User talk:Comatmebro

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


William Mitchell Banks[edit]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Mitchell_Banks

Not sure how this got submitted for review, but I am only at the beginning stages of working on it. I would like to request that it not be deleted, perhaps moved to another area to allow me to work on it further. So sorry you had to spend time on something so incomplete, it was an error that it was submitted at this time.

~Bnatelle — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bnatelle (talkcontribs) 00:51, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello Bnatelle, Adding additional sources to the article I flagged for BLP PROD will keep it from being deleted. I'd be happy to remove the tag as soon as some references are added to the article. By using the "edit source" tab on that same article you will be able to add references to the page without any problems. I hope this helps. Best Comatmebro ~Come at me~ 05:45, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Jodie Foster[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Jodie Foster. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 20 May 2014 (UTC)


Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject NASCAR[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject NASCAR. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 01:18, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Landscape art[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Landscape art. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:04, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Willie Jerome Manning[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Willie Jerome Manning. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Boerehaat[edit]

Thank you for your interest in this article. I do not mean to discourage you, I reverted your edit because in my opinion it was not an improvement grammatically and did not represent the correct meaning of the word either. HelenOnline 17:08, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

No worries at all, thank you for the explanation! Comatmebro ~Come at me~ 04:34, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Georgism[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Georgism. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Dan Senor[edit]

I don't see how Dowd's quote violates WP:RECENT. Senor was an advisor in Iraq during the Bush administration -- the first Bush administration at that. And Dowd doesn't say he was "responsible for the war in Iraq." Nor does she say "the war in Iraq was the biggest foreign policy bungle in US history." She says it was "one of the the biggest foreign policy bungles in US history." I honestly don't understand why you think Dowd "attacked" Senor here. What she wrote is valid criticism -- criticism which, I remind you again, appeared in a reputable U.S. newspaper. I don't want to get in an edit war either. How about if I reinsert the quote and make it clear Dowd wrote about Senor's role in the early stages of the Iraq war? The Iraq war is a continuously unfolding fiasco, 14 years in the making, but I agree, Senor isn't responsible for all of it. I'll make that clear in my revision to the article. Chisme (talk) 22:39, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Chisme I apologize for the confusion, but I was speaking in regards to your justification of adding the quote back to the BLP as a violation of WP:RECENT. You stated on Senor's talk page, "In light of last week's events (advances by Sunni terrorists in western Iraq, collapse of the Iraqi state army, Iranian revolutionary guards reinforcing Shiite Iraq militias) aren't Dowd's words truer than ever? " Using this as a justification for keeping the quote on Senor's page violates WP:RECENT. Senor's BLP is not a venue for describing how the Iraq War was a failure and Dowd's quote doesn't belong on a BLP for the various reasons I've already cited. There are multiple pages on wikipedia that this quote would be more appropriate on. For example the Iraq War page would be a better fit, or even better, the Criticism of the Iraq War page. Comatmebro ~Come at me~ 16:22, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
The confusion? Yes, I am confused. I think I've demonstrated to you pretty well that the quote belongs there. I already compromised by shortening the quote and by qualifying it. Let's meet halfway. Chisme (talk) 16:31, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Chisme:

Maureen Dowd's article starts the following way:

Mr. (Paul) Ryan bemoaned "the slaughter of brave dissidents in Syria. Mobs storming American embassies and consulates. Iran four years closer to gaining a nuclear weapon. Israel, our best ally in the region, treated with indifference bordering on contempt by the Obama administration." U.S. foreign policy, he said, "needs moral clarity and firmness of purpose."

The article is initially about comments made by Paul Ryan at the Values Voter Summit held in Washington DC. Dowd's comments proceeding the following way:

Ryan was moving his mouth, but the voice was the neocon puppet master Dan Senor. The hawkish Romney adviser has been secunded to manage the running mate and graft a Manichaean worldview onto the foreign affairs neophyte.

Her article starts with Paul Ryan's comments, but then directs negative criticism about these comments to his “neocon puppet master” Dan Senor. I don't see that as "valid criticism," I see that as a WP:ATTACK.

Further, at what point in this article does Dowd ever cite a credible source? I understand that in one of your earlier comments, you used the following rational to keep the information on the page. “What she wrote is valid criticism -- criticism which, I remind you again, appeared in a reputable U.S. newspaper.” I would ask you to take a look at this article and this article. I think this makes it pretty clear that just because a piece of information comes from a “reputable source” like the New York Times, does not make it factually accurate. From WP:PUBLICFIGURE: "If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out." At any point in this article does Dowd make a tangible connection between Senor and “one of the biggest foreign policy bungles in US history?" While Dowd’s comments are not supported by facts, there have been several other reputable sources that have published articles regarding the public out lash against Dowd for her comments about Senor in this article up for discussion. See [1] and [2].

