58, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

So sorry to disappoint you but all I was doing was looking for a definition of natural born. I did a Google search for "definition of natural born" and a blog entry at The Volokh Conspiracy lead me to Blackstone. You may have a point to prove, but I certainly do not. The story about McCain's eligibility is a news story, not an opinion. I also got that one from a blog, and quoted the source, instead of using the blog. 2ndAmendment (talk) 19:11, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Disappoint, not sure what you are implying. Regardless, the source you are using is not a reliable source, you CANNOT use it, end of story. Arzel (talk) 19:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

What? The supreme court uses it and you say I can't use it? What are you talking about? Obviously I'm not the only editor who thinks it should stay. 2ndAmendment (talk) 19:41, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

You misinterpret what I said. You can't use THIS as a reliable source The extension of using Blackstone is Original Research. You are using the first reference to define a natural born, and then use the second source to show that be this source McCain is not a natural born citizen. This is synthesis of material, which is a form of original research. Please read up on WP:RS and , you might also want to read WP:BLP as well. Arzel (talk) 19:45, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

What you are calling "THIS" is a news story, not an opinion piece. I did not place the two definitions in any particular order in the article, and did not use one to support the other. They are simply the only two separate definitions which I was able to find for "natural born citizen". There is no connection between them, and no synthesis and the only original research that was done was to use Google to look for definitions. 2ndAmendment (talk) 20:41, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't think I can't see what you are tring to do. You obviously have a very good grasp of constitutional law, and probably a better historical understanding than most people here. However, the presise manner in which you added those two sentences did not happen just by chance.

Your first sentence (which is from an unreliable source) is where only the natural act of one being born in a place determines the status of ones citizenship with no additional stipulations necessary to influence that status states that the natural act of being born determines their natural born status. This by itself doesn't add much, it only serves to define McCain as being naturally born in Panama.

The second sentence. Natural-born subjects are such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England. This by itself doesn't imply much either, at least not until the determination of Panama is made. Since Panama was not a dominion of the US it would serve to say that under English law, from which US laws are based, McCain would not be declared to be a Natural-born subject.

However, when you put them together the meaning is clear. McCain would be inelligble to be president because he was born outside the US and he was not born within a territory or dominion of the US as defined by the framers of the constitution. This is the basis of original research. That said the first source is not a WP:RS so it is not usable anyway. The second source, is rather meaningless by itself. Unless someone has good knowledge of how the constitution was framed it doesn't make sense to include what England determined a natural-born subject to be. The average reader would say "why is England as an example when this is the US?" You would then have to include a great deal of more information to explain the link, with the obvious conclusion being original research trying to make the case that McCain is inelligible to be president. Arzel (talk) 21:12, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Better now? I put them into chronological order, and added the explanation that you requested. The explanation was always there, but you had to click on the link to see it before. 2ndAmendment (talk) 21:26, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

You still included an unreliable source. Arzel (talk) 21:34, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

The New York Times and the Wall Street Journal are not the only two news organizations in the world. I did some searching on the American Voice Radio, and apparently it mostly covers political and Christian topics, and "is remnant and patriot in worldview with a pronounced distrust of government". It is not too surprising that it is quoted on the Ron Paul blogs. Read the next to last paragraph which states "The position stated in this article". Notice the words "this article", and not "this editorial"? 2ndAmendment (talk) 21:54, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what you are trying to allude to, but Americanchos is not a reliable source, end of story. Not even quite sure how you came about that site, my google searchNatural Born Citizen or Natural Born Citizen definition doesn't bring it up, at least not that I could find quickly. Arzel (talk) 22:14, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah I see, it is American chaos that you are referring to. Well that is easily fixed. Hint: add the word "definition" to your search. 2ndAmendment (talk) 22:17, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of John McCain presidential eligibility

An editor has nominated John McCain presidential eligibility, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Misplaced Pages is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/John McCain presidential eligibility and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 19:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

POV Pushing

Hi Arzel. I wanted to get your opinion on what to do with user Jimintheatl. He has constantly engaged in POV pushing and I fear that formal discipline is required. I gave him a warning on his talk page and he gave me one in retalliation. We have to stop POV pushing by him because it is obvious he is not interested in having good faith discussions and is going against consensus. Arnabdas (talk) 17:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Coming Close to the Line

It would appear to me, that the longstanding views by some editors that FNC is biased have completely clouded there ability to view this in an objective fashion. Their belief that FNC is biased is so strong that to conclude anthing else must be the result of flawed studies or agenda by those editors wishing to add this information.

