Talk:MV Amalthea

Neutrallity disputed???

Alright, I'll bite... For educational purposes... Wanna explain how its biased either way?BGinOC (talk) 06:47, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah... A little research into the one who claims bias shows us with recent contributions to articles on his user page --> Isser Be'eri - I am inclined to think the claimant has a bias in this case towards Israel.

Actually, no... and you should probably do some proper research before making an accusation like that. Isser Be'eri was a red-link I fixed after a community request and is one of about of 100 similar articles to which I've made a similar contribution on the same basis. It's on my user page because I was proud of the fact that I and a group of great editors worked together cooperatively to create an informative, