User:Walton monarchist89/Desk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

|

This is my AMA desk. It is only for AMA business - please leave any personal or content-related messages on my talk page. Walton monarchist89 12:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mexican general election controversies

I think the problem is not so much the sources. There's a lot of sourced information about this out there, but I have been arguing whether some of it is relevant or not. The article is biased, for starters, and I think it's obvious for which side it's biased too. In general I think these are my objections:

• The scope of the article should be on the controversies, not fraud and rallies. It's not even clear what the controversies are, only the allegations of fraud.
• A bunch of photos of the rallies doesn't add anything to the controversies (one or two photos should be fine).
• There is a lot of "not very relevant" information.

I, and other people, have tried to remove information considered not very relevant and biased, but Timeshifter always labels that as vandalism. I am not a Wikipedian expert, nor very good at writing English in a political context, but IMHO other people (Hari Seldon and Mkcappa for example) see the same problems in the article. So far I think Timeshifter is only accepting additions or rewritings, acting as if he were the owner of the article and disregarding the opinion of other editors such as Hari Seldon, Mkcappa, and mine.

It would be great if you take a look at the article's discussion here (the most heated discussion is now archived) and see the different stands. Personally I would like to know if there's any behavior of mine that could improve in order to follow Wikipedia guidelines.

In a recent development an experienced editor (Magidin) has started to take over the discussion and so far he seems to be doing a great job conciliating both sides. Anyway I'm concerned about Timeshifter's attitude, who I believe it's unfriendly towards newcomers and not assuming good-faith, but maybe I'm wrong.

Maybe the weight of support is against Timeshifter, but he alone has been taking all the decisions, and both Mckappa and Hari Seldon have concerned their uneasiness, and even tried to make a fork, maybe this will change with Magidin. But anyway I don't think the article is near to be unbalanced; some parts of it are, but there is just too much information supporting the fraud. What I'm really concerned is that there are sources like Narco News (Drug [Dealering] News), blogs like "El Machete" (Large Heave Knife). Are those valid sources of information? IMHO it should be OK if I remove content referencing that specially if the article is already balanced in that side, do you agree?

[edit] Kahanism

As the article stands, there are numerous tags contesting specific paragraphs, but at the end of the day most of the paragraphs I submitted are not currently being challenged. I credit that to the Wiki process, that through challenges more accurate statements and sourcing resulted.

The exception is the section on Kahanism in the USA. The section that is currently unsourced is the first paragraph. I didn't write that. In fact, I provided the following paragraphs in response to that paragraph, which mentions kahanenet and kahane.org without providing sources or any context. After challenges, I restricted sources to the section only to original source documents available on the internet. That first paragraph needs work to both provide sources and to provide context on the nature of the groups and individuals mentioned (ditto with other parts of the article).

One especially troubling aspect of this article is that at the end, it cites 8 "Kahanist" websites. I took a look at the article on Al Qaeda, which is under a hold. There is no section there specifying that "here are Al Qaeda or Al Qaeda-related websites." That the Kahanists (who are also designated terrorists by a number of governments) can provide links to their affiliated sites on a Wiki article, unchallenged, is unsettling, to say the least.Dc-ijc 05:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ward Churchill

In reference to: [1] and your offer to contact the uploader of the image, thank you. But, other editors have starting commenting on the talk page so a discussion seems to be occurring. Thanks again for your help. Uncle uncle uncle 22:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I have created a Request for Comment at WP:RFC/BIO and placed the appropriate section on the corresponding talk page: [2].

It received a number of comments from editors who had already been active on the page in response to messages left on their talk pages, but it received only one comment in response to the WP:RFC/BIO message (although it has only been 4 days).

Is there a way to get broader input than using the WP:RFC/BIO page?

Thank you, Uncle uncle uncle 20:53, 27 January 2007 (UTC)