User talk:Arnabdas

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Re: Bill O'Reilly politics 2 REDIRECT 3 Unsourced claims 4 New York Times edit 5 Your edit to The International Aloe Science Council 5.1 Message posted on Saturday, April 28, 2007 6 Mediation 7 Unaware of Copyright Violation 8 Talk:Movement to impeach George W. Bush 9 List of Georgia Institute of Technology alumni 10 VíaVienté 11 AfD nomination of The Townsend Letter 12 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:69.249.195.232 13 ViaViente 14 Edwards political positions 15 It was all Bill clintons fault 16 Re: Your question/Impotence 17 Batman Begins 18 Bill Clinton 19 Bill O'Reilly on Bill Moyers 20 Bill Moyers 21 RFC 22 RFC discussion of User:Nescio 23 New York City Meetup 24 Neutrality tag on marriage websites 25 NPOV Warning 26 Wikipedia official policy re: vandalism 27 November 2007 28 Vandalism question 29 Advice 30 NPOV Warning #3 31 Final Warning 32 AfD again 33 discredit 34 More on Blaxthos and Wikipedia in General 35 Tell 36 You're invited! 37 Warnings (again) 38 About MEDCAB 39 Reversion of edits by User:68.40.200.77 to your talk page 40 Re: Patriots 41 Thanks for your editing data! 42 New mailing list 43 You are invited! 44 RE: NYCDOC 45 NewsMax 46 POV Pushing 47 Accusations 48 Notes about your edits 49 Barack Obama Endorsements article 50 May 2008 51 NYC Meetup: June 1, 2008 52 Personal attacks

[edit] Re: Bill O'Reilly politics

Well, since you asked: the article is pretty heavy on "weasel words" such as "he feels that", "he thinks that", and "what he percieves to be". While I'm sure you intended this to be a neutral article, language like this gives the impression that you're trying to pass your own beliefs onto someone else. While we're at it, this article doesn't really even need to exist; his political philosophy is covered in the main Bill O'Reilly article, and it doesn't make much sense to have one on his beliefs without similar articles on every other media personality. Treybien 15:11 24 September 2007 (UTC) Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Politics of Bill O'Reilly. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, biography of living people and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimintheatl (talk • contribs) 02:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] REDIRECT

Hi - for some reason you seem to be inserting #REDIRECT into articles. I don't know if you think that is needed to make wikilinks work, but it is not.

Please edit your changes to North American Bengali Conference to remove these. (I have reverted your other November 1 changes, so fixing them is not needed.) If you have any questions, please check Help:Contents or post something on my talk page. Thanks. John Broughton | Talk 13:25, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unsourced claims

You added this to the Vito Fossella article: Despite this, many Democrats have praised Vito Fossella for his bi-partisan work reaching out across the aisle. I have reverted that.

I've also reverted all your changes to the article on Fosella's opponent, Steve Harrison, for the same reasons - the text you added lacked sources, and negative information in particular (such as an assertion about raising taxes) MUST be sourced per WP:BLP.

Please do not add unsourced statements that clearly take a political side. Without a source, such statements are a violation of WP:NPOV and/or WP:NOR. With sources, others are able to check, per WP:V, to make sure that the wikipedia article has a correct reporting of what was in the published source.

Thanks. John Broughton | Talk 21:53, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi John. I just wanted to say that I put those up because they were claims by Harrison at a debate in October before the election but there was no transcript to be linked to.

As for the "Fossella working with Democrats" point, I listed it because I saw a piece of literature that had Congressman Anthony Weiner (D-NY) who said Vito works across the aisle often or something along those lines.

Sorry for the trouble. Just trying to report to the best of my abilities.-Arnab

No problem - wikipedia is a learning experience. For example, for Weiner, something like In his campaign literature, Fossella quoted Congressman Anthony Weiner as saying that Fossella "often works across the aisle". would probably be okay. ("Probably" because campaign literature is problematical - per WP:VS, a source should be something that ANY editor, in theory, could verify.) In other words, that Fossella said this is verifiable; that Weiner said this is less verifiable (but you might find a source); that "Democrats" say this is too loose a sentence (two Democrats? Most Democrats in Congress? A lot of Democrats in Fossella's district?). John Broughton | Talk 01:13, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New York Times edit

Hi, Arnabdas, The removal of the NY Times text was based on the disparity in significance between it and the other controversies already mentioned in the article (e.g. Jason Blair, Judith Miller, etc) I don't know the factual basis for the statement quoted from the Times editorial, but even if they got the fact wrong, it doesn't demonstrate a pattern of intentional misrepresentation, and a one-sentence error in an editorial isn't really large enough in significance to cover in an encyclopedia article. Covering too much minutia can actually detract from the overall goal of clearly focusing on the most important issues. RickDC 21:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The editorial example you cited doesn't fit in the context of the article, which is about allegations of bias in news articles. The two domains--news and editorial-- of the Times (or almost any paper) are totally separate. Citing bias or even an error in the editorial page doesn't belong in a discussion of the paper's news coverage. RickDC 19:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Bold text

[edit] Your edit to The International Aloe Science Council

[edit] Message posted on Saturday, April 28, 2007

Please do not post copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder, as you did to The International Aloe Science Council. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites (http://www.iasc.org/overview.html in this case) or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) then you should do one of the following:

• If you have permission from the author leave a message explaining the details on the article Talk page and send an email with the message to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
• If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted under the GFDL or released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:The International Aloe Science Council with a link to where we can find that note;
• If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the GFDL, and note that you have done so on the article Talk page. Alternatively, you may create a note on your web page releasing the work under the GFDL and then leave a note at Talk:The International Aloe Science Council with a link to the details.

