User talk:M4bwav

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Terrorist cell 2 Jack Abramoff 3 Muhammad Drawings 4 Me not bot 5 Detective work 6 Stance on Afghanistan (user:page) 7 The History of Abramoff 8 Karl Rove's Pi Kappa Alpha Membership 9 I edited your comment 10 The Nation 11 Barbara O'brien 12 Three reverts each on Harry Reid 13 Dems and Terrorists 14 abramoff: maybe i misread it? 15 re: Spoken Article on Widespread 16 Bush's "diplomats", Bush's detainees 17 Spoken article 18 Notability of Mingering Mike 19 Strategia 20 Hello

[edit] Terrorist cell

I'm glad that I haven't completely offended you yet. I'll try to do better next time. ;) The "Law" category has historically been a dumping ground for people who do not try find the proper sub-category when it should be a place reserved only for core and fundamental concepts of law. The sleeper cell article is a tough one. Ideally, it should go into a category like "Terrorism law" but all we have it "Terrorism laws" which only contains terrorism-related legislation. For the moment I think the article would be best placed in the "United States law" category. "Detroit Sleeper Cell" is obviously most topical to American law rather than law in a global sense. --PullUpYourSocks 13:43, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jack Abramoff

I don't know if removing both Jewish activist references was fair, certainly you could argue doing it in the first sentence might be overstating it, but it is a relevant characteristic of Abramoff due, because it denotes one of Jack Abramoff Political motives, as explained by Abramoff himself. Abramoff stated that he felt that some of his work in the promotion of Israel and the Jewish religion justified many of his actions. Isn't this important to mention if it helps tell Abramoff's story in a balanced manner.--M4bwav 04:50, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

That's an extremely controversial topic in this article, with strong feelings from people on both sides. However, please provide a cite for this: "Abramoff stated that he felt that some of his work in the promotion of Israel and the Jewish religion justified many of his actions." I have done a lot of research on Abramoff and I have not read that. KWH

Good research on sources - just watch out. I got personally attacked by others just for trying to be a referee in the argument, and I'm not interested in seeing it explode again. I'm still trying to fully understand Jack's psyche and motivations for my own benefit, I'd be interested in knowing more as his behavior toward the tribes and some others was almost sociopathic in his lack of empathy, and in some cases psychopathic, but he still (as you say) maintains some belief in a moral basis for his actions. KWH

I think the NPOV path is to not call it a sniper school... I'll check out the primary sources later, but as I recall Shmuel's words in his email were that he wanted to put on these 'security classes' for the residents of the town, similar to the sniper classes he had previously put on for the IDF. I also think that the location is relevant, but it's a very touchy subject. Important thing is to remember the article is about Jack Abramoff and his life/actions, not whether the town is a settlement or what Juan Cole thinks, etc. You don't need to ask my permission for anything, but my opinion is we may need to dissect this paragraph on the talk page and check each of the sentences for neutrality and consensus. It's lame but it happens sometimes, and ultimately WP is better off if we can find the somewhat happy medium where nobody feels they have to revert war, attack or vandalize. I think you've got the right ideas... KWH 23:00, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Note that our friend at 85.250.193.168 has gone well past his three reverts limit for the day. I've put a notice out on it but the list appears a bit backlogged today. Still, in a bit he may get shut down for a few hours. Of course, if past if precedent, he'll switch to a new IP again. --StuffOfInterest 20:15, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I believe that blocking articles generally encourages antagonistic behavior; yes, it's annoying to keep reverting, but eventualy he will get burned out. Who knows? Maybe it will take a few days, a month, whatever. It's annoying, but he'll disappear. Remember Helga Jonat? --The Cunctator 14:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

You wrote: I hope you won't construe my Pro-Abramoff faith mentioning stance as anti-Semitic, a good quarter of my family is jewish, though I'm an atheist gentile, I've actually lived in Israel for a month. I will admit that I am anti-religious, but I would only carry out that agenda insofar as to prevent the whitewashing of history by religious people.

