User talk:Asbl

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Archive 1

Please click here to leave me a new message.


Contents

[edit] Yitzhak Rabin assassination conspiracy theories

Thank you for your improvements to Yitzhak Rabin assassination conspiracy theories. It is sort of a contested article, although at present far less than in the recent past. Your edits improved the quality of the entry. Regards, gidonb 19:59, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I have tried to leave myself out of the controversy, and concentrate only on the grammer. Where possible, I even tried to reduce the controversy, by writting "crime scene" so that there would not be a need to argue whether it was the "assassination site" or the "murder site". Note that my edits were only a "first step" at improving the article. The article is very poorly written (from a grammer point of view, I have nothing to say about the content, as I am not familir with the conspiracy theories). --Asbl 20:07, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree with your changes and the previous poor quality. I have mostly safeguarded it against POV, but there was that too in the itemized list. We sort of neutralized it with a disclaimer at the beginning of the list. Your edits may reduce the amount of times I have to change it. The significant development was that the main POV pusher has found different interests after his very embarrassing appearance on a right-wing Israeli TV program. You are most welcome to continue! Thanks and best regards, gidonb 20:23, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Shouldn't the information about the main person advocating the conspiracy theories having an embarrasing appearance on the Israeli TV be included in the article? What exactly was embarrasing about the appearance? --Asbl 20:27, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
He confessed to visiting the interviewer several times in New York after receiving payment from the FBI to make these visits. I don't know if this person himself is notable. He may be. He is mentioned without his name in some article, but his name is on all talk pages of Rabin murder associated pages, all over the globe. He sued Shimon Peres and was interviewed by the press. I guess that would make him notable. Regards, gidonb 20:32, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
He is not referred to anymore in an article. Also he is not the main person promoting the conspiracy theories, Barry Chamish is. David Rutstein is the main person promoting them online. I will think it over. gidonb 20:36, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lucianne Goldberg

I apologise for not discussing my second edit to that article with you beforehand. I've started a discussion on the talk page, continuing from your insightful mention of Daily Kos. Cheers, CWC(talk) 15:47, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Wow, that was quick. Good work. CWC(talk) 16:47, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation accepted

Hello; the Mediation Committee has accepted the request for mediation on the article Ken Mehlman. I will be happy to help out here; please see Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Ken Mehlman for further information. Thank you! Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:17, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stephanie Miller's Hammertoe?

In The Stephanie Miller Show page, you added Miller's hammertoe to the list of "abnormalities" in her childhood appearance. Did she have a hammertoe as a child or did it become "hammerish" later on? Thanks! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.231.62.12 (talk • contribs) .

How would I know? If in doubt, make it a separate bullet in the self depracating humor section. Now if you really want to know the answer, send her an email from her website. --Asbl 01:27, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Robert_karpay/Robert_Karpay

Both pages deserve {{speedy}}. - CobaltBlueTony 16:25, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

You're probably right. --Asbl 16:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi, about the AfD. You have to list the AfD on this page Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 June 2 in order for it to work, as per step 3 of Template:AfD in 3 steps. I have listed it for you, so if the articles are speeded the AfD page will not be orphaned and closed properly.--blue520 16:42, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. --Asbl 16:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jason Gastorich

I don't particularlly see a reason to link to it, but if you are going to do it use Gastrich's Wikipedia userpage instead of User:Jason Gastrich (thus the edit summary). Kotepho 02:46, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] e-mail

I sent you an e-mail through the e-mail you left in the hebrew wikipedia --Mysteryuser 04:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:AGF

Don't make accusations of bad faith in edit summaries. Do so in talk pages, and even then, only when you have substantial evidence. Assume good faith at all times. ZeroFaults' dissenting comments have all been reasonable and constructive, even if you disagree with the content, and to label his reversions as bad faith is not only against WP policy, it also makes you look arrogant and bullying. COntinuing this sort of slander has gotten people banned, so I would advise you to not make a habit of making such strong accusations in edit summaries. It's underhanded and bordering on a personal attack. Psycho Master (Karwynn) 16:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

