User talk:Getaway

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Relevance 2 Re: Sekula-Gibbs AfD 3 Byrd 4 A request... 5 Brown v. Board of Education 6 Regarding signatures 7 Hutton Gibson 8 3RR 9 Cynthia McKinney 10 sean hannity 11 Block 12 Phelps 13 Lauren Weiner 14 Fred Phelps & Gore 15 Shelley Sekula-Gibbs 16 Barnstar 17 Please go away 18 Sean Hannity 19 Ward Churchill 20 Native American Studies 21 etymology of "White nigger" 22 3rr 23 You (Getaway) wrote: "What a BS comment of a Wikipedian" 24 Bush twins 25 Shelley Sekula-Gibbs 26 Speculation 27 Personal Attacks 28 Altering warning templates 29 Islam in the United States 30 Snide comments are not helpful. 31 User:Z 32 Collaboration 33 Your contributions on the Stem Cell Debate - just passing on the word of Debatepedia

[edit] Relevance

Could you please show collegiality and cooperation, and engage in a dialogue over the relevance of the two brief paragraphs of explanation of the Combatant Status Review Tribunals that I add to articles about Guantanamo detainees?

I have added this paragraph to well over one hundred Guantanamo detainees. And it has been present in some of those articles since April. During the past five months you are the first person to feel these two brief paragraphs are irrelevant. Please consider that this might mean your views aren't shared by others. -- Geo Swan 20:51, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I put this explanation on Talk:Khaled Ben Mustafa for why I reverted your edit. I am not planning to revert every instance you excised. But I call on your sense of collegiality, your sense of cooperation, and your willing to extend others the benefit of the doubt and assume good faith and engage in dialogue about the relevance of these two paragraphs before you remove them from any other Guantanamo articles. -- Geo Swan 21:02, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Sekula-Gibbs AfD

I voted on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Shelley_Sekula-Gibbs (with comment) a couple days ago - am I missing something else I was supposed to do (I normally stay out of AfD voting and the like, but thought this one went overboard)? -Souperman 02:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

No problem on voting. Take care. --Myles Long 18:19, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Byrd

Stick to your good article edits and leave the commentary to your blog. You are way too good of an editor to get sucked into this crap again. Adding your opinion about Byrd on this talk page in such a manner will just lead to a hotheaded lefty saying that no Repulblican has cared about civil rights since Nelson Rockefellar died fucking his assistant. You are a foot smarter than most Wikipedians; no need to let emotions boil over when you can win with your brain 99% of the time. youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 14:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A request...

Since you have a finely-tuned BS meter, can you take a look at Huntington, West Virginia sometime? I've writted some of it, moved around a lot of it, and have been slwly working to make it a decent article. However, I can admit that I have a somewhat biased view of the city. Any comments or ideas would be greatly valued. Cheers. youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 14:25, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brown v. Board of Education

Hey, I'm just quoting from the article. And I'm not a lawyer. But generally (a) a minor cannot sue, and (b) a minor's mother clearly would have standing since she has a significant interest in getting a good education for her child. Unless you have another source, I think you should leave the article's wording as is. John Broughton 16:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding signatures

Hi, it seems that you have mistakenly forgotten to sign your edits to AfD's recently (I saw it happened twice already), and I just wanted to remind not to forget signing your responses with ~~~~. It does everyone a big favor because it makes it easier for us to know who made what comments.

Thanks, and happy editing!

--Nishkid64 21:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hutton Gibson

I'm not sure why you keep on reverting Robert K S's edits to the article. I don't see anything unsourced in what he says. Andy Saunders 20:04, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

It would be very beneficial to both of you and the encyclopedia if you could sort out your differences on the article's talk page instead of participating in a revert war. theProject 20:31, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR

Be careful. You're pushing 3RR on Condoleezza Rice. Isopropyl 22:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cynthia McKinney

I have recently reverted (for the 5th time) your changes to the potentially provacative botton section of the Cynthia McKinney article. I'm taking this up on your talk page because it is only you and perhapse one other user who is making and defending certain versions of that article. Anyway, to sum up, the is one source currently cited is CNN which states:

Despite her defeat, McKinney was unbowed, unleashing a stemwinder of a concession speech in which she barely mentioned her opponent but praised leftist leaders in Cuba and Venezuela, took aim at the efficacy of electronic voting machines and offered several swipes at the media.

