User talk:Dijcks

Comment

		The Original Barnstar
		for this most excellent edit, which I just recently found. - Philippe 01:25, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the acknowledgement! I'm learning every day, how to be a better contributor! Dijcks | ^InOut 17:07, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Bin Laden

Hi Dijcks. I think it would be sensible if you were to await a third opinion (WP:3), regarding your edits to the article on Osama bin Laden. Meph. 15:37, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Meph, I have no idea what you are talking about. I'm not aware of any WP:3O regarding that one sentence you changed.

By the way, some editors might consider some of your edit summaries insulting, for example:

• "Reintroducing spelling mistakes; possible original research (it is assumed, to the best of my knowledge, that he was at the compound the enti"

OR:

• "Tweaks following some messy editing".

..especially when they were not my mistakes. There were intermediate/conflicting edits that made it impossible to quickly change some of the syntax at the time you came in.

I'm personally developing a "thick skin" here, but others might take these comments personally. Best wishes, Dijcks | ^InOut 17:15, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Dijcks, I intended no malice; I apologise if any was perceived. I was motivated by the sentence: 'Bin Laden spent several years in hidingat a private compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan', when something more concise and less ambiguous was needed. Best, Meph. 17:30, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

No worries at all! I saw that spelling mistake (from another user actually!) but could not get it corrected right away. I think you came in right at a time when a few edits were mixing in at the same time. It simply took a few edits to get it where it is. I have a feeling that the article in question will be much-changed over the next few weeks given the attention it's getting! Thanks for the message :) Dijcks | ^InOut 17:51, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Regarding your recent edits. Please read WP:OR. You can not add material that is not in the source even if it is likely to be true. In this case you cant say "taking care to avoid the possibility of any return-fire" because the source does not claim that and we can not know the intent until the Seals are interviewed personally. As the source has no personal knowledge of intent even if the source did say that, it would need to be attributed to the source not the subject ie: "according to x". If you follow what the source states you cant go wrong. Also note that when writing numbers in articles that you spell the number in full if ten (10) or less and numerically if more than ten, ie: 15. Cheers and good luck with your editing. Wayne (talk) 15:34, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I also noticed you had duplicated a reference. When you want to use the same reference multiple times you replace the <ref> in the first reference with <ref name="insert name">. For each additional use you only need to add <ref name="insert name"/> without the rest of the reference (but with a backslash) and it will refer the link to the original reference. This avoids cluttering the text which can make it harder to read when editing. Wayne (talk) 15:54, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

There are 2 separate areas of that one article that I cited to support the text that was inserted. It's not right to tell me not to include them, AND then say I'm not properly sourcing the content. There is nothing in those edits that is not substantiated or supported in these other refs in the article. If there is, correct it, rather than wholesale removing of the original effort. Dijcks | ^InOut 17:41, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Wayne, the part about the SEALs is covered in other reporting. It's been surmised by several outlets that concern for safety led them to shoot-first", erring on the side of safety. That said, my concern is that the complete set of edits were reverted. That's not right. If a part needs to be adjusted, or in your opinion removed, do that rather than wipe everything out? Thanks! Dijcks | ^InOut 17:44, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

On the refs, yes, there were 2 sections of the one article I wanted to cite, to make sure readers/editors would see the source material used, but I will take time to learn what you've suggested I do in the future.. Thanks.. Dijcks | ^InOut 17:47, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

And here is an exact quote from the ref.. "The three SEALs assumed he was going for a weapon, and one by one they rushed after him through the door, one official described.". This supports the statement about taking care to protect themselves. Best, Dijcks | ^InOut 17:58, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

"Surmised" carries no weight as officials have said they shot "immediately" and did not attempt to capture. There is no evidence, and no one has claimed, that bin Laden was thought to be a threat once the Seals entered the room. An official was asked this question and replied that retreating to the room was considered resistance. "taking care to protect themselves" is still original research because the source does not say that and even though the action can be assumed it adds nothing to the article. Wayne (talk) 17:55, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't agree with you in this case. Regardless of what was going through the minds of the raiders, we can only contribute reliable reported content. We are required to write and source content without plagiarizing the source material. The reliable source stated, "the three SEALs assumed he was going for a weapon...". This comment is more than sufficient for an editor here to extract their actions in firing upon bin Laden as preventative and acting in the interest of their own safety. I've contributed content that is neutral, and provided reliable sources. It needs to stay as written, unless one can contribute in a way that adds to the quality of, or supports other more recent factual content to the article. Dijcks | ^InOut 21:17, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikpipedia does not allow an editor to "extract their actions" as that is original research. They assumed he was going for a weapon and the article already states that, but you cant then extrapolate that they also thought that once they entered the room unless the source claims it, which it doesn't. You are in effect making two separate claims (one supported and one unsupported) based on a single reported action. In fact, officials said that the Seals knew he was not armed and they only feared that the women were. Wayne (talk) 09:49, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Wayne, If the reference states that they assumed he was going for a weapon, ran into his room, and then hid behind two women. The SEALs, (IMO gave more than a benefit of the doubt. It was stated that he could have given up in the hallway) having given the courtesy of moving the women out of the way and fired in both self-defense and in anticipation of his wielding a weapon. In any case, their actions were preemptive. I made some changes, see what you think. Dijcks | ^InOut 17:52, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I have three problems with the text. 1: I believe my original text Believing he was going for a weapon, three Seals rushed the room not only better conveys the urgency of the situation (supporting pre-emptive self defence) but allows the reader to understand why he was shot so quickly, which I believe was the intent of your original edit that mentioned the belief twice. 2: The sources do not say he was hiding behind the women, they say the women were trying to protect him. I also don't like saying "raiders". 3: The section has two paragraphs talking about Seals and then they are refered to as "raiders" for two sentences. This looks odd and lacks consistency. Is there a reason for using raiders other than that the source called them that in the headline? Wayne (talk) 04:38, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Usually on an article that has a lot of interest, other contributors will make changes that reflect consensus. The text seems to be persisting, and I do feel that it reads well. But, in answer to problems stated:

1. Logic would indeed suggest he would go for weapon, yes, and certainly it justifies the actions of the raiders. The way the text is written, at this point is semantics, but as it is written, gives a clear description of what was happening at that juncture in the raid.

2. I agree with you on this change. The source used does state that they were standing in front of him, yelling, etc.. Lets' make that change then.

3. In answer to the reason for using the word "raiders". During the course of the actual raid, they were raiders. They've been referred to in that manner many times in other Examples:

• As the raiders traversed the stairs, they found bin Laden.

Compared to:

• During the intelligence sweep, the SEALs recovered several items of interest.

The above examples are how I determined, in my contribs., whether to use "SEALs" vs. "raiders". In short, during the actual activity of "raiding" the compound, I've gone on to call them "raiders". When acting in any other capacity during the mission, I've gone on to address them as "SEALs". This is also semantics, but at least now you know why I've done it that way. Up until our debate, I've not taken the time to possibly re-name them when in action. I'm not steadfast on this however, but would be curious as to any objections if we continue that way. Thanks sir, :) Dijcks | ^InOut 15:46, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Dijcks. You have new messages at WP:VPP.
Message added 22:28, 6 May 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Welcome template test

Getting Started The five pillars of Wikipedia • Tutorial • Your first article How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions New contributors' help page Where to: ask questions • make requests Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts