User talk:Freedom Fan

Islam external links

Please don't just add links. We have forged an agreement with much blood shed over the issue. If you would like to bring it up again in discussion you may go to Talk:Islam but don't change before consensus is built. gren グレン 06:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Grenavitar! Freedom Fan 16:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

NPA

Please regard WP:NPA; edit comments such as this violate it - flinging allegations of vandalism around for good faith edits with which you disagree is unacceptable William M. Connolley 21:03, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Duly noted. Thanks. Freedom Fan 23:40, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Administrator, heal thyself. ~ UBeR 21:19, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Interesting indeed UBer: No "inconsistency" here. LOL.Freedom Fan 22:36, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Canadian Human Rights Commission

Restoring the criticism section in full is unacceptable. It was thoroughly laced with violations of the NPOV requirements. Please discuss the matter before restoring inappropriate content. Frank Pais (talk) 19:46, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Please see "Criticism" in the discussion section. Thanks. Freedom Fan (talk) 04:37, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Eurabia

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to Eurabia appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe our core policies. Thank you. Also, please read and heed WP:OR. Specifically, I'm asking you not to cite sources which don't relate to the topic of the article - even if you personally think that they're relevant. <eleland/talkedits> 23:03, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, welcome to Wikipedia. I have restored this content; please see explanation under the Eurabia talk page- Comments from the Islamic World. Thank you.Freedom Fan (talk) 01:38, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Ayaan Hirsi Ali

I'm a huge fan of this woman, but I don't see how WP:BLP relates to your recent edit. Weren't these sourced, verifiable comments? And didn't this lead to her loss of a place in the legislature? Yes, she was eventually 'forgiven', but it is a fact that she was accused of these things, which is what the edits said? Mind you, I have no intention of reverting, as I disagree with those claims. But I don't understand citing BLP for removing them. If you have time, please explain. Cheers. Unschool (talk) 06:20, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes hi Unschool. The remarks were inappropriate because they merely call Ms. Ali unflattering names, without adding any substance. One gratuitous comment called her a liar yet her misrepresentation, on an application for asylum in her attempt to escape oppression, have already been covered at length redundantly in a previous section.

The other comment called her a "chameleon" without providing explanation. This section clearly violates the BLP principle. If someone has some additional criticism of substance, sure bring it. But let's lose the pointless name calling. Thanks.Freedom Fan (talk) 07:15, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Ayaan Hirsi Ali. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Please don't remove well referenced and sourced content which are there for several months, without proper discussion. Suigeneris (talk) 08:24, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, welcome to Wikipedia. My reasons for removing the content was explained above and meets the criterion for instant removal consistent with the Wikipedia policy BLP. I will also move the comments to the talk page per your suggestion. Thank you.Freedom Fan (talk) 15:32, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments may be unflattering, but if they are referenced, they will stay - You may have many reasons of your own to feel like removing a sourced content, but consistently removing sourced contents amount to vandalsim. Suigeneris (talk) 21:51, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

The comments may or may not stay, but accusing another editor, who acts in good faith, of vandalism is a direct violation of the Wikipedia policy of "no personal attacks" WP:NPA.

My edits have been made in good faith because I have documented my reasons for the edits in accordance with Wikipedia policy. Hopefully we can resolve this disagreement without administrator mediation, but that will be up to you. I am allowing for the required cooling-off period for now. The verifiability of the sourcing is irrelevant.

Again my points are these:

1) Accusing Ms. Ali of "fraud" is redundant because she has already admitted the misrepresentation on her application for asylum. This has already been covered at length in an entire section devoted specifically to this issue, where Ms. Ali's explanation also appears. So redundantly including this point twice distorts the neutrality required of Wikipedia articles, which I am willing to believe for the time being, would not be your intent. As a compromise, if you want to merge this into the main section dealing with this, I would not have a problem with this.

2) Calling Ms. Ali a "chameleon" who reinvents herself is meaningless without any additional explanation. I am not even sure if it is a compliment or a smear. As a compromise, if you want this to stay, you need to qualify this so that it has some meaning without requiring the reader to go read the source.

The ball is in your court.Freedom Fan (talk) 03:06, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello FF, pointing out vandalism is in no way a personal attack. I just pointed out the effect of your action without touching your intention.

It is true that you had provided an edit summary - but this is not the same as trying to build a consensus (atleast this was the case), a vital policy when editing disputed articles like Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

The section that you had removed was included after many heated debates in the talk page by many editors - so you cannot just delete them without challenging the rationale for including them(in the talk page).My arguments have been detailed in the talk page - so I am not rewriting them all here again ( give specific attention to undue weight ), but still my reply to your concerns -

1) The fact that she had admitted her crime doesn't make the critisicm unnecessary. Parts of the article where this was discussed never mentions this from a critical point of view - it just mentions the problem. Your idea to merge is in general respectable as some editors are of the opinion that WP:BLP need not have a separate Critisicm section, all criticisms need to be just noted in the other sections of the biography, wherever applicable. But in case of this article it is better to have a separate criticism section, as it fails to mention any critical opinion of Hirsi which are published through a variety of sources.