There is no source that uses the word marxist, and the two words do mean very different things. If you could find a transcript of her speech, we could write exactly what she said, but with this source we can only guess and changing the wording is confusing. You obviously feel that this particular CNN corespondent's writing is biased as so wanted to change it. The best solution in controvercial situations like this is to use a direct quote, to point out that the text came from CNN so people can decide for themselves whether it has a left wing slant as you would think, or is in fact an objective news source. If you can think of any other way to improve the article, please do, and it would be especially good if you could find more sources. Do not return the article to its former form however, as it is nothing more than POV vandalism and can be reverted despite the 3RR as potentially libelous. Please remember wikipedia is not a soapbox. Thanks. Musaabdulrashid 22:15, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] sean hannity

Your removal of the critique in regards to Hannity's incorrect statement that the picketers at a soldier's funeral were "anti-war leftists", as opposed to radical homophobes, is flawed. You claim, correctly, that Phelps calls himself a Democrat, at least in name. However, Hannity never mentions anything about the picketers being "democrats", but rather he claims that they are "the anti-war left". Phelps may call himself a "democrat" based on some strange tradition he has, but to therefore consider him "left-wing", despite his clearly non-liberal stance, is severe spin at work. How do his actions give any indication of a left-wing lean? His stance on gay rights? Religious tolerance? He may dislike George Bush, but he hates Clinton just as much. There is nothing factually innacurate in the criticism. Get your spin straight. --Jackbirdsong 23:14, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Block

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

--Nlu (talk) 16:53, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

{{unblock|You blocked me even though Kuzaar and I had agreed on how the article should be written. Also, I did not revert him, I made changes to his edit. I added other citations. You reverted me and took those citations out. This edit is unjustified. I was discussing my changes with Kuzaar. Please read the talk page.--[[User:Getaway|Getaway]] 17:05, 15 September 2006 (UTC)}} For the record, I would like to agree with Getaway above- we appeared to have just come to a consensus on the talk page, and he was making changes to a version that I think we both thought was appropriate. I think, as well, that he should be unblocked, particularly in the light of some of the things that he made known on the talk page. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 18:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry about it, Kuzaar. Gamaliel reported me to Nlu because I reverted Gamaliel twice on the Sean Hannity article because he was not providing a source for his personal opinion that he kept putting in the article. Then after I got him to cite a source for his opinion, I then added more information to put his information in context. I also reverted Gamaliel on the Fred Phelps article, asking that Gamaliel to cite a source for his opinion that Phelps's church is a "hate group" (I've already told you that I think that they are a "hate group" also, but as Wikipedian we just can't put our opinion in an article) and not just rely on his own opinion. He eventually got one, but he was obviously mad that I reverted him for the same thing twice in two different articles in the same day. Gamaliel is an admin, so he reported me and Nlu blocked me, on Gamaliel's request. It just comes with the territory when you have a POV dispute with an admin, they have the power to block and they are a little overzealous in their use of it. No big deal. Admins generally do not like to put told to follow the rules--when they caught with their hands in the cookie jar. At any rate, this block is supposed to be removed in 24 hours. Have a good weekend!--Getaway 19:08, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Phelps

Hi Getaway. I'd like to start off by thanking you for your contributions to the Phelps article. I know that sometimes heated debate can give rise to bad tempers, but (now that you've explained a little of your background), I can understand why you might be given over to that sort of thing in issues regarding that hatemonger Fred Phelps. That Al Gore worked him to garner constituency with his crowd is a pretty shameful claim, and the reliable sources we've turned up present a strong claim for it. I also appreciate your comment on the talk page that since we both seem to be interested in the same things, we could both do with a little assumption of good faith. Sometimes, I know, when I'm editing, I sometimes forget that it's another person on the other end of the article. Anyway, I just want to remind you to keep on editing, and I'm sure that if enough editors like us with the encyclopedia in mind put their hands to it, we'll end up with something that looks like an encyclopedia. :) --Kuzaar^-T-C- 16:56, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lauren Weiner

