User talk:NYScholar/Archive 4

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.

[Parking here temporarily:] Below (and in editing mode) are the notes that I cannot currently put in the proper section in the article Lewis Libby; they go after the first sentence in the paragraph about his personal family history and would be currently note numbers 5, 6, and 7 in that article (which are currently blank). The block is preventing me from adding the notes where they belong now due to previous editor's reverting of "Jewish American lawyer" to "American lawyer." Now the first mention that Libby is Jewish is in his personal family background section: Lewis Libby#Early life and family. For more information, please see the talk page of the article, which will explain what I was attempting to do prior to being blocked. The notes just needed to be moved. ^[1][2][3] --NYScholar 06:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[Parking here temporarily:] Sources to add to other articles that I'm working on:

additional source of Jimmy Carter's Brandeis U speech (Jan. 23, 2007) [I have had trouble getting the Brandeis U RealPlayer version to play all the way through; replacement link:

Jimmy Carter speech at Brandeis University, Waltham, Massachusetts, January 23, 2007. Accessed February 23, 2007. Will add to notes/references already in article and clean up problems that subsequent editors have been introducing in that article recently; there is some POV editing recently inserted in it by others. --NYScholar 02:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Contents 1 Notes 2 Re: Middle East Forum, Middle East Quarterly, and Daniel Pipes 2.1 Your posts to WP:AN/3RR 3 Rethink 4 Libby revert (again) 5 Request for reply 6 Request for Mediation 7 OK City Bombing 8 Lewis Libby 8.1 AMA (Notmyrealname) 9 Comments that I moved from WP:BLPN#Lewis_Libby 10 Note 11 OK City Bombing 12 OK City bombing todo

Notes

Re: Middle East Forum, Middle East Quarterly, and Daniel Pipes

Your posts to WP:AN/3RR

Please stop posting and reposting false and malicious reports about editors who have reported you for 3RR. That page is for genuine reports, not vengeance. Please review the 3RR policy to find out what counts as a violation. Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:52, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

It's only fair to warn you that I'm coming close to recommending a community ban for your repeated violations of NPA and CIV, incessant reverting, complete failure to understand the core content policies, almost constant disruption of talk pages and articles, malicious reports about other editors, repeated removal of admin warnings from your talk page, and inability to get along with others. You must give serious consideration to changing your editing style and the way you interact if you want to continue editing Wikpedia. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I refer to all readers of this page to the conflict of interest Noticeboard report that I filed. I stand by it. The rationale for it is already archived on my talk page. --NYScholar 01:04, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I strenuously object to: "false and malicious reports about editors who have reported you for 3RR.* That page is for genuine reports, not vengeance"; none of those descriptions is an accurate description of my actual behavior or motives. (I edit in good faith.) They seem to be projections of their creator. --NYScholar 09:52, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• I actually had also reported the other two users: Armon (who withdrew his own 3RR report) and Isarig; This administrator deleted my own reports and comments (from the 3RR violations reports page no less!), claiming that they were "harrassment": in my view, a clear projection of her own attitudes and motives.
• Point of fact: I do not "remove" or fully delete these "adminstrative warnings"; I archive them. Proof is in the archive pages. I'm not that adept at archiving, so it does take a while, but they ultimately end up there. (I can't even find an archive of talk pages at this particular administrator's talk page. Just a photo that, in my view, belies reality.) --NYScholar 10:03, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I remove obvious personal attacks involving me and others from my talk page and from other talk pages. [I would remove the scare terms "false"; "malicious"; "vengeance" and the implication that I am lying (all untrue), but, given the above administrator's threat, I've left them for context.]

Note the message at the top of my current talk page: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; 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. (Personal attack removed)

Rethink

You might want to rethink your behavior here. Your (often rather counterfactual) punctuation warring at the Pinter article, for example, is not making you any friends here. Just a word to the wise. If the arguments you've put forth are irritating and nonsensical enough that I feel the need to come to the defense of the position of User:Alai, with whom I frequently argue, strongly, more than just about anyone else on the entire system, then you may well want to consider that you could be making a mistake in judgement. PS: Making it one step harder to get to your talk page by futzing your sig to have no links isn't going to stop anyone who has 2 days experience here from doing so. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 08:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[At first I archived the above comment, but then, on reflection, deleted a comment on me that is personal in nature; the comment does not focus on the content of an article; if it were focusing on the content of an article, it would belong in the talk page of that article: above is the comment as it was originally posted in my current talk page. --NYScholar 04:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)]

This comment appears to relate intially to punctuation, and I address that concern about punctuation in the article talk page. The claim that my point about punctuation is "nonsensical" is off the mark; it is incorrect; and I make that clear in my comment appropriately on the talk page of the article.