Otherwise, you are encouraged to rewrite this article in your own words to avoid any copyright infringement. After you do so, you should place a {{hangon}} tag on the article page and leave a note at Talk:The International Aloe Science Council saying you have done so. An administrator will review the new content before taking action.

It is also important that all Wikipedia articles have an encyclopedic tone and follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Your original contributions are welcome.

Rkitko ^(talk) 16:51, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation

Hello,

Recently, the Mediation Cabal received a request for mediation on the article about impeaching George Bush. However, User:Nescio believes that your lack of response to an argument indicates that yu are in agreement nd no mediation is needed. Is this correct?

No that is not correct. I just simply have not had time to log in to wiki. Nescio obviously is obssessed with the article. I was just pointing out that he does not have the best interests of putting out the truth.Arnabdas 20:09, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unaware of Copyright Violation

I am sorry about the copyright violation. I wasn't trying to pass off the site as my own work at any time. What had happened was that I wanted to make a page for it and then come back to it later. I lost track of it and later on, well after I had put up the article, I read that it was a copyright violation to put up pages when they directly reference a website. I honestly completely forgot and swear it was not intentional. You will see that since the last week or two, since I read the policy, I didnt quote directly from the website. Again, I am sorry, didn't mean to pass it on as my own work. I hope that I don't get penalized for this...I plead ignorance and hope I may be exonerated and am requesting info on how I may be.Arnabdas 21:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

That's ok. It was deleted per our copyright violation policy. Pretty much any text you come across is copyrighted unless it specifically says otherwise. Operate under that assumption and don't copy and paste text into a Wikipedia article and you'll do fine. Review WP:COPYVIO for more information. Instead of copying and pasting, use your own words to describe the organization. Draw from several sources. Ask the essential questions: Who, what, when, where, why? Then find sources to answer those and then reference them when paraphrasing. If you have any further questions, ask me on my talk page. If you'd like, you could also check out WP:ADOPT and have an experienced editor "adopt" you and answer your questions as you come to understand our policy. It may seem overwhelming at first, I know, but you'll get the hang of it! Best, --Rkitko ^(talk) 05:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Movement to impeach George W. Bush

With regards to your comments on Talk:Movement to impeach George W. Bush: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. [1] --Ronz 21:38, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

He purposely distorted what I was saying and keeps on doing it. He refuses to answer the question and instead just labels me as "right wing" just because I want fair reportage. I consider the label right wing as offensive to me because I am not that at all.Arnabdas 21:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Rather than inflame the situation, why not follow any one of the many alternatives listed in WP:CIVIL for dealing with incivility? --Ronz 22:24, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand why you aren't after him for personal attacks and instead after me.Arnabdas 18:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Georgia Institute of Technology alumni

Do you have a reference that says that Kevin Lomax went to Georgia Tech? —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 23:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] VíaVienté

A "{{prod}}" template has been added to the article VíaVienté, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but yours may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest 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. THF 13:49, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the tag and submitted my reasons on the talk page of the article. Arnabdas 15:46, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of The Townsend Letter

I've nominated The Townsend Letter, an article you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but in this particular case I do not feel that The Townsend Letter satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion; I have explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Townsend Letter and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of The Townsend Letter during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. THF 15:35, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion pages, as you did with VíaVienté. Doing so won't stop the discussion from taking place. You are, however, welcome to comment about the proposed deletion on the appropriate page. Thank you. --Finngall ^talk 16:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

The message saying it was permissible to remove the tag was in reference to the earlier proposed deletion tag. After you removed the {{prod}} tag a few days ago, the article was nominated for deletion under the more formal Articles for Deletion process, which provides for a fuller discussion among multiple editors to come to a consensus on whether the article should be kept, deleted, merged or redirected. This discussion happens on a separate page (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/VíaVienté), which any editor, yourself included, is welcome to contribute to. The newer AfD tag should never be removed by anyone until the discussion is closed. Removing the tag does not close the discussion and is considered to be vandalism. Feel free to put forth you arguments in favor of keeping the article, but do not remove the tag again. Thanks. --Finngall ^talk 16:49, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:69.249.195.232

I saw that you reverted some of this user's changes. Over in Media bias in the United States, I too had some cleanup to do. He seems to have a habit of making edits that clearly reveal his bias. After all the warnings he's got, do you think it's time to report him? 171.71.37.103 23:22, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ViaViente