Hey Arzel, I just wanted to point out that the above paragraph can very likely be taken out of context and be used in a way you did not intend. I understand the point you are trying to make that some editors could use some flexibility in viewing the issue, but the text comes across as essentially a PA against those that disagree with you-- that they are blind to logic and reason solely because of the political views or agenda. Now you may feel that way but I don't think that is what you are trying to get across. If this were to go ANI or something you risk a PA block. You may want to further explain your thoughts. I know we have had our differences in the past, but I am really trying to look out for you here. Ramsquire 00:39, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Seems another editor has already addressed this in part. I know tensions are running high, and I don't think this needs to go anywhere else. Frustration often leads to regrettable actions in the heat of the moment. However, I do want to point out that the entire premise of the post is that our judgment must be clouded by an ulterior agenda. It's entirely possible (probable?) that the evidence presented really does not hold up to scrutiny. In this case, instead of addressing the issues I've raised you regressed to an ad hominem logical fallacy. If you have read the study and understand the premise behind it, please discuss why you believe the flaws I believe exist are not a concern. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 02:48, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Fox News Lead

Hi Arzel. You seem to be more experienced at this then me. I am curious why I am seemingly the only editor willing to change the lead in the FNC entry. I would think other editors would be doing the same, considering how many agreed in the RfC that the current version needs changing. The fact that Blaxthos, Gamaliel, and TheNobleSith seem to take turns reverting my edits week by week makes it seem that the majority of editors want to keep the lead alone, and that I am the only one who wants it changed. Yet the RfC showed most actually do want it changed. Am I missing something? Jsn9333 (talk) 03:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

You are running up against a wall which may have to door. You will probably make little headway with Blaxthos, given your previous history he probably will disregard everything and anything you say. The fact that it has finally been acknowledged that the UCLA study does not provide evidence that FNC is biased, and if anything, shows FNC is the most centrist is a huge step (one to which I have been fighting for over a year.) It does seem that most want some sort of change, what can be done is to start presenting changes or options of changes within the talk that people can vote on and make suggestions. Once a concensus is reached within the talk will we be able to make any changes to the lead. Unfortunately I will be offline for the next two weeks and unable to participate, but you have my vote on your most recent suggestions. Arzel (talk) 23:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Editor assistance

Regarding your comment that another editor that someone "requested an editor assistance against me", I hope you're not referred to the Editor assistance process. If so, please note that editors who offer to help, at that page, are not offering to be advocates, but are rather to provide another opinion about what is happening with a dispute between editors.

If you do in fact have information that those involved in the WP:EA process see themselves as advocates, please let me know - that's not supposed to be happening. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 17:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Devean George Photograph =

I would like to contribute a live shot of Devean George to which I own full exclusive rights from my collection. Please e-mail me to let me know if you're interested...PhotographSource PhotographSource (talk) 20:13, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Fox News Channel controversies

Please join me at the talk page and explain what exactly you meant in your edit summary. There is no reliability issue and the Daily Show is a very notable political satire show. Would you agree that at least a mention should be there, if perhaps a much shorter one? Thanks.PelleSmith (talk) 20:48, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:BLP

You seem to use "WP:BLP concerns" as a frequent rationalization for removing information you consider negative. Please take the time to read the policy, and understand that it's not a catch-all, but rather a requirement that we adhere to the laws and rules regarding defamatory content and libelous accusations. The major points of the policy is the importance of reliably sourcing and neutral presentation of information. Be careful not to misinterpret and/or accidentally misrepresent the requirements of WP:BLP; some of your recent assertions regarding point of policy are questionable (but usually moot, as there are other (more germane) policies/guidelines that have the same effect). Cheers. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