I saw your ES comment that you intend to create an article on her because she "clearly qualifies". Before you invest a lot of your time drafting such a thing, I wanted to alert you that there was an article on her a while back. There was dispute about whether she was notable enough for a separate article. There was an AfD process (or that might've back when it was still called "VfD"), and the result was that the article was deleted. A new article on her would be subject to speedy deletion as the re-creation of deleted material. JamesMLane t c 02:57, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Obviously, we have articles on notable miscreants of both parties. If you contend that we have an article on some Republican who's as low-level as Weiner, let me know and I'll join you in voting to delete it. JamesMLane t c 18:43, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fred Phelps & Gore

Do you honestly believe that Gore knowingly embraced Phelps? Here, 'knowing' means knowing of his vocal and virulent hate-mongering. No politician is that stupid, even if he did agree with Phelps. Note that Westboro never held any public protests until 1991, so you can't just presume widespread national knowledge. I could certainly conduct the same sort of exercise to imply that the Geoge Bush embraces NAMBLA. It's one thing to document Phelps' support for Gore. It's another to try to emply that Gore knowingly supported Phelps and his views. If you can document it, please do. But insinuating it is unacceptable. Derex 08:07, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shelley Sekula-Gibbs

With respect, your edit summary of "Restored links that were NOT dead in anyway, probably vandalism", the two links I removed were indeed dead when I removed them (I wanted to see her website, tried both links, and got not-found errors instead); I see today that they now both redirect to her real campaign website. If you'd checked my wikipedia edit history you would have noticed that I am not only not a "vandal", but rather that I routinely revert vandalism; I would appreciate it if you could refrain from casting assertions of vandalism in the future (especially when you can easily check any editor's contribution history). Anarchist42 19:36, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I call as I see them. And I will in the future. Have a good day!--Getaway 23:04, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your prompt response. If I may be so bold as to request a clarification: are you claiming that the removed links were indeed not dead when I removed them, or rather that my edit was (in your opinion) vandalism? I ask because I wish not to, in the future, either remove relevent live links nor engage in vandalism. Anarchist42 03:42, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar

Take a look at your user page. Cheers. youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 14:05, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please go away

I never accused you of making up quotes, so I don't see why you're assaulting my talk page with lengthy comments on the subject. I find anyone who gets their information from Rush Limbaugh dubious, not because the information is necessarily false (although I'm sure it's not a paragon of accuracy), but because it is presented without any context, as a political polemic, rather than as part of any kind of intellectual discourse. No would you please stop bothering me, and go back to writing about KKK supporting arch-segregationist senator Robert Byrd, former member of the KKK who loved segregation and the KKK and segregation, or whatever the hell it is that you do on wikipedia? john k 20:51, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Getaway, if I were interested in the subject, I would surely see your defense of yourself at Talk:Robert Byrd. There was absolutely no need to take it to my talk page. Please don't spam my talk page in the future with comments that belong on article talk pages. If you have some specific question to ask me, or if you want to take up with me something that I said that is not appropriate to discuss on the article talk page, feel free to contact me, but I find it irritating when people contact my user page for this kind of thing. john k 20:58, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I understand. Your don't like the fact that I defended myself, I pointed out that my quote was correct, and I just did not roll over and take the criticism that was leveled at me. I fully understand why you are upset.--Getaway 21:31, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I really don't care whether or not you defend yourself. What I care is that you not spam my talk page for no reason. I saw your comment on the article talk page. I don't need you to repeat it on my talk page. john k 23:01, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

For the sake of all that is good and merciful, if you want this end then freaking go away. Its over. Go. I know what you said and its in the edit history. Just walk away.--Getaway 12:45, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sean Hannity

Hello, Getaway. I noticed recently that you placed the {{fact}} template on a quote attributed via a reliable source. Additionally, in a subsequent edit to the same page (on Sean Hannity), you asserted that the the organization Code Pink and the protest by Fred Phelps were mentioned in the same broadcast. I just needed some clarification on exactly why you did these two things. As to the former, the cited article has that precise quote in it. As to the latter, the article cited specifically says that on the date the Fred Phelps piece was broadcast, it was the week after the Code Pink broadcast. Please be careful in your analysis of sources so that we can avoid confusion regarding sources in the future. Thank you. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 14:44, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Additionally, per the question regarding whether to call what happened in front of Walter Reed regarding Code Pink a vigil or a protest- the current version is NPOV. Code Pink called it a Vigil, Hannity called it a protest. In order to neutrally frame the debate, the assertions of both sides need to be taken into account and neither side given more weight than the other. In saying that Code Pink called it a protest, you are giving unnecessary weight to one argument over the other, which is inappropriate, according to WP:NPOV. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 14:48, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