Because I know the article may be able to be improved, I have userfied the article into your userspace here. I'll make some edits myself to improve the article so it doesn't look so spammy. Gather all of the sources available. Sr13 20:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I've taken some thought, and I retract. The subject simply isn't notable enough, and the article would have to be stripped to nothing in order to remove all of the pormotional material. All of the sources possible for this product are simply promoting the company, and lack anything usable. There's not much you can do to revive the article, so I'll resort to deleting. Don't let this issue bother you too much. Sr13 20:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, shoot. Tell me when you finish with the sourcing so I can take a look at it. Sr13 21:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

No, I replaced it...User:Arnabdas/ViaViente. Sr13 21:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

You know what? I believe there's enough sourcing to prove that this product is notable. Find all of the sources, and I can cleanup the article afterward (looks really spammy right now). Sr13 07:16, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edwards political positions

In re this: I waited for your response at talk before removing the text, and since no response was forthcoming, I removed it, only to have you add it back again without explanation. Please respond to my comments at the talk page. Do not, however, simply continue to add the information without responding at the talk page. That is known as edit warring. Thank you. · jersyko talk 20:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] It was all Bill clintons fault

The main purpose of this film is to blame Bill Clinton for 9/11 that he was responsible for the taliban in afgahastan, i did see a documentary on UK's C4 before 9/11 & it did place some of the blame for the rise of the taliban at his door step he was asked by several goverments & free afgahans who wish US backing to fight the taliban which would not have cost any US soldger his life, but Clinton said no. but i would like to point out that 9/11 did happen on Bush's watch so he has to at least accept 95% of the blame.

Yours Grimm MD

This is completely untrue. After watching the movie several times I never heard anyone, even Coulter, say that it was Clinton's fault. They just pointed out several slanderous lies that Michael Moron, I mean Moore, tried to pass off as "fact" such as the oil pipeline in Afghanistan being Bush's brainchild. It turned out that particular project had links to the Clinton Administration. The point wasn't to slam Clinton per say, but to rebutt the lies and half truths that Moore had released.Arnabdas 19:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

After watching the movie several times did you miss the part where Dick Morris who worked for Clinton says "The guy(Bush) deserves 8 months of blame" "But clinton deserves 8 years of blame" "The guy was just not active just not there on the war on terror" he also says later "in 1996 (when clinton was in office)bin laden was in the sudan in africa & the sudanesse were on our terror list & they went to the US & said where should we send him? The US could have said to us clearly could have said that & didn't" "The best shot we had to get him (Bin Laden) was in 1999 when we had hard intelligence not just rumors that he was gonna be in Qandahar for 5 days & 5 nights Clinton pulled the plug or Berger pulled the plug" "someone has to explain that no one took this seriously before George Bush on 9/11" "i hold clinton very responsible for the failures on aircraft saftey"

Ann Coulter said "this has been a relentless attack on ameriKa for 20 years. It didn't start with 9/11 that was the most spectacular attack"

In the Caryle group part the are three guys on the group who all worked for clinton.

Maybe you have some kind of bladder weakness which prevented you from seeing this film all the way though, now please rewatch this film again & pay attention this time. Yours Grimm MD

[edit] Re: Your question/Impotence

I deleted some of the content because they were purely promotional. Again, I did the best I could on the article, but if the article doesn't meet guidelines, then what can I say? I've commented on the AfD. Sr13 21:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC) It will be Ok if you talk to a professional. Jimintheatl (talk) 01:53, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Batman Begins

We don't need a section on The Dark Knight when it has its own article. Alientraveller 15:37, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

It's already linked in the lead and infobox. Alientraveller 09:32, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bill Clinton

Hi, sorry I didnt write an adequate enough edit summary. The comments were not removed due to vandalism. The information is valid and as such is present at Foreign policy of the Clinton Administration in greater detail than the Bill Clinton article. Since the information about his comments were not directly related to Clinton they have been moved to an article with more relevance about the subject matter, in line with discussions at the peer review and with suggestions from Wikipedia:Article size. LordHarris 15:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bill O'Reilly on Bill Moyers

BOR attacks or smears someone every single night on his program. If WP had to carry reportage of every accusation and disagreement he has, the encyclopedia would be 90% BOR's thoughts and hatreds. So notable? No. There is also the matter of WP:WEIGHT. To put two paragraphs into that small article based on BOR's questionable interpretations and on-the-run questioning (with gotchas) of Moyers, is simply wrong. Skopp (Talk) 22:50, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bill Moyers

Since you weighed in earlier in the debate regarding the exchange between Moyers and O'Reilly, I'd appreciate your input here. —AldeBaer 08:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RFC

Would you support an RFC for User:Nescio POV-pushing? You might not remember him, but on May 14th you said to him, "Once again IGNORING the fact that your crusade to impeach Bush and provide a one-sided POV without giving background information..." Isaac Pankonin 01:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RFC discussion of User:Nescio

A request for comments has been filed concerning the conduct of Nescio (talk · contribs). You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Nescio. -- Isaac Pankonin 10:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New York City Meetup

