User talk:Arnabdas

Re: Bill O'Reilly politics

Well, since you asked: the article is pretty heavy on "weasel words" such as "he feels that", "he thinks that", and "what he percieves to be". While I'm sure you intended this to be a neutral article, language like this gives the impression that you're trying to pass your own beliefs onto someone else. While we're at it, this article doesn't really even need to exist; his political philosophy is covered in the main Bill O'Reilly article, and it doesn't make much sense to have one on his beliefs without similar articles on every other media personality. Treybien 15:11 24 September 2007 (UTC)

REDIRECT

Hi - for some reason you seem to be inserting #REDIRECT into articles. I don't know if you think that is needed to make wikilinks work, but it is not.

Please edit your changes to North American Bengali Conference to remove these. (I have reverted your other November 1 changes, so fixing them is not needed.) If you have any questions, please check Help:Contents or post something on my talk page. Thanks. John Broughton | Talk 13:25, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Unsourced claims

You added this to the Vito Fossella article: Despite this, many Democrats have praised Vito Fossella for his bi-partisan work reaching out across the aisle. I have reverted that.

I've also reverted all your changes to the article on Fosella's opponent, Steve Harrison, for the same reasons - the text you added lacked sources, and negative information in particular (such as an assertion about raising taxes) MUST be sourced per WP:BLP.

Please do not add unsourced statements that clearly take a political side. Without a source, such statements are a violation of WP:NPOV and/or WP:NOR. With sources, others are able to check, per WP:V, to make sure that the wikipedia article has a correct reporting of what was in the published source.

Thanks. John Broughton | Talk 21:53, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi John. I just wanted to say that I put those up because they were claims by Harrison at a debate in October before the election but there was no transcript to be linked to.

As for the "Fossella working with Democrats" point, I listed it because I saw a piece of literature that had Congressman Anthony Weiner (D-NY) who said Vito works across the aisle often or something along those lines.

Sorry for the trouble. Just trying to report to the best of my abilities.-Arnab

No problem - wikipedia is a learning experience. For example, for Weiner, something like In his campaign literature, Fossella quoted Congressman Anthony Weiner as saying that Fossella "often works across the aisle". would probably be okay. ("Probably" because campaign literature is problematical - per WP:VS, a source should be something that ANY editor, in theory, could verify.) In other words, that Fossella said this is verifiable; that Weiner said this is less verifiable (but you might find a source); that "Democrats" say this is too loose a sentence (two Democrats? Most Democrats in Congress? A lot of Democrats in Fossella's district?). John Broughton | Talk 01:13, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

New York Times edit

Hi, Arnabdas, The removal of the NY Times text was based on the disparity in significance between it and the other controversies already mentioned in the article (e.g. Jason Blair, Judith Miller, etc) I don't know the factual basis for the statement quoted from the Times editorial, but even if they got the fact wrong, it doesn't demonstrate a pattern of intentional misrepresentation, and a one-sentence error in an editorial isn't really large enough in significance to cover in an encyclopedia article. Covering too much minutia can actually detract from the overall goal of clearly focusing on the most important issues. RickDC 21:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The editorial example you cited doesn't fit in the context of the article, which is about allegations of bias in news articles. The two domains--news and editorial-- of the Times (or almost any paper) are totally separate. Citing bias or even an error in the editorial page doesn't belong in a discussion of the paper's news coverage. RickDC 19:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Bold text

Your edit to The International Aloe Science Council

Message posted on Saturday, April 28, 2007

Please do not post copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder, as you did to The International Aloe Science Council. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites (http://www.iasc.org/overview.html in this case) or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) then you should do one of the following:

• If you have permission from the author leave a message explaining the details on the article Talk page and send an email with the message to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
• If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted under the GFDL or released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:The International Aloe Science Council with a link to where we can find that note;
• If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the GFDL, and note that you have done so on the article Talk page. Alternatively, you may create a note on your web page releasing the work under the GFDL and then leave a note at Talk:The International Aloe Science Council with a link to the details.