You said earlier that we would both do well to listen to what the other side has to say. I agree, and that's what I've tried to do on the Sean Hannity page. I've got what I think is a neutrally-worded version of it, and it appears, to me at least, that what you've tried to do is use it to discredit the people the article's subject disagrees with. I opened a section on the article's talk page for you to voice concerns, if you want to bring the discussion there. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 14:52, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, regarding the Sean Hannity page- I have made two reverts and one rewrite of a sentence today. However, I have attempted to talk to you on the talk page of the article, and here, and you have not responded on either. I have posted some new questions I would like to see responses to there. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 15:17, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Getaway- after talking with some administrators that involve themselve with political and other sources, I think I'm going to change the article. The user SandyGeorgia brought up some very interesting points, that maybe the criticism sections aren't appropriate for the article in the first place. Like I told her, I'm not used to making really bold changes in articles, so I'm going to see if I can't condense the waaaaaay bloated section currently containing all that criticism down into a single paragraph or two describing how some people find him a controversial figure and some of the disputes surrounding him. I think probably all the sourced stuff was put in in the first place by someone trying to badmouth him, which obviously isn't appropriate for an encyclopedia. If you'd like to help, you can help me tear the article up at User:Kuzaar/Hannitemp. Thanks. :) --Kuzaar^-T-C- 18:41, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ward Churchill

Hi there. I note that on the talk page for the Native American Studies page you've called, quite strongly, for Ward Churchill's removal. While fully agreeing that the man is a fraud in many ways, I don't think you can take away from his being one of the most quoted professors within the discipline, and therefore deserving to be mentioned in the article regardless of his political opinions or racial origins (all of which is pretty well covered in various places on Wikipedia. Would it be OK with you if that particular talk page comment were removed? Anyone who clicks through to Churchill's article will be pretty quickly made aware of the controversies and idiocies surrounding the guy. Vizjim 10:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

• Heh. Our political ideals might be pretty far apart - I'd happily call myself a leftist - but I salute your observations on Wikipedia, and on Churchill. Who, I'd add, seems to be embraced by some on the basis of "my enemy's enemy is my friend": why people of the left never understand what Orwell was warning us all about I'll never understand. I've stayed out of the Churchill pages apart from some very minor tweaks, and intend to continue to do so (I've got more than enough going on over at List of writers from peoples indigenous to the Americas anyway - good luck to anyone willing to be involved in the whole morass, but there are 400-odd published Native writers I want to worry about first). I will, however, remove him from that list of scholars on the Native American Studies page as your arguments are pretty convincing - particularly the Citation Index part - and we'll see if there's any blowback. Good to meet a sane Wikipedian - see you around. Vizjim 21:26, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Native American Studies

Yes, this is an area that definitely needs the attention of conscientious and knowledgeable editors. I came late to that page and haven't had much to do with the choice of notable scholars, other than adding Gerald Vizenor to the list. At least he's not disputable! To be upfront: my interest in the area stems from being a doctoral student working on Native American literature (actually working mainly on the 'fake Native' phenomenon), and my knowledge base is almost exclusively literary. Somebody adding bio's for significant professors dealing with legal issues would be fantastic. If you are going to concentrate on this area I would recommend looking at the Indigenous peoples of North America project, and of course the professor test. Wikipedia's whole notion of notability I find troublesome, as it seems almost designed to maintain a lowest common denominator form of acceptability - but then again, it's not my club and I don't make the rules. Out of interest, what's your tribal affiliation? Best, Vizjim 05:23, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] etymology of "White nigger"

This is all original research, so I do not feel comfortable putting it on an article space or even an article talk page, but here is the basic origin of the phrase.

Growing up in the same area as Byrd (note that I am about 60 years younger than he, however), I heard many older people use the phrase "there are white niggers, too". Now mind you, most of these were decent, honest people that worked hard all of their lives, helped neighbors in need, volunteered at church, etc. But, like many people of the time and region (note that this is NOT an apology, but a discussion of some of the more-embarrassing aspects of Appalachian culture), they harbored deep racial prejudices towards African Americans. Phrases like "white nigger" and "white trash" were attempts by people to show they were not racists, as they thought that they were showing that white people can be bad people, too. But, as is obvious to you and I, all those phrases really managed to accomplish was to show that the persons using them were not nearly as enlightened as they believed. Instead, all they really managed to show was that they beleived that the default state of Blacks in America was, well, "trash" and "niggers."

