Misplaced Pages

User talk:Cptnono

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mr Unsigned Anon (talk | contribs) at 01:35, 22 October 2009 (→Hi there). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 01:35, 22 October 2009 by Mr Unsigned Anon (talk | contribs) (→Hi there)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Template:Archive box collapsible

Glenn Beck

I have added "my" version of a proposed Van Jones section. The "right" one is likely somewhere in between yours and mine. (read: let's both be willing to compromise)— Mike :  tlk  02:23, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank goodness you're finally working on something. Now if you could start working on the ACORN section, see what I proposed on the talk page. Bachcell (talk) 22:19, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

BLP on Talk:Glenn Beck

You don't get to call living people names, sorry. The rules are pretty clear. Please don't make an issue of this because there is none to be made. Don't restore that comment again. Thank you. Gamaliel (talk) 15:01, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

See, now that's the polite way to say "get over it." A courtesy lesson, from an admin. →Baseball Bugs carrots 15:50, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Totally was :) I also don't need a courtesy lesson since I am not in kindergarten. I still think they are interpreting the rules incorrectly. The admin also doesn't know how format talk page headers (before someone gets offended: I screw them up too sometimes so am just poking fun). Cptnono (talk) 21:11, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages is very sensitive to BLP issues, i.e. to disparaging living persons. The probability of someone suing wikipedia, because an anonymous editor called them an idiot on a talk page, is likely very small. But they don't want to take chances. →Baseball Bugs carrots 21:35, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
They are right Cptnono, you cannot give your opinion that a living person is an idiot. You can say that X source called the person an idiot, but you cannot call that person an idiot. nableezy - 21:38, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

No they aren't. A known writer wrote in his TV critique piece that being parodied on SNL was a greater tribute than a TIME magazine cover. This is colorful writing that I doubt was supposed to be taken seriously. Since an editor was pushing inclusion based on it being a huge deal for the subject (not the writer and this was on the subject's article's talk page not the article), my comment was that the writer was "an if he actually believes that. I have a feeling it was just to be cute...". It was colorful but it wasn't overly offensive. Since it is assumed that he didn't mean it literally then it is not offensive to him at all. If he did mean it literally there is still nothing in the BLP guideline prohibiting this manner of making a point on a separate subject's article's talk page.

Yes there is. The BLP policy is not strictly for making comments in actual biographies, it says that any such comments anywhere on Misplaced Pages must have highly reliable sourcing. Your opinion does not count as a highly reliable source. Dont take this the wrong way, Im just trying to make sure you dont get blocked for future comments. nableezy - 21:59, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
No worries, I'm not taking it the wrong way at all and enjoying our little kumbaya. As I mentioned last night, I am still quitting smoking so I could snap at any moment, though! The opening line discusses "biographical material". I was not discussing biographical material I was asserting that I was potentially disagreeing with the writer. It is also clear that I assumed I was not calling him an idiot with the follow up line. I was making a point to another editor on an unrelated talk page and I think the admin took it the wrong way. Also, on my revert, I made sure to add "in my opinion" to make it clear that it was not fact. I also wanted to point out that the subject was called a knuckle dragger on the talk page. Why wasn't that removed?Cptnono (talk) 22:08, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps I was overzealous but better to err on the side of caution when it comes to BLP. As for the other comment, I'm not omnicient nor do I examine every inch of every page for possible BLP offenses. I just delete the ones I see. If there's another offending comment you can remove it yourself or provide a link to the section that contains it and I'll do it. Thanks. Gamaliel (talk) 22:56, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
The other comment was a red herring (idiom) on my part since you can't be expected to go through line by line so no problem. Thanks for getting back to me.Cptnono (talk) 23:18, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
"Knuckle dragger" is just as bad as "idiot" (maybe worse) and should also be expunged, if it's a BLP reference. And for what it's worth, objectively speaking, I would have to say that anyone who seriously thinks an SNL parody is a greater achievement than a Time cover is, shall we say, a little too narrowly focused. →Baseball Bugs carrots 04:35, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Glenn Beck and ACORN

I see they finally got Van Jones in, but are they still keeping ACORN out? Check out NYT finally admits they dropped the ball and they need to have at least one person watch the conservative news and talk circuit. Now when WP people admit they've been playing see no evil hear no evil, that will be the day. Bachcell (talk) 15:57, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

No worries!

