| Revision as of 17:51, 27 January 2009 editSP-KP (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Pending changes reviewers31,538 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 12:50, 9 August 2009 edit undoKleenupKrew (talk | contribs)1,323 edits ←Replaced content with '{{retired}}'Next edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{retired}} | |||
| == Request for The Stinger Report Deletion == | |||
| This is the second time that some one has just turned up made a sweeping statement, then asked for Deletion. We entered this Page after a number of Wiki sites used information or sources from The Stinger Report - I can not see how creating an entry is not going to promote ANY service or business. Though I do not see a order for deletion from the Computer Games magazine entries or the other Newsletters? Is there a specific area of this page that could be changed that would not be seen as claimed promotion - or was this comment just made as a simple sweeping statement rather than a way to be constructive. We have done EVERYTHING asked to change alter or add to made this site suitable! ] (]) 12:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :See ]. ] (]) 11:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Please see my reply to your statement "many books but they all appear to be self-published or from small, non notable presses". Actually, her books ARE from notable presses, and as far as I can see, NONE of them are self-published. You'll find descriptions of and links to information about these notable presses on that page. In all fairness, if that is your argument, you should reverse your vote. ] (]) 20:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :I still don't see any notable presses. Were any published by a company like St. Martins, Penguin, Ballantine, Random House? ] (]) 11:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Tim Eyman. == | |||
| Sure I will love to supply some references to critisim of Tim Eyman. Tim Eyman is probably the most controversial figure in the entire state. --] (]) 21:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Jake, I don't doubt that he may be but criticism of a living person has to be specific and sourced. "Some charge he uses media manipulation and scare tactics" is never acceptable in a biographical article because it does not cite who says this, nor does it refer to anything specific - "media manipulation and scare tactics" could mean anything. While this sort of wording may have been agreed upon in the past, Misplaced Pages is really tightening the standards for ] because of a number of legal concerns. By all means please do help provide sources and clean up the article, it can only improve it. The article has several other problems but I only hit the one that was most obviously in need of immediate attention. ] (]) 21:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Could you please explain more fully? == | |||
| Is there any way you could see your way clear to explain more fully why you for ]? | |||
| There are all kinds of different ideas as to what is notable. I think the wikipedia project would work best if we were prepared to try to engage in dialogs over our different interpretations. | |||
| Yes, I know some people think their view of what is notable is so "obviously" correct that no explanations are necessary. Personally, I don't believe in ]. I am very sorry to note that some people take requests for explanations of what they regard as too obvious to require an explanation as some kind of personal attack. | |||
| Please don't consider this request a personal attack. | |||
| Cheers! ] (]) 03:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Is there any evidence he was a major Taliban figure? The article says he was a cook. Has he been a party to any precedent-setting U.S. court case? I don't see anything there either. There is nothing at all to indicate enough notability for his own article. ] (]) 11:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Rumsfeld, and other senior members of the ] ] claimed that '''''all''''' the Guantanamo captives were '''''"the worst of the worst"'''''. To my way of thinking that means any captive who unquestionably faced allegation that supported the claim they were one of the "worst of th worst" merits coverage. And, I think it means that any captives who faced allegations that may not measure up to the label "worst of the worst", like possibly Towfiq, also merits coverage. When a guy accused of a serious crime turns out to be an innocent victim of mistaken identity I suggest this is at least as significant as someone turning out to be established to have committed that serious crime. ] (]) 11:35, 11 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::(1) Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia. It is not a newspaper, criminal offender registry, police blotter, gossip sheet, scandal sheet, "Who's Who In America", "Who's Who In Guantanamo", a place to publicize people who are not notable, nor free webspace for political advocacy on either side of any issue. (2) Donald Rumsfeld does not meet ] as a reliable source. (3) Misplaced Pages articles are scraped, mirrored, archived, and otherwise copied all over the Internet by thousands of other sites, where it is next to impossible to ever get rid of them completely. If somebody is accused of a serious crime but is in fact innocent, the ''last'' thing you should want to do is plaster their name, biography, and photo all over the Internet where it will haunt them for the rest of their lives. That is just immoral. ] (]) 12:01, 11 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Agreed, the wikipedia is an encyclopedia. | |||
| ::::Regarding whether Donald Rumsfeld is a reliable source, could you explain your interpretation? It seems to me that any public speech, of any Cabinet member, of any government, reported in that Government's official publications, or in respectable newspapers, is a verifiable, authoritative source. Maybe what you mean is that Rumsfeld's judgment, or candor, is not reliable, cannot be relied on? Is this what you meant? Whether he said it, however, is not open to question. | |||
