yes, it can be sourced
http://www.hiphopdx.com/index/news/id.4374
http://www.byroncrawford.com/2006/08/xclan_reunite_b.html Chubdub 20:06, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, if you want to put the correct tag on it, by all means put it back. I have no problem with the image as long as it's tagged. I'm not sure what the right tag would be. Rossrs 22:15, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
PLEASE, stop doing word by word edits on Ahmadinijad. THREE TIMES I've lost the same damn reply to your multiedits. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE write them up in another program, like Word, Spellcheck, proofread, THEN cut n paste in. Three times between you and Markovich. I want to help you convince him, but now i'm pissed and going to bed instead of replying. Each time i've written it, copied, pasted, sent, and it's gone through without an edit conflict notice, I've closed the program, and then it's LOST. Then I write a NEW reply with the new eidts accounted for, and that's gone. Good night. ThuranX 04:05, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I've moved this page to your userspace at User:Mantanmoreland/On the Jews and Their Lies/condensation per the AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/On the Jews and Their Lies/condensation. Thanks -- Samir धर्म 08:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
btw, what do you think of the idea of Category:Self-hating Jews (alleged), an idea that I had. Not sure about it , but it's up for deletion already. Amoruso 04:37, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Ian_Pitchford and Zero0000 are on with their vandalisying sourced material again, this time on Palestine. Amoruso 14:54, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
These two users have repeatedly abused wikipedia and blanked out whatever they don't like, this time blanking out a primary source and verified sources - no less than 5 differnet ones... I don't know how I can proceed with dealing them or banning this kind of behavior. Amoruso 15:20, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
ill change it up, school conflicts with alot of my time so i guess i just didnt bother to finish with that and ended up posting the main source material. the used multiple sources, the only section where i took from is the sept 11th, 2001 page thats it.
i actually wouldnt mind if you lend me a hand with this, get back to me and ill see what i can do.
-Pen
Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position. -- Ben Houston 00:06, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
I completely agree. I've tried editing it in the past, but I think there are some autobiographical edits going on, for both that article and some related ones (such as Market Wizards). I've been fighting them for awhile, but without much backup, I didn't want it to turn in into a one-on-one battle. I would really appreciate some help in getting things cleaned up though. :) -- Elonka 03:38, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thanks for taking care of the pezzulo article, you trimmed it down just fine, and took out all of the overexaggerated material from the copyright source. thanks once again, i barely have time to write anymore.
-Penfish
I suggest care in making accusations of vandalism. I believe there is no need for using such an aggressive tone. All wikipedians are free to edit articles in a manner that they feel would improve the quality of an article. I do just the same. I would also suggest not take these articles to personally. Muntuwandi 14:43, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
I believe I am sensing double standards. First you said if you don't believe something is written appropriately re-write it instead of deleting. When I do just that( re-writing with more relevant information you remove it). To put it bluntly, you do not like Mr. farrakhan and I think you are letting your personal feelings get in the way of better judgment. This is against the spirit of wikipedia's objectivity. Muntuwandi 03:27, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
[3] Amoruso 01:35, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
I have put up a request for page protection for naked short selling - as I have been involved in the article in the past I don't feel it'd be appropriate for me to unilaterally protect the article, but I feel that is the correct course of action when an outside site solicits meatpuppets to push a point of view. I also added the {{ unreferenced}} tag to Market Reform Movement - although it has 10 external links, none of them are reliable sources using this term, and if they aren't provided, the page will be proposed for deletion. ( ESkog)( Talk) 11:34, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi. I believe that some editors are trying to whitewash the anti-semitism of V. T. Rajshekar and his propaganda agency Dalit Voice by misusing WP:BLP. Please contribute on Talk:V. T. Rajshekar if you have any perspective on this matter.Thanks. Hkelkar 03:28, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, the IP is a bit obnoxious, but his recent postings on his talk page are hardly worth acting on. If he gets active again elsehwere with similar commentary then I'd be inclined to seek a block. It appears likely that he is the same as WordBomb ( talk · contribs). - Will Beback 17:15, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