So it is likely that Byrd was not talking about anyone in specific, but rather quoting something he heard from others that were in denial about the fact that they were still, indeed, racially prejudiced against African Americans. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 16:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Youngamerican: Thank you for the explanation. It helps put it in context--assuming that your explanation is on target. Considering that I have not heard a better explanation before I tend to believe that you are correct. Have a good day!--Getaway 15:41, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3rr

In this edit, you have violated the three revert rule (1, 2, 3, 4. I have made every effort to get you to provide sources for your unverifiable statements as opposed to resorting to adminstrative intervention, but I'm going to have to insist that you stop repeatedly undoing my edits, in part or in whole, more than 3 times on any given article in any given day. If you were to provide sources for your unsourcable statements, I would, and have, obviously let them stay. Attempting to revert war with me over the removal of tags, however, will get you, and not me, blocked. JBKramer 21:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I have not violated 3rr in disputes with you. JBKramer 22:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] You (Getaway) wrote: "What a BS comment of a Wikipedian"

Next time you make comments like that, maybe you ought to check the citation already provided in the text first (in this case from the New England Journal of Medicine), which states the exact comment of that Wikipedian. --Naus 06:37, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

And even if it were BS, saying so is a violation of WP:CIVIL. John Broughton | Talk 13:39, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bush twins

Please note that threats of revert warring (and then partaking in it) violate various policies on Wikipedia. Notably, WP:3RR and WP:POINT. Please also note that you would be violating WP:CONSENSUS. Removal of well sourced information, which is not contrary to WP:BLP will be considered as vandalism and as such, all of these are likely to get you blocked.-Localzuk^(talk) 23:43, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I always assume good faith. But assume good faith isn't a blanket coverage allowing for threats of disruption such as the one you made on the article in questions talk page. My comment above is a warning, to show you that such actions (as threatened by yourself) would be seen negatively and may lead to a block.

Also, as another editor has said, the article is not the Al Gore III article and therefore what is included in it is not the same as that article. Note also that inclusion of a single sentence outlining a verifiable fact does not make an article POV. It does not give the information undue weight. Please revisit WP:NPOV and WP:BLP.

Finally, if you think the information should not be included, take it to the talk page and build a consensus on the issue. As it stands, consensus seems to be pointing towards including it. -Localzuk^(talk) 18:45, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I have just noticed that you are also engaging in the unilateral removal of well sourced information from the article mentioned in the below section. I would advise you to stop this bahaviour as it is likely to lead to at least an WP:RFC regarding your behaviour.-Localzuk^(talk) 18:49, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shelley Sekula-Gibbs

Please do not remove content from Wikipedia, as you did to Shelley Sekula-Gibbs. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Strothra 18:05, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Speculation

Thank you for reverting your own change to the very draftish article that I had in my userspace. I am fully aware of wikipedia rules against speculation. The section you deleted, and then reverted back, was intended to be some initial thoughts that I would seek sources for. It is quite acceptable, I believe, to cite experts who are speculating about something.

I do not believe that articles in one's userspace are subject to wikipedia policies such as WP:RS and WP:V. You are welcome to add to the article if you are interested in it, but I would appreciate your not deleting parts of it, and I suggest that it would be a waste of both your time and mine for you spend any further effort pointing out where the article does not yet yet meet standards which do not apply to it at this time. Thanks. John Broughton | Talk 01:47, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Personal Attacks

With regards to your comments on Talk:Michael S. Steele: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. --Strothra 03:50, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Altering warning templates

Please do not alter warning templates that have been placed on your user talk page. Changing the text of these templates gives the impression that the user placing the text is the author of the text you altered. Gamaliel 23:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