| ::::Regarding your comment on the morality of republishing Rumsfeld's description, due to the wikipedia's widespread mirroring. No offense, but I don't agree. Rumsfeld's description that the Guantanamo captives were "the worst of the worst" has already been very widely repeated. | |||
| ::::*If these guys are ever repatriated, their detention in Guantanamo is going to haunt them, for the rest of their lives, without regard to whether there is a wikipedia article about them. | |||
| ::::*If these guys are not repatriated, if they continue to be held in Guantanamo, then making public the allegations against them, their testimony, and the press reports published about them, is not going to damage them. | |||
| ::::*I have done a large share of the work of maintaining and expanding the wikipedia's coverage of the captives. Originally I got some respondents who accused me of being a "terrorist sympathizer". Presumably these were from people who had accepted, at face value, the statements of Rumsfeld, and his colleagues, that the captives were all terrorists. I think it has been over a year, maybe two years, since a correspondents accused me of being a "terrorist sympathizer". As more factual information about the camp has gotten out people have stopped accepting that description at face value. | |||
| ::::You may be interested in learning how the information about the captives became public. The '']'' made ] requests, which the DoD chose not to comply with. The AP took them to court. Presumably the DoD could have decided to not comply on "]" grounds. IANAL. I don't know how that would have played out. In the event they chose to argue that they had an obligation to withhold the documents, and lists of captives' identities, in order to protect the captives' privacy. This is essentially the same suggestion you made, isn't it? The US justice system decided otherwise. Many legal experts have mocked the DoD's stated concern for the captive's privacy as laughable and deceitful. | |||
| ::::Returning to Rumsfeld's credibility -- the ] says that the wikipedia aims for '''"]"'''. I want you to know I took your concern seriously. So I re-read ], and ]. No offense, but it seems to me that we have different interpretations of these policies. RS says: ''"Editors must take particular care."'' BLP says: {{quotation|Material about living persons must be sourced very carefully. Without reliable third-party sources, it will violate the No original research and Verifiability policies, and could lead to libel claims.}} | |||
| ::::Well, I think I was careful. To rule out relying on a Cabinet Member's public statement, out of '''''personal''''' doubts as to whether he is truthful, or well-informed, requires crossing the boundary ] proscribes -- taking a stand on truth. It is verifiable. It is up to us contributors to make sure what we write is well-sourced, and written from a neutral point of view. It is up to our readers to form their own conclusions as to whether Rumsfeld, or any other reference we use, is credible. | |||
| ::::Rumsfeld's statements aren't gossip. You are entitled to have your private doubts as to his truthfulness. You are entitled to have your private doubts as to whether he listened to the intelligence analysts who briefed him with a closed mind, not an open mind. But, I suggest, there can't be any real doubt that he was briefed. This means his comments aren't gossip. | |||
| ::::Cheers! ] (]) 20:01, 11 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::KK, are you aware of the actual RW situation? the innocent who are being railroaded are not harmed by public knowledge, far from it. One event is to protect the juvenile delinquents & give them a chance to grow up. ''']''' (]) 18:30, 11 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Can we please have a reasonable limit on the length of talk page posts? One paragraph of no more than four non-run-on sentences and less than 1000 characters, perhaps? That is way too much to read considering a quick glance looks like it is utterly confusing Wikilawyering. ] (]) 02:16, 12 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :You called my writing "immoral". Let me suggest that if you call someone's action "immoral" you consider at least making an attempt to read their reply. ] (]) 02:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == RFA Thanks == | |||
| Thanks for your support at my recent Request for adminship. I hope you find I live up to your expectations. Best, ] (]) 16:10, 16 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Jefferson Republican Party == | |||
| Oh great, another Junior Woodchuck trying to delete legitimate articles. Just because this political party is small, does NOT mean its article should be deleted. Now please feel free to whine in your reply about how should I respect you and not question your decisions. ] (]) 22:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :There are no legitimate articles. We Junior Woodchucks have to be selective and start somewhere and a political party invented in five minutes in somebody's living room is just the ticket. ] (]) 02:16, 18 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Your lack of a rational argument aside, most political parties start out in ways similar to your example. This one does have elected officials. ] (]) 19:37, 18 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==RfA thanks== | |||
| {| class="messagebox standard-talk" style="border: 5px solid #CCCCCC; background-color: #FF9999;" | |||
| |align="left"|] | |||
| |align="center"|Thank you for voting in ], which succeeded with '''71 support''', '''14 oppose''', and '''5 neutral'''. Thanks for your participation. I hope I serve you well! <!-- this thank-you created with Template:RfA-thanks --> | |||
| |} | |||
| --]] 23:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == A centralised discussion which may interest you == | |||
| Hi. You may be interested in a centralised discussion on the subject of "lists of unusual things" to be found ]. ] (]) 17:36, 27 January 2009 (UTC) | |||