You deleted the following cited, referenced text from the Gary Weiss article:
"== Libel suit == In 1996, Gary Weiss and Business Week magazine were named as co-defendents in a libel suit brought by Julian Robertson, founder of Tiger Management Corporation, over an article written by Weiss in Business Week that Mr. Robertson felt contained erroneous and malicious information about him. The suit was withdrawn by Robertson in January, 1997 after Business Week agreed to retract some of the statements it had made about Robertson in the article. [1]
"
You're supposed to explain on the article's Discussion page first why you believe cited, referenced material should be deleted. Feel free to delete any of the rest of the text in that article that is uncited, or else add some inline citations. Thanks! Cla68 23:39, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
My opinion is that the link should not be there and the category itself is probably not correct. Gary's notability per WP:BIO is as an author of books and magazine articles. If he were simply a blogger I don't think he would meet WP:BIO. That said I don't think the link qualifies under WP:EL because it is not mandated by the article itself. This is an article about Gary Weiss the notable book/magazine author, not Gary Weiss the blogger. My personal feeling is that the blogger category should be removed as well unless some sort of WP:V information is added to the article that suggests that he is in some way notable as a blogger as well.-- Isotope23 14:11, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
In spite of what you may be thinking, I don't have a personal agenda with this article except to help make it a neutral presentation of the subject. Since you're knowledgeable on what the article is about, I invite your assistance in doing that. As I go through the clean-up, I'll comment on it on the article's discussion page. I already placed a request for assistance in finding a reference that I can use to verify and cite the biographical information contained in the "Education and Early Career". At this time, I don't forsee returning the libel suit info to the article, because, once the article is cleaned-up, it will probably be somewhat shorter, which means including the libel suit information would fall under the "undue weight" policy. Cla68 03:52, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
yes, it can be sourced
http://www.hiphopdx.com/index/news/id.4374
http://www.byroncrawford.com/2006/08/xclan_reunite_b.html Chubdub 20:06, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, if you want to put the correct tag on it, by all means put it back. I have no problem with the image as long as it's tagged. I'm not sure what the right tag would be. Rossrs 22:15, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
PLEASE, stop doing word by word edits on Ahmadinijad. THREE TIMES I've lost the same damn reply to your multiedits. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE write them up in another program, like Word, Spellcheck, proofread, THEN cut n paste in. Three times between you and Markovich. I want to help you convince him, but now i'm pissed and going to bed instead of replying. Each time i've written it, copied, pasted, sent, and it's gone through without an edit conflict notice, I've closed the program, and then it's LOST. Then I write a NEW reply with the new eidts accounted for, and that's gone. Good night. ThuranX 04:05, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I've moved this page to your userspace at User:Mantanmoreland/On the Jews and Their Lies/condensation per the AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/On the Jews and Their Lies/condensation. Thanks -- Samir धर्म 08:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
btw, what do you think of the idea of Category:Self-hating Jews (alleged), an idea that I had. Not sure about it , but it's up for deletion already. Amoruso 04:37, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Ian_Pitchford and Zero0000 are on with their vandalisying sourced material again, this time on Palestine. Amoruso 14:54, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
These two users have repeatedly abused wikipedia and blanked out whatever they don't like, this time blanking out a primary source and verified sources - no less than 5 differnet ones... I don't know how I can proceed with dealing them or banning this kind of behavior. Amoruso 15:20, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
ill change it up, school conflicts with alot of my time so i guess i just didnt bother to finish with that and ended up posting the main source material. the used multiple sources, the only section where i took from is the sept 11th, 2001 page thats it.
i actually wouldnt mind if you lend me a hand with this, get back to me and ill see what i can do.