While combing through Dowd’s article, I also came across the exact same quote that you recently “paraphrased” into Senor's article that you cited from Chandrasekaran’s book Imperial life in the Emerald City: Inside Iraq’s Green Zone. The information you added was “Chandrasekaran wrote about Senor, ‘Off the record: Paris is burning,’ he told (reporters). ‘On the record: Security and stability are returning to Iraq.” First, by stating “Chandrasekaran wrote about Senor” and then quoting “Off the record: Pairs is burning,’ he told (reporters),” this gives your citation a false sense of credibility. Senor didn’t tell Chandrasekran that “Paris was burning” he, allegedly, told unnamed reporters this. Secondly, this quote is nearly identical to the one included in Dowd's NY Times article that has been the topic of this debate from the get go. From (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/16/opinion/sunday/dowd-neocons-slither-back.html?_r=0): “Off the record, Paris is burning,” Senor told a group of reporters a year into the war. “On the record, security and stability are returning to Iraq.”

I think the fact that you added an additional quote from Dowd’s controversial article, claiming it came from Chandraeskrana’s book, while we are still going back and forth about this initial quote from Dowd, is inappropriate. With that being said, I am respectfully removing the material you added to Senor's page and if you add the material back, I intend to file a case to WP:ANI.

An article of this nature is not permitted on Wikipedia and certainly does not belong on a BLP. Below is a list of Wikipedia policies it violates:

  • A negative comment (with loaded words) made by one of Senor’s critics is not notable, see WP:NOTE (events) and WP:UNDUE

Wikipedia is not a news source: it takes more than just routine news reports about a single event or topic to constitute significant coverage-tabloid journalism is not significant coverage. Even a large number of news reports that provide no critical analysis of the event is not considered significant coverage.

  • WP:VALID Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented. Good and unbiased research, based upon the best and most reputable authoritative sources available, helps prevent NPOV disagreements.
  • WP:IMPARTIAL states that editors must not quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute; but instead, summarize and present arguments in an impartial tone.
  • The quotes are WP:COATRACK for commentary on the Iraq war. Senor’s page, or any BLP for that matter, are not vehicles for spreading claims about the Iraq war failure. As stated before, perhaps criticisms and quotes of the war in Iraq should be added to the Criticism of the Iraq War page, where it would fit more appropriately. When a biography of a living person is a coatrack, it is a problem that requires immediate action. Items may be true and sourced, but if a biography of a living person is essentially a coatrack, it needs to be fixed. Removing the quote will prevent a potential WP:ATP.
  • Maureen Dowd's opinion that the Iraq war was one of the biggest foreign policy bungles in US history is of no importance to Senor's BLP. Senor is not responsible for the war in Iraq, and it is a stretch to say that the war in Iraq was “one of the biggest foreign policy bungles in US history.” It’s not Wikipedia’s job to be sensationalist, see WP:BLP
  • Senor's BLP is not the place to cover an event currently unfolding in the Iraq, see WP:RECENT. Though your material wasn't a recent quote, you supported your add by claiming, "with what's unfolding in the Middle East, aren;t Dowd's words truer than ever." This remark fails to support for violation of WP:RECENT. Best, Comatmebro ~Come at me~ 16:05, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Rather than go to such lengths to discredit a reporter for the NY Times, maybe you ought to ask yourself why you have this burning need to defend Dan Senor. I mean, come on... This is weird. You come on like a truth warrior for Wikipedia when really you're just preventing an opinion about a public figure from appearing in a public forum. All public figures are subject to criticism. Sheesh. Chisme (talk) 16:53, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
I am not saying the quote "does not belong in a public forum." I have suggested several different pages in my previous comments that the quote could be included in (i.e. the Criticism of the Iraq War page). My argument is that because the article up for discussion is so biased towards blaming the Iraq war on Senor et al, and because of the way it is written, that it should not be cited on a WP BLP. There are certain standards that need to be met in order to include material a on a WP BLP, this article does not meet several of these criteria and, therefore, does not belong on Senor's page. Comatmebro ~Come at me~ 17:31, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Gaza flotilla raid[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Gaza flotilla raid. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:07, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

BLPPROD[edit]

Hi, I noticed that you have recently proposed both Chen Ling-Shu and Shah Zaman Khan for deletion as uncited biographies of living people, but they both died a long time ago. Perhaps be more careful in using BLPPROD in the future? Cheers, Tdslk (talk) 21:43, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion, thank you for the heads up! Best Comatmebro ~Come at me~ 21:14, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:European Conservatives and Reformists[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:European Conservatives and Reformists. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:05, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Tom Paulin[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Tom Paulin. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:2014–15 UEFA Champions League[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:2014–15 UEFA Champions League. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:05, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 25[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Chiapas highlands
added a link pointing to Tsotsil
Feather Baby
added a link pointing to Decatur

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:12, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Michelle Thomas[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Michelle Thomas. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

October 2014 Wikification Drive[edit]

This message was delivered on behalf of WikiProject Wikify. To stop receiving messages from WikiProject Wikify, remove your name from the recipients page. -- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:09, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Page tagging[edit]

You know you'd be doing a far better service if you actually bothered to add categories and improve sourcing yourself. You're degrading articles unnecessarily by plastering silly tags over them.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:03, 30 September 2014 (UTC)