The rest of the comment is really personal: there is no point in complaining about how my signature posts; I use four tildes; the signature posts as "NYScholar" in my preferred format, as governed by a selectable preference in Wikipedia "preferences"; my selection of my preferences is my choice. I am not "futzing" my signature (whatever that means). I am not doing anything to my signature. My signature posts using four tildes, according to the selected Wikipedia preference, which is my preference, as selected. --NYScholar 04:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Libby revert (again)

(You're free to delete this or reply to it however - it's your Talk page!) My previous comment had nothing to do with the content of the article and everything to do with the manner in which you performed your edit. It was solely directed at you. It's no big deal; I just wanted to clarify that. Happy editing! --ElKevbo 06:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate that; but my reply to you does have to do with the content of the article, so I moved the exchange there. I understand what you said. I would appreciate your helping to restore the kinds of edits that do belong in this article. Those deletions of sources createad a lot of confusions and I can't follow the editing history easily now. Since you know what you tried to add, could you please propose the changes that you want to make on the talk page of the article "prior" to making them. This is a "controversial" article, and that is what one is supposed to do in such articles: see talk page tag headers on the talk page of the article, and please follow them. Obviously, some other editors are not doing that. All substantive changes (including those introducing new references) need to be discussed first. (I set up the tagged headers on this talk page in some cases.) --NYScholar 06:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that all substantive changes need to be discussed but I understand where you're coming from. Rest assured that I probably won't be making any substantive changes to this article unless I see things that are clearly out of line with Wikipedia policy; this subject area is not my area of interest or strength. I only got involved when cleaning up after a spammer who was misattributing AP and Reuters stories. My other edit was to restore a section that was deleted because it was "non-notable" when the provided citations seem to establish notability in my judgement (I may not know much about Libby but I'm competent to judge notability given sufficient sources for a claim). If someone would like to discuss the deletion of that section further to propose deletion on other grounds or make a case for non-notability despite the reference sources, he or she is welcome to do so on the Talk page.

I'll keep an eye on the article and assist as I can. --ElKevbo 06:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

In my last edit, I added some material that I have already discussed prior to doing that (it wasn't a reverting; I recomposed the material.) Some other editors are ignoring the discussion and engaging in POV editing. --NYScholar 06:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I saw your last few edits and procedurally they look fine to me. I'll leave the content of the article and the edits to the subject matter experts such as yourself. --ElKevbo 06:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your courtesy; but, really, you are free to propose changes to the content of the article and to suggest additional notable, reliable sources for it. I did not mean to step on previous edits, but I'm having trouble sorting out individual edits in the editing history. If you want me to help with something, please let me know on the talk page of the article. I will see your comment on suggested improvements to the content of the article there, as will others. Thanks. --NYScholar 06:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)\

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/talk:Lewis Libby, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Notmyrealname (talk • contribs) 22:53, March 3, 2007 (UTC). On that page I have disagreed with the presentation (which is not accurate). I will not agree to this attempt at what I regard as more of the same (harrassment); moreover, That statement is inaccurate. See Talk:Lewis Libby. I, NYScholar, did not agree to "mediation" with respect to this other party on any such terms. See Talk:Lewis Libby and see my comments in the Noticeboard re: the article.