New York City Meetup Next: Saturday November 3rd, Brooklyn Museum area Last: 8/12/2007 This box: view • talk • edit

The agenda for the next meetup includes the formation of a Wikimedia New York City local chapter. Hope to see you there! --Pharos 19:55, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality tag on marriage websites

Hi Arnabdas, back in August you tagged a section on the marriage websites article, but didn't detail your concerns on the talk page. I'm not clear on what's wrong with it (I mean, it's not a great article, but I'm not clear on what the POV issues might be). Could you take a look and comment on the discussion I started? Thanks -- SiobhanHansa 02:01, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV Warning

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to CNN controversies. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. /Blaxthos 03:50, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your reply:

I later rewrote the Media Matters comment to say they go after points of view that are not liberal ... saying that MM attacks people and whom are not liberal is a fair statement."

That's not how it works. That is your opinion; adding it to the article is a violation of both synthesis rules and our neutral point of view policy. Please take the time to read both, and please stop with the ad hominem attacks and rhetoric. Instead of showing up without a clue as to how things work joining as a new user less than two months ago, adding POV commentary and analysis to articles, and then making accusations of Wikipedia being a "liberal magazine" and being victim of "abuses of power" because your opinion isn't allowed in an article, go read our policies and guidelines. Thanks. /Blaxthos 23:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Based on your own userpage, your bias is obviously transparent as I am not the only one who agrees with it. Still, with that said, when I added back in the MM reference in a modified version, it was a good faith effort to be NPOV. You giving me a formal warning like this makes your bias look outright blatant. This is an encyclopedia, not YOUR opinion journal. Arnabdas 21:38, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia official policy re: vandalism

Because of your obvious confusion as to what wikipedia defines as vandalism, I am helpfully providing you with the link to the official policy: Wikipedia:Vandalism. Please read it and try to comprehend it before hurling any additional accusations against other editors, as you did on the CNN controversies talk page. Thank you.-Hal Raglan 01:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] November 2007

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Politics of Bill O'Reilly‎. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. /Blaxthos 23:57, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Arnabdas has placed a similar tag on Blaxthos's talk page, apparently in response to this tag. It is my suggestion that an RfC on user conduct be filed or the matter be taken to ANI if some sort of compromise cannot be reached. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 17:54, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism question

In response to your query, wikipedia's definition of vandalism is pretty clear: "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. The most common types of vandalism include the addition of obscenities or crude humor, page blanking, or the insertion of nonsense into articles. Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Even harmful edits that are not explicitly made in bad faith are not considered vandalism. For example, adding a personal opinion to an article once is not vandalism — it's just not helpful, and should be removed or restated." I'm not exactly sure what sparked your question, but, based on the above, adding blatantly POV material to an article is not generally considered vandalism unless it is done repeatedly -- notice the guidelines state that adding personal opinion once to an article is not vandalism. If someone is accusing you of POV-pushing, and you believe your edits are acceptable, I would open up a dialogue on the other editor's talk page and see what happens. Refusing to engage in a dialogue with another editor is not "abuse" but it is certainly unhelpful.-Hal Raglan (talk) 18:20, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

To avoid edit warring, in the case of "disputed" edits its always best to discuss issues on an article's talk page, or to initiate a direct dialogue on the editor's page. You have since added a comment/question on the talk page of the article, which shows your willingness to start addressing the perceived problems. In the case of the Politics of Bill O'Reilly page, I do have to say that you've been editing on wikipedia long enough now to understand that the changes you made clearly have some POV issues. I see nothing wrong with Blaxthos' comment on your page, certainly nothing abusive. I would suggest you remove the imitative response you left on Blaxthos' page, which seems to have been done simply as a bad faith retaliatory measure against another editor who questioned your edits. Doing so is strictly up to you, but it would help further indicate that you are in fact trying to resolve the issue in a civil manner.-Hal Raglan (talk) 19:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Advice

My best advice about dispute resolution is to keep your head. If somebody treats you unfairly, don't respond in kind. Stick to the WP:DR process. Try to keep comparisons with Hitler to a minimum. Always try to assume good faith, although I must admit that posting a warning on your talk page was a shabby thing to do. I would have just deleted it instead of posting one back on his page. Removing things from your talk page is perfectly fine as long as it's not an official notice from an admin (see WP:BLANKING), and I've never seen a notice for NPOV before. I don't think it's appropriate. If you've found a reliable source that says what you're trying to say, stick to your guns and go up the dispute resolution process. If you don't have a source, you need to either find one or rethink your strategy.