;^) ↜Just M E here , now 06:02, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Spoof of Beck

With regard to citations

(in the article about the spoofer website) -- Would you help me move them up into the text? If you were to try(?), do note that I'm not emotionally attachment to any of em so if you think any one or several bloggier uns are unable to be attached to a statement of opinion somewhere in the article, don't hesitate to delete it or them entirely.↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 11:17, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll look.↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 11:22, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Had to add brand-new cite for "Anonymous" (group) association.↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 12:04, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Although much blogospheric chatter talks much of Google bombing this meme, I can't find it mentioned in a 2ndary source other than Wikinews so maybe we should take our mention of "Google bomb" out.↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 12:12, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Lol @ e/c comment↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 12:49, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
What should be the article's title? then, what should be it's lede? (& so forth -- )↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 13:33, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
A riddle on English syntax

Were we to say, Glenn Beck Rape Satire, would we be meaning a "satire of Glenn Beck about rape" or a "satire by Glen Beck about rape"? (Or, for completeness here, the technicality that we could mean a satire of a person's raping Glenn Beck.) Or were we to produce a script called Stripper Vampire Murderers, which of several variable roles possible would we be trying to cast? "strippers who murder vampires"?, "vampires who murder and also strip"?, or "people who murder stripping vampires"? Only after our title became an idiom could our audience know for sure which one we meant!↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 19:56, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing like someone who appreciates and enjoys the complexities of the English language. Perhaps you should take a look at the argument for & against referring to the "Gaza massacre" or the "Gaza Massacre" in the article on the Gaza War. Here is my contrib for your enjoyment. As a kid a teacher used the following sentence to demonstrate the importance of punctuation: The Indians said Jane scalped General Custer. Stellarkid (talk) 22:49, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
@ Stellarkid: lol
@ Cptnono on my talkpage: "Rape satire of Glenn Beck" would be M U C H clearer (howevah, I myself have retired from messing with the article, having emended my AfD !vote to one of deletion!)↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 01:27, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
BTW I did go ahead and, citing WP:Naming conventions, boldly moved the article to something less imprecise and ambiguous than before -- my sort of "randomly picking out of my hat" "Glenn Beck – Isaac Eiland-Hall controversy." Please feel free to move it to something else. The article has been barely worked on by anybody -- which, by a certain measure, shows its subject matter to be of less interest to WP editors, for whatever reason (and perhaps less notable?), than I had previously thought. (It is a pretty crass joke/parody.)↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 23:42, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks!↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 23:55, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I took out the website infobox to emphasize the dispute, per se, over, per se, the website, but it certainly could go back in. Cirt had added most or all of the "See also" wikilinks. I put them into columns so they would take up less space on the page; they could stand some culling though.↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 01:22, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't mind your contibuting to the discussion, Cptnono

But your meta points confuse me.

The religious content that Bytebear objects to is currently in the article in the Skousen section, since *I* put it there. Thus, for example, how am I not contributing what I had already contributed? See how your statements confuse me?

(To fill you in: Bytebear had written on one of our -- either his or my -- talkpages that he was disappointed in my having reverted his removal of the religious content in this section; so, I am now providing information on the article talkpage to buttress its inclusion.)↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 03:00, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll look at the local library/used bookshop tomorrow.↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 03:19, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Authorship and Publishing

Before I say my say, I want you to know that if I sound irritated, it's not because of some stupid ideological difference, but only because I spent twenty minutes sourcing that section.

What was wrong with it the way it was? I really think it was fine. It's not promotional, just the facts, backed up with enough sources that no one can gripe about it. Is there some manual of style problems or something? Joshua Ingram 20:14, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I responded to you here. I came off wrong. I was agreeing with you, but after reading it a second time, I see that it looked like I was bashing both of you. Sorry, man. Joshua Ingram 20:44, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I listen to Beck enough that the humor is rubbing off on me. Joshua Ingram 20:56, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Review

Dude, I've been fairly busy with personal issues and been spending too much time on Ricky Ponting. Have added at comment on the review page and will be looking to add more by the end of the night here. Aaroncrick (talk) 09:00, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Nah everything's fine. Just found a life off wiki. Should be still editing but not as much, or at least not for as long. Aaroncrick (talk) 11:16, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
May be easier for me to copy edit it. I've done a few sections. Aaroncrick (talk) 11:23, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Article looking good. Will give a final ce. Aaroncrick (talk) 09:46, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Great. Have you fixed all the refs? Aaroncrick (talk) 07:11, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