2) Ali was called a chameleon by a well respected source like Economist - it is worth mentioning according to the policy of clearly stating everything that is worth mentioning. The latter part of the sentence(ie, referring to her "talent for reinvention") makes it clear, why Hirsi was called a chameloen. Hope this helps Suigeneris (talk) 09:17, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Please research the term vandal and let us know whether it carries any negative connotation. Furthermore, I disagree with your reasoning, and am moving this discussion to the talk page of the article. I urge you to seek consensus in order to improve the balance and quality of this article, regardless of your personal feelings toward Ms. Ali. Thanks.Freedom Fan (talk) 17:00, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Dont you think that its a bit funny to accuse others of bias(ie, I am against Hirsi, so I am inclined to write against her) while you openly state your political bias in your userpage and make more or less only edits of similar nature to articles related to particular causes?? Suigeneris (talk) 21:30, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

What I think is funny is that you seem to think anyone is unbiased, including yourself. However, I don't deny my bias as you apparently do.

I also believe I have a well developed sense of fairness, and a high regard for the objectives and principles established by Wikipedia, especially those which require a neutral point of view.

But if you think charging that someone is a "fraud" and supporting that with an obviously biased blog as a source, then I question your ability to be an effective editor. Freedom Fan (talk) 04:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Hirsi obviously committed fraud despite the legal complexities of the word in different countries. Though lying per se is not a fraud, lying deliberately to accomplish certain things(whether a job or a citizenship) accounts to fraud. Judgement about effectiveness of an editor is better left to the Wiki community and users, who are more likely to judge it based on the diversity of a editor's contributions. Zencv ^{Lets discuss} 13:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations. Obviously you have no bias as an editor, either. Regardless, the section is now expressed in a neutral manner, and I suggest you leave it that way. Freedom Fan (talk) 16:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Interesting..You removed three words from the critisicm section(which itself takes less than 5% of the whole article) and suddenly the article attains the "neutral" status. The article is full of cheap praise heaped on a mediocre subject, often supported by references from some dutch blogs. Anyway thanks that you noticed my neutrality Zencv ^{Lets discuss} 21:41, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Glad you realized what you were complaining about. Always nice to forge a consensus with fellow neutral editors. Freedom Fan (talk) 22:10, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Good revert at Tony Rezko article

Thank you for reverting Loonymonkey's edit at the Rezko article. If you ever need support for a consensus to keep information like that in at the article, please contact me because I'm interested in the subject. I'm busy with edits about Bill Ayers and the Obama-Ayers controversy articles, so I'm not able to pay as much attention to Rezko as I'd like. Cheers, Noroton (talk) 19:20, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Noroton. I also entered similar text into the talk page in the event that it requires more discussion. I realize some subjects can be controversial as we near the election, but Wikipedia must get it right. Freedom Fan (talk) 21:01, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

About the mediation. Thanks, Noroton (talk) 23:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, hate to be such a rookie, but I don't know how to find your email address. Please advise. Freedom Fan (talk) 04:00, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

On the far lefthand side of each user's page and user's talk page is a section called "toolbox", and "E-mail this user" is the fifth bulleted item on that list. Click it and it opens a page that lets you email through Wikipedia. Subsequent emails can be sent directly between users, since your own email address would be in your email to me. Many users set up google gmail accounts for Wikipedia purposes because they tend to be pretty safe (they're quick to set up; just remember to check it; you can set it up and activate your own ability to receive emails through Wikipedia if you chose, but tha isn't necessary, I think, if you just want to send email to others, like me). -- Noroton (talk) 16:28, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Barack Obama Article Probation

Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Article, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Talk:Barack Obama/Article probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.

The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you. -- Brothejr (talk) 12:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

RfC on Weathermen, Ayers, Dohrm, Obama, and "terrorism"

Please note that I have created an RfC to discuss the matter of whether, how, and where we should use and cover the designation "terrorist" describe the Weathermen and their former leaders. It is located here: Talk:Weatherman (organization)/Terrorism RfC. The intent is to decide as a content matter (and not as a behavioral issue regarding the editors involved) how to deal with this question. I am notifying you because you appear to have participated in or commented about this issue before. Feel free to participate. Thank you. Wikidemon (talk) 20:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Mediation

Hi my name is BountyHunter2008 and I was wondering if you could give me some information on the case of Eurabia as to what exactly has been going on so we can try and sort this out without having to go through the proper process of mediation. Many thanks BountyHunter2008 (talk) 11:15, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, BountyHunter2008. Please allow me to address this in the article talk page, as my answer will be comprehensive. Thanks for your interest. Freedom Fan (talk) 15:14, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the Eurabia talk page i was wondering if you have sorted it out or if you are still arguing and mediation is still required? BountyHunter2008 (talk) 12:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I think we are still sorting this out. Thank you so much for your help; I think this article will be improved dramatically as a result. Freedom Fan (talk) 16:46, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Please take another look at Weatherman/Terrorism RfC

This is a message sent to a number of editors, and following WP:CANVASS requirements: Please take another look at Talk:Weatherman (organization)/Terrorism RfC and consider new information added near the top of the article and several new proposals at the bottom. If you haven't looked at the RfC in some time, you may find reason in the new information and new proposals to rethink the matter. -- Noroton (talk) 02:23, 22 September 2008 (UTC)