User talk:The Devil's Advocate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Sign your posts!
Hey. In the future, whenever you add a post to a talk page, please sign your post. Read WP:SIGNATURE for more on this, but basically, all you have to do is add four tildes (~~~~) after the comment. There's also a button in the toolbar above the edit box that will insert this. Thanks. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 02:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Identity check
Hiya, I hope you don't mind my asking, but are you also User:Kazvorpal? --Elonka 09:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- No, I am not. --The Devil's Advocate 17:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Deletion of material from Talk:Moneybomb
It is not acceptable to remove material from an article's talk page, except in an extremely limited set of circumstances. Your deletions constituted a violation of our norms of civility. Please refrain from such actions in the future. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Moneybomb
I undeleted it. However, if the POV is not corrected it will end up at AFD again. --Coredesat 22:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Please do not add content without citing reliable sources, as you did to Moneybomb. Before making potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources please take this opportunity to add your original reference to the article. Contact me if you need assistance adding references. Thank you. --Elonka 07:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Just wanted to give you a heads-up that I've listed Moneybomb for RfC. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 16:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] moneybomb criticism section
I think you are wrong. The section may need some tweeking. But it brings to light the effectiveness of the concept/idea/mediation of a moneybomb. (The media coverage) As well their was only one direct recreance to Paul. If there is a section you object to like the polls remove it and leave the section. --So what you are effectively saying it is OK to criticize the supporters for choosing a date for a moneybomb but not the media coverage or the lack their off. What kind of bias is that? The point is fundamental to the origins of moneybombs to buy publicity. The section could also show the huge gap between the internet publicity and mainstreem media. --Duchamps comb (talk) 19:28, 23 December 2007 (UTC)duchamps_comb
OK I am not arguing about the section I put together not being all quotes it was. So maybe some of you smart(er) folks than me can come up with something. My belief is the section is Needed, it does not have to be what I put in there. As well the one recreance you mention from the New Your Times said" The revolution, it seems, will be televised. Or at least streamed live over the Web." the revolution (Ron Paul supporters) So I changed it to, "The money bomb, it seems, will be televised. Or at least streamed live over the Web." to keep bias down. Some of my refrences would work for someone, NY times, Washington Post, Los Angelas Times--Duchamps comb (talk) 19:47, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] 2008 wars of independence
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article 2008 wars of independence, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of 2008 wars of independence. Sandstein (talk) 14:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] AfD nomination of Potential military conflicts resulting from the Kosovo precedent
An article that you have been involved in editing, Potential military conflicts resulting from the Kosovo precedent, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2008 wars of independence. Thank you. Sandstein (talk) 17:03, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] AfD nomination of 2008 wars of independence
An editor has nominated 2008 wars of independence, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2008 wars of independence and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 17:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] G. Edward Griffin
Guy, if you had actual reliable sources, you should have actually cited them: citations from The International Journal of Because-I-Said-So don't count, and it was these unfulfilled promises of reliable sources Real Soon Now that prompted the second AFD. --Calton | Talk 12:49, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Reality check #1: "look it up yourself" is NOT an actual reference. --Calton | Talk 23:38, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Except one of these sources mentions him winning a Telly Award which goes directly to his notability
Reality check #2: not even close. He could proclaim anything he pleases about his notability in a self-published source, which means it's not a verifiable statement -- pretty much the entire point of excluding them as indicators of notability. Did you know I'm an Emmy Award winner? Let me go create a Blogspot blog attesting to that, and I'll be getting my own article soon. --Calton | Talk 23:43, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Poll
If you weren't so naive you'd know why it was removed, see the talk page for gods sakes. Rodrigue (talk) 18:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Poll
As I said in other comments, the legitimate reason is that this was not a land-line phone poll, as traditionally conducted, like most if not all other polls on the page.
