User talk:Scott Adler

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

FYI, I've posted extensive findings at Talk:George McGovern from researching in The Making of the President 1972. Wasted Time R 00:34, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

By the way, if you sign your Talk posts with four tildes (~) together, it will name and date stamp them, which makes Talk pages easier to follow. Wasted Time R 00:58, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Gabriel missile

Hi Scott, you added this to Gabriel missile article:

The French use and sell a version of the Gabriel for air to sea warfare called the Exocet.

As far as I know Exocet is got NOTHING to do with Gabriel... what you mean? -- EvogolTalk 00:32, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Very nice comments

Very nice comments in the 1948 Israel Arab war discussion. You need to edit many Israeli pages. Also Lehi (group) , Zionist Revisionism, and others because you seem to have a lot of knowledge ! Amoruso 07:30, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This one is unbelievable

It's these things that make me wonder that people can do anything they want on wikipedia including delete whole sections of sourced material and invent reasons for doing so - Rashid Khalidi . Amoruso 23:19, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Use of "terrorist"

Please do not switch words like "militant" to "terrorist" in the Operation Wrath of God article. This issue was covered in the peer review and FA review. "Terrorist" should only be used in the context that a group or individual is designated a terrorist by another (see the al-qaeda page for guidance). An example would be: "Al-qadea was designated a terrorist group by the US government after the embassy bombings". It should not be used when speaking in general, because it has no clear cut definition and it just causes arguments. I hope this makes sense. Joshdboz 21:43, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Look, I'm sorry for anthing that has happened to you. But as the cliche goes, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. This is a global encyclopedia, so it tries to avoid these conflicts by using descriptive words instead of controversial ones. There is a good discussion about this here Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Terrorist, terrorism that describes basic guidelines in the use of these words. Joshdboz 18:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Watch your civility level, please

It is important to keep a cool head, especially when responding to comments against you or your edits. Personal attacks and disruptive comments only escalate a situation; please keep calm and remember that action can be taken against other parties if necessary. Attacking another user back, as you did on Talk:Operation Wrath of God, can only satisfy trolls or anger contributors and leads to general bad feeling. Please try to remain civil with your comments. Thanks! Vic226 03:11, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Black September Fatah

Hi Scott - as I see it - on the Wrath of God discusion page you say that "Black September" didnt exist. The difficulty in demonstrating this is that, say, 4 people could form any number of organisations with different names and validly claim that they were different organisations as long as none of the purposes, methods, strategy etc of the different organisations were identical. So for Black September not to exist you would need to show that its purposes, methods, strategy etc were identical to Fatah. Which would appear very difficult given the range of Fatah's operations. Showing that Black September was totally made up of and controlled by Fatah appears to be as far as you could go. Then you would have shown it to be a subgroup within Fatah - but still it could have a separate name. Unless of course you have documents showing that Fatah deliberately used the name "Black September" as a cover.

How do you see this issue? SmithBlue 09:35, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Scott - I think anyone prepared to kill innocents to promote their cause is a terrorist - which obviously includes PLO, USA government, Israeli government, AlQuaeda, British government, Russian government, BaderMienhoff, Red September, Red Brigade, ETA and Mafia to start a very long list. So I am quite happy to see all these groups and individuals involved branded as terrorists. But most people see "their side" as good guys and the other side as "the bad guys" and dont want the same word used for both. So what single word would you like applied to all the previous groups? re - Black September Fatah - unless you can show that these two groups were functionally identical then they can have different names. Identical here means the same aims, method, personelle, range of activities, strategies and tactics, command structure etc. You have not done this. All you have done so far is say that Arafat and Fatah were part of both the organisations.

Can you EVEN show that Black September was a grouping within Fatah using cited sources? If so then I suggest you pretend to be a WASP for a little while and post your paragraph on this to the Wrath of God discusion page and politely ask for comments - if the references are good I'd be wanting it included in the article and think you will find other contributors would want it in the article as well. Try it and see. SmithBlue 00:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding your recent radical behavior toward others in Wikipedia

First, please remember that it is against Wikipedia policy to make any form of edit (except perhaps revert on other's vandalism) on anyone's user page. If you want to contact the user, use the "discussion" tab above. I have moved your respond to SmithBlue from here to here.