Before you do anything else, I would remove his warnings from your talk page and strike your post like this where you did the same thing on his page. -- I. Pankonin (t/c) 05:34, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV Warning #3

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did to Politics of Bill O'Reilly, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. If you continue to push your point of view or falsely apply any more warnings in bad faith I will file a full WP:RFC on your conduct. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 08:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I have only reverted edits because you did not address the issue on the article's talk page. I am all for having civil discussion with this, so why dont you just address it there instead of giving me ridiculous warnings on my page. Unfortunately, your actions thus far have warranted your own POV pushing and I warn you now that further POV pushing and unwarranted warnings on your part will cause a RFC to be filed on my part on you. Arnabdas (talk) 17:50, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Final Warning

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, as you did to Politics of Bill O'Reilly, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. You may find a clear discussion of the issue and why your edits are disruptive and unacceptable here. Please note that many editors have reverted your repeatedly disruptive edits on several articles. You may find other uninvolved editors specifically admonishing your behavior here, here, here, and here. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:41, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Please stop being deceptive. Nobody has "admonished" me. Disagreed, yes, but not admonished. Your conduct has been reprehensible and your bias blatant. You will not be allowed to insert your POV into articles. Wikipedia is not your own personal journal. Arnabdas (talk) 17:41, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD again

I again nominated your article. I did not notice that you put it back into mainspace without a DRV. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/VíaVienté (3rd nomination). Cool Hand Luke 01:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I didn't work to improve the article because I believe that no sources establishing notability exist. I did make a good faith look on news databases, and only came up with sources already cited in the article. Like the AfD majority (for the third time), I don't think that an infomercial and a single advertorial-looking fluffy story establish notability. Cool Hand Luke 08:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] discredit

Because of the way I've seen wikipedia being ran, I want to purposely discredit the whole criticism page. I want to do this by finding a source somewhere that Bill is "controversial" on purpose. This is why I think he says the things that he says. About once a month it's a whole new, big thing that everybody is talking about. I heard somewhere that his ratings go up ( he even may have said this ) the more controversial things are, and what the topic is. So if you find anything, we can add it in to the criticisms page by saying that it's all an act, and the people that hate him are the ones that are making him. If we can find a source like that, They'll read it and weep. (I'm tired, I hope this made sense)RYNORT 04:33, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More on Blaxthos and Wikipedia in General

I first became acquainted with Wikipedia several years ago when I stumbled upon the Bill O'Reilly article. I was instantly OUTRAGED at how perniciously biased, slanted and outright poisonous Wikipedia's version of reality was. My involvement led me to a long journey into the dark underbelly of this LEFT WING CONTROLLED supposedly NPOV organization.

Having said that, I'm shocked at how much fairer the O'Reilly article is than the one I almost gagged on that fateful day.

However, I still get totally creeped out when I read the utter bullshit spewed by user Blaxthos.

He posts nonsense like: "considering your very first edit was blatant vandalistic POV-pushing, and your subsequent edits have almost all attempted to push a conservative agenda, I'm having trouble continuing to assume good faith that your intentions are to improve Wikipedia." or "your personal opinions are trumped by our policies and the consensus of other editors does nothing to advance your standing or validate your point."

Let me tell you what's REALLY going on.

A liberal cabal (or what Blaxthos calls 'other editors') HAS ABSOLUTE control over the content in Wikipedia.

What typically happens is a conservative will read an article, become JUSTIFIABLY outraged and change it to reflect less bias.

That's when the liberal cabal comes in and games the system.

It is transparently obvious and predictable.

First they accuse YOU of pushing a pov. That's hilarious. Then of course you're not assuming good faith. It's always thrown in there for good measure. If you still won't back down, they'll privately email each other and take turns reverting your legit edits and, if you counter edit, write you up for violating the 3r's rule.

All the while they are shamelessly accusing the conservative of pushing a political agenda or vandalizing an article. Then the threats begin. First they try to scare you by proposing they will file a WP:RFC and then it ramp up from there depending on how compliant you become.

It has happened to me and COUNTLESS OTHER CONSERVATIVE editors. Most just give up. Many are tried by wikidpedia in their trumped up DUNGEONS AND DRAGONS Kangaroo court where a conservative has as much a chance of a fair shot as a black man accused of molesting a white woman in alababma in 1922 does. lol!

Blaxthos is just following in the long Wikipedia tradition of SHUTTING DOWN dissent from their liberal ideology by GAMING the system. That's how they roll here.

Too bad everybody can see it for what it is, huh?

It's actually an interesting microcosm for how liberals wield their influence. They can't control the truth, (and wouldn't recognize truth if it french kissed them with a pierced tongue) but they sure as heck try to re-frame it. BTW, this is the EXACT way that 95% of newspapers and TV networks (Fox obviously excluded) 'manage' their news departments as well. The most hellish place I can remember visiting was the Editorial Staff room at The Michigan Daily. (lol) At least with Wikipedia you get to see what's under the rock. During this CHRISTmas season, we can be at least a little bit grateful for that.

At least for now...

[edit] Tell

This should be investigated more throughly. Anyone who looks at the site knows that it is NOT politically neutral. If they are to be posted on wikipedia, they should be mentioned as opinions or say that 'x according to media matters'. There should be more than one person looking at that as a reliable source. It is NOT a reliable source, they have, in the past, openly lied, like they did about that radio guy 'phony soldiers' thing. If an administrator says that media matters is as reliable of a source as say, BBC, than there is a serious problem. Contralya (talk) 12:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] You're invited!

...to the next New York City Meetup!