You finished? Need to finish the review. Aaroncrick (talk) 23:47, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry didn't notice you replied. Archived talkpage so should be easier! Aaroncrick (talk) 23:58, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Fine how it is. Should be finished within 24 hours. Aaroncrick (talk) 00:05, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry it took so long. YP didn't have enough reviewers. Even though it was 1 support and 0 opposes. Aaroncrick (talk) 05:23, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Should have supported if you deemed the article FA material. If so, the article probably wouldn't have failed. Aaroncrick (talk) 05:58, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
No problem :) Aaroncrick (talk) 10:12, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

SSCS

Where a category could smear the organization or is otherwise disputed, it is better to wait and leave it out until consensus is that it should be there. That is the same as any article, if something is questionable, leave it out until there is consensus to include it. No consensus or consensus to leave something out = leave it out. I don't see any proof of strong consensus to include it anywhere, so the less damaging thing is just to leave it out for the time being, the world won't fall apart while discussion is ongoing, but leaving it there could generate a bad rep.--Terrillja talk 00:12, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what your arbitrary 24 hours thing was about with adding the category again, but I think you should rethink your actions. When something is being discussed for addition, then it is best to maintain the article as it was until there is strong consensus to add it. I have yet to see strong consensus anywhere for this to be included. I do however see a long term history of you warring over the category. You might notice that I had no activity during your arbitrary time period, because contrary to popular opinion, there is something else to do outside of wikipedia.--Terrillja talk 17:53, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


Hey there! Thanks for trying to work out an amicable consensus. I disagree with removing the content of the biodiesel fuel of earthrace and preferred the balanced "animal fat and soybean" approach because it is mentionede in so many sources and obviously important enough for people to have feelings about. Regardless, the reason I'm writing now is because the article is being reverted via sock puppetry and I'm not sure how to aproach dealing with it. Do you know what to do with sock puppets? --68.41.80.161 (talk) 17:15, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

OK.. I did it, I'm official. :) --0nonanon0 (talk) 23:19, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


Thanks for your help

Good work on the Jennings article. It looks good! Timemachine1967 (talk) 23:47, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Yep, it all worked out in the end. Thanks again. Timemachine1967 (talk) 21:38, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Request

I'm sorry if I am putting this in the wrong area, but after your helpful comments earlier on today on the help page I would be grateful if you could give some advice please. I am editing the Nicholas Hagger page as the original information contained within it was incorrect. The areas I need help with are:

1. How do I link the reference numbers in the text to the actual references at the bottom of the page? I added the reference numbers from the button on the toolbar. At present the references are not linked.

2. While editing the page, half of the toolbar disappeared from the top. Can you tell me how to get the full toolbar back (as it is at the top of this article? The one with the ref button on it.)

3. The Bibliography and the Notes at the bottom are in double-line spacing and do not look right. I need help with this, including how to put in the square bullet points.

4. External links, there are some external links I need to put in, at present two are waiting to be added, see bottom of Nicholas Hagger page.

5. As I was not sure where to save the edited page for you to have a look at to check, I published it. I do appreciate that the page has not been checked by one of the editors but hope that it will not be deleted this time. It does have red writing at the bottom which refers to the incorrect citing of references. I do not know how to get rid of this. It was not my intention to publish until all the links were perfect, but I was not sure how to transfer all the work I had done to a sandbox.

6. When asking a question, where is the best place to do this? Apologies if this is the wrong place. Maybe you could let me know which is the best way to proceed.

I am new to this, and would be very grateful for your help.

With many thanks --Sanrac1959 (talk) 14:48, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the message you left for me. I have been looking at all the various help-pages yesterday and I think most if not all my queries have been solved. The page works very well I think. It would be good if I you could ask you for help with any future queries I may have. Thank you once again. --Sanrac1959 (talk) 10:04, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Will Hurd

WILL HURD

This is a response to the copyright infringement violation for the Will Hurd page I have created. I have expressed permission from the author Will Hurd, to publish any and all information from the website. What sort of evidence do I need to support it?

Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by WilliamHurd (talk • contribs) 04:40, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

My edit

If I take it to the talk page than same as always, nothing will ever be done. Why am I not a loud to actually edit the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Craigboy (talk • contribs) 06:40, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Well who's conscious do I have to have? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Craigboy (talk • contribs) 07:24, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Its like that because of the strong pro-israel contingent on Misplaced Pages. I think they work for the Israeli government myself. Da'oud Nkrumah 03:10, 8 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dnkrumah (talk • contribs)

Please go look at the number of Stars of David on user pages of contributors to this article before saying silly things. You might notice lots of green, white, red, and black. Don't forget to sign your comments
Excellent point. Thanks for the constructive retort.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 03:50, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Seattle Sounders FC task force

Hi, I wanted to notify you that I've created a proposal to create a Seattle Sounders FC task force at WikiProject Football. As someone who has edited articles in the space, I thought you might be interested. If so, you can add your name to the list of supporters here. Cheers. ← George 17:04, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and created the Seattle Sounders FC task force. It can be found here. Our first order of business is to tag all of the Seattle-related articles with WikiProject Football's {{football}} banner (most already have it), and add a Seattle importance rating to it. This be done by adding a Seattle=(importance) parameter to the banner, where (importance) is one of Top, High, Mid, or Low. ← George 16:52, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:AE

I have filed a report regarding your comments at Talk:Gaza War here. Tiamut 14:16, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

If you are going to quote me please dont do so out of context. A relevant clarification to No, that is not how it works was left out. nableezy - 03:57, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Your last reply was in response to Administrative action is one thing, arbitration is another. Arbcom does not "rule" on content. Regarding your imaginations, I was "charged" with edit warring with the loudest complaining editor having made the same number of reverts (2) as I had. That is not "gaming the system" that is a bullshit report. Regarding the rest of your message, I still sorta like you so I am just going to pretend you did not actually write that down. And if you dont want me to pretend that please repeat it on my talk page so that I can give you the proper response. And when editors say they accept that it was used by Hamas and still do not want the name in the article that is not me rejecting a "perfectly fine option". And the current lead is a "perfectly fine option". Why exactly are you rejecting what was agreed as a "compromise" by Stellarkid, Tiamut, and myself? You keep saying I have not proved anything, but I have and a number of others feel that I have. I aint having this "conversation" anymore as I do not want what respect I still have for a few of the editors here to vanish. The "No, that is not how it works" was specifically about "arbitration" to solve a content dispute. That is not what WP:Arbitration does. nableezy - 04:03, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
I do see the problem. You leave a reply to one message without including that message and you remove an explanation of the one message from me that you do quote. But your life, all I was asking for was you to include my clarification of "no, that is not how it works". nableezy - 04:14, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi there

I know you dont like that suggestion, but better than comment it write your proposal. The section is just a tool to make things clearer. And reach consensus eventually. Regards Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 11:12, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

IP block

Just to let you know that I've blocked 69.19.14.39 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) for 1 week. Regards, Bencherlite 09:19, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Bencherlite 09:30, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Allied Artists International

Senior Abuse of a 93 year old, computer illiterate man

  • I am a relatively inexperienced editor of articles about China. Louis Lesser is a historic business figure in China, who was instrumental in opening it up.
  • Louis Lesser is now 93 years old man and is computer illiterate.
  • Kimball Dean Richards has a criminal record that includes so many crimes over the past twenty years that he has been identified as a “Master Criminal” by the FBI, was sentenced to 20 years for bank fraud, mail fraud, an wire fraud in about 1990, and plea bargained after he solicited the MURDER of one of his own employees, tapped the phones of the Sheriff’s office in order to pre-warn drug dealers of impending searches, and was extradited to Arizona for still more criminal charges.
  • WarriorBoy is an editor who only writes articles that promote ALlied Artists International.
  • I provided extensive reliable sources, then got threatened by Warriorboy that if I edit I will get sued, and also am risking edits on an article on a person using a company name, who newspapers say that he hired someone to kill someone(before you erased it and all of the references).
    • Am I at serious risk of being sued, or killed by the person that the newspapers say hired someone to kill a person he had a dispute with? How safe is Misplaced Pages? Is this why you removed all of the LA times stuff?ChinaUpdater (talk) 00:24, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

FYI - AfD nomination of Allied Artists International

AfD nomination of Allied Artists International

An article that you have been involved in editing, Allied Artists International, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Allied Artists International. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 23:47, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Curiouser and Curiouser, Allied Artists Pictures Corporation DOES still exist