This other party said that he was going to submit the editing content dispute issues concerning the article for "arbitration". I welcomed only that on the talk page of the article. Even the statement there that he makes of what "we" have agreed to is not accurate. Personally, I am unable to and will not participate in this "mediation." I will be away from home for the next two weeks due to family illness. The article Lewis Libby itself needs editing content dispute resolution. That does not involve me. It involves neutral observers reading the article and the talk page and examining the sources that I and others have cited and documented in it. Prior to his posting this in my talk page, I said that I would have no future dealings with this user in any way. I will not agree to this so-called "mediation". I have clearly stated that I wanted no further interaction with this user on his talk page. It was I who first said that he was harrassing me, not the other way around. I courteously asked him to stop (on his talk page, following WP:NPA. This attempt of defining the problems of that article as a battle between two contributors is, in my view, just an extension of his further harrassment of me (a contributor) rather than his focusing on the actual content of the article. He tried the BLP noticeboard, and has gotten no support there in his latest comments that I have seen; now he's trying this. (That notice board has far more activity in its comments by other Wikipedia users who disagree with him. I posted just two brief summary comments there in response to inaccuracies in his extensive comments and replies to others, noting some repeated exchanges between him and other users there. There is no clear-cut rationale in his singling me out for "mediation"; others disagree with him very strongly there too.) I will not fall victim to further harrassment in this manner. I have formally stated that I "disagree" and that I do not agree to be a party in this so-called request for "mediation". Focus on the content of the article and not on its contributors. Having made some typographical corrections and clarifications here and in the article's talk page comments, I have said all I want to say about this matter. As before, I have just been working on trying to improve the chronology, facts, and citations in the article itself and will ignore his previous interference in my doing that. I hope that it will not continue. --NYScholar 07:41, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Request for reply

Hi NYScholar, I wonder if you might look at my question at the bottom of the Alan Dershowitz talk page. Thanks, --G-Dett 18:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Talk:Lewis Libby. For the Mediation Committee, Daniel Bryant

OK City Bombing

Hello,

I left some comments of the talk page of the OK City bombing (Talk:Oklahoma City bombing) regarding your removal of referenced material. I'm not saying your wrong to remove them, but it seems to me that the material was appropriately sourced by a reputable source, and I would like it if you could disucsuss this topic with us there. Thank you.

--Otheus 10:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I explained my rationale in the editing history of the article. Please place such comments about the editing of the article there; thanks. (I'm away from my home computer and not able to deal w/ this matter now (see reply to other user below). I will be archiving these comments later or moving them to the talk pages of relevant articles. "Reputable source" is not a Wikipedia term; sources need to meet criteria in Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Guidelines for controversial articles; they need "full citations" and that means author, title, publication, date of publication, date accessed and so on. I'll look at article within next couple of weeks, after I return. --NYScholar 05:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Lewis Libby

Thanks for your work on this article. If you cannot access the NPR Pesca piece on your computer, try a different browser, install the app you need, or try another computer. However, just because you cannot personally access a radio program, a medical article, an archived news article, a subscription-only website, etc. does not mean it is not verifiable. The issue of his first name is of interest to readers and needs to be in the article. The NPR piece is a reliable source per WP:RS, so it should not be removed simply because you don't have a way to hear it. It works fine for everyone else. Thanks again for your work on this article. Jokestress 06:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your message, Jokestress; equally, I appreciate your own vigilance w/ this article. Re: editing the article: I am away from my home computer, and I can't reply to messages in this talk page from the computer that I am using without being knocked off after some short period of time. I'll look the article over after I get back within a couple of weeks. Re: the NPR piece: please post instructions in the talk page of Lewis Libby re: how to access directly the exact quotation (from Pesca) that someone has repeatedly been putting in the article. If the quotation is not from a published (NPR) transcript and is being rendered into text by a Wikipedia editor, that amounts to "original research"; the material needs to be accessible to all readers of Wikipedia, not just some readers. More importantly, the quotation itself is not a definitive and fully trustworthy account of Libby's first name, as it cites Wikipedia itself as one source and others that are speculative; it also doesn't give the authors and titles of news articles and just refers to a "Lexis-Nexis search": that is too vague and not convincing; one does not know how reliable such sources being referred to in that blanket manner are. The name is still not completely established by notable, reliable and universally verifiable sources. When I checked the audio clip at NPR it appeared to be defunct and no longer accessible. I am able to listen to other RealPlayer clips at NPR and other sites, so that is not the problem. The outdatedness of the link seems to be the problem. What version of RealPlayer does one need to listen to it (I have the most recent version on my home computer). --NYScholar 05:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

AMA (Notmyrealname)

Hi i just want to ask you to comment on this AMA case as it evolves you. Thank You, Cocoaguy ここがいい _contribs^talkTodays Pick 01:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

This appears to me to be pure nonsense. I have had nothing to do with that user since he/she began harrassing me initially ("harrassing" was my word, which he has adopted), leading me to post an appropriate message on his/her talk page asking him/her to desist in reverting my editorial work without explanation and to desist in focusing on me personally (making personal attacks against me such as using a header with my user name in it, which is prohibited in talk page guidelines). After that, instead he began accusing me of harrassing him. Since I declined to participate in his so-called request for "mediation" in a matter that had (in my view) already ended when I refused to have anything further to do with him--and I had the option to decline--he has persisted in this matter, escalating it for no rational reason (as far as I can tell).