The issue is not the appropriateness of the warnings, the issue is that twice you have altered the text of comments, essentially forging messages from other editors and having them writing things they did not write next to their signatures. This may be your user talk page, but this behavior is inappropriate regardless of where it happens on Wikipedia. If you don't like looking at the templates, archive your talk page, and if you want to have your say, post your message with your own signature under the template, but don't make it look like other editors are saying things they did not say. Please do not make me point this out to you a third time. Gamaliel 03:42, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Your comment is inappropriate. You are talking to me as if I am a five year old. It is disrespectful and childish. You should be ashamed of yourself. This kind of talk is what hurts Wikipedia and embarasses Wikipedia. Jimbo would never find your comments helpful or adult. The bottomline is that another Wikipedian was using the Wikipedia Templates to attempt to gain the upper hand in a POV disputes and now you are acting badgering and childish in your defense of their inappropriate behavior, adding insult to injury.--Getaway 18:23, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

What is childish is your lashing out at me because you didn't get your way. If you feel that you have been the victim of inappropriate behavior, there are numerous means at your disposal to seek redress. Forging messages from other users is not one of them, nor is lashing out at someone who points out your inappropriate behavior. Gamaliel 19:55, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Nothing that I said to you is inappropriate behavior. I expressed my opinion about your behavior, which is completely appropriate. I have nothing to apologize for and I won't. You simply do not like what I have to say. That is simply a disagreement of opinion. You don't like it. That is your opinion, but your dislike of my opinion does NOT make my opinion inappropriate. I don't see what you are accomplishing from this discussion. You do not like what I have to say about your behavior that is not against the Wikipedian rules, it is simply something that you don't like. There is a huge difference. Have a good day!--Getaway 21:22, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Islam in the United States

Getaway, what you called toning down the language was the finishing piece to altering the very meaning of the response to criticism. Mentioning Spencer by name was not necessary, good edit. But the reference points to a much stronger critique than various "political motivations". As such, this claim is only a claim. We need to respect its integrity as a claim, however, whether we agree with it or not.PelleSmith 20:18, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

What qualifier do you propose other than "radical" or "Right Wing". The criticism isn't directed towards "moderate conservatives", or "fiscal conservatives" for instance. Just bacause something is a label doesn't make it inherently POV.PelleSmith 21:43, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Please see latest version. No POV, and it conforms with the Critics section.PelleSmith 21:55, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Those figures you decided to remove come from demographics in the entry. And here I was thinking you had actually read the entire entry.PelleSmith 23:58, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Snide comments are not helpful.

Getaway. Please edit a bit more carefully. Also don't justify poor edits with snide comments like "7 million Muslims in the U.S.??? Who made up this number. It contradicts the next sentence and it contradicts reality. Removed permanently" and "That is still a huge range. And what is based upon? Someone's feelings?" as you did here. It makes good faith alot harder to imagine when you do that. As I mentioned those statstics come from the various estimates used below in the entry. If they don't exist then prove it and remove them. That would be helpful. I put the tag on the page so people would actually dig the references up. Thanks.PelleSmith 00:03, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Touche. I'll gladly not leave such snide remarks on your page again. But my frustrated "And here I thought you had actually read the entire entry", was left on your talk page, in communication with you, and not in an edit summary. However, as you point out, it can easily be seen as snide. My deepest appologies. Now, please do figure out if any of those demographic estimates are wrong or not based on real surveys. That, again would be the productive way of working on the article, as opposed to simply deleting material. Also if you would sign your post on my page with your user name instead of that IP I would much appretiate it. If that IP isn't you, and you didn't leave that comment, then I will gladly delete it from my userpage and chastize them for impersonating you. All the best.PelleSmith 15:09, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

You win. Have a nice day.PelleSmith 20:17, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Z

User:Z is more interested in making these kind of weird allegations rather than concentrating on editing articles. It would be better if you can ignore her altogether.-Bharatveer 05:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Collaboration

"Wikipedia is an encyclopedia collaboratively written by many of its readers." I am sure you know that but I just want to reinforce this since I have run into a bunch of your comments about not caring what other users think and stating the belief that editing is a process of overwriting others' work. No, it is a process of discussion to write better articles. Please stop using needlessly abrasive language to address others and stating your opposition to discussion with them. gren グレン 09:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your contributions on the Stem Cell Debate - just passing on the word of Debatepedia

Noticed your many contributions and interest in the stem cell controversy article. Just thought I would point you to the Debatepedia (wiki debate encyclopedia) article on stem cell research. [1] You may find this a better forum for methodically presenting the different, third-party points of views in these debates. A bunch of us have started going over to it for this kind of thing. Loudsirens 00:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)