User talk:Viriditas/Archive 5
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Holocaust
Check out the talk page. You can't claim fallacy without grounds explaining why. I have recapped the argument and the reason I claim excluded middle is because the evidence forces a middle position (the current state of the article) to be inconsistent.--160.39.194.93 20:36, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Israeli art students
The fact that all the edits are from 216.174.52.x suggests it is the same person. There would be one edit plus three reverts, plus one final edit which is just a removal of the external link rather than a full revert. Technically this could be a violation of the 3RR, since the external link element of the page was reverted four times; on the other hand, technically, it's not the same IP each time.
Hopefully his final edit not being a full revert is a hopeful sign that there might be grounds for an NPOV compromise version. Can you try dialoging with this user on one of their anon IP talk pages? I'll add this page to my watchlist and try to monitor further developments.
-- Curps 23:25, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Oops, I didn't see that his first "edit" was in fact a revert to the earlier version he originally created. So it was in fact four reverts, plus the fifth edit was a partial revert. I see the page has already been protected, RickK reacted more quickly. -- Curps 23:38, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
No hay de que. RickK 00:58, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
Substance D
Hey, thanks for letting me know. I had planned to add quite a bit more to Substance D, but got sidetracked and then forgot. As it stands now, I think that it belongs in A Scanner Darkly, so thanks also for making that change. -Seth Mahoney 01:47, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
Israeli Art Student topic
I took your advice, and now have an account.
As you see, I rewrote the article with the NPOV guidelines.
You said you had a problem with my sources.
Yes, I have read the DEA Report and most of the other material written on the subject. The current version is nothing more that a "whitewash" with very little information given. The first paragraph is ridiculous for an introduction. The article should be change back to the capital version of "Israeli Art Students" since this represents a particular phenomenon of allegations of Israeli spying that occurred in a particular time and place. My external links should remain since they are relevant and contain other information the reader may fine useful. I don't have a problem with the Washington Post link, but CAMERA is a bias Israeli source and should not be used.
You might find this link helpful. I really don't understand your skepticism on the IAS when there are so many details concerning them. [1]
This is from the John Sugg article, "Creative Loafing last week obtained a copy of the report from intelligence sources with long-term contacts among both Israeli and American agencies. The government has attempted to deflect attention from earlier leaks about the spy scandal. However, while declining to confirm or deny the authenticity of the document, a spokesman for the DEA, William Glaspy, did acknowledge that the agency had received many reports of the nature described in the 60 pages.
A source familiar with the creation of the document has told CL that the 60-page memo was a draft intended as the base for a 250-page report. The larger report has not been produced because of the volatile nature of suggesting that Israel spies on America's deepest secrets.
Another DEA spokesperson, Rogene Waite, told Associated Press a draft document had been compiled and forwarded to other agencies."
The 60 page draft of the eventually to be completed 250 page DEA Report is on Cryptome. I do not know if the entire report was ever finished. If so, the public does not have access. The draft of the DEA Report is real. Real people with real names given of FBI and DEA argents are in the report. Ketchum and Sugg contacted some of these individuals and concluded this draft report was not a fabrication. As stated previously, one DEA supervisor went on record and confirmed the veracity of the report as it related to his area. Perhaps in the future, a Freedom of Information request will release the report. If this ever happens you can bet the 250 pages will be blackened-out. I don't know if Sugg has an agenda other that getting the story out and preventing a government cover-up. This is the part of "conspiracy theory" I find myself in agreement. I think the government believes this information is too sensitive for the general public. The Justice Department and perhaps pro-Israeli sentiment within some media organizations would prefer the "whitewash" version of events.
You have said the "report" is an alleged memo that hasn't been substantiated by anyone. I agree the "report" is a draft and is incomplete. I do remember a DEA official saying they have a copy of the report, however I have yet been able to locate this statement within the material. I agree to a timeline of events for the article, but I will post it on my version--the one with a NPOV--and not the "whitewash" version. Also, I will include the links that have expressed skepticism in regards to IAS.Rob216 14:10, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Thank you!
Hi Viriditas, just a note to say thank you (properly) for supporting me in my nomination. I really appreciate it. The vote closed today so I can relax now. ;-) Best, SlimVirgin 04:28, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
Terri Schiavo, deleted polls section
Hello Viriditas, it was the following text that was deleted by User:Astanhope. The polls section still existed on March 26, 03:37. Astanhope stated the following on changing the article: rm Polls section due to bloat and irrelevance over time - poll data has no lasting power, doesn't belong here. I find it important to include these poll results in the article since there is a huge media hype about Terri Schiavo, and the article would be still objective when it says that most people don't agree with her parents. Do you think the article would be more interesting by contrasting popular opinion with the Congressional/Presidential actions, don't you? Regards, Keimzelle 16:14, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Polls According to an ABC News poll conducted over the weekend of March 19-20 and published on March 21, 70 percent of Americans believe that the issue of Terri Schiavo's death should not be a federal matter and opposed the legislation transferring the case to federal court. In the same poll, a 63 to 28 percent majority said that they support the removal of Schiavo's feeding tube. A 67 to 19 percent majority agreed with the statement that "elected officials trying to keep Schiavo alive are doing so more for political advantage than out of concern for her or for the principles involved." [27] (http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=600654) Results of a CBS News poll: 82 percent believe the Congress and President should stay out of the matter, 74 percent thought it was "all about politics," while only 13 percent think Congress acted because of concern for Terri Schiavo. Furthermore, Congressional approval rating sank to 34 percent, the lowest number since 1997. The question about reinserting the feeding tube was answered very similarly to the ABC poll (66 percent against, 27 percent in favor).[28] (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/23/politics/main682619.shtml) For more poll results, see [29] (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/23/opinion/polls/main682674.shtml).