  • Do you know how to dig deeper to see what is really going on here?
  • I suggest you and everyone start out HERE - ] - , by getting out your Microfishe Reader, as you will not be able to search it, and find the name {Allied Artists Records]].
  • I transcribed this] - into Microsoft Word yeserday, but I do not know how to post such information on Misplaced Pages, after doing all that work (as a periphheral observer to a curious spectacle at first, but now a party in what you all call an edit war, in which I am out of my league).
  • I poseted the above on the main article talk page up for deletion for NN. I believe KDR's SP is the originator of all these Allied Artists pages.
  • But it is likely the article will be deleted entirely, leaving all of the other WarriorBoy articles associated with this still standing and hard to find.
  • I am just a Philosopher of Mathematics, not an Encyclopedia of Corporations researcher. My best friend's father-in-law ran the Mathematics Olympiad in Gansu China, and I began to edit articles on China. So I am about as far from reality, physical or virtual, reality as it gets.
  • I came into this because I do assistance to famous high end thinkers who are abandoned in old age, such as people going blin with macular degeneration, who need someonw to read to them the latest Journal of String Theory, etc., which the Braille Institute does not provide for, but I do. These people have minds that work fine, but their bodies are failing.
  • I was personally helping Louis Lesser, a 93 year old man who is computer illiterate.
  • Lesser told me, INCREDIBLY, that he used to be partners with President John Fitzgerald Kennedy in the largest urban renewal project in the history of the western United States, Barrington Plaza. Lesser said that he sold the Las Vegas New Frontier Hotel to Howard Hughes]], and that he was landlord to Hughes Aircraft. Lesser said that he was mentor to Warren Buffett and Kirk Kirkorian, and others whose names i knew from the press. Lesser said that he sold the Taj Majal in New Jersey to Donald Trump, and stayed with Trump in a spare bedroom of the Trump Towers penthouse whenever he was in New York. Lesser said he was partners with so many incredible people, that I did not believe a word he said.
  • I checked everything, and every thinkg he said turned out to be true!
  • Lesser said that some "crook" was trying to make others think otherwise.
  • One of those to whom Lesser was mentor said that a convicted felon, KDR, had committed massive fraud on Union Bank, and other major banks, using the name Allied Artists, and associated names.
  • I went to Misplaced Pages to get information, and found nothing but the pages of KDR's SP's. I found what seemed like hindreds of them, in a virtual fraud scheme similar to what I read in the federal indictments.
  • I just now found this here - - . What does it mean?
    • Then I found the many newspaper articles, most from the late 70's and early 80's on microfische, on solicitation to commit murder, felony wire fraud convictions, computer fraud convictions, etc., at which point I got that CLEAR LEGAL THREAT.ChinaUpdater (talk) 16:44, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Then I found out about WikiLaw, and EditWars. Whew!
    • I do not want a hit put out on me, like happened in one of KDR's prior convictions.
    • Do you know anyone who can find out online what exactly is going on here? As a retired philosopher of mathematics, I am not exactly up to the task. My first efforts at joint editing ended up with the exposure of KDR, his SP's, and his MULTIPLE (hundreds of them) phony ADVERT NRS NN WIki pages. Who at Misplaced Pages is good at finding out who really owns this company? ChinaUpdater (talk) 16:44, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry Accusation, Major Fraud at Misplaced Pages, just like in the Federal Conviciotns using the same methods

Sockpuppetry Accusation, Major Fraud at Misplaced Pages, just like in the Federal Conviciotns using the same methods

  • I have seen enough, as of this, - –, which when coupled with the massive other edits by WarriorBoy85, all overtly NN ADVERTs, all NRS, and all COI and POV, to make the following accusations.
  • I accuse WP:WarriorBoy85 and WP:TechnicalExpertise of being Sockpuppets for Kimball Dean Richards. I dont care about his overt legal threats, or his history of Solicitation for Murder here .

Kim Richards, CEO of Allied Artists International, by WarriorBoy85’s own original edit of his side bar, is one and the same as Kimball Dean Richards, who was named, indicted, and convicted of Major Fraud using these names and associated names.