I have had no response to him since I said I would not interact with him further, when I declined the mediation. I have no idea why he is persisting. It is he who began focusing on me personally as a contributor not the other way around. Misleadingly, he omits the context of my comments. I have no interest in pursuing this matter and I will not be drawn farther into it. It is perverse. I posted a message on a couple of talk pages explaining that I would not be able to edit articles while I was away from home over a period of one to two weeks; I was able to log on while away from home to do some further editorial work on a couple of articles (which did not involve replying in any fashion to him directly); I simply commented on content issues. I do not have time for this. I have other non-Wikipedia work to do and do not want to be drawn into any personal disputes with other users. I am interested only in improving articles and not in personal interaction with Wikipedia users. This user is not focusing on content and is focusing on contributors and presenting the situation of my editing of content in a misleading way. I do not know why he will not let it go. I have not addressed him directly for quite a long time now. It appears to me that he is simply making trouble. --NYScholar 05:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

A full account of my editing history of the article would begin at this point--103085060, which long predates the other user's working on the article; the talk page history also long predates that user's working on the article. He entered more recently. There is a history of problems with the matter that he was reverting. If one reads the entire talk page history, one can see that. It is a content issue that he initially made into a personal issue. I have worked hard to present the content issue in as neutral a manner as possible after determining that the sources support the way I edited it last; other editors have continually reverted what that user opposes. I have not. I have simply stayed with what the sources support. Again, this is, in my view, a non-matter. I have had no interaction with the user in question since I declined the mediation, as I see no need for any such mediation as I have no dispute with the user. The dispute is manufactured by himself. --NYScholar 05:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I just looked at the statements the user makes again: Again I see that he is falsifying the record; I never "agreed" to any "mediation" with him as a user; he made a challenging statement in the talk page of the article on Lewis Libby about putting the content issue to arbitration, and I said I welcomed that. I was not referring to a "personal" dispute mediation in any way. I thought that he wanted some neutral observer to look at the disagreement about content. Instead, he submitted a "mediation" report that was false (as I stated in response to it) and that I declined (as I was entitled to do). Now, it appears that he has re-stated the same false claims in this "arbitration" report. I have no interest in this matter. My only interest is in the content of the article. --NYScholar 07:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

For the past talk page re: Lewis Libby that someone else archived, see the following Archive 2, where I first posted a preliminary warning regarding reversions. Much later, after further investigating sources being cited, I decided to leave the deletion of the category "Jewish American lawyers" from the article; others reverted that continually for a while. This was a true dispute about content, which the other user has continually brought down to a personal level. Addressing a user by name is not a "personal attack"; names of users are not supposed to appear in headings on talk pages, however; the tendency of this user to put my user name in a talk page heading illustrates that he focuses on the contributor instead of the content. I have no further time to deal with any of this dispute with that user. I have no interest in him personally. If one reviews my comments, one can see that they focus on my concerns with losing sources that I had established to be notable, pertinent, and reliable and documented properly according to WP:Cite. Deletions of those sources are what I was concerned about, not him himself. Those are content issues, and I stand by my comments about them. --NYScholar 08:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Comments that I moved from WP:BLPN#Lewis_Libby