as far as movie infoboxes go,
Thanks for the reminder; i had planned to update all the movie infoboxes, but got distracted and ultimately forgot to finish. well, i believe all the movie infoboxes are now compatible with the music and awards fields. Some boxes, it seems, have good ideas for new fields, for instance rating, series, and tagline. The time it would take to flesh out all those infoboxes, with ACTUAL information, is kind of a lot, and i'm hesitant to throw in too many more blank fields, number one: for completeness' sake, and number two: the infobox is becoming a bit unweildy i think. maybe reducing the font-size by one or two, or compressing the tables, or creating two distinct divisions withing the infobox, is in order. well holler back, just thought i'd put my thoughts out there. --shuff 21:49, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
new message at [[2]] for you. --shuff 00:03, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
- Viriditas, what are your thoughts about changing "Director" to "Directed by", etc., as discussed at Template talk:Infobox Movie? Make the edit if you are up to it, or at least come and talk about it. 62.148.218.183 12:59, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Viewpoint requested
Would you mind taking a look at the current disagreement at Talk:Israel Shahak regarding how the Liberal Democrat (UK) party should be characterized? Jayjg (talk) 18:44, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- The issue appears to have heated up again, if you have some time. Jayjg (talk) 19:27, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Re: Sketches of Spain
You're quite welcome! :) I believe that's the first time I've been thanked in Hawaiian. I've fixed all the links pointing to Sketches of Spain as well. The wiki actually let me move the page right over the redirect at its destination without the need for deletion, because the redirect had no other edits; I'm not sure (but strongly doubt) if this only worked because I'm an admin, but it's worth noting in future. That is to say, if you find you need to move a page but the title is occupied with a redirect, check the redirect's history to see if it has more than one edit (i.e., the creation edit). Although I've encountered situations where this does not hold true, there's a good chance it'll let you move a page over a redirect if it has no history. Cheers, -- Hadal 10:20, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Sketches of Spain
Thanks for addressing this quickly and helpfully providing references - always impressed with Wikipedians' professionality. --The silentist 23:04, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I've been adding material here and there related to jazz, in particular, and most of the facts are from a professor of jazz history here at Yale - Michael Veal. I'm not sure how to reference things I've heard said in, say, a lecture. Can you make a recommendation? Should I not use lectures as sources? If I recall my MLA citations, lectures can be legit, but I'm not sure about here on Wikipedia.
neurologists
I tried to fill in the names I know for the neurologists/physicians who examined Terri Schiavo. It's on the discussion page now. There are some holes I can't fill in. FuelWagon 21:08, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Anonymous editor at Nation of Islam and anti-Semitism
The anonymous editor at Nation of Islam and anti-Semitism is still rather busy, and because he uses several different IP addresses is able to revert at least a dozen times. Currently he's deleting information from various sources, and trying to segregate statements from one leader into a special section (he previously tried to delete this information). Would you mind providing some assistance in bringing NPOV to the article? Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 02:58, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Puzzled by your reverts of all my edits, this one especially - please explain
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Drug_abuse&diff=12215441&oldid=12185893 You seem to be of the opinion that any recreational drug use is 'abuse'. That's a perfectly valid opinion, as far as it goes, but it is a value judgement. We should simply say that drugs were used recreationally, and let the reader decide whether this was an 'abuse' of the drug. We don't call speeding 'car abuse', we let the reader decide whether the speed was abusive, regardless of whether a law was broken. On the Bush thing, here is a page that shows the term with 5.5million google hits. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=bush+regime&btnG=Search. 'Salazar regime', however, only gets 85,000. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=Salazar+regime&btnG=Search, with 'Saddam regime' coming in under 3million. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Saddam+regime&spell=1 If anything, we should delete those two, but I'm inclined to keep them. Guttlekraw 19:14, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Please stop reverting my edits without explaining. 'Use' is a statment of fact. 'Abuse' is a point of view. I though that stating that some people thought the use was an abuse was a good compromise - your insistance on promoting your point of view is the problem here. Guttlekraw 23:58, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Please don't revert again without replying to my questions. It's rude. Guttlekraw 00:03, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Not at all. The term 'recreational drug use' is a neutral term meaning that someone used a drug for recreational purposes. Yes, someone stated that that was 'abuse', but the term 'abuse' is simply their judgement about the recreational use, not a fact. You might believe that all recreational drug use is 'abuse', but that's a point of view, not a fact. What 'sources' do you want? Sources that state that use took place, or sources that state that not all recreational drug use is abuse? Guttlekraw 00:09, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I am not convinced I know what you mean. In the case of the Sex education article, you want me to provide a source that says that not all use of alcohol by 14 year olds is abuse? UK law, for one, there are numerous others, including French law, mosts legal systems in Western Europe. Do you really want me to reference that in the article? Guttlekraw 00:23, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
What are you talking about? You are saying that because you think I cannot prove that the use was not abuse then the statement that is is abuse must stand? That is ridiculous. By your logic every example of alcohol use would be labeled as abuse simply because no evidence could be presented that it was not. I think your reverting on these ground verges on vandalism. Guttlekraw 00:32, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