  • ALL of the HUNDREDS of Misplaced Pages entries are nothing more than ADVERTising for Allied Artists International and its "artists" should be deleted on NN, and NRS, COI, POV, as well as SP.
  • All of the HUNDREDS of entries, such as “artists” web sites, and redirects, done by WarriorBoy85 and TechnicalExpert should be undone by high ranking Admins, and let the rest of us low level folks get back to our far more simple editing work.ChinaUpdater (talk) 17:30, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Gaza Revert

May I ask why you reverted me, particularly when all the material that I cited was sourced with RS. You reverted the lead and information in the fact box. The lead offers a sourced explanation as to why certain civilian areas were hit by the IDF. The phrase "Inflicting huge civilian devastation" is emotive and not in compliance with NPOV. I also added in the fact box that the campaign resulted in an "Israeli military victory" and virtually all reliable sources concur with this assessment. I provided 2 sources (Aviation weekly and JPost) and can provide at least two more, including the New York Times and the Institute for Near and Middle Easten Affairs. I won't revert until I here your explanation. Respectfully,--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 20:39, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Because I'm an idiot. Fixed.Cptnono (talk) 20:50, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
No harm. In the lead, instead of the current phrasing ("Huge devestation on civilian targets was also inflicted"), which in addition to violationg NPOV is just an awkward sentence, we utilize, "IDF attacks resulted in collateral damage." It's dry, neutral and not emotive.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 21:00, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Look I'm under the microscope here. Other editors assume that any edit from me, no matter how neutral (even the correction of a spelling mistake) is POV pushing. I have no problem making the correction myself but it will generate an avalanche of attacks and criticism. I think the change will carry more legitimacy from you and will be less likely to be reverted. though I've noticed that you've got your cheering corner as well :)--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 21:11, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
What about "IDF attacks directed at military targets resulted in substantial collateral damage." How does that strike you.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 21:22, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm cool with that--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 21:30, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


Jiujitsuguy block

Sure other admins or I would shorten (or perhaps lift) the block if there was a reasonable sign he would behave now. However everyone always believes they are in the right and the other party is biased so trying to appeal based on rights and wrongs won't get him far. --BozMo talk 11:14, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

EDL

I just wanted to say thanks for stepping into EDL with a neutral and policy-focused outlook. Leaky Caldron 22:54, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I would still anticipate some problems. I've only been involved in the lead and just a couple of words have caused wholly disproportionate disputes, even down to the pov-intro tag! Leaky Caldron 23:09, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Afraid so. Extremely vehement as well. No give or take.
There is some background contained in this clip from BBC Newsnight from a UK Government advisor on the far right. I raised it last week on the talk page but it was derided. They guy gives a very good description of them about 2 minutes in.
Prof. Matthew Goodwin, a Government advisor on the far right on BBC Newsnight on 12 October, described EDL as a street based, single issue, grass roots social protest movement opposed to violent, militant Islam. It is not currently political but tensions exist within the organisation and a debate is underway about whether it should stay as a street based protest movement or something more organised and political.

Leaky Caldron 23:25, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

The government advisor piece was very authoritative but there was no enthusiasm to use any of it, as you can see from the talk page. He has not been quoted in the press which is a shame because it would nail some of the evident bias that surrounds this type of mob. Personally I don't think they will endure. If they do they could morph into something more organised along quasi political lines, but at the present they are a mob reminiscent of the 1970s travelling football hooligans. They have West Indian guys in their line up, tending to reinforce the single issue aspect. Leaky Caldron 23:59, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi there

After following your argumentation about the use of Gaza massacre I respect your position even if I disagree. The problem is that without new editors involved we are stuck. So I propose you start a new 'POVtag' section in talk where you explain why you tag article it will be much clearer for a new uninvolved editor to jump in. Start new RFC wher you defining the problem. The explicit atribution "According to the Sunday Times of South Africa" in lead does nothing good and dont solve anything btw. Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 00:19, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok. How about the atriibution then. Can you tink about removing it? Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 00:26, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
I mean the line "According to the Sunday Times of South Africa," in lead. And if there is more than the 'gaza massacre' that make the article not NPOV the bigger reson to start a new NPOVsection for clearity imo.Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 00:38, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Why is it needed? Its redundant. The RS status is there. Its the most useless line in lead just taking up space. Its not making the 'Gaza Massacre' look any more disputed if thats your reason. Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 01:35, 22 October 2009 (UTC)