Otherwise, you are encouraged to rewrite this article in your own words to avoid any copyright infringement. After you do so, you should place a {{hangon}} tag on the article page and leave a note at Talk:The International Aloe Science Council saying you have done so. An administrator will review the new content before taking action.

It is also important that all Wikipedia articles have an encyclopedic tone and follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Your original contributions are welcome.

Rkitko ^(talk) 16:51, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Mediation

Hello,

Recently, the Mediation Cabal received a request for mediation on the article about impeaching George Bush. However, User:Nescio believes that your lack of response to an argument indicates that yu are in agreement nd no mediation is needed. Is this correct?

No that is not correct. I just simply have not had time to log in to wiki. Nescio obviously is obssessed with the article. I was just pointing out that he does not have the best interests of putting out the truth.Arnabdas 20:09, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Unaware of Copyright Violation

I am sorry about the copyright violation. I wasn't trying to pass off the site as my own work at any time. What had happened was that I wanted to make a page for it and then come back to it later. I lost track of it and later on, well after I had put up the article, I read that it was a copyright violation to put up pages when they directly reference a website. I honestly completely forgot and swear it was not intentional. You will see that since the last week or two, since I read the policy, I didnt quote directly from the website. Again, I am sorry, didn't mean to pass it on as my own work. I hope that I don't get penalized for this...I plead ignorance and hope I may be exonerated and am requesting info on how I may be.Arnabdas 21:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

That's ok. It was deleted per our copyright violation policy. Pretty much any text you come across is copyrighted unless it specifically says otherwise. Operate under that assumption and don't copy and paste text into a Wikipedia article and you'll do fine. Review WP:COPYVIO for more information. Instead of copying and pasting, use your own words to describe the organization. Draw from several sources. Ask the essential questions: Who, what, when, where, why? Then find sources to answer those and then reference them when paraphrasing. If you have any further questions, ask me on my talk page. If you'd like, you could also check out WP:ADOPT and have an experienced editor "adopt" you and answer your questions as you come to understand our policy. It may seem overwhelming at first, I know, but you'll get the hang of it! Best, --Rkitko ^(talk) 05:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Movement to impeach George W. Bush

With regards to your comments on Talk:Movement to impeach George W. Bush: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. [1] --Ronz 21:38, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

He purposely distorted what I was saying and keeps on doing it. He refuses to answer the question and instead just labels me as "right wing" just because I want fair reportage. I consider the label right wing as offensive to me because I am not that at all.Arnabdas 21:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Rather than inflame the situation, why not follow any one of the many alternatives listed in WP:CIVIL for dealing with incivility? --Ronz 22:24, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand why you aren't after him for personal attacks and instead after me.Arnabdas 18:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

List of Georgia Institute of Technology alumni

Do you have a reference that says that Kevin Lomax went to Georgia Tech? —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 23:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

VíaVienté

A "{{prod}}" template has been added to the article VíaVienté, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but yours may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. THF 13:49, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the tag and submitted my reasons on the talk page of the article. Arnabdas 15:46, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of The Townsend Letter

I've nominated The Townsend Letter, an article you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but in this particular case I do not feel that The Townsend Letter satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion; I have explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Townsend Letter and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of The Townsend Letter during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. THF 15:35, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion pages, as you did with VíaVienté. Doing so won't stop the discussion from taking place. You are, however, welcome to comment about the proposed deletion on the appropriate page. Thank you. --Finngall ^talk 16:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

The message saying it was permissible to remove the tag was in reference to the earlier proposed deletion tag. After you removed the {{prod}} tag a few days ago, the article was nominated for deletion under the more formal Articles for Deletion process, which provides for a fuller discussion among multiple editors to come to a consensus on whether the article should be kept, deleted, merged or redirected. This discussion happens on a separate page (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/VíaVienté), which any editor, yourself included, is welcome to contribute to. The newer AfD tag should never be removed by anyone until the discussion is closed. Removing the tag does not close the discussion and is considered to be vandalism. Feel free to put forth you arguments in favor of keeping the article, but do not remove the tag again. Thanks. --Finngall ^talk 16:49, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:69.249.195.232