Second, please remember that you were noted about your behavior toward other Wikipedians during the discussion about whether Operation Wrath of God and Black September exist or not. It seems to me that you are still acting in an uncivil manner. Please remain civil and don't resort to making personal attacks or instigating edit wars.

The last point I am trying to make might sound redundant to my previous point. Still, please don't be so dense on everything (a ruder yet more straightforward phrasing may be "Don't be a dick"). In other words, no matter how right you are on any subject, nobody would want/care to listen to your opinion with such behavior.

I'm writing you this because I hope you can make Wikipedia a better place—in a peaceful and rational way. Therefore, I believe it is time for you to perform a self-check on your past behavior toward other members of this society. Regards, Vic226talk 23:44, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Siege of Jerusalem (1948)

Something is up there at the moment - why dont you add info to it (in line with Wiki policies) and we can watch what happens?SmithBlue 00:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC) Looked at this article again and also the article on the war that this seige was part of. The problem is that the section in the war article is far more detailed than the separate entry. So at present deleting the seige article makes good sense. If you've got info please add it to the seige article. (with citations) SmithBlue 16:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Use the user's talk page, NOT the user page

Please do not edit the user pages of other contributors without their approval or consent. It may be seen as vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please visit the sandbox. Vic226talk 04:37, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please give a reference

While youre right about them being anti-semites, could you please insert a reference to back up the statement you made in the Holocaust Conference article? They are both alive, and the statement looks libelous without a reference. Thanks in advance, Jeffpw 09:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Siege of Jerusalem

Hi Scott - thats a serious looking outline for the article. I've got it on my watchlist too. Will be interesting to see what happens. Vandalism I expect but I dont think a good looking article like what you've got outlined would be removed for long. Was watching Serbophobia but it got deleted by a ?Bosniamn or Croatian? administrator who might have broken a few rules in doing so. Sort of silly cause next time the article will probably be called "Anti-Serb Discrimination" which sounds so much more serious than Serbophobia. Something similar may happen to Seige article but as long as its NPOV then it will get back up pretty quick. SmithBlue 15:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arabist?

Hi Scott Alder, on the Seige of Jerusalem talk page is writen "If you are an Arabist, please do not vandalize this article. These events did occure. Instead, please enter such information that you consider important to understanding the events. 68.5.64.178 01:51, 16 December 2006 (UTC)". Its important to nuetrality that "Arabist" is something that the people refered to in above statement are OK about being called. If you have any doubts about this I suggest making the statement less specific, something like - "Please do not vandalize this article. These events did occure. Instead, please enter such information that you consider important to understanding the events." I dont know what "Arabist" means to people but I am very interested in seeing what happens at this article and dont want static from POV terms. SmithBlue 02:06, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edward Said

In response to your comment about the above article, if you feel that this article needs to have its GA status reconsidered please try WP:GA/R for a more through re-review. Tarret 14:20, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] deleting material on discusion page?

Hi Scott - posts to the discusion page at "SoJ" are disappearing. The history tab shows each prev version of discusion page and the editor. I havent looked who has been removing material. I suspect that removing material from a discusion page would be very much against Wikipedia policy. It kinda looks like censorship. I'm just a beginner round here and am very interested in whats happening on the discusion page so far. I'd like to see the removed material back on the page and if anyone asks someone could say their cat got on the keyboard while they went for a cup of coffee or some old chat. SmithBlue 15:52, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Scott Adler - the sound you hear in the background is me scrapping egg off my face. Checking the history log I find that I somehow removed some of the material posted on the discusion page of SoJ. Would be a good time to acknowledge that I perceive you as acting brashly at times and that I extrapolated wildly over this matter. If you are into that sort of thing may your celebrations of the birth of a perhaps mythical Jewish baby, some 2000 years ago, prove very satisfying. SmithBlue 07:40, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deodoro da Fonseca

Last November you stated "the article appears biased and innacurate Republican propaganda. The monarchy was overthrown by reactionaries who opposed the Golden Law abolishing slavery." May I ask again, can you contribute a less biased source, printed or on-line, adding it to the references? Perhaps the "disputed" tag was hastily applied, and might be removed, on cooler consideration. This request is copied at Talk:Deodoro da Fonseca --Wetman 11:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hezbollah