New York City Meetup Next: Sunday January 13th, Columbia University area Last: 11/3/2007 This box: view • talk • edit

In the morning, there are exciting plans for a behind-the-scenes guided tour of the American Museum of Natural History.

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to discussing meta:Wikimedia New York City issues (see the last meeting's minutes).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and (weather permitting) hold a late-night astronomy event at Columbia's telescopes.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Warnings (again)

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Political positions of John Edwards‎. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. We do not add "responses" to political positions on Wikipedia. Please also review WP:SYN. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 18:55, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Please assume good faith by talking about it on the discussion page before giving out warnings. Thank you. Arnabdas (talk) 17:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Then you should ask before making controversial changes. There is no good faith for someone who repeatedly tries to use Wikipedia to advance political views. This is now the second time you've done so; please stop. Thanks. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 16:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

As I stated on your talk page, there is nothing controversial about distinguishing where a person stands on the issues. I was sourcing everything. If you had a problem with the edit, next time, please discuss it on the talk page. Had I not addressed the issue in discussion on the article's talk page, you would have been justified in issuing the warning. Issuing a warning without talking about it is premature and confrontational on your part and sadly does not assume good faith. Arnabdas (talk) 17:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I can help explain:

1. You have exhausted your good faith by continuing to use Wikipedia to assert a particular point of view and violating WP:NPOV.
2. You try to change the rules of Wikipedia (of which you are sorely unfamiliar) without trying to first learn them and follow them.
3. You place improper warnings as retalliation for being warned of improper behavior.
4. You ignore the advice of other editors if it isn't what you hope to hear.
5. You routinely canvass for support.
6. You initiate libelous discussions about me / my conduct behind my back. Don't think I'm unaware simply because I don't respond. Also, please note that the people you associated with were all indefinitely blocked for gross incivility and disruptive behavior.
7. You distort the truth:. You continually claim that you were warned improperly -- this is simply incorrect. Your repeated actions earned you those warnings (and will continue to do so).
8. You make false claims: You continually say that I refused to explain things to you; I explained to you several times why your edits were improper, and you continued to insert them. Other editors also told you (in several places) why they were improper. Please remember that your proposed changes were thoroughly rejected by the community as a severe violation of WP:NPOV.
9. You make changes without regard for WP:CONSENSUS or other editors' input.
10. You claim that people won't discuss changes on the talk pages, yet you opened a mediation case WITHOUT notifying other parties and BEFORE you even attempted to find out the community consensus on the issue. Please note that several others have pointed out that the case was both premature and improper.

For those reasons (and others I've overlooked, I'm sure) I have very little respect for you or belief that you act in good faith. This will be the final notice -- continued behavior like that listed above will be met with RFC proceedings. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

As per your points

1. You accuse me of POV pushing. If that's the case, then why did I wind up AGREEING with you about putting up criticisms for Bill O'Reilly? I like a lot of his POV. If I was trying to only promote it, wouldn't I have objected to your wanting to put criticism of his particular POV?
2. When did I ever "change" any rules of wikipedia. I admit wholeheartedly I am not familiar with some rules. When they are pointed out to me, I adhere to them. Once again you made an accusation without merit and lacked an assumption of good faith on your part.
3. The retalliation was improper on YOUR part because YOU failed to discuss things in good faith. YOU failed to discuss the O'Reilly issue on the discussion page. When I went to revert your unexplained edits, YOU proceeded to place even more improper warnings. Further, as an act of good faith on my part, I later removed the warning from your page despite it being against my better judgement.
4. See above response
5. I did not know what canvassing was so I will look that up properly. I didn't seek out those users because of their POV. I sought them out because they seemed to be fair in understanding how to criticize under wiki rules. Again, not assuming good faith on your part.
6. I commented on your improper actions of prematurely warning without discussing the issues with me or properly explaining them.
7. The changes I made (with regards to the John Edwards page) WERE with consensus. People said that we should note it, but have a less partisan source. I agreed with that and made the change. You are the one who seems to be upset because the consensus went against your wishes, though I could be wrong.
8. You did NOT discuss the O'Reilly changes when I had asked you to discuss them but elected to instead, with hostility, give me warnings. I did not understand why you gave me warnings when I wanted to discuss it. The only explanation I could understand is you engaging in POV pushing. During the 2nd O'Reilly issue, we both agreed on an approach to the page. I had taken THAT framework and applied it to the John Edwards page, since both are POV pages of the two men. You had then just prematurely given me a warning on this issue without discussion, so I opened up mediation. There was nothing unreasonable on my part.