[....] (In my experience of the editing history of the article and the talk pages of the article on Lewis Libby, s/he is not a neutral observer; s/he tried to bring me (not the article) to "mediation" which I declined due to the inaccuracy of the reports made (I had initially thought s/he wanted arbitration on the dispute about content issues; but s/he made it a personal mediation with one user (me), which I declined due to the inaccurate statement of what I had supposedly "agreed to", and other inaccuracies attributed to me; when that "mediation" failed, s/he attempt to create "arbitration" of some personal kind (again, not about the article content issues but about contributors); that went nowhere. (I have replied to those issues, pointing again to the inaccuracy of the reports being made by the user: see archive 4 of my talk page.) I made no "personal comments" about the user in what I posted in this noticeboard, and I do not intend to do so. (I have, however, found it necessary to warn that user and others about making such personal attacks against me and referred to WP:NPA in doing so. In my view, the above comment by the other user is just another such veiled personal attack, disguised at complaining that I am personally attacking him/her.) As I have said in my own talk page, now archived, I really would rather not engage directly with that particular user at all, due to the immediate descent s/he makes into claims of personal attacks and continual perception of personal attacks where none are made or intended (at least by me). That is why I have referred readers of this noticeboard to the talk page and my own previous notice about this article (archive 12, heading 14).[....]

[....]I have attacked no one. Initially, weeks ago now, as is Wikipedia policy, I posted a warning to the user about impending violations of Wikipedia:3RR; then the user started claiming that I was attacking him/her personally. That is and has not been the case. The user then took my comments that s/he keeps quoting at every opportunity out of the context of the editing history of the article--which initially referred to his/her reversions--misinterpreted them and, despite being informed of his/her misinterpretations, persists in making them as if they are facts, when they are not. The above user has been engaging in these reversions of reliably-sourced information continually, violating WP:POV as well as Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and WP:BLP#Public figures. My pointing that out and addressing clearcut editing content issues were clearly not personal attacks on the user. The user persists in misinterpreting any reference to his/her editing as comments on him/herself. He/she makes discussion of content discussion about himself/herself, which they are not. Those constant misinterpretations violate WP:NPA and WP:AGF. I have featured the template for WP:NPA clearly on my own talk page from long before I ever encountered this user (due to my own sensitivity about others who focus on contributors rather than on content). I am sure that the user knows this. My own policy on my talk page is to delete personal attacks. I announce that policy clearly. I will not countenance them. Those who make them violate WP:NPA.

The article is currently protected. If one wants to examine the editing history of the article and who has contributed what content to it and who has deleted content from it, along with explanations of the changes, one needs to consult the entire history of the article, not the material that the above user quotes repeatedly out of context. The reports that s/he filed for "mediation" and "arbitration" are not accurate reports; they are filled with self-serving false personal insinuations and are not reliable. I think that any neutral observer will be able to perceive the inaccuracies and the self-serving nature of the reports.

I am glad that more neutral observers (preferably administrators not involved in editing articles dealing with matters pertaining to parties in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, without biases about these matters), will be reviewing the article on Lewis Libby. In conjunction with this article, one can take a look at similar problems (editing biases) in articles pertaining to other living figures who pertain to this conflict between Israel and the Palestinians.

Wikipedia appears to have recurring problems with developing truly Wikipedia:Neutral point of view articles on such subjects that identify "full citations" (author, title, publication, publication date, date accessed) according to Wikipedia:Citations, Wikipedia:Attribution, and WP:POV, while still following WP:BLP#Public figures and Wikipedia:Guidelines for controversial articles. --NYScholar 01:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[....]Simply another misleading misrepresentation; as I have already stated above: "The reports that s/he filed for "mediation" and "arbitration" are not accurate reports; they are filled with self-serving false personal insinuations and are not reliable. I think that any neutral observer will be able to perceive the inaccuracies and the self-serving nature of the reports." The comments about me as "the above editor" are equally misleading and inaccurate. The talk page (e.g,, current Talk:Lewis Libby and Talk:Lewis Libby/Archive 3#Section deleted by another editor (in Talk:Lewis Libby/Archive 3) and the article by Ron Kampeas cited there are transparent. One can simply read them and judge for oneself. It would not be necessary to reply to the misleading misrepresentations of the article by Kampeas cited (see the Lewis Libby#References) if this and the other user involved in the dispute were not continually making them and deleting references to the article. These users' POV misleading misrepresentations of the article cannot be left standing as if they are accurate or true, when they are false and misleading. [If one examines the editing history of the article carefully, one will see that these two other users (jayjg and notmyrealname) have contributed no well-sourced content to the article; jayjg has simply continually reverted others' work, contributing virtually no content at all to the article, except to replace Kampeas with another source at 2 points, after s/he deleted Kampeas; as far as I can tell from the editing history, notmyrealname has contributed only one sentence citing a source that was clearly inaccurate and that I had to remove because it misrepresented the primary source it cited (all discussed in talk page); I have since added both the primary and the secondary source, quoting from the primary source accurately, while following up the quotation with the secondary source.