No, deleting a paragraph whose deletion is disputed is certainly acting in bad faith. ZeroFaults (and yourself) certainly know that the deletion is controversial, so deleting before getting an agreement is in bad faith.
Threatening me with a ban is itself an act of bullying. --Asbl 17:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Don't misunderstand me; I'm not threatening to get you banned. I don't want you to get banned. I want to resolve the Coulter dispute fairly. Although I thought my comment was neutral enough, I still apologize if I came off as attempting to intimidate you. I as just pointing out that that sort of activity has lead to banning in the past. Regarding Fault's (and my own0 faith, we're doing nothing different than what you're doing. We're all reverting here; no one is more wrong or right than another. And even if you think what we're doing is a bad decision, that doesn't mean it's in bad faith. I honestly encourage you to read WP:AGF and learn the difference between a bad edit and a bad faith edit. Psycho Master (Karwynn) 17:38, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ann Coulter

Good move on grouping the college tour stuff. Lou Sander 16:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. --Asbl 16:58, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not a vandal and you know it you BLEEEEP!!! -maywither

This was vandalism, and so was that. --Asbl 23:59, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] (→Media career - shuffle TV appearances from columns to television section)

More good work! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lou Sander (talk • contribs) .

Thank you. --Asbl 16:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Voting

"A) Voting is not exactly political activism"

It's ACTIVITY, not activism. If you are going to revert reasonable edits, it would help us all if you would read them first.

"B) it is a controversy, as I would imagine she thinks she did nothing wrong"

Please try hard to keep your imagination out of the encyclopedia. We are reporting on facts here, not people's imaginings. It sure would be nice to have some rational idea of why voting doesn't belong under political activity. I'm trying to make a better article here, and you seem to want to make everything into a controversy.

It would also be nice to have some justification for "characteristic caustic wit" as extreme POV.

I believe you are absolutely wrong on both these things. Lou Sander 21:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

  1. Voting is also not a political activity. It is a civic responsibility
  2. Did she admit she did something wrong? If not we must presume that she is innocent (and that she thinks she is innocent).
  3. Let me get this right: Are you trying to argue that "characteristic caustic wit" is not an opinion, but a fact?
--Asbl 21:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Coulter Biography

I can see you have some talent for organizing written material, and you've used it well in the past.

But in the case of the Coulter biography, I think you mucked up the article. First of all you inserted a subheading. As a general rule of composition if there are any subheadings, there need to be at least two. If there's only one, it should be gotten rid of.

Second of all, IMHO there wasn't any real need for a subheading -- the Biography section flowed nicely from birth through legal career, with an insignificant but interesting item at the end -- the stuff about the Grateful Dead. There certainly isn't any need for a second or third subheading.

Third of all, now that the subheading is in there, the stuff about the Dead is in the middle of the biography, where it interrupts the flow through time.

IMHO you ought to put the bio back the way it was. If you don't, you ought to remove the Dead stuff. (If you put it at the end, it won't match the subhead, will it? If you leave it where it is, the section has a stone in its shoe.)

Regards, Lou Sander 04:45, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I was afraid of that. Now we have a subheading for a one-sentence section. The way to make most writing better is to eliminate stuff, not to add it. And being a fan of a band isn't exactly a "Hobby." Try getting rid of the subheads and see if it doesn't look better. If you don't think that it does, look at it again. If you still don't think it does, start thinking that you may just be out of step with the rest of the world, which basically reserves subheads for breaking up large blocks of text. (PS - Have you ever looked at the Chicago Manual of Style? It's a REALLY good book on subjects like this.) Lou Sander 05:48, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
  1. Where you see a problem (a one sentence section) I see opportunity to grow.
  2. This specific section has two sentences, not one (dare I say "problem solved"?)
  3. I disagree with you. I think being a fan of a band is a hobby. What else would you call it? It's certainly not her profession.
--Asbl 05:53, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
There is none so blind as he who will not see. Don't quit your day job and go looking for work as a writer. Also, get a dictionary and try to become better at seeing the meanings of and distinctions between words; you need a lot of work there. It's kind of embarrassing, but something it's possible to grow out of. Sorry. (Aren't you the one who thinks that describing Ann Coulter as having "acerbic wit" is "extremely POV?")Lou Sander 08:39, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Didn't your mother teach you that if you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all? You're comments seem to be a defensive reaction for my reverting some of your edits. Please read Wikipedia:Civility before posting any further comments on my talk page. If you post any more comments of this nature, I will delete them without a response. --Asbl 15:58, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm an orphan. I don't remember too much about my mother. My comments were an attempt to spur you to develop your latent talent. As a teacher, I do that to students in whom I see undeveloped or misdirected talent. I'm sorry if it offended you, and I won't be bothering you again.
And thanks for referring me to the civility page. I see that in spite of my good intentions, I engaged in something described in the "petty examples of incivility" paragraph, and for that I do apologize. Lou Sander 20:24, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sam Seder‎