Look, I don't want to fight. I have better things to do with my time. I am more than willing to discuss things, but I ask that you please get your account of the story right and assume good faith because there were all reasonable explanations to your misinterpreted pereceptions of my intent. Hope that explains things. Arnabdas (talk) 16:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] About MEDCAB

WP:MEDCAB cannot create policy, as per your suggestion: "Would like to establish a uniform policy for all commentators and politicians with regards to their positions. Would like to have their positions, past and present, included as well as any criticism of his or her stance on the position itself (as opposed to criticism of the person or criticism of the policy in general)." While I personally agree that, in many cases, providing history on your political views (etc) is helpful, this particular article does not, imho, qualify for mediation between two editors. However, if you disagree, a revision history on the article's case page would be immensely helpful, by both you and /Blaxthos. Thank you! Xavexgoem (talk) 00:59, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Check out the Village Pump and ask around there about proposals. I'd recommend asking around first before putting it up as a proposal, or checking if the proposal has been made before and isn't currently archived (I'm almost sure it has). And remember, Assume Good Faith before all else! :) Xavexgoem (talk) 01:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

• I have opened Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-01-18 Political positions of John Edwards and together with User:MBisanz we are prepared to mediate if you are willing. Please see my comments at the case page. Thanks.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 05:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reversion of edits by User:68.40.200.77 to your talk page

I came across the IP user's edits by way of a discussion at ANI. The edits in question appeared to me to be obvious trolling and a personal attack (calling him "this Blaxthos douchebag" was completely unnecessary and crossed the line). I reverted the comments as a judgment call. As the IP seemingly stopped there, I held off on blocking/reporting it. The subsequent discussion at User talk:LessHeard vanU was more civil, so I left it at that.

Let me know if you have any further questions or concerns. Cheers, Caknuck (talk) 18:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh ok, yea, I didn't see the douchebag comment. That is inappropriate. Thanks for addressomg the issue as well as responding. Arnabdas (talk) 19:03, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Patriots

Not sure what you mean by a mediation "cabal." Mediation on Wikipedia is not an official process, but rather a set of guidelines to always follow in a content dispute. If needed, an administrator or mediator can be requested, but since I am an administrator myself, I think I can handle that. There was a discussion too - I'm not sure if you saw it. And having a discussion doesn't necessarily "freeze" editing the article. As long as they're not disruptive and continuous, reverts and edit summary discussion can be an acceptable approach. Pats1 ^T/C 21:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for your editing data!

You may be interested to know that your editing patterns have been used as a sort of baseline in a sock puppet investigation. I hope you don't mind. Cool Hand Luke 05:42, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New mailing list

There has been a mailing list created for Wikipedians in the New York metropolitan area (list: Wikimedia NYC). Please consider joining it! Cbrown1023 talk 20:40, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] You are invited!

New York City Meetup Next: Sunday March 16th, Columbia University area Last: 1/13/2008 This box: view • talk • edit

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, and have salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the last meeting's minutes).

Well also make preparations for our exciting Wikipedia Takes Manhattan event, a free content photography contest for Columbia University students planned for Friday March 28 (about 2 weeks after our meeting).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and (weather permitting) hold a late-night astronomy event at Columbia's telescopes.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

You're also invited to subscribe to the public Wikimedia New York City mailing list, which is a great way to receive timely updates.
This has been an automated delivery because you were on the invite list. BrownBot (talk) 02:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RE: NYCDOC

I have tinkered with it. To be honest as I am not on my usual PC I haven't been able to get really to grips with it at the moment, however there is a load of info on the main website's pages. I'm sure you can make a Good Article out of it :) SGGH ^speak! 18:14, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NewsMax

Hi Arnabdas. NewsMax has a poor record for fact-checking, particularly with regard to Senator Obama. See this and this, for example (which haven't been retracted as far as I know). There is also an argument that NewsMax is an "extremist source", but I don't even think one needs to go there considering the fact-checking issue (I would probably accept that it is no more extremist, however, than say the liberal The New Republic, but I would still prefer to use a more reliable source than either in a given article, especially one where BLP is a concern). As stated at WP:SOURCES, "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." NewsMax likely fails this criterion. · jersyko talk 14:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

That Media Matters labeled someone a "racist" seems clearly to be an opinion. Obviously, in so doing MM has moved out of the realm of journalism and into the realm of editorial, at least in that particular piece. Thus, it might be a reliable source for the statement "writers on the left have critized Bill O'Reiley for what they perceive to be racism," but not for the statement "Bill O'Reiley is a racist."

Regarding its reliability generally, it might depend on the situation. Media Matters is sometimes cited and relied upon by reliable sources regarding media criticism. Media Matters presents itself as a fact checking organization and not as a news organization. It clearly has an admitted bias. I would be very hesitant to rely on Media Matters as a source of underlying facts in an article where BLP is an issue. My first advice would be to always look for another source if there's a question about the one used. · jersyko talk 15:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] POV Pushing

I would tend to agree. He has been trying to insert the same material on the BOR page since it has been removed from the politics page. He also requested an editor assistance against me, so it would not take much for me to want to ask for admin assistance with his actions. Arzel (talk) 21:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Accusations

Please take time to consider your actions, especially regarding labeling opposing viewpoints as "refusing to respect consensus" and "POV pushing" (especially when consensus is not nearly as clear as you claim it to be). One could very easily say you do the exact same things, and you've certainly engaged in a gross amount of POV-pushing yourself... need I remind you of your repeated attempts to label organizations as "liberal" and shade the presentation of information? I believe you truly want to improve the encyclopedia, and for that I'm quite glad... it's good to ask for assistance when you don't know how to proceed (I do it often), but be careful how you say it. It looks more like a content dispute than a case of a POV warrior refusing to respect a clear consensus. This notice is not meant to be confrontational, insulting, or derogatory; it's simply a note to remind you that it may look different from a different viewpoint, and you don't want a reputation as one who canvasses or makes strawman arguments. Thanks. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:57, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Notes about your edits

Please be more accurate in the future in your edit summaries. For this edit, which deleted text plus a footnote, your edit summary was "cleanup reference". "Cleaning up a reference" normally means making a footnote look better, NOT removing it - and accompanying text -from an article.