In contrast to their mostly deletions and reversions, I have devoted a lot of time over a long period of time to providing much well-sourced content for this article, and I contributed hours of my time providing "full citations" and attempted to develop the content of the article further.

The initial inclusion of the category "Jewish American lawyers" was not my work; it was done by other users (often anon. IP users). At first, seeing Libby's name listed in the category called "Jewish American Lawyers", the category seemed completely reasonable to me; later, after reading some arguments against such a category inclusion in Libby's article, I agreed that the category was not necessary. Then I found a reliable source (Kampeas) for it; but I have still not been re-adding the category to the article. It is not true to say that I have done that. Others have done that. I have simply tried to cite what Kampeas discusses as information that relates to the notability of the subject (Lewis Libby) following WP:POV and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and WP:BLP#Public figures, as well as Wikipedia:Verifiability. Jayjg repeatedly removed one sentence and an alternative five lines that I had added explaining the controversy that Kampeas reports on in entirely neutral language (each time I was trying to come up with some way of satisfying his apparent objections; but then, he also deleted the source by Kampeas from the Bibliography which s/he or someone else had renamed "References" (incorrect at that time). Not realizing what Jayjg was actually trying to do, I restored the name "Bibliography" to it (which it had had for weeks prior to Jayjg's change of it), but then I thought well "References" is okay, and I restored the heading for the section. But then he removed the source by Kampeas again, saying that there was nothing in the article for which it was a "reference" (a problem which his deletion and the renaming of the section initially caused, of course; since, prior to that, the references list was called Bibliography). I explained my rationale for adding Kampeas on the talk page of the article (yet again). I added the material justifying the inclusion of the source and returned the section name to "Bibliography", which it had already been for weeks. When Jayjg removed the source again, calling it "nonsense" and other pejorative terms (his POV judgment), casting false aspersions on me as a contributor, I added the source again to "Bibliography" and, based on the reply above, restored a short sentence citing Kampeas in the personal history/background section, prefacing it with a transition identifying the source as Kampeas (as a user posting above in this noticeboard had suggested). Jayjg deleted that as well.

Clearly, these editors are engaged in trying to remove development consistent with WP:POV from the article by hook or by crook, acting as if they own the article, despite clear statements of policy in Wikiepdia against such attitudes of ownership WP:OWN. Their continual reversions and deletions of pertinent, reliably-sourced information (and the source providing it) due to their own personal biases is what I am objecting to. Such reversions and deletions of pertinent, reliably-sourced information about a controversial subject violates Wikipedia's editing policies Wikipedia:Guidelines for controversial articles; WP:BLP#Public figures; their claims that I have ulterior motives (which I do not) violate WP:AGF and WP:NPA; I edit in good faith and I have not got any personal motives or biases for trying to provide discussion of the controversies pertaining to the subject. In fact, I am striving for achieving Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. In contrast to my hours and hours of hard work improving the content and the neutrality of this article, these two users have contributed virtually nothing to improving the content or the neutrality of this article; they simply revert and delete and delete and revert, according to preconceived biases, with apparently very little if any actual interest in the particular subject of the article. That is not improving the article; that is obstructing other editors' attempts to improve the article. --NYScholar 05:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Note

I am very busy (having returned home after being away for a week), and I am deeply involved in work that I have to do. I've added a template re: that to the top of my current talk page. I do not have time to deal with Wikipedia-related disputes instigated by other Wikipedia users who continue to focus on themselves and other contributors rather than on content. --NYScholar 08:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

OK City Bombing

Greetings,

Earlier this month you made a change to the Oklahoma City Bombing article ([[1]). After this, myself and another editor wondered what your basis for change was. I haven't heard from you since then, so I reverted that particular change (except the spelling correction). We welcome your input and feedback on the article in the Talk section. Thanks. --Otheus 20:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

OK City bombing todo

I liked your idea of the TODO list! Did you get all my "todo" comments out of the article, or should I sweep throught it again? --Otheus 22:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[moving to talk page of article; please post comments on articles on their talk pages. Thanks. --NYScholar 22:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)]

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.