User talk:Dmalveaux

Welcome!

Hello, Dmalveaux, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! ITAQALLAH 01:39, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi[edit]

Hi. I notice you are editing an article that has had an influx of editors that are newly formed. Welcome.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:21, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes indeed. Thanks for the welcome!

Hi -- I know that you are a new editor. But clearly you seem intent on muddling the message that clearly has two parts. The first part is not a part that the critics are commenting on. The second part is. Your efforts certainly have the effect of confusing the reader. I'll try to fix it.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:22, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I actually left your edits alone for awhile and someone else came along and fixed them, apparently noticing the same problems I did. Secondly, in your latest edits, you've actually gone to the point of making the third-party neutral text completely supportive of the critic's opinion. Obviously, Rauf and others would dispute the notion that he gave a mixed or muddled message. For the neutral text to imply or say outright that his message was muddled is to take sides. And that, I think, is the definition of bias.

Not at all. Abdul Rauf said two things. All manner of RS have pointed to the language that he used which has been criticized. That is the part that has RS focus. They are not criticzing him for his comments on Islam. If you want those reflected as well, that's fine of course. But clearly his critics are not criticizing his comments on Islam. Your edits have the effect of not letting the reader see what all the criticism is about. We don't want to hide the ball from the reader -- and that is the effect of your edits. I'll make the appropriate edits to avoid that unintended bias.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:32, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Not at all" is not a response to my criticism, much less a logical one. The paragraphs currently effectively describe Rauch's criticism without injecting Rauch's opinion into the actual third-party, neutral text. I hesitate to question your motives, but on the discussion page for Cordoba House, other users have apparently also noticed your apparent bias regarding this article. Hopefully you'll be able to step back from your feelings on the controversy and appraise the situation more rationally. As for Rauf's comments on Islam...um what? That's not at issue. My only complaint is that you are injecting bias into the would-be neutral, third party text surrounding the Rauch paragraph.

AR is being criticized by a number of notable people for a statement. We should reflect that. It is POV to obfuscate it, which is what your edits have the effect of doing. I gave you a much longer response than "not at all", though that was indeed part of my response. It introduces the rest of what I had to say, and summarizes the import. The "other users" have almost uniformly been newly created accounts or IPs with very few edits. Though not always the case, our checkuser histories have shown that such accounts are often socks, when they appear at the same page suddenly with the same edits, accounts by one person (or a few) made to seem as though they are many more. That is why, on controversial articles, we often block IPs and newly formed accounts from editing the article. To address this properly, we have to indicate what it is the critics -- including the politicians -- are referring to. Clearly, it is not the language that is now being hidden within other language. I have no problem with that language staying, but it should not be used to obfuscate the very language that makes his statement notable.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:33, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Hello, Dmalveaux. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Hello, Dmalveaux. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]