People seem to forget that these articles are many times about real people. I use BLP to illustrate some of the core principles of WP. Even if that particular item was a reliable source, it was inserted only to denegrate BOR, and make him look stupid. I think you would agree that this is not the purpose of Bibliographies on WP (even if he does stupid things from time to time). You and I may not agree on much, but you must agree that my history here has not involved insertion of contentious material in any BLP I have worked on. Valid criticism is one thing, but I think you would agree that that was just drivel. Arzel (talk) 02:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Does the content meet with the external link guideline? Not as a primary source, which is why I removed it. However, I still assert that you're interpreting the scope of WP:BLP too broadly... it's simply not a justification to remove information you believe serves only to "denegrate" a subject. As a primary source, it is not suitable for inclusion in the article itself, and I don't believe it meets with the spirit of WP:EL either (which is why I removed it). As an interesting twist, Keith Olbermann has picked up on the video and has issued a criticism on tonight's (12 May 08) episode of Countdown with Keith Olbermann, which means it's now criticism from a reliable secondary source. This may open the door for inclusion elsewhere, especially if additional secondary sources emerge. I don't think we've heard the last of this. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Who cares if Olbermann picked up on it, there is no news there, it is several years old, and the only purpose is to mock and denegrate. WP is not tabloid journalism, which is not to say that KO frequently trades in exactly that. Arzel (talk) 15:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I am not arguing for its inclusion, Arzel... I'm pointing out that one of the reasons against inclusion (RS concerns) has now been eliminated. I'm also pointing out that WP:BLP is not a cart blanche justification for removal of material, as you often assert. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 16:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

As I am not saying WP:BLP is the end all means of justifications, just tht people seem to forget that there are overiding elements of BLP that trumps other policies. As in this case, it is much simpler to stick with BLP because then you don't have to worry about someone coming back with an alternate source. Additionally, KO is not the end all of RS for BOR. If he were then every single little thing that BOR does would be included (KO makes sure to rip into BOR whenever he gets a chance.) WP should not be the boxing ring for KO and BOR. Arzel (talk) 11:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Right... I forgot your penchant for then attributing it to some sort of grudgematch between him and Keith Olbermann... please read my original reply, which clearly states (notice the qualification "if" clause, emphasis in original): "This may open the door for inclusion elsewhere, especially if additional secondary sources emerge." We now have Stephen Colbert also addressing the clip (satire), which both validates my original statement (door opened for inclusion) and invalidates your response (that this is only the result of some KO / BOR feud)... /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 17:35, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Warnings

Users are not required to keep warnings on their talk pages. Removing them is a sign of acknowledgment; re-adding old warning serves no purpose other than to try and make someone look bad. Edits like this and this are inappropriate and disparaging. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 15:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Fine Arzel (talk) 17:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Kevin James (broadcaster)

If you have time, you might consider popping by Kevin James (broadcaster)‎ and offering your opinion regarding the section about his appearance on Hardball, which has ballooned to four paragraphs now. Gamaliel (talk) 14:43, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I made some cuts as well. I don't have a personal opinion about the story or reaction to what Bush said, but I don't think that Kevin James' Bio should be the place for discussion or the primary place to vet this particular issue. It probably deserves it's own article, with the Kevin James aspect a minor part. Arzel (talk) 17:26, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Gretchen Carlson

You are also in danger of violating the three-revert rule. Please see the "Characterizing opinions of people's work" section of WP:NPOV. You have not answered why adding a controversies section (regardless of content) is inappropriate and yet you have removed it three times. It seems you are trying to remove any criticism of Carlson. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mangala3 (talk • contribs) 01:44, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello Arzel. You've been mentioned at the 3RR Noticeboard. EdJohnston (talk) 03:24, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