I saw that you reverted some of this user's changes. Over in Media bias in the United States, I too had some cleanup to do. He seems to have a habit of making edits that clearly reveal his bias. After all the warnings he's got, do you think it's time to report him? 171.71.37.103 23:22, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

ViaViente

Because I know the article may be able to be improved, I have userfied the article into your userspace here. I'll make some edits myself to improve the article so it doesn't look so spammy. Gather all of the sources available. Sr13 20:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I've taken some thought, and I retract. The subject simply isn't notable enough, and the article would have to be stripped to nothing in order to remove all of the pormotional material. All of the sources possible for this product are simply promoting the company, and lack anything usable. There's not much you can do to revive the article, so I'll resort to deleting. Don't let this issue bother you too much. Sr13 20:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, shoot. Tell me when you finish with the sourcing so I can take a look at it. Sr13 21:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

No, I replaced it...User:Arnabdas/ViaViente. Sr13 21:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

You know what? I believe there's enough sourcing to prove that this product is notable. Find all of the sources, and I can cleanup the article afterward (looks really spammy right now). Sr13 07:16, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Edwards political positions

In re this: I waited for your response at talk before removing the text, and since no response was forthcoming, I removed it, only to have you add it back again without explanation. Please respond to my comments at the talk page. Do not, however, simply continue to add the information without responding at the talk page. That is known as edit warring. Thank you. · jersyko talk 20:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

It was all Bill clintons fault

The main purpose of this film is to blame Bill Clinton for 9/11 that he was responsible for the taliban in afgahastan, i did see a documentary on UK's C4 before 9/11 & it did place some of the blame for the rise of the taliban at his door step he was asked by several goverments & free afgahans who wish US backing to fight the taliban which would not have cost any US soldger his life, but Clinton said no. but i would like to point out that 9/11 did happen on Bush's watch so he has to at least accept 95% of the blame.

Yours Grimm MD

This is completely untrue. After watching the movie several times I never heard anyone, even Coulter, say that it was Clinton's fault. They just pointed out several slanderous lies that Michael Moron, I mean Moore, tried to pass off as "fact" such as the oil pipeline in Afghanistan being Bush's brainchild. It turned out that particular project had links to the Clinton Administration. The point wasn't to slam Clinton per say, but to rebutt the lies and half truths that Moore had released.Arnabdas 19:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

After watching the movie several times did you miss the part where Dick Morris who worked for Clinton says "The guy(Bush) deserves 8 months of blame" "But clinton deserves 8 years of blame" "The guy was just not active just not there on the war on terror" he also says later "in 1996 (when clinton was in office)bin laden was in the sudan in africa & the sudanesse were on our terror list & they went to the US & said where should we send him? The US could have said to us clearly could have said that & didn't" "The best shot we had to get him (Bin Laden) was in 1999 when we had hard intelligence not just rumors that he was gonna be in Qandahar for 5 days & 5 nights Clinton pulled the plug or Berger pulled the plug" "someone has to explain that no one took this seriously before George Bush on 9/11" "i hold clinton very responsible for the failures on aircraft saftey"

Ann Coulter said "this has been a relentless attack on ameriKa for 20 years. It didn't start with 9/11 that was the most spectacular attack"

In the Caryle group part the are three guys on the group who all worked for clinton.