Thanks for the help. I know zero Hebrew and can't spell worth a damn.--8bitJake 17:23, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedians with articles

Never, ever again revert an administrator's reverts, or anyone's reverts, of a banned user's edits. Thank you. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 19:29, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Who is the banned user? Who is the administrator? What exactly are you talking about? --Asbl 19:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
I stated in my edit summary when I reverted that I was reverting a banned user's edits. You reverted my edits saying that it wasn't clear. Banned users are not allowed to edit Wikipedia. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 23:43, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Your edit summary was certainly not clear. You linked to a discussion in Angela's talk page about her resignation from some board [1]. What does that have to do with anything?
In any case, I don't understand

  1. How do you ban an IP address? (best you can do is temporarily block it)
  2. If the edits of a banned user are accurate, does that mean that they can never appear on Wikipedia? That is ad hominem.

I also object to the tone of your message. You violated Wikipedia:Assume Good Faith. --Asbl 23:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

  • "Banned user" is certainly clear. The link may not be, but it would be to someone familiar with the case. The user signed as AWM. Short for Andrew W. Morrow (User:Amorrow). The IP address isn't banned, but it can be temporarily blocked since it's used by a person who is banned. Jimbo Wales has spoken on this- when it comes to Amorrow, "revert on sight, block on sight." It's not an ad hominem. This person is dangerous. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 00:15, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
OK, now it's clear. I certainly did not understand what does "banned user" have anything to do with that link. You should have linked to User:Amorrow, saying that the IP address 75.26.0.168 belongs to him.
This brings up the question: Why did you revert edits by the IP addresses 75.26.4.46 and 75.24.208.44. How do you know those belong to User:Amorrow?
I also believe you owe me an apology for violating Wikipedia:Assume Good Faith, as I did act in good faith. --Asbl 00:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
I am reasonably confident all contributions were by the banned user given the edits made to talk page remarks left by the other, general overlap of interest and the similarity of the IP- all known patterns associated with this user. Sorry you unaware of all this and for my tone if it offended you. That said, please be mindful banned users are not allowed to edit. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 01:48, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, oh, AWM, he so dangerous. He is almost as dangerous as those awful people whom I see getting unmasked on Scooby Doo every Saturday morning. -- 64.175.42.60 02:10, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zidane

Hi! I'm not sure why you restored the picture of the incident that led Zidane to be sent off in the World Cup final in the Zidane article. There is currently an ongoing discussion on the talk page amongst the community to reach consensus, and consensus hasn't been reached as of yet. Why did you take it upon yourself to replace the picture without waiting to hear from the rest of the community. I understand that being bold is a cornerstone of what makes Wikipedia great, but I wished you'd wait and respect the process. hoopydinkConas tá tú? 17:59, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I see it the other way. You are the only one who thinks the photo should be removed, and removed it prior to getting consensus. --Asbl 18:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Laura Ingraham

Not vandalism. An operational problem in the Wikipedia clipped off the remainder of the article. [2] patsw 20:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

OK. Obviously there is no way for me to tell that. All I can see is the result. --Asbl 23:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Larry Elder

I believe it was necessary to put who Viola Elder left behind. Please reconsider it.

