User talk:12.72.119.59

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Ad

How can a television transcript of an exchange between Matthews and Irey be an ad? C56C 06:37, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Not a challenging question. Literally thousands of ads have engaged in quotation of opponents. Indeed, your cited source for that exchange is a political advocacy group. —12.72.119.59 06:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Nope that's a transcript of her words.[1] If it makes her look bad take it up with her.C56C 07:01, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Your “Nope” is a perfect non-sequitur. Yes, it's a transcription of her words; but, again, literally thousands of ads have engaged in quotation of opponents. Showing that she said it doesn't make your presentation not ad-like; and it certainly doesn't make it less ad-like that the section above it which you marked as ad-like. —12.72.119.59 07:11, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
You still haven't explained what made it "ad-like." Was it that it reflected badly on her, when you've presented the article in the best possible light? C56C 07:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
First, if you'd followed all of my edits, then you'd see that I've repeated fought right-wing POVers in this same d_mn'd article. But you're such a POVer yourself that you can't get real objectivity.
Really? So you not pushing an agenda even though you "perfectly agree that Murtha (further) politicized."[2] C56C 20:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Second, as to it being ad-like:
  • The section title is deliberately misleading: every point of disagreement with others is a matter of controversy.
  • The remarks quoted are exactly what would be selected by her opponents — and indeed your cited source is an anti-Irey political advocacy group. What further did Irey say on this matter, during or after the interview?
Third, at least learn to properly indent your replies to comments! —12.72.119.59 07:34, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Please do not change the titles that are formated according to wikipedia. "Controversy" and "criticism" are part of Wikipedia:Criticism and WP:NPOV. Your point of view will be reverted, and if you continuing you POV pushing you might be blocked. This isn't a game. C56C 19:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Notable Ku Klux Klan members in national politics — Significance and interpretation

In your summary upon deletion of this section, you confuse the issues of “original research” with POV. A piece can have POV but be heavily cited, and it can be original research without POV.

And lack of citation is not sufficient to show that something is “original research” as defined for purposes of Wikipedia policy. The essence of “original research” is that it is novel to the editor.

On the other hand, if something is perfectly obvious, then the only thing that it contributes to an article would be flow, helping the reader to move from one point to later points. In the case of the section that you deleted, there are no further points. Hence, I see little reason to restore the section; I object here to your argument for deletion as its application elsewhere might genuinely damage an article. —12.72.119.59 08:11, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Whatever. The information was commentary. Period. It was removed. Period. It is never coming back. Period.--Getaway 12:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)