RyanFreisling (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
|||
Line 77: | Line 77: | ||
Please try to discuss the ''specifics'' of your edits on the relative 'talk' pages for the dozen or so articles on which you've been warring. Otherwise, the spiral of bad conduct and edit warring could lead us to an RfC. Your contributions are welcome, if they are factual and improve the article... please try to work collaboratively, instead of revert warring. -- [[User:RyanFreisling]] [[User_talk:RyanFreisling|@]] 22:18, 4 February 2006 (UTC) |
Please try to discuss the ''specifics'' of your edits on the relative 'talk' pages for the dozen or so articles on which you've been warring. Otherwise, the spiral of bad conduct and edit warring could lead us to an RfC. Your contributions are welcome, if they are factual and improve the article... please try to work collaboratively, instead of revert warring. -- [[User:RyanFreisling]] [[User_talk:RyanFreisling|@]] 22:18, 4 February 2006 (UTC) |
||
:In fact, I have discussed specifics on every page I have edited. You have attempted to harrass me, stifle me, silence me, and engage in edit wars with me every time I have attempted to restore NPOV to an article that reflects your extreme POV. You have wikistalked me and you are now threatening me with a conduct RFC, a gross abuse of the RFC process. Your contributions are welcome, but if you persist in harrassing me, it will no doubt lead to an RFC on your conduct.--[[User:Mr j galt|Mr j galt]] 22:35, 4 February 2006 (UTC) |
Revision as of 22:35, 4 February 2006
Would you be willing to stop reverting Plame affair (and Valerie Plame) and settle the content dispute on the discussion page? --JWSchmidt 02:29, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
- Sure! But I think it will be difficult-- if not impossible-- to get the 3 anti-Bush POV pushers to do the same. They have been at this POV pushing for a long time and they have been very successful at getting their way. I will cooperate with any attempts to resolve it though. Thanks for your help. I hope your offer is sincere.--Mr j galt 02:37, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Caps
Please don't type edit summaries in all caps. Shouting at each other is not going to help to get any edit conflict resolved. Jacoplane 14:18, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
I protected all 3 of them. Please work out your differences with the other user involved. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 08:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks. I have never visited the Knights of Solamnia article. It sounds interesting and I will check it out.--Mr j galt 12:13, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
- I just visited Knights of Solamnia article. It's about Dungeons and Dragons which I have no interest in. It is also not protected. I want to be sure the Plame and Johnson articles are NPOV and I will do what I can to work it out.--Mr j galt 12:19, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Tip of the Iceberg and some suggestions.
"The column[1], by conservative pundit Novak, was published eight days after Plame’s husband, retired ambassador Joseph C. Wilson, in a New York Times op-ed [2], criticized the George W. Bush administration's use of "unreliable" "yellowcake" documents as part of its rationale for the Iraq War."
Some discussion should be included as to whether the Bush Administration did in fact rely on these yellow cake forgeries. A good dicussion could appears here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butler_Report
"Wilson claimed that Novak had conspired with Bush administration sources to expose his wife's identity as "political retribution" for his earlier criticism. It is a federal crime for anyone with authorized knowledge of the identity of an active or recently active undercover CIA operative to knowingly divulge it to persons not otherwise authorized to know it."
Although most certainly a true statement, this assertion should have a cite.
"While Fitzgerald is bound by grand jury secrecy rules from disclosing that more indictments are planned,"
"[T]hat more indictments are planned," should be changed to "whether more indictments are planned" for a NPOV.
"The Plame Affair includes the subsequent Special Counsel investigation by special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald into the actions of Bush administration officials — including Karl Rove, Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Ari Fleischer, U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney[3] and unknown others, including CIA officials — regarding their knowledge of the leak of Plame's identity."
Was the special counsel charged with investigating the "actions" of Bush Administration officials, or their knowledge of the leak of Plame's indentity? Or Both? Perhaps the language should be simplified with a cite to the actual document delegating investigative authority to Mr. Fitzgerald. http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/osc/documents/ag_letter_december_30_2003.pdf This document states that Acting Attorney General delegated the authority to investigate the "alleged unauthorized disclosure of a CIA employee's indentity... ."
