User talk:Smb/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Michael Moore controversies

Greetings! Just noticed that you rv'd the article back to yesterday's version... I'm assuming the rv of my categorization was merely collateral damage, so I've readded the categories. If I'm assuming incorrectly, please let me know :-) Thanks! RTucker 16:51, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I missed that. Please accept my apologies. smb 16:56, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

No worries! I just refreshed my article list and got a bit of deja vu *grin*. Happy editing! RTucker 17:02, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Sicko Controversies Merge

How is the merge thing supposed to work? Is consensus needed? I think putting it up for deletion might be a better option. What do you think? Turtlescrubber 18:57, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

No idea. Ha ha. I'm learning here all of the time. Will first take a look to see what information I can find on merging. If not, proposing deletion could be a better idea. smb 19:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I am going to start turning the controversies page into a more neutral article. That includes moving the real controversies onto the page and getting it ready for the time when there are actual controversies. Noroton of course owns the article so if you could keep an eye on things that would be great. He recently removed a fact tag I added. Owns the article indeed. Turtlescrubber 15:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

You're right. The merge proposal is going nowhere. I have about four Michael Moore pages on my watch list. It's an interesting case study. This man drives some people crazy. I intend to make a few changes myself, so I'll be getting involved pretty soon. smb 15:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, he seems to bring out the worst in people. However, I honestly don't see how people can't get past Moore and see the movie Sicko for what it is. It's not some partisan political device but instead a call for change against the american health care system. Who can't get behind that? Turtlescrubber 15:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Any thoughts on the impending merge? I started a section on the Sicko page for discussion. Turtlescrubber 16:29, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Controversies over the film Sicko

The piracy and treasury probe are not essentially controversies but have to do with the history of the film. I don't see those matters being treated as a controversy -- a public argument -- but rather as simple episodes in the history, the way they are written. If there were some argument back and forth I'd feel differently. Feel free to rewrite those sections and actually describe a controversy rather than events. And don't put them at the top of the article. It amounts to vandalism and looks like a bad-faith edit. Noroton 00:08, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

This discussion is continued on Noroton's talk page, where it began. smb 02:03, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Synopsis

Anything I say is going to be based on WP:MOSFILMS, so you might as well take a look at that. Don't worry about losing anything; we can always go into the page history and restore it. —Viriditas | Talk 00:56, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Short answer: we should be able to keep the synopsis between 600-900 words, no more, no less. Essential material can be branched off into other sections. —Viriditas | Talk 00:57, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. smb 23:15, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Violation of NPOV

The decision to merge flagrantly violated NPOV rules and therefore can't be allowed to stand. Your actions have shown you have absolutely no regard for NPOV, an extremely important Wikipedia principle and policy which I intend to protect, even as you try to tear it down. Noroton 00:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

You are flogging a dead horse. Criticism should never have been separated in the first place. The page you created had its own NPOV problems. A proposal to cut back and merge was agreed by nine editors to two [1]. Nothing today prevents you from making constructive edits on the main page. Kindly lower your sword. Thanks. smb 00:36, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

So consensus allows us to ignore NPOV? Have fun with that argument. Kindly follow Wikipedia standards. Not only is the controversies article staying, so is the link to it. Noroton 00:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Straw man. If a page has NPOV issues then editors are expected to come together, communicate, and agree to resolve them. You are presently operating outside of established norms. Consensus was reached that criticism remain on the main page and improvements be made. Displeased with the outcome you excluded yourself from this process, returning only yesterday, some eight weeks later, screaming injustice. It simply won't do. I ask politely that you not revert changes already agreed upon. smb 02:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

This was settled months ago and we were all part of the discussion. Where have you been Noroton? Having a bad week? Turtlescrubber 02:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Guess I hadn't noticed that you'd repealed WP:NPOV. That must've been fun for you both. Noroton 03:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Turtlescrubber and Noroton, please both try to adhere to WP:CIVIL. Even if the other guy is 100% wrong. THF 04:23, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

August 2007

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Sicko. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. THF 19:54, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

I have reported you and ILike2BeAnonymous for vandalism. Heqwm 02:21, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/THF-DavidShankBone

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/THF-DavidShankBone. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/THF-DavidShankBone/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/THF-DavidShankBone/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon (t) 18:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Ahmadinejad

It's important to allow each person to examine the evidence and make their own mind up

I agree. And thanks for working so hard yourself to preserve NPOV on that page, I know how much it sucks to find yourself a lone voice on some of the more contentious pages :) Gatoclass 07:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Armon appears to have conceded at the talk page, so I guess you might as well remove the RFC sticker - especially since it wasn't working anyhow ;) Gatoclass 09:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

WMD article

You should get a few more citations in the article and then we can nominate it for GA status! Judgesurreal777 17:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to expand it. I'll carry on later. :) smb 18:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Legality of the Iraq War

You are correct, my edit ":If you argue that there is some legal proceeding that found the war illegal, (or might do so) post your citation. Otherwise, please desist saying that there is. If you will just state that the losing side is still bitter, you will then state the truth. Denial is not a river in Africa ... does violate the NPOV standard. Thank you for your correction. "Denial is not a river in Africa ..." went over the line. Asking for citations did not, don't you get tired of the people who pretend that the Iraq war is illegal, but cannot cite the court or case that found this? If it were illegal, there would have been some decision after all these years... Raggz 12:12, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I do not understand a word of that. smb 12:43, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Editor review