Also, you seem to be under the impression that there has to be a link to an newspaper article in order to use it as a source. That is incorrect; WP:CITE says no such thing (consider, for example, using a book for a source). I have reverted this edit. (I did add a link, though it's only to part of the article; that seems the best available, but - again - it's not required.) -- John Broughton (♫♫) 17:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

John, thanks for your note of concern. I actually removed the first edit as per our discussion on the article's talk page. That was my intention with its removal in the previous edit. I said "clean up reference" with regards to the reference towards the reference I was including. Thanks for clarifying the issue about the linked source. I wasn't sure about it, so I removed it and left the message put it back in. Arnabdas (talk) 18:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

If you're deleting something per a discussion on an article talk page, the thing to do is say that in your edit summary - then other editors can check the page and look at the discussion. (I'm not sure what you mean by "our discussion" - I've not been involved in any discussion prior to the start of this one, but even if I had, there are always editors who haven't been involved and haven't a clue that such a discussion has taken place. Cross-referencing helps them out.) -- John Broughton (♫♫) 19:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I did here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Political_positions_of_John_McCain&diff=206040249&oldid=206037131 as you can read by my edit summary. The user posted the same statement multiple times in the article. Arnabdas (talk) 19:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Fine; please try to mention talk/discussion pages more consistently. And please try to retain useful information. In the edit you just mentioned, you deleted an entire paragraph with the apparent rationale that the paragraph began "McCain has no proposal to decrease the federal budget deficit nor to reduce the $9 trillion federal debt". It's certainly appropriate to delete an issue not raised in the media or by opponents - that's personal writing. But the rest of the paragraph was about budget proposals that he did make. (And again, if you removed the cited sources for some other reason, then you need to explain that in the edit summary.)

As an aside, you're incorrect if you think that if McCain has not come out in favor or against something, then the article should omit that topic. It should omit topics that aren't notable/newsworthy; including those is NPOV/NOR violations. But once the media starts covering a topic (say, for example, that the Democratic candidate for President starts criticizing McCain for having no position on alternative energy sources, or whatever), then McCain's position is essentially that he hasn't decided - and that is newsworthy. This article isn't a summary of McCain's platform, nor should it be limited to the topics that the McCain campaign would prefer it be restricted to.) -- John Broughton (♫♫) 21:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Reply found here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:John_Broughton#Re:_Notes_About_Your_Edit Arnabdas (talk) 15:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Barack Obama Endorsements article

It appears to me endorsements on this page only allowed if the Obama campaign agrees with them? Is this against the NPOV policy? Not listing a valid endorsement because the Obama campaign doesn't like the endorsement appears to me to be against the NPOV policy or am I missing something? Otherwise this is just a Obama campaign piece with no objectivity. It is me i think (talk) 21:24, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

It depends on whether this is just a list of of all endorsements and expressions of public support from notable individuals or a general article. If we start adding clarifications to all those needing clarification, it will no longer be a list, but rather an article. What is the direction, historically it appears to be a list.Is there a notable source showing Obama has rejected the Hamas endorsement? Also, has he accepted the Jane Fonda endorsement, her endorsement could be viewed as controversial. Also, what about the foreign endorsements in general, (leaders from Sweden, Holland, etc), have these been accepted from Obama, does this need to be mentioned? It is me i think (talk) 01:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] May 2008

Please do not attack other editors, which you did here: Talk:Criticism of Bill O'Reilly. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:33, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NYC Meetup: June 1, 2008

New York City Meetup Next: Sunday June 1st, Columbia University area Last: 3/16/2008 This box: view • talk • edit

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, elect a board of directors, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the last meeting's minutes).

We'll also review our recent Wikipedia Takes Manhattan event, and make preparations for our exciting successor Wiki Week bonanza, being planned with Columbia University students for September or October.

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and (weather permitting) hold a late-night astronomy event at Columbia's telescopes.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

Also, check out our regional US Wikimedia chapters blog Wiki Northeast (and we're open to guest posts).
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:21, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Personal attacks

Your words:

“

For those who want to sit behind a computer in their sexual frustration so they may seethe in their hatred of Bill O'Reilly[sic], there are plenty of anti-O'Reilly sites for them to peruse with.

”

Saying that dissenting editors "want to sit behind a computer in their sexual frustration so they may seethe in their hatred of Bill O'Reilly[sic]" is clearly a personal attack against those with whom you disagree and will not be tolerated. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:41, 2 June 2008 (UTC)