-Pen
Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position. -- Ben Houston 00:06, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
I completely agree. I've tried editing it in the past, but I think there are some autobiographical edits going on, for both that article and some related ones (such as Market Wizards). I've been fighting them for awhile, but without much backup, I didn't want it to turn in into a one-on-one battle. I would really appreciate some help in getting things cleaned up though. :) -- Elonka 03:38, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thanks for taking care of the pezzulo article, you trimmed it down just fine, and took out all of the overexaggerated material from the copyright source. thanks once again, i barely have time to write anymore.
-Penfish
I suggest care in making accusations of vandalism. I believe there is no need for using such an aggressive tone. All wikipedians are free to edit articles in a manner that they feel would improve the quality of an article. I do just the same. I would also suggest not take these articles to personally. Muntuwandi 14:43, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
I believe I am sensing double standards. First you said if you don't believe something is written appropriately re-write it instead of deleting. When I do just that( re-writing with more relevant information you remove it). To put it bluntly, you do not like Mr. farrakhan and I think you are letting your personal feelings get in the way of better judgment. This is against the spirit of wikipedia's objectivity. Muntuwandi 03:27, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
[3] Amoruso 01:35, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
I have put up a request for page protection for naked short selling - as I have been involved in the article in the past I don't feel it'd be appropriate for me to unilaterally protect the article, but I feel that is the correct course of action when an outside site solicits meatpuppets to push a point of view. I also added the {{ unreferenced}} tag to Market Reform Movement - although it has 10 external links, none of them are reliable sources using this term, and if they aren't provided, the page will be proposed for deletion. ( ESkog)( Talk) 11:34, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi. I believe that some editors are trying to whitewash the anti-semitism of V. T. Rajshekar and his propaganda agency Dalit Voice by misusing WP:BLP. Please contribute on Talk:V. T. Rajshekar if you have any perspective on this matter.Thanks. Hkelkar 03:28, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, the IP is a bit obnoxious, but his recent postings on his talk page are hardly worth acting on. If he gets active again elsehwere with similar commentary then I'd be inclined to seek a block. It appears likely that he is the same as WordBomb ( talk · contribs). - Will Beback 17:15, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
You deleted the following cited, referenced text from the Gary Weiss article:
"== Libel suit == In 1996, Gary Weiss and Business Week magazine were named as co-defendents in a libel suit brought by Julian Robertson, founder of Tiger Management Corporation, over an article written by Weiss in Business Week that Mr. Robertson felt contained erroneous and malicious information about him. The suit was withdrawn by Robertson in January, 1997 after Business Week agreed to retract some of the statements it had made about Robertson in the article. [1]
"
You're supposed to explain on the article's Discussion page first why you believe cited, referenced material should be deleted. Feel free to delete any of the rest of the text in that article that is uncited, or else add some inline citations. Thanks! Cla68 23:39, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
My opinion is that the link should not be there and the category itself is probably not correct. Gary's notability per WP:BIO is as an author of books and magazine articles. If he were simply a blogger I don't think he would meet WP:BIO. That said I don't think the link qualifies under WP:EL because it is not mandated by the article itself. This is an article about Gary Weiss the notable book/magazine author, not Gary Weiss the blogger. My personal feeling is that the blogger category should be removed as well unless some sort of WP:V information is added to the article that suggests that he is in some way notable as a blogger as well.-- Isotope23 14:11, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
In spite of what you may be thinking, I don't have a personal agenda with this article except to help make it a neutral presentation of the subject. Since you're knowledgeable on what the article is about, I invite your assistance in doing that. As I go through the clean-up, I'll comment on it on the article's discussion page. I already placed a request for assistance in finding a reference that I can use to verify and cite the biographical information contained in the "Education and Early Career". At this time, I don't forsee returning the libel suit info to the article, because, once the article is cleaned-up, it will probably be somewhat shorter, which means including the libel suit information would fall under the "undue weight" policy. Cla68 03:52, 2 November 2006 (UTC)