User talk:Scott Adler
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
FYI, I've posted extensive findings at Talk:George McGovern from researching in The Making of the President 1972. Wasted Time R 00:34, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
By the way, if you sign your Talk posts with four tildes (~) together, it will name and date stamp them, which makes Talk pages easier to follow. Wasted Time R 00:58, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Gabriel missile
Hi Scott, you added this to Gabriel missile article:
- The French use and sell a version of the Gabriel for air to sea warfare called the Exocet.
As far as I know Exocet is got NOTHING to do with Gabriel... what you mean? -- EvogolTalk 00:32, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Very nice comments
Very nice comments in the 1948 Israel Arab war discussion. You need to edit many Israeli pages. Also Lehi (group) , Zionist Revisionism, and others because you seem to have a lot of knowledge ! Amoruso 07:30, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] This one is unbelievable
It's these things that make me wonder that people can do anything they want on wikipedia including delete whole sections of sourced material and invent reasons for doing so - Rashid Khalidi . Amoruso 23:19, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Use of "terrorist"
Please do not switch words like "militant" to "terrorist" in the Operation Wrath of God article. This issue was covered in the peer review and FA review. "Terrorist" should only be used in the context that a group or individual is designated a terrorist by another (see the al-qaeda page for guidance). An example would be: "Al-qadea was designated a terrorist group by the US government after the embassy bombings". It should not be used when speaking in general, because it has no clear cut definition and it just causes arguments. I hope this makes sense. Joshdboz 21:43, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Look, I'm sorry for anthing that has happened to you. But as the cliche goes, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. This is a global encyclopedia, so it tries to avoid these conflicts by using descriptive words instead of controversial ones. There is a good discussion about this here Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Terrorist, terrorism that describes basic guidelines in the use of these words. Joshdboz 18:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Watch your civility level, please
It is important to keep a cool head, especially when responding to comments against you or your edits. Personal attacks and disruptive comments only escalate a situation; please keep calm and remember that action can be taken against other parties if necessary. Attacking another user back, as you did on Talk:Operation Wrath of God, can only satisfy trolls or anger contributors and leads to general bad feeling. Please try to remain civil with your comments. Thanks! Vic226 03:11, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Black September Fatah
Hi Scott - as I see it - on the Wrath of God discusion page you say that "Black September" didnt exist. The difficulty in demonstrating this is that, say, 4 people could form any number of organisations with different names and validly claim that they were different organisations as long as none of the purposes, methods, strategy etc of the different organisations were identical. So for Black September not to exist you would need to show that its purposes, methods, strategy etc were identical to Fatah. Which would appear very difficult given the range of Fatah's operations. Showing that Black September was totally made up of and controlled by Fatah appears to be as far as you could go. Then you would have shown it to be a subgroup within Fatah - but still it could have a separate name. Unless of course you have documents showing that Fatah deliberately used the name "Black September" as a cover.
How do you see this issue? SmithBlue 09:35, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi Scott - I think anyone prepared to kill innocents to promote their cause is a terrorist - which obviously includes PLO, USA government, Israeli government, AlQuaeda, British government, Russian government, BaderMienhoff, Red September, Red Brigade, ETA and Mafia to start a very long list. So I am quite happy to see all these groups and individuals involved branded as terrorists. But most people see "their side" as good guys and the other side as "the bad guys" and dont want the same word used for both. So what single word would you like applied to all the previous groups? re - Black September Fatah - unless you can show that these two groups were functionally identical then they can have different names. Identical here means the same aims, method, personelle, range of activities, strategies and tactics, command structure etc. You have not done this. All you have done so far is say that Arafat and Fatah were part of both the organisations.
Can you EVEN show that Black September was a grouping within Fatah using cited sources? If so then I suggest you pretend to be a WASP for a little while and post your paragraph on this to the Wrath of God discusion page and politely ask for comments - if the references are good I'd be wanting it included in the article and think you will find other contributors would want it in the article as well. Try it and see. SmithBlue 00:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Regarding your recent radical behavior toward others in Wikipedia
First, please remember that it is against Wikipedia policy to make any form of edit (except perhaps revert on other's vandalism) on anyone's user page. If you want to contact the user, use the "discussion" tab above. I have moved your respond to SmithBlue from here to here.
Second, please remember that you were noted about your behavior toward other Wikipedians during the discussion about whether Operation Wrath of God and Black September exist or not. It seems to me that you are still acting in an uncivil manner. Please remain civil and don't resort to making personal attacks or instigating edit wars.
The last point I am trying to make might sound redundant to my previous point. Still, please don't be so dense on everything (a ruder yet more straightforward phrasing may be "Don't be a dick"). In other words, no matter how right you are on any subject, nobody would want/care to listen to your opinion with such behavior.
I'm writing you this because I hope you can make Wikipedia a better place—in a peaceful and rational way. Therefore, I believe it is time for you to perform a self-check on your past behavior toward other members of this society. Regards, Vic226talk 23:44, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Siege of Jerusalem (1948)
Something is up there at the moment - why dont you add info to it (in line with Wiki policies) and we can watch what happens?SmithBlue 00:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC) Looked at this article again and also the article on the war that this seige was part of. The problem is that the section in the war article is far more detailed than the separate entry. So at present deleting the seige article makes good sense. If you've got info please add it to the seige article. (with citations) SmithBlue 16:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Use the user's talk page, NOT the user page
Please do not edit the user pages of other contributors without their approval or consent. It may be seen as vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please visit the sandbox. Vic226talk 04:37, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Please give a reference
While youre right about them being anti-semites, could you please insert a reference to back up the statement you made in the Holocaust Conference article? They are both alive, and the statement looks libelous without a reference. Thanks in advance, Jeffpw 09:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
