User talk:Smb

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive

[edit] Foreign support to Iran and Iraq

I am trying quite hard to keep this section at a minimally POV level, and would appreciate not strengthening charges that are made in the articles to which this section points, and, at present, elsewhere on the main Iran-Iraq War page. It benefits Wikipedia to reduce the heat on this page, whether between Iran and Iraq, or regarding their relations with any other country.

You will have every opportunity to list sourced claims in the sub-articles by country. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 03:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] References

I was simply trying to show you all the references. Lemonhead414 (talk • contribs) 03:09, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Could you not have achieved that simple goal without remarking: "...please cease and desist your slew of misinformation...", "...if Wikipedia, and IMDb are your only sources I laugh, and pity you...", "..please go outside the box for a second...", "...someone who is tired of correcting your wrongdoing, STOP THE FLOW OF MISINFORMATION..."?

I randomly tested one of your references. It failed. Please see the relevant talk page comment for more information. smb (talk) 12:24, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ahmadinejad

You write that the page on Ahmadinejad was resolved through mediation. However aside from reading poorly it is a misstatement of Ahmadinejad's positions in regard to the United States, as well as Israel. It mentions nothing about Ahmadinejad's attacks on Great Britain. However rather than going on about this specific instance I would greatly appreciate your letting me know how I could be part of a process of deciding what would go in to this and similar articles. Thank you very much, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shalom Freedman (talk • contribs) 12:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

The wording is fine as it stands. Your version is horrible and violates WP:NPOV. This is what mediation was for. The current choice of words was agreed on by several editors. Please respect that. ~ smb 22:50, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Not Contraversial - It's fact

If you can't hack the truth then don't sing the song. Go to Ireland and listen to the reaction when they hear Liverpool butchering the song. Please stop saying "recently Glasgow Celtic". Celtic have been singing the Fiels of Athenry since the early '80's. I will continue to edit that page until the day comes when Liverpool fans respect the history of the song without ruining it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FearSneachta (talk • contribs) 12:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

(1) It is noncontroversial that Irish sports fans were singing this Irish song long before Scottish soccer team Glasgow Celtic. (2) Any personal or controversial, unsourced sentiments will be reverted, in keeping with Wikipedia guidelines. Please understand that it is your responsibility to read and respect these rules. ~ smb 12:51, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

"I will continue to edit that page until the day comes when Liverpool fans respect the history of the song without ruining it..." That is considered vandalism. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a soap box for you to express your displeasure with Liverpool Football Club. ~ smb 12:58, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

You can't control both pages. Fine if you want to be blind about the obvious objections of people to Liverpool's version, but on the Fields of Athenry page itself there is no place for the statement "Liverpool sing a version with the words altered for their history". That has nothing to do with the song and shouldn't be there so remove it! - FearSneachta

I'm not attempting to "control" both pages. They are on my watchlist because I helped to improve them. It's not unusual to describe notable variations of popular songs. ~ smb 19:04, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A People's History of the United States

I don't believe your reasoning is at fault. The decision of whether a book is nonfiction isn't up to us, but rather to the author and publisher (at least, this is what I've known; it certainly isn't up to Wikipedia editors to decide this in any event). The anonymous user is in error in trying to recatalog the book, especially by using what amounts to a made-up classification of "semi-nonfiction".

I think you are also correct in stating that non-fiction books are updated periodically (just look at the number of editions a popular textbook might go through, for example; some of my textbooks are on their 8th or 9th editions already!).

Finally, you will probably want to see WP:AN/3RR#User:132.241.178.146 reported by User:nneonneo (Result: ) this. Regards, nneonneo ^talk 22:29, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. That is what I originally thought. ~ smb 22:36, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Media Lens

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you recently copied the contents of a page and pasted it into another with a different name. Specifically, you copied the contents of Media Lens. This is what we call a "cut and paste move", and it is very undesirable because it splits the article's history, which is needed for attribution and is helpful in many other ways. The mechanism we use for renaming an article is to move it to a new name which both preserves the page's history and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. In most cases, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. If there is an article that you cannot move yourself by this process, follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Requested moves to request the move by another. Also, if there are any other articles that you copied and pasted, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen.

Note that I have no objection to the move itself ("Media Lens" is what they call themselves), just that it is best to avoid copy/paste moves. NSH001 (talk) 14:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou for the information. I shall keep it in mind. ~ smb 17:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Leona Lewis on The X Factor

Hi Smb. An editor (User:Wiki edit Jonny) has nominated the article for deletion here. Rather than delete it, could we all collaborate to improve it please? I'm sure there's something in it that's worth salvaging. Leonapedia (talk) 13:09, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] re: AfD help

I've fixed your nomination page (here). You still need to return to the page and add your rationale for the deletion. And, if you haven't done it already, add the link to the current AfD log page. Rossami (talk) 14:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

If you look at the fine print on the AFD tag on the article page, there's a short synopsis of the process. {{afd}} creates the tag that goes at the top of the page that you want to delete. (Use {{afdx}} if it's been nominated before.) That part of your nomination seemed to work fine. {{afd2}} creates the standard header information that is used to open the deletion discussion page. In this case, I had to force a few things because the prior nominations weren't at the same page title but we got it worked out in the end. Step three is to go to the current day's log page and paste {{subst:afd3|pg=Russia and Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq controversy (2nd nomination)}} at the top of the list. Hope that helps. Rossami (talk) 19:04, 6 June 2008 (UTC)