... And similarly, I hope you don't find my wanting to tone some of it down as "whitewashing". <g> No -- not to worry. I don't have those fears with you as you seem to be fair and open-minded. (I'm sorry to hear you are anti-religious, however. There are loads of good hearted tolerant religious people around -- but it's the hard-core intolerant extremists that get most of the press). In any event, the whitewashers are as bad as their counterparts on the other side. Thankfully, it seems that neither of us fit into either of those categories! -- Sholom 02:56, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Technically this wasn't vandalism but an unverifiably opinionated edit that fails to adhere to general style guidelines. Jack Abramoff is a verifiably corrupt liar. Whether he's "freaking corrupt" is not particularly verifiable. But we've mentioned up top that he was corrupt (or more specifically, pleaded guilty to conspiracy and corruption charges), so there's no need to repeat it. Let's keep the opprobrium "vandalism" for genuine vandalism. --The Cunctator

[edit] Muhammad Drawings

I'm not sure why I would have made such a revert, so I think it must have been a mistake. Do what you like to fix the situation. Peregrine981 03:18, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Me not bot

No, I'm not a bot. Just in a bit of a rut tagging after our friend on Talk:Jack Abramoff. Guess I should spice up my edit comments a bit. :) --StuffOfInterest 21:37, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Detective work

Here's a directory of the industrial park that the vandals are coming from. I think it's probably one of the technology industries that's there, not so much a defense contractor. Anyway, this cured my boredom for like a second. --Howrealisreal 20:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Hahaha.. Sounds like Brian Chase but a billion times worse. --Howrealisreal 21:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Please note that the IP range belongs to [NetVision], one of the largest ISPs in Israel, and that is their mailing/physical address... Kind of like how AOL's WHOIS records will show they are in Northern Virginia, even though their users are physically located all over the US (and world). There's also dozens of other (civil) users on Wikipedia connecting from IP addresses in the same range. KWH 21:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stance on Afghanistan (user:page)

Hey man I agree whole heartly that the Iraq war is a mistake on many levels, and that torture is insane. But the war in Afghanistan was an international effort and for the most part largely a complete success (though the shifting of forces away from afghanistan to Iraq may prove to be its eventual undoing). Woman are going to school for the first time, and aspiring to higher positions in the government. Liberalism, the hall mark of an advancing nation, is beginning to blossom. To take the stance that all conflict, all destruction is bad, that wonderful things cannot arise from terrible uglyness is to deny the complexity of the reality that is mankind and the world we live in.--M4bwav 00:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree that it was necessary to go after the terrorists in Afghanistan. I however see that the real aim was never met, and the country is in anarchy. German troops had the command over the forces, and all they could secure was Kabul and some other minor region. The whole rest is out of control. And no one cares. Hundreds of billions were spent on the Iraq war, while Afghanistan is left alone with the problems it has had for many decades. And the numerous attacks on civilians without regrets along with torture, camps where people have no access to lawyers and a war of aggression drove an unprecedented number of Muslims into the hands of fundamentalists. Even here in Berlin you can find posters calling to join the resistance in Iraq. There are women who now can go to school. But altogether the war on terror is an utter failure, and we will pay for it for a long time. Madrid and London were not the last attacks, and it won't surprise me if the US gets another major blast either. In my eyes it is a scandal that war criminals get reelected. Get-back-world-respect 01:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The History of Abramoff

Indeed... in fact, the truth about the contributions to Ney and Ney's comments in the Congressional Record was reported in the Sun-Sentinel in July, 2001... A lot of it just got forgotten and pushed off by all the other world-shattering events since then. KWH 04:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Karl Rove's Pi Kappa Alpha Membership

You can view on the official Pi Kappa Alpha website that Karl Rove is listed as an alumni. See: Prominent Pikes --Bq286

[edit] I edited your comment

I don't think that WP:AGF is ever thrown out the window, but I know what you mean. I've struggled with this too. As long as this individual responds respectfully and rationally, then we should do the same. If they become disrespectful, we should either ignore or remove the disrespect, and refocus the discussion on the actual issue at hand (the content of the article). Dwelling on past actions only keeps us from moving onward and past this issue. KWH 20:12, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Nation

