User talk:Morethan3words

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 What is Vietnam Advance Software Company? 2 Speedy deletion of Operations of the Central Intelligence Agency 3 Hey, man! 4 CIA article

[edit] What is Vietnam Advance Software Company?

What is Vietnam Advance Software Company and why is someone in Vietnam defending CIA actions? T (talk) 10:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea what Vietnam Advance Software Company is, why? And who cares what country I'm in? A) I happen to live in Vietnam, I don't see why that should make it strange if I express my views on certain wiki pages. If you don't believe me, feel free to read my blog: http://www.morethan3words.blogspot.com/ (sorry for the shameless plug, but I've been told I should self-promote more). And B) I actually am not defending the CIA, I've taken up the article as a pet project to learn more about how to use Wikipedia and interact with the wiki community before I take on bigger projects next spring. The views I express are not in defense of the CIA, but are actually in any effort to improve the CIA main page and make it more neutral and accurate. (Morethan3words (talk) 11:04, 11 December 2007 (UTC))

I have no idea what Vietnam Advance Software Company is, why?

Because the IP you used before you created this account was from Vietnam Advance Software Company. Maybe that is your web provider. I was just curious if you had heard of the company, since a Google search revealed a paltry 7 hits.

And who cares what country I'm in?

Most people who criticize the section you removed are conservative Americans, not Vietnamese. Again, I was curious.

I actually am not defending the CIA

Your IP statement was pretty strong. It is the same tone of those who have wanted to defend the CIA before and who actively do POV deletions and moves. Maybe you are not defending the CIA.

The views I express are not in defense of the CIA, but are actually in any effort to improve the CIA main page and make it more neutral and accurate.

It is easy for people to move sections they don't agree on. I applaud you for not deleting this section as some people do.

It is harder, but much more productive to do this: Counterpoints are welcome, and make the article stronger. Read the references provided and see if these articles are accurately written about in the CIA article. Editors and fact checkers on wikiarticles are severely needed.

I welcome your input into these sections. I look forward to working with you more. T (talk) 12:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I think you have a slight misconception of my motives for moving the sections. Actually, I am not suggesting moving these sections because I actually DISAGREE with any of them, on the contrary, I have no basis to refute any of them. I think they should be moved to their own article because the topic, i.e., operations of the CIA, is so large and comprehensive it should have its own article. Furthermore, the CIA main page is too unwieldy as it is. Actually, under the current form, I think it discourages people from reading about the operations because it's simply too much text, placed after they have already read an extensive amount about the CIA history, organization, etc. Counterpoints won't do any good but to make the page MORE complicated and unwieldy. You're right, fact checking is important for these sections, but also very difficult to adequately accomplish for even seasoned jouranlists and academitions. This only furthers my point that it is something that should not take place on the CIA main page because it will inherently cause the page to be in too much constant flux and flow. (Morethan3words (talk) 08:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC))

Although you argue that you are not a defender of the actives CIA, I personally think the way you describe the criticism section of the CIA as User:203.162.205.60 and User:Morethan3word show a clear POV bias.

You are in good company. Thus far, every single one of the editors who want this section moved are conservatives with clear POV bias, which is seen in their edits and edit warring. Ultramarine is incredibly conservative and has been known to delete large sections text which just happen to conflict with his personal conservative POV, so it is no surprise that he supports such a move.

Thus far, every single one of the editors who want this section to remain have clear POV bias (like me), which is seen in their edits and edit warring.

RE: SPA:

Until you get more edits under your belt on other pages, you are in fact a WP:SPA which makes most veteran wikipedians weary, that is why the SPA page was created. Unfortunately it is has been the behavior of veteran editors in the past to create new accounts and jump into heated arguments, making it appear like there is more support for their position than their truly is. Whether you are in fact Ultramarine I doubt, but I wanted to ask him publically.

Wikieditors are not supposed to talk about motivations and editors POV "discuss the editor not the edit", it is an Elephant in the room. Trav (talk) 09:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Trav, I don't want to continually argue with you, but please realize that by automatically rolling me up with other "conservative Americans" simply because I make an edit you disagree with, or I criticize a section you have worked on, does little more than display your own POV bias. I would remind you to please assume good faith.

Also, please don't bite newcomers. I make one edit, which I thought I treated well by stating my argument and proposal, waiting two weeks, and then having seen only agreement with my proposal, made the change. The next thing I know, I'm accused of being a sock puppet (which I had to look up to figure what that is), and someone is demanding to know why I'm defending the CIA, and investigating my IP to figure out where I live. This is hardly a warm welcome for a newcomer.

I realize you may be a little jaded from fighting a lot of battles on wiki, and in particular with the CIA page, but that's actually why I wanted to make the move in the first place, in an effort to try and bring some stability to the article so that we can get it to FA status, and then protect it. (Morethan3words (talk) 07:49, 13 December 2007 (UTC))

Wow, you have really been studying up on wikipolicym you know:

• Wikipedia:Don't bite the newcomers.
• assume good faith, and
• FA status, which you know the acronym for.

Usually only established editors are familiar with such policy pages.

you also knew how to move the page, which was one of your first edits.

Sockpuppet policy warns that editors who jump into debates and make massive changes are sometimes socks. Are you a sock? No. Without further evidence I must say no.

Remember, you are still a WP:SPA.

The history of the CIA is a history of covert actions, many of them unpleasant. This article will never reach FA status if the entire history of the CIA is absent.

I have written a lot of articles, many of them controversial, it is difficult, if not impossible to get a topic such as the CIA as a featured article, because no one will ever agree on its content.

If I edited pages such as national parks, I am sure I would have many featured articles under my belt by now. But historically I focus mostly on controversial pages like the CIA.

Moving the entire criticism section will simply cause negative reactions.

The article has been given the designation as a good article already. Trav (talk) 08:28, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

You're right, I do my homework, all of the policy pages referenced above I found linking from the WP:SPA page you gave me. And yes, I know how to cut and paste. I'm a first time wikipedia user, not a first time computer user. And, to be perfectly honest, I have used other wikis before, you can also find me as the user Satanael on the official Guild Wars wiki if you like, so I do understand some basic principles of how to use a wiki. I do think we can get the CIA article to FA status, which was one of the first policies I looked into (linked from the main page), even before I started editing anything. try to be a little less spiteful, not everyone that takes part in a debate on wiki is conspiring to ruin everything for you. (Morethan3words (talk) 09:10, 13 December 2007 (UTC))

I have actively encourage the contributions of editors, no matter what their POV is. I defend the inclusion of material and the editors who contributed that material that I dislike and even hate, usually alienating people who have the same POV as me.

not everyone that takes part in a debate on wiki is conspiring to ruin everything for you

I simply don't have patience for editors who delete well referenced information or remove criticism sections to new pages. These two tactics are almost always a way to remove POV that the editor disagrees with. Are you an exception? No, your edits show that you are not.

I have spent hours on the CIA page. Instead of being praised for my exhaustively referenced work, I have had to actively defend my edits from POV warriors who actively remove or downplay the information. I really shouldn't have to do this. It gets old after over 2 years. Most of these editors, like yourself, rarely add anything to the page. I don't think many of these editors even know how to create a reference. Instead they delete and remove on the main page, and then snipe at other editors about their contributions on the talk page, contributing nothing. In my mind many are nothing more than sophisticated vandals.

"Everyone wants "peace", but they always want "peace" on their terms"

Every active editor claims that they want to make wikipedia "better" and many in their heart truly believe this.

Thus far your vision of a "better" CIA article is an article completely devoid of any criticism and controversy. To make the CIA article "better" you removed a section that had 92 references, including links to the findings of congressional committees. Argue this anyway you like, but your first edits to this page were purging all of the controversy and criticism.

This is incredibly important to emphasize again:

The history of the CIA is a history of covert actions, many of them unpleasant. This article will never reach FA status if the entire history of the CIA is absent.

After you grow tired of your desire to purge all criticism from the main CIA page, which is exactly what you did, there will be an army of POV warriors, anons, CIA employees, and socks lining up to do the exact same thing.

These future POV warriors, anons, CIA employees, and socks will require me to either,

(A) throw up my hands in disgust and give up, or

(B) spend hours explaining something that seems so simple but so many editors are blind too: you can't have a CIA article without the history of the CIA. Trav (talk) 10:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion of Operations of the Central Intelligence Agency

A tag has been placed on Operations of the Central Intelligence Agency requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, interwiki link, rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. 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.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Closedmouth (talk) 12:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The page was created in error, I agree, no need to keep it. (Morethan3words (talk) 09:58, 8 January 2008 (UTC))

[edit] Hey, man!

I wanted to draw your attention to [this ] portion on the CIA page. I, for one, am interested in your input. Please -- drop by and give us a nod, or a shake, or whatever. Stone put to sky (talk) 14:48, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] CIA article

It's an odd coincidence that you mention resources in Vietnam, as, in a different discussion, just today I was mentioning how I once had a research task looking for differences, on the same topic, in different issues of Nhan Dan. The change from the jargon of 1967 to the website of today is amazing.

As far as nominating CIA for FA, I don't have strong feelings about doing so or not. There are times where the checklists for perfect form, IMHO, get in the way of having the best-written articles. FA might make some of the controversies, resolved among one group of editors, start up again with a new group.

There are several red links, mostly for newly created executive positions, that would need articles -- not a major effort. One editor, IMHO, puts more text than I believe is needed -- and even hits WP:UNDUE -- about specifics of CIA and terrorism.

The section on investigations and reports is interesting but long. Personally, I felt it was of equal significance to the impact of individual directors on the agency, but there was a consensus to put the latter into its own article. Things do get blurry between the reports, and the authorization for operations.

Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 18:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)