Note [5] does not support the contention that "some beleive that [Fitzgerald's] remarks might indicate that [further indictments] are unlikely. Note [5] links to a transcript of Fitzgerald's October 28, 2005 presser.
"Valerie Plame has been a CIA employee for 20 years."
Cite should be provided.
"Oddly enough the French had warned the Bush administration, a year before the State of the Union, that the allegation could not be supported with evidence.[12]"
The phrase "oddly enough" is not NPOV and should be removed. The reader should be left to decide if it is odd. Also, note [12] leads to a document no longer available.
"But current critics say the French were denying the evidence because of their involvement in the Oil For Food Scandal."
This assertion needs a cite and at least some of the "current critics" need to be named. This is an example of "Generalization in the use of weasel words."
"Wilson's central claim was that several reports and investigations were done on Niger, among them his own on a journey in 2002, and all found the claims from President George Bush about a contact between Iraq and Niger to be unsubstantiated. He claimed the information given by the American government before the Iraq war was based on deceptions and false information."
In Wilson's July 6, 2003 article, he did not claim that "several reports and investigations were done on Niger, among them his own on a journey in 2002, and all found the claims from President George Bush about a contact between Iraq and Niger to be unsubstantiated." His article focused on his own investigation. Without other documentary support, this characterization of Wilson's "central claim" constitutes original research and should be removed.
"Although Wilson wrote that he was certain his findings were circulated within the CIA and conveyed (at least orally) to the office of the Vice President,"
Wilson's exact words are avaibale. Should they not be used? Here they are: "The vice president's office asked a serious question. I was asked to help formulate the answer. I did so, and I have every confidence that the answer I provided was circulated to the appropriate officials within our government."
Frankly, that article is rife with subtle phrasing, weasel words, dead links, redundancies, and is written from a left of center point of view. It also contains some very good analysis.
There has got to be some way for you and csloat to agree to disagree and work together to improve this article. Csloat has got to concede the point that sufficient uncertainty exists as to Plame's true covert status. For this article to be NPOV, some mention that legitimate questions as to the degree of her covert status remain. The perspective that she had some "undercover" status is also legitimate. Include both perspectives with good sources, and let the reader decide.
Hello There!
Hiya, Mr j Galt. I am Evensong, the editor that left that anonymous note above. Evensong 00:59, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
- Nice job. As you know, I reposted your comments on the Talk:Plame_affair page. I didn't agree with everything you wrote, but I think you offer a good neutral starting point to resolve the differences there.--Mr j galt 02:43, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
sorry
I am afraid we are always going to get people who pounce on stubby articles such as Greg Theilmann. The solution is: create your article in user:Mr j galt/sandbox until it is not totally stubby, asserts importance, has a {{...-stub}} tag, a category, etc. When it looks viable (and it is the shape of the text on the page that people react to first), copy it to a proper title. -- RHaworth 19:49, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep up the good work
I noticed you are attempting to achieve some balance to the Plame Affair article. It is difficult when some of the editors attempt to censor out any information that does not support their POV. However, your work is appreciated. Keep it up. RonCram 18:08, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Averting RfC
Please try to discuss the specifics of your edits on the relative 'talk' pages for the dozen or so articles on which you've been warring. Otherwise, the spiral of bad conduct and edit warring could lead us to an RfC. Your contributions are welcome, if they are factual and improve the article... please try to work collaboratively, instead of revert warring. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 22:18, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
- In fact, I have discussed specifics on every page I have edited. You have attempted to harrass me, stifle me, silence me, and engage in edit wars with me every time I have attempted to restore NPOV to an article that reflects your extreme POV. You have wikistalked me and you are now threatening me with a conduct RFC, a gross abuse of the RFC process. Your contributions are welcome, but if you persist in harrassing me, it will no doubt lead to an RFC on your conduct.--Mr j galt 22:35, 4 February 2006 (UTC)