The reason for a straw poll is simply because there needs to be some sort of quantitative reflection of Wikipedia consensus. You may want to look at the history of the conflict to see that most other forms of conflict resolution have been tried and have not helped. The only way, it seems, to prevent an endless revert war is to involve more editors and have them sound off with their feelings on the topic. I know, I am not a big fan of straw poll voting either, but I think it's a step in a more civilized direction. --Howrealisreal 19:12, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I probably should have realized I was stepping into another wierd wikiconflict, I try to put my foot in my mouth at least once a day. Sorry if I had a negative impact on conflict resolution.--M4bwav 19:15, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Hahaha. Don't worry about it, I don't think any harm was done. --Howrealisreal 19:19, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Barbara O'brien

Okay, fair enough. I put the speedy tag on their b/c at the time it pretty much only said "this person has a blog", which of course doesn't qualify someone for an article. I will remove the speedy tag since you intend to expand the article. CrypticBacon 20:17, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Three reverts each on Harry Reid

FYI: by my count, we're each at three reverts for the last 24 hours, so let us be at peace for a while, and not break the 3RR rule. NatusRoma 08:12, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

My advice to you is to take a look at what WP:OFFICE is, check out my user page, and do not revert me. Danny 21:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dems and Terrorists

Thanks for the feedback. What a dumb and meaningless (not to mention unsupported with citations) thing to put into an encyclopedia article. We must remain vigilant against wingnuts crapping all over the Wikipedia. --AStanhope 01:28, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] abramoff: maybe i misread it?

I guess I took issue with the use of 'prominent' which I think means conspicuous and I think others will read it that way too. It may have the biggest impact (and so should it)--but in terms of eminence I'm not sure if the same can be said.

Not going to fight the revert though.

[edit] re: Spoken Article on Widespread

That's fine. Another Spoken project member and I had discussed a "this article is taken" template to keep other members who were searching for a cool article to record from accidentally taking on other people's articles while the first Spoken Wikipedian was working--especially if there is already a request to make a spoken version. They also serve as a way for non-spoken members to:

1. learn about the project
2. know who they can contact with notes about the recording (especially Wikipedians who have taken on the article as their pet project--these people can be very helpful in terms of pronunciation guidelines and telling you how stable the article is, or whether they expect to see it change dramatically in the coming weeks).
3. know who they can nag/remind if you've been "working on" the article for 6 months.

Because I wanted to try out the template--but we hadn't reached any broad consensus on whether it's a good idea, I decided to semi-boldly tag any article that the main page says people are "editing". This is safer than just tagging any article that people have volunteered to take up--since the editing people have already committed some time to the article and aren't as likely to drop it. If this tag works out well, I'd like to incorporate it into the step-by-step process for making Spoken articles. It looks like it's done it's purpose on Widespread, since it's prompted a short discussion on its Talk page. Ckamaeleon ((T)) 15:52, 17 March 2006 (UTC) P.S.--feel free to remove the tag if you decide not to do the article after all. If you're just waiting for a couple of weeks, I'd keep it on.

[edit] Bush's "diplomats", Bush's detainees

Yes, Bush's diplomats are an embarrassing lot.

I have been doing a lot of work on expanding the wikipedia's coverage of the Guantanamo detainees. -- Geo Swan 00:11, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spoken article

Hi. I've noticed that you appear to have been working on converting the article Widespread Panic into a spoken version for over six months now, according to your entry on the In Progress secton of Wikiproject Spoken Wikipedia. If you are no longer working on the article, please either remove yourself from the list, or notify me so I can do so, so other editors will know they can work on the article instead. If you don't reply within a week, I will assume you are no longer working on the article. Cheers, H4cksaw (talk) 21:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notability of Mingering Mike

A tag has been placed on Mingering Mike, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you feel that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. BassoProfundo 20:40, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Please see my comment on the article's talk page. I removed the speedy deletion notice, but it appears that contributions you made while I was typing on the talk page were deleted when I removed the CSD template. Since you originally wrote the material, I will allow you to retrieve whichever version of the article from the page's history that you would like to appear on the current page. --BassoProfundo 21:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on MyGeneration, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the page and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this.

[edit] Strategia

A tag has been placed on Strategia, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the article and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. phoenixMourning (talk) 22:26, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe this message was sent in errorM4bwav (talk) 14:24, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't. Check here. It was originally a redirect page, then you made it a page. It was made awhile ago, so I didn't think you'd remember. phoenixMourning ( t - c ) 14:27, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Same to you my friend, happy editing! phoenixMourning ( t - c ) 14:10, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hello