For super clarification, since you apparently have missed the point thus far... to your question "if someone puts uncited critical information or poorly cited critical information into a BLP and nooone else removes it it should just stay because of the 3RR?" No, but your reaction certainly should not be to go on a multi-day edit war without regard to WP:3RR (without asking for help), especially when the libelous nature of the information is questionable. What you should do is choose to ask for assistance via one of the at least half-dozen other options (as I've mentioned before). If you choose to go the edit war route, it shouldn't come as a surprise when your conduct gets reported as questionable. To then go and file an ANI complaint against the person who reported your questionable conduct, especially with the "I'm going to come after you now" attitude AND completely dodging any personal responsibility or acknowledging that there are better ways to deal with the issue than an edit war, means you're letting passion cloud your judgment. This isn't the result of a grudge, it's a result of your conduct -- I report 3RR violations whenever I see them... you just happened to be the one edit warring in this particular case. Given your pattern of routinely scrubbing negative content from conservative-focused articles (as noted by an administrator), I am pretty sure that it's me rather than the report that upsets you. I welcome informed discourse and productive activities towards finding mutually acceptable content. I do not, nor will I ever, condone people who edit war (no matter what side of the debate they may choose). It is my most sincere hope that you learn from this, and realize it's not the who, but the what. Best of luck. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 19:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Given your previous history with me I can assume no other reason for your report than a personal grudge you have against me. Seriously, you have anoyn editors adding info of a contentious nature the and you say the rules of 3RR do not apply because they don't appear to be the same user??? If you have a problem with BLP rules then I suggest you go complain there instead. Furthermore I believe if a user-check were done that they would end up being the same user, additionally I did leave a message on their talk page. Also, you continued ing of me is really starting to piss me off. Perhaps you can spend your time developing a spell-check for WP instead of filing bogus 3RR reports against other users. For all of your rhetoric of claiming to welcomed informed discourse and productive activities, you history of confrontation with anyone that disagrees with you shows otherwise. As for the "I'm going to come after you now" BS, let us not forget who was watching whom. You didn't just magically come to that site by pure chance. Why don't you just try appologizing once instead of continuing to grinde your axe in my face. Arzel (talk) 13:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

It's ridiculous for you to claim anonymous editors editing a page somehow means all rules don't apply. This isn't conservapedia - we add criticism to both liberal and conservative articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mangala3 (talk • contribs) 17:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Clarrification. Blaxthos claimed that the 3RR didn't apply to the anoyn because they were different users. I wasn't talking directly at any anoynomous editor, and have rephrased my statement to make it clear what I was talking about. Arzel (talk) 19:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation

I hadn't thought to check E.D. Hill's article, but you're right, it's probably sufficient being just there. Thanks, and have a good day :). Chris M. (talk) 01:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Realclearpolitics

Please, keep the article NPOV, failure to do so will result in a report. If you have nothing constructive to add to the article then the solution is simple: leave it alone and quit taking real information out of it. The wiki article itself describes RCP as a news aggregator and blog, if you don't feel that's fair then you're trump is with the words "news aggregator and blog." If you felt 'conservative' modifying 'blog' implied the news wasn't categorically conservative, then the NPOV move was to move the word conservative earlier in the sentence so that it seems to modify everything mentioned as a component of the site. I ended up doing the latter. This is an obvious attempt to insert your personal bias through the art of omission, however I live by "innocent until proven guilty."

I have no problem if you add "liberal" to the Keith Olberman or George Soros articles, just please don't be annoying and undo productive work. 75.92.15.232 (talk) 16:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

re:"You have no evidence to add conservative blog to RCP. The article which you seem bent on including makes no mention of RCP being a conservative blog. Just because a conservative magazine did an article on RCP does not prove that RCP is conservative."

Please actually read the article:

McIntyre described the philosophy behind the website as based on "freedom" and "common-sense values." Said Bevan, "We think debate on the issues is a very important thing. We post a variety of opinions."