Since it's an article about Larry Elder, not Viola Elder, if you really feel so strongly about including the information, add it as Elder's family member. Although consider not doing so, as it may be an invasion of privacy (Elder's brother and father might not wish to have their names in the public domain). Mrs. Elder no longer has this privacy, once she left this world. --Asbl 18:09, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rafic Hariri International Airport

I don't see the point in you having to change the word "aircraft" twice, the first time your change being incorrect. I find it to be a pointless edit. NcSchu 00:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cousin Oliver

I just would like to say thank you for taking the time to revert Wikipediatrix's deletion. --Anthony Rupert 01:48, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Because I recognize that articles don't just pop up from nothing, lots of Wikipedians spend lots of hours building them, I take the approach that there must be a very good reason for deleting text. Note that I have no personal stake in the Cousin Oliver article, as I did not contribute to it other than one removal of vandalism. I wrote on her talk page the same thing I just told you, but it does not seem to have done any good. --Asbl 03:31, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Original research on Ann Coulter

Dear User:Asbl, I removed some material from that article which I believe to be original research and posted the details of my reasoning on the talk page. I invite you to read it and discuss it there. Thank you. Lawyer2b 07:06, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I read your comments on the talk page, and disagreed with them. You seem to have a pattern of only removing unsourced information that is negative to Coulter and leaving positive unsourced information alone. If you think something needs to be better documented, please do a little google work and add the references to the article. --Asbl 12:07, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
First, removing poorly sourced negative information is perfectly in line with WP:LIVING. I don't necessarily agree with such practices and believe that all unsourced information, positive or negative, should be removed but *if* anyone is engaging in such behavior then they're perfectly in line with a necessary policy. Second, while it would be ideal for anyone who sees some information lacking a source to "do a little google work and add the references" that simply is not practical. The burden to provide proof is on those who wish the information to be in the article and not on the passer-by who notices that the information is unsupported by evidence. --ElKevbo 14:58, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
I disagree with you. The policy Wikipedia:Assume Good Faith states "assume that others are trying to help Wikipedia rather than harm it, unless there is clear and present evidence to the contrary." I conclude that you should not remove information unless you do some work and find no references. --Asbl 15:05, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Please re-read WP:V and WP:LIVING. I understand your point but I think it's a misapplication of the AGF policy to apply it to factual content and assume that it's correct. That's contrary to the entire concept of verifiability. --ElKevbo 15:51, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to disagree with you yet again, but I believe information should not be removed, unless it is not possible to verify. Therefore, I believe the burden is on the person who would like to remove information to do some minimal google work and check verifiability. Otherwise, arbitrarily removing information that is not properly referenced violates the Assume Good Faith policy. In the case of what I'm seeing with Ann Coulter, there are some editors who are on a crusade to remove information unfavorable to Coulter but maintain favorable information. --Asbl 15:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I still insist that this is unworkable. WP:V clearly states that "any unsourced material may be challenged and removed." It further states that "editors adding new material to an article should cite a reputable source, or it may be removed by any editor" and "the obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it."
Further, removal of unsourced material is in no way an assumption of bad faith. When I remove information (which I tend to do only in biographies of living persons or in extreme cases - I much prefer to tag with {{fact}} or discuss it in Talk) I am making no assumptions about the editor(s) who added the information. I am merely removing unsourced information. It may be true and it may be false but the criteria for removal in that instance is that it is unsourced. --ElKevbo 16:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
I like your approach of adding the template {{fact}}, which assumes that the information is true, but states that you would like to see a reference. I wish more editors would use it, rather than arbitrarily removing information.
I still maintain that removing unsourced information is assuming that the unsourced information is incorrect (and hence, assumes that it was entered in bad faith). Whenever I see information that looks suspicious, I first try to check on google, and only if I cannot find anything to support it, do I remove the suspicious information (with an edit summary that I tried but could not verify). Of course, I do not spend too much time. If after the first 20 or so hits nothing relevant comes up, I will shift the burden to the person who wrote the information in question.
--Asbl 16:38, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Badnarik

Much better. That's a reasonable assumption based on the statements on that, ugh, blog. I'll let that float, for now. You still need to find some sources which are not Badnarik's personal blog to meet WP:RS. Kyaa the Catlord 17:48, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I would agree with you that Badnarik's personal blog would not meet the reliable sources criteria for current events, but I would think that it would be a reasonably reliable source for the purpose of quoting Badnarik himself. --Asbl 17:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
WP:RS doesn't make any distinction between what is a reliable source for a current event and what is a reliable source for something that occured in the past. A personal blog is not reliable due to it not being subject to any sort of editorial review. Anyone can make a blog, simply because Badnarik is a politician doesn't make his blog any more reliable, if anything, it demands closer checking. Kyaa the Catlord 17:59, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

