Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jayzel68 (talk | contribs) at 16:07, 21 November 2006 (→1996 United States campaign finance scandal). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Olbermann/Rumsfeld edit war

Hi, I started a topic in the Keith Olbermann discussion about the recent edit war. I invite you to contribute. Thanks, CalebNoble 09:04, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

now that's a friendly way to put it. thanks, but i'm basically off-wiki for a while. i was just supporting what seemed to me a well-reasoned edit. but you guys can sort it out i'm sure. Derex 13:34, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

1996 United States campaign finance scandal

I have taken the liberty to submit this article to Misplaced Pages:Featured article review for community review and "vetting". Hopefully, this will end your concerns regarding the quality of the article once and for all. Regards, --Jayzel 14:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

This looks like a content dispute rather than an appropriate case for WP:FAR; FAR is not dispute resolution. I'm wondering if Jayzel68 has submitted a request for comment or subjected the article to any other form of dispute resolution? I've asked other editors (at the FAR talk page) to opine whether the article should remain at FAR or should be removed to a more appropriate area of dispute resolution. Sandy (Talk) 15:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not interested in mixing it up with Jayzel. What he's done, in my view, is string together disparate facts to create a synthesis leading to a conclusion. What he should do is make the case that so-and-so drew this conclusion and offered this supporting evidence. The article is a case-study in why OR is an important principle. That said, I would rather let a poor article fester on Misplaced Pages than get aggravated debating it. I've wasted far too much time on Misplaced Pages engaged with warriors. I have a newborn son who needs my attention far more than a silly article, whether or not it is about "treason of biblical dimensions" as Jayzel would have it. I didn't even really edit it much in his prolonged absence, because I don't particularly care. I did think it was worth noting that the article is an embarassment as a FA, and hoped thus to draw some external scrutiny to it.

I'm sorry you feel the way you do, but you're just wrong. These are just the known facts that came out from the Justice Department investigation and two lengthy Congressional investigations. The fact that you can't cut and paste a single offending paragraph here or on the talk page, refuse to attempt to fix what you think is wrong (even though I have repeatedly asked you to do so), and resort to bringing up a six and a half year old opinion I wrote elsewhere supports my position. --Jayzel 16:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Anyone who reads that article will know exactly where the sympathies of the primary author lie. Further, it is a weird mish-mash intended to clearly suggest but not actually state that there was some quid pro quo about weapons violations and campaign fund-raising violations. That indeed, is focus of the whole narrative thread.

The way this statement is written "states" rather than "suggests" something that is in your own mind. All I have done is given people the known facts without commentary. Are you suggesting information be hidden because it looks bad for certain people. Let's look at Wang Jun. It was a big media controversy when it was learned he attended a fundraiser coffee at the White House. Are you suggesting I should delete the information that his company Poly Technologies was given permits to bring 100,000 semi-automatic weapons into the country just a couple days before his meeting with Clinton and Ron Brown? Is that what you are upset about? I don't know because you never specify about your complaint. I personally think it would be wrong to hide information like that. That was part of the controversy of Wang's visit. IF you would like, I'll add quotes of people saying that. --Jayzel 16:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I will note that it was quite a shrewd move politically of Jayzel to nominate it for review. Basically, he will wind up with an endorsement of the article as written, and use that to oppose anyone who eventually tries to reform the article. It will pass review because it's a superficially wonderful article. Jayzel is without doubt a fine writer. Most will not care or even see that it the epitome of why the "synthesis" clause is important. Those that might see will argue that a content dispute is no reason to de-feature, because style always trumps substance on Misplaced Pages. And so it goes. It's all yours, Jayzel. Derex 14:01, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

It was shrewd, wasn't it? :) And thanks for the compliments, however backhanded. Lastly, I will never oppose anyone who tries to reform the article for the better. Just explain specifically (quote the offending text) what you feel is wrong and want changed on the talk page and have fun! I've told you that time and time again. As long as facts aren't being censored, I don't care what is done. I'm not anal. Remember, I hate ideologues. Cheers! --Jayzel 16:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

P.S. COngrats on the baby! Regards, --Jayzel 16:07, 21 November 2006 (UTC)