"We have a frustration that all conservatives have," said McIntyre, "which is the bias in the media against conservatives, religious conservatives, Christian conservatives." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joel.a.davis (talk • contribs) 17:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

June 2008

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

Request reason:

If you actual look at the content you will see that dif 2 dif 3 are removing vandalism to an article. dif 1 and dif 4 were the removal of an external link which I beleives fails WP:EL for WP:BLP andWP:UNDUE reasons. Gamaliel was the first to include this information, and I believe this is motified by his own personal bias. I say this because you will see that i removed the SAME EL and type of information from the Keith Olbermann article, which Gamaliel had just scrubed some info he thought was not encyclopedic, yet Gamaliel did not put that external link back into the KO article, yet here he is falsely reporting me for 3RR. The fact that Gamaliel is an administrator only makes this much more troubling What a bunch of hypocrisy and missuse of power. Did anyone even look at the info or just take his word because he is an Admin? Arzel (talk) 12:55, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I just looked at the diffs that you suggest as 2 and 3 above. You suggest that you were removing vandalism, which I don't see as the case. There was no clear vandalism. Perhaps undue weight, but not vandalism, and certainly not enough to rise to the level of violating 3RR. Declined. — - Philippe 05:21, 16 June 2008 (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.

I didn't restore that info to the Keith Olbermann article because I did not notice you had removed it. I have restored it now that you have brought it to my attention. I have no idea what that has to do with your 3RR violation, however. Gamaliel (talk) 15:53, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you explain why you reported me, when it is clear that it was two seperate issues. I specifically didn't revert Nick326 again to avoid 3RR. I reported to ANI because I was in a position where I couldn't revert him, and couldn't report for 3RR because he hadn't violated 3RR. I did leave a notice on his page, which you failed to note as well. He was inserting material in violation of BLP (which should negate the 3RR). You are an ADMIN and You SHOULD know better. Our issue was entirely different, I even commented on talk and your first reaction was to report me. I remarked on the KO article because of the apparent hypocrisy that you have shown. I've also seen that the blocking admin has been an admin for less than 4 months, and doesn't seem to have even reviewed the edits. I am extremely dissapointed in you and your actions, but if you would rather revert to making spurious reports rather than an adult discussion I guess I have no recourse. Arzel (talk) 16:46, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea why there is any hypocrisy when I made the same edits to both articles, or what that would make a bit of difference if I did not. Regardless, you have flouted the 3RR too many times and edit warred too many times, using BLP as an excuse for your actions. You didn't discuss anything with the new user, you threatened him. What a great welcome to Misplaced Pages that was! The simple fact is, you broke the 3RR and perhaps this block will get your attention. Your behavior needs to change. Gamaliel (talk) 16:56, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

So you feel it is fine to violate WP:BLP policies? Furthermore, I didn't threaten the new user, I simply stated that he may be blocked, what did he do? continued to insert the same material in violation of WP:BLP. Do you even know the rules for removal of contentious material within a BLP? I thought not. Arzel (talk) 04:26, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Further Clarification. This sentence from the above link editors are advised to seek help from an administrator is precisely why I made the ANI report, and you criticized me for that as well... I have to ask, which is more important, your interpretation of WP:BLP or actually trying to follow WP:BLP rules, because at this point it seems like the only safe thing for an editor to do is leave in contencious material for fear of a block. Arzel (talk) 04:42, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

My advise to you is this:

• Clearly identify your reverts as BLP reverts in the edit summary.
• Only invoke BLP in cases of clearly defamatory edits.
• Avoid invoking BLP on articles in which you have also been edit warring.
• Attempt discussion with the other editor, especially if that editor is a new user. Engage them politely. Do not threaten them with a block.
• In the cases of persistent edits, step back and let other editors continue the work. Use the BLP noticeboard to ask for assistance.

Remember that not everyone is going to agree that an edit violates BLP, so when in doubt, it's best to stay within the bounds of the 3RR policy. Gamaliel (talk) 15:00, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

• You are right I didn't do that, but given two other editors also removed the same information from the same page I don't really see how it is relevant in this instance.
• I thought it was pretty clear, and given the history of the user is was clear that they were vandalising.
• To say I was edit-waring is a huge leap. Your issue and this issue were completely different instances. I might also question why you felt compelled to add that EL to the page at that time.
• I did. I did not threaten a block. There is no indication that the user even reads his messages, and you can see he was blocked again for doing the same thing.
• I did, you will notice that I made no more reverts of his material after the first two. I should have gone to the BLP noticeboard instead of ANI, but I don't see how that makes much of a huge difference. Arzel (talk) 02:05, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't care for your insinuation in the third point above. I make my edits when I make my edits, regardless of the actions of others. And you are responsible for your reverts, regardless of the actions of others.