The link says the methodology was from American Consumer Opinion [1], which does online-paid surveys.reason enough I think. Rodrigue (talk) 19:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Thanks for Caring
So do you want a copy of the article so you can improve it? --David Fuchs (talk) 00:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I thank you for your many contributions to the hotly-disputed Kosovo issues. Your last change for the intro to "Kosovo", obviously, is far more neutral than the previous version. Thanks.Gkmx (talk) 03:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] North American Union
Just wanted to let you know that I reverted your deletion [2] of text and citations from the North American Union article. While I recognize and sympathize the fact that you do not feel the article is very accurate, Wikipedia's core content policy Verifiability is very clear that "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." As such, it is entirely appropriate that the article reflect the fact that virtually all reliable, third-party, published sources view "the NAU threat" as being a conspiracy theory or urban legend (as evidenced in articles such as "The amero conspiracy" in the International Herald Tribune, "Urban legend of "North American Union" feeds on fears" in The Seattle Times, "Highway to Hell?" in Newsweek, and "Diverted by jelly-beans" in The Economist). As much as I appreciate your efforts to improve this article (which I genuinely feel you have done), deleting properly sourced content that is cited to a reliable source is, at best, highly irregular and really looks like POV-pushing. --Kralizec! (talk) 21:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Section
what your implying isn't even true, but don't know where your going with it.Anyway, unless you think its wrong I'm just going to remove the section, don't see the point. Rodrigue (talk) 00:02, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Re:Section
I suppose now your calling me a racist??.If anything the opposite of what your saying is true,but the only polls that were seemingly outlier showed him ahead, which is the ones I pointed out.Oh, and was hillary also not born within the contigious US?.[3], it questions his candidacy the same way john mccain was born in panama.
But I suppose your already made up about your judjement of me, so nevermind. Rodrigue (talk) 15:13, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Well I don't even support Hillary anyway, but I guess I see where your coming from with your POV theories.Though your views seem obvious. Rodrigue (talk) 20:12, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Serbia is irrelevant
Anyways dude, who cares about Serbia, they are irrelevant. Kosovo is independent, and neither you nor Serbia will change it. Bosniak (talk) 02:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Dear Devils A, I hope you will get over it, before commiting suicide, so dear Devils A., get help, please, I am really worried about you. --Tubesship (talk) 07:01, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Assassination of Raul Reyes
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Assassination of Raul Reyes, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Assassination of Raul Reyes. bd_ (talk) 04:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Re: Page Source
I've userfied it to one of my subpages. Enjoy! Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 13:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Might be interested..
...in this. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 12:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- Why do you think it's OR?
- Also not all are pro-Serb - I'm also working on the UN Charter's support of self-determination, but since you did this, I'm no longer sure where/how to add it..? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 23:01, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- Also I think a lot of data is missing - including the very crucial UNSCR 1160 and the Contact Group statements. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 23:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- That wasn't my intention. Secession of indeed is legally hampered, so even the very best neutral whole article on the question, would be pro-Serbian; that has little to do with myself as a person.
- Well then what should I do? End my quest (see the second sentence in my previous post)? ;) --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 23:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Re: Serbian reaction...
Greets. Relplied on my talk page for others' sake (to keep the info in one place). --Mareklug talk 03:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] You're right, I was naive
I was actually retarded to be blunt. I thought all these editors agreed with my idea to merge to achieve NPOV not their twisted and biased POV. What can we do now? Beam (talk) 01:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] AfD nomination of Trevor Lyman
An article that you have been involved in editing, Trevor Lyman, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trevor Lyman. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice?
[edit] Assembly of Kosovo
Hm, turned out you were right. The SRS, SPS, DSS, G17+ and DS political leaders in Kosovo made an agreement and scheduled for 15 June 2008.
The Assembly of the Serbian People of Kosovo and Metohija shall have 45 Deputies. 43 are elected by municipal parliaments, while the remaining two are reserved one for Romani and the other for the Slavic Muslim minority. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 02:25, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] 2008 Georgia-Russia crisis
I have nominated the above article for deletion. Feel free to add your comments about the article here. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 00:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