You lost me. Why is Badnarik's blog not reliable to as a source for his quotes? His freedom of speech allows him to say anything he wants without the need for "editorial review". He better be careful what he says, though, because it can then be requoted, as we are doing here on Wikipedia. --Asbl 18:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Pardon me for this:
"Personal websites, blogs, and other self-published or vanity publications should not be used as secondary sources.
That is, they should not be used as sources of information about a person or topic other than the owner of the website, or author of the book. The reason personal websites are not used as secondary sources — and as primary sources only with great caution and not as a sole source if the subject is controversial — is that they are usually created by unknown individuals who have no one checking their work. They may be uninformed, misled, pushing an agenda, sloppy, relying on rumor and suspicion, or even insane; or they may be intelligent, careful people sharing their knowledge with the world. Only with independent verification by other sources not holding the same POV is it possible to determine the difference."
Using Badnarik's blog as a source on an article not directly about him fails to meet WP:RS review because he, as you said, can say anything he wants without "editorial review". Kyaa the Catlord 18:32, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
The article in question is not about Badnarik, but the sentence in the article is. --Asbl 18:43, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Which means, according to the quote, that it would be fine if the article was about Badnarik. But the article is about the O'Reilly Factor and therefore it should not be used. Kyaa the Catlord 19:47, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Why do you keep repeating yourself? We've already agreed that the article is not about Badnarik, but the particular sentence in the article is about Badnarik. So what is your point? --Asbl 22:13, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR violation in Coulter article

You're definitely in violation of the 3RR in your recent edits to the Coulter article. Please cease edit warring. --ElKevbo 16:23, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Nope. You will not be able to find 4 identical reverts within a 24 hour period. --Asbl 19:12, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Coulter

Whatever happened to AGF? I still assume it for you, and would appreciate it if you do likewise for me. I am not a fan of Coulter, but I am a very enthusiastic 'fan' of WP and its rules and policies. As I explained in the Talk page, we are not allowed to perform original research, and to me, having watched that video segment, it seems that Coulter tries to respond, cannot get a word in edgewise, then jokingly asks 'can I leave?' etc. However, my impression is my impression, i.e. OR, and hence inadmissible. Similarly any other interpretation, unless it comes from a reliable and neutral source like a big media outlet. If you follow my edits you will notice that I have only one POV and one favorite - WP. Crum375 19:17, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I am terribly sorry. I confused you with another user who has numbers at the end of his/her username. Nonetheless, I still think your interpretation that Coulter was joking is off the wall. Coulter should be used to this style of debate, as it is very common on Fox News. She never came to the defense of the other guest (Michael Brown) who was treated the exact same way. --Asbl 19:25, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Your apology noted and accepted. I think you are right that as a pro she should have expected a rough ride on this type of show, but her point was that with the previous host she was afforded a chance to reply, whereas here with the sub she was being filibustered. Maybe I am 'off the wall' as you say, but the way I read her demeanor and body language is that she was overall at ease and just joking. Crum375 19:57, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stephanie Studebaker

I would greatly prefer to have a discussion over the content that belongs in this article rather than an edit war. I look forward to seeing your comments posted on the talk page there. Thanks, Kershner 14:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ann Coulter

Must have been an earlier edit that blanked the book reviews. thanks for catching that. Rsm99833 22:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Answer to your question on my talk page.Rsm99833 17:28, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] George W. Bush 3RR

Asbl, you have made 3 identical reverts on the same article within the past 24 hours. If a 4th revert is made, you may be blocked from editing under the WP:3RR. AuburnPilot 05:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

P.S. This is not a warning and I don't intend to make one. Just a friendly reminder so you don't end up blocked from editing other articles because of this one. :) AuburnPilot 05:38, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] George W. Bush

Please stop reverting the George W. Bush article. Please read the discussion page and discuss the situation if you do not agree with it. At this point, all other editors seem to have come to an agreement. Thanks. AuburnPilot 22:15, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

What decision was made by 'all the editors' ? "Duke53 | Talk" 23:49, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ben Ferguson

Please stop inserting this non-notable information into Wikipedia. At the very list, please provide reasons why this particular talk show appearance is notable, aside from the POV implications.Giles22 13:13, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

The reasons for the notability have already been provided. Please stop whitewashing. --Asbl 15:28, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/s/b/User_talk%7EAsbl_ab55.html"