The crux of the issue is that you are pretty free with the word "vandalism". To another user, especially a new user, adding the word "right-wing" to the article of a Fox anchor is logical and not vandalism. You should be more conservative with what you label vandalism and a BLP violation and you will not run into trouble. You say other editors were reverting him - you could have relied on them for assistance. And you have attempted to discuss the issue, which no one seems to have done, including (troublingly) the admin who blocked him. You claim you did not threaten a block, but the message you left was pretty clearly a threat. If you don't see it as a threat, then you should leave the interactions with new users to other editors. Gamaliel (talk) 17:26, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Relied on other editors for what? There were three of us that reverted this "new" user, none of use did more than two reverts on the SD page. You make it sound like I was a vigilante, when there is clear evidence that other editors felt the same way. You really need to relax on what you think is a threat. To say someone may get in trouble if they don't stop what they are doing is a threat is silly. A threat is a statement with a intent to do harm, since I have neither the capacity to do anything to them nor did I claim that I would it is hardly a threat. It was a warning, you need to redefine your own misunderstanding of what a threat is. Arzel (talk) 17:48, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

This isn't about me and what I think, this is about your inappropriate interactions with new users. Instead of splitting hairs to justify your actions, you should take a gentler tone with new users instead of threatening them. See WP:BITE. Gamaliel (talk) 18:07, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

PTR

Answered on my talk.--PTR (talk) 14:33, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

As requested, my argument for ACORN sentence, organized

This is a form message I'm cross posting on various user talk pages: As requested, I wrote up my argument in one spot, consolidating what I'd said before and adding just a bit. Please take a look at it at User:Noroton/The case for including ACORN and comment at Talk:Barack Obama#Case for ACORN proposed language, restated. Thanks, Noroton (talk) 03:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

John McCain Affirmative Action edit

You added a quote by Barack Obama to John McCain's political positions page and attributed the quote to John McCain. WTF?

Your edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Political_positions_of_John_McCain&diff=228533234&oldid=228532094 Read the source carefully: http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/28/affirmative.action/index.html RobRedactor (talk) 06:54, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Liberalism Is a Mental Disorder

Just wanted to let you know that with this edit, you lost all credibility with me. I was curious to see how long it would take for you to bother looking at your own edit. Some 9.5 hours later, you finally did. I suspect that if no one else had made any other edits to that section, you might never have noticed. Please edit more carefully in the future. Thanks. --Art Smart (talk) 12:55, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

John Edwards

Hi Arzel, you might want to participate in this article about the BLP issues. I am letting you know because of my knowledge that you have consistently raised BLP issues in Sean Hannity, Kevin James and Bill O Reilly articles. I thought i would let you know just in case you didnt notice. Dock 12:38, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I am aware of that issue, and had considered taking part, but it is moving so fast back and forth that I haven't had time to keep up with all of the comments and stay completely up to date with the action. Arzel (talk) 13:45, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Bravo. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:21, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Hannity book

I'd invite you to participate in the discussion taking place in the article about the book Let_Freedom_Ring:_Winning_the_War_of_Liberty_over_Liberalism. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:12, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

This sounds more canvassing than what I did because he knew you would support his position. Dock 17:38, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Hardly, considering I was in the similar dicussion on Savage's book. Arzel (talk) 17:40, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

And supporting the removal, of course, this is canvassing. Dock 17:41, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject:Conservatism

I'm thinking there is a need for a Conservatism WikiProject, to help make articles reflecting conservative philosophy from being besmirched. If you're interested, let me know.--King Bedford I 20:51, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I am not quite sure what you are getting at. I don't approach articles with an agenda to protect or harm any one specific ideology. While it may appear that I am more supportive of conservatives, that is more of a function of the population of WP which has a greater number of people with a liberal ideology, which translates in to less of a need to remove needless criticism and POV from those articles in general. Additionally, I don't have that much free time to spend on WP. That said, if you do want a neutral point of view then I will be happy to give my opinion. Arzel (talk) 01:18, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

No problem; just canvassing.--King Bedford I 01:39, 4 August 2008 (UTC)