Maybe you have some kind of bladder weakness which prevented you from seeing this film all the way though, now please rewatch this film again & pay attention this time. Yours Grimm MD

Re: Your question

I deleted some of the content because they were purely promotional. Again, I did the best I could on the article, but if the article doesn't meet guidelines, then what can I say? I've commented on the AfD. Sr13 21:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Batman Begins

We don't need a section on The Dark Knight when it has its own article. Alientraveller 15:37, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

It's already linked in the lead and infobox. Alientraveller 09:32, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Bill Clinton

Hi, sorry I didnt write an adequate enough edit summary. The comments were not removed due to vandalism. The information is valid and as such is present at Foreign policy of the Clinton Administration in greater detail than the Bill Clinton article. Since the information about his comments were not directly related to Clinton they have been moved to an article with more relevance about the subject matter, in line with discussions at the peer review and with suggestions from Wikipedia:Article size. LordHarris 15:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Bill O'Reilly on Bill Moyers

BOR attacks or smears someone every single night on his program. If WP had to carry reportage of every accusation and disagreement he has, the encyclopedia would be 90% BOR's thoughts and hatreds. So notable? No. There is also the matter of WP:WEIGHT. To put two paragraphs into that small article based on BOR's questionable interpretations and on-the-run questioning (with gotchas) of Moyers, is simply wrong. Skopp (Talk) 22:50, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Bill Moyers

Since you weighed in earlier in the debate regarding the exchange between Moyers and O'Reilly, I'd appreciate your input here. —AldeBaer 08:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

RFC

Would you support an RFC for User:Nescio POV-pushing? You might not remember him, but on May 14th you said to him, "Once again IGNORING the fact that your crusade to impeach Bush and provide a one-sided POV without giving background information..." Isaac Pankonin 01:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

RFC discussion of User:Nescio

A request for comments has been filed concerning the conduct of Nescio (talk · contribs). You are invited to comment on the discussion at [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/NescioTemplate:Highrfc-loop]]. -- Isaac Pankonin 10:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

New York City Meetup

New York City Meetup Next: Saturday November 3rd, Brooklyn Museum area Last: 8/12/2007

The agenda for the next meetup includes the formation of a Wikimedia New York City local chapter. Hope to see you there! --Pharos 19:55, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality tag on marriage websites

Hi Arnabdas, back in August you tagged a section on the marriage websites article, but didn't detail your concerns on the talk page. I'm not clear on what's wrong with it (I mean, it's not a great article, but I'm not clear on what the POV issues might be). Could you take a look and comment on the discussion I started? Thanks -- SiobhanHansa 02:01, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

NPOV Warning

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to CNN controversies. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. /Blaxthos 03:50, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your reply:

I later rewrote the Media Matters comment to say they go after points of view that are not liberal ... saying that MM attacks people and whom are not liberal is a fair statement."

That's not how it works. That is your opinion; adding it to the article is a violation of both synthesis rules and our neutral point of view policy. Please take the time to read both, and please stop with the ad hominem attacks and rhetoric. Instead of showing up without a clue as to how things work joining as a new user less than two months ago, adding POV commentary and analysis to articles, and then making accusations of Wikipedia being a "liberal magazine" and being victim of "abuses of power" because your opinion isn't allowed in an article, go read our policies and guidelines. Thanks. /Blaxthos 23:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Based on your own userpage, your bias is obviously transparent as I am not the only one who agrees with it. Still, with that said, when I added back in the MM reference in a modified version, it was a good faith effort to be NPOV. You giving me a formal warning like this makes your bias look outright blatant. This is an encyclopedia, not YOUR opinion journal. Arnabdas 21:38, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia official policy re: vandalism

Because of your obvious confusion as to what wikipedia defines as vandalism, I am helpfully providing you with the link to the official policy: Wikipedia:Vandalism. Please read it and try to comprehend it before hurling any additional accusations against other editors, as you did on the CNN controversies talk page. Thank you.-Hal Raglan 01:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

November 2007

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Politics of Bill O'Reilly‎. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. /Blaxthos 23:57, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Arnabdas has placed a similar tag on Blaxthos's talk page, apparently in response to this tag. It is my suggestion that an RfC on user conduct be filed or the matter be taken to ANI if some sort of compromise cannot be reached. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 17:54, 19 November 2007 (UTC)