User talk:CormorantEnt

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Welcome, CormorantEnt!

Please source your edits, especially if they're disputed or controversial. It's much easier to include defensible information than to see your edits reverted. Once again, Welcome! CMacMillan 19:19, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Rumsfeld

I understand your frustration, and can sympathize. In this case it's likely because the issue is so polarizing in the US. It might also partly be due to the opening statement about the vague definition of "torture" in your edit. Have you tried the discussion page? CMacMillan 19:51, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi! Feel free to get frustrated with me if you're looking for who reverted your edit. And I'm not even a Republican, or an American for that matter. Here's what you added:

While it is generally agreed that the "human pyramids" were unacceptable, many point out that it was a field general failure, rather than a secretarial failure, for placing in charge of many of the prisoners a female officer willing to exploit prisoners for personal sexual gratification, without first doing a background check on this officer and the soldiers under her. Given the nature of the chain of command, it is highly unlikely that Rumsfeld would have specifically and directly instructed her to do anything of the sort.

Another defense given is that what many of the prisoners defined as "torture" amounted to little more than just soldiers in poor taste acting in contempt of the prisoners' religious views, often throwing paper bags full of bacon at prisoners just to see the prisoners cringe at the thought of becoming ceremonially unclean.

While this is by most not considered to be acceptable behavior either, it is very unlikely that Rumsfeld himself ever specifically authorized this behavior, and is a far cry different from the implied brutality in most news reports.

Virtually all of that amounts to personal opinion and/or analysis. Take a look at WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, WP:CITE, and WP:V; these are the guidelines we need to follow. You can understand the problem here. If a Republican edits the article to reflect his point of view, then a Democrat reverses his changes and adds his own perspective, the article will devolve to a shouting match -- or at best, a teeter-totter of alternating viewpoints. We avoid this by sticking firmly to only solid, neutral, verifiable facts. Feel free to follow up, either here or on my talk page. I do sympathize with the frustration of seeing your good-faith edits disappear before your eyes. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 20:00, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, you can always suggest and discuss changes to the Donald Rumsfeld article on Talk:Donald Rumsfeld. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 20:07, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AfD Nomination: Unlisted (band)

I've nominated the article Unlisted (band) for deletion under the Articles for deletion process. We appreciate your contributions, but in this particular case I do not feel that Unlisted (band) satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. I have explained why in the nomination space (see What Wikipedia is not and Deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unlisted (band). Don't forget to add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of each of your comments to sign them. You are free to edit the content of Unlisted (band) during the discussion, but please do not remove the "Articles for Deletion" template (the box at the top). Doing so will not end the discussion. Sandstein 05:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

This article is also up for speedy deletion, as per the criteria at WP:Music. (aeropagitica) 06:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Broken Sunday

The article Broken Sunday has been or soon will be deleted from Wikipedia. This happened because the article seems to be about a subject but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable. If you can indicate why the subject is really notable, you are free to re-create the article, making sure to cite any verifiable sources. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. You might also want to read our criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 7 under Articles. NawlinWiki 14:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sims 2 Bugs

Hi! It was a long time ago, but I'm pretty sure I removed the bugs as they related to cheats. Generally, the user has to be responsible for what happens to their game when they use cheats. It's not uncommon for them to create bugs, glitches, or to crash the game, etc. They wouldn't really be consider "bugs" per se, as the game isn't being used as the developers intended.

In a lot of FPS, using some sort of item_spawn command, when the item to be spawned should never be seen by the user, will crash the game. But this isn't considered a bug. If the user was playing the game normally, and picked up a dropped weapon, and the game crashed, that's a bug.

Hence, a bug usually means the fault lies with the developer, but when the user has induced the bug by using cheats, then the fault lies with them. Hope you can see my rational! =) Fin©™ 12:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, the link to your wiki gives a 404! -Fin©™ 12:16, 18 January 2007 (UTC)