Hi. For info, I've posted this [2] on [the aforementioned] talk page. --Nickhh 12:26, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Noted. Ta. smb 13:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Something about Noam Chomsky

Sorry, I've tried to figure out what you are saying but it's all colourless green ideas to me. All I did with the Criticism article was add a to do list stating some obvious things that need doing. Regarding expanding, the tiny lead and non-existent "Criticisms of Chomsky's propaganda model" sections need the most work. If you could clarify what you meant on my talk page, please do so. Richard001 06:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Iraq disarmament crisis

Now that you mention it, that article is very incomplete. It does not include many of the other statement made by those countries previous to the disarmament crisis. That article needs some serious beefing up. Also, there is no mention of how most of the nations opposing the US invasion were paid off in oil from Saddam. Judgesurreal777 22:17, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Michael Moore

Hi, I hope you don't think I was intentionally trying to misrepresent his views with my edit, I am genuinely interested - do you know a source more recent than that quote where he clarifies his views? Corleonebrother 23:11, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Iraq War

Hi there. Nice to meet you, and I look forward to working with you on the Iraq War article. As you have noticed, I changed the page to try to get rid of some of the POV in the article. Now I happen to feel that the war is just and legal, and although it hasn't been going too well, it is starting to turn around. I have to try to keep my POV out of the article as well (and it is hard).

First off, I got the feeling just from reading the image captions that the article seemed to be biased against the United States and coalition forces (examples: "Iraqi soldier killed in April 2003 by US Marines"; "American medic tends to some minor injuries after two car bombs exploded Nov. 18, 2005 near a residential area in Baghdad." ; "An Iraqi woman looks on as U.S. soldiers search the courtyard of her house during a cordon and search in Ameriyah, Iraq. House searches by U.S. soldiers are a common occurrence in the Iraq war.")

The first one I listed there seems to be typical of the page: Americans killing people. I changed it to "Iraqi soldier killed in April 2003 while defending a bridge; US marines can be seen in the background" which I feel is much more NPOV. The second one I gave is somewhat-POV but not entirely. It says that an American is treating someone. What it fails to mention is that that American is a soldier, so I changed it to read: "A US soldier-paramedic tends to some injuries after two car bombs exploded November 18, 2005 near a residential area in Baghdad". It seems to eliminate POV, but is a little structurally akward. Thirdly, a very POV statement is given. I changed it to: "An Iraqi woman looks on as U.S. soldiers search the courtyard of her house during a cordon and search in Ameriyah, Iraq. House searches are a common occurrence in the Iraq war as militants take cover in houses." You reverted it and I'm curious to know why. This is basically what it implies: US soldiers are raiding her house and have kicked her out (because she's sitting on the side of the road). Now in my alteration, it shows that the soldiers aren't just invading her home, but they are searching for any militants that could be hiding in there (as this article can back up). Plus, it's not just the US that searches possible terrorist strongholds (see here).

Also, many of the section headings themselves seem to be negative: "worsening humanitarian crisis" ; "human rights abuses" - these can all be combined into a "criticism" section which should be moved into the "opinions" section. Again, I am willing to do much of this.

Anyway, please get back to me. I will comment on some of my other changes as I make them. I look forward to working with you! Thanks, Happyme22 (talk) 00:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

As I've stated on the Iraq War talk page, I'm not up for a big argument with editors about POV and so forth. So just forget my query for now. Thanks. Happyme22 (talk) 23:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I intend to respond when I have more time. Prioritising my limited time right now. Hope you understand. smb 23:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Indenting

Hi, I don't want this to come across the wrong way, but I just wanted to check that you know how indenting talk page comments works. I noticed you unindented a comment so the that User:RoyalBlueStuey appeared to be replying to User:Barryob, when he was replying to your comment. When someone replies to a comment it is given one extra indent. I hope I haven't just been stating the obvious. John Hayes^talk 22:15, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that. smb (talk) 23:35, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi

Please see my comment at Talk:Mohammed Mosaddeq, and share your input. --CreazySuit (talk) 10:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Scott Ritter article

Hi - you reverted my change and I (without intent to edit war) restored and added a comment to the talk page. I think we're on the same side, which is to stick to the sources and keep it simple...If you revert again or edit I will not mind or change it a second time. Thanks, Wikidemo (talk) 23:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for this. I should have proposed/taken a corrective measure rather than revert you. smb (talk) 00:26, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Quick NSDD question re: Iran-Iraq War

You indicated the NSDD number is no longer classified. I cited two NSDDs that might fit, but I don't know if either one is the number to which Teicher refers. Could you help me understand? Is there a source, for example, in which Teicher identifies the document, or where a third party clarified his reference?

I suppose I'm asking if I guessed correctly from the declassified documents I mentioned.:-)

Thanks! Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 20:41, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it is now available from the National Security Archive. No doubt I should have confirmed this first. smb (talk) 20:55, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

It may still be classified. smb (talk) 21:09, 29 March 2008 (UTC)