I'd like to inform you that only six countries consider Hezbollah a terrorist group so your rationale of "most governments" is completely wrong. Gdo01 01:16, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

They are as much a terrorist group as any other I've seen but the fact they have a political wing shields them from being considered a terrorist group by most governments. I may not like and you may not like it, but the facts stand that few countries consider them a terrorist group. Gdo01 02:24, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Let me get this: A terrorist is not a terrorist if he has a political cause. Hmmm. And who says that they are NOT terrorists? Aside from Iran, Hamas, Syria, etc.Scott Adler 03:19, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
China, Russia, the EU (UK is the exception), all of Africa and South America. Like I said: only six countries officially classify them as terrorists. Don't blame me for it, I didn't squander foreign support for USA and Israel. Gdo01 03:26, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Muhammad al-Durrah

Hi, another user, SlimVirgin, reverted your edit to the Muhammad al-Durrah page to an earlier version. While I do not like the current version of the page, it may be better to explain your position in greater detail on the talkpage. Thanks, KazakhPol 01:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Johnston and Shalit

Shalit being the only one left kidnapped in Gaza goes in Shalit's article, as it's irrelevant to Johnston. Regarding your edit summary when adding Shalit, please bear in mind WP:NPOV. – Chacor 05:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, he's relevant. I've been a journalist for 50 years. I know journalistic ethics. My specialty is forensic journalism. I catch bad journalists for a living. Some were quite famous. What do YOU do? And yeah, Shalit is quite relevant. Unless, of course, you are one of those who thinks that Palestinians have an existential right to kidnap and murder Israelis, but not Britons.Scott Adler 06:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
What you do in real life is irrelevant on Wikipedia. In Johnston's article, Shalit is not important - he has nothing to do with Johnston. Personal opinions have NO place in Wikipedia content. The fact that Shalit is the only non-Palestinian captive still in Gaza IS important - but not wrt Johnston. It would be fair that the fact is mentioned in Shalit's own article, but Johnston has nothing to do with his captivity so there is no reason for a mention in Johnston's article. – Chacor 07:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


Scott, What did you do to upset BillCJ so badly?

[edit] COI

If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

  1. editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with,
  2. participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors,
  3. linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam);
    and you must always:
  4. avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially neutral point of view, verifiability, and autobiography.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see Wikipedia:Business' FAQ. For more details about what constitutes a conflict of interest, please see Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest. Thank you. [1] --Ronz 00:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Liberation of Paris

Hello Scott Adler! I've removed the tag you inserted into the aforementioned article. If you wish it to be reinstated, please present a rationale on the talk page of the article more substantive than: "This article is French nationalist propaganda". There are, indeed, fundamental problems with the article's prose and highly inappropriate qualifiers, but I'm averse to accepting this almost nonchalant dismissal of an entire article. Boldness, of course, is encouraged and I would urge you to constructively improve the article yourself or/and alert potentially interested editors at the WP:MILHIST project. SoLando (Talk) 15:29, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I certainly hope the aesthetics improve editors' moods. ;-) In all seriousness, I'm disinclined to agree with you that the integrity of the entire article has been compromised; however, from a cursory glance I acknowledge that there is a significant imbalance undoubtedly caused by the absence of objectivity exhibited by the primary editor (Paris By Night (talk · contribs). Your first example represents (IMHO) a superficial issue that can be promptly addressed without the insertion of innumerable tags. And from what I've ascertained from biographies of De Gaulle, the French president did indeed distrust AMGOT (?). But context is required. Is it not conceivable that the passage you contend insinuates "that Anglo-Americans intended to colonize France" is a product of an extremely flawed translation? I urge you to assume good faith, even though Paris By Night admittedly does appear to have such an intense, rigid interest in this article that he is hostile to those who do not comform to his own interpretation of history. Anyway, I'm prepared to obtain as many books from my local library to facilitate article improvement. That is unless an editor with a pre-existing knowledge of the Battle for Paris commits her/himself. I hope This reply is satisfactory. Regards. SoLando (Talk) 17:35, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
If Paris By Night resumes editing and engages in a campaign to eradicate all mention of US involvement pre-29 August, don't hesitate to pursue dispute resolution.

SoLando (Talk) 17:41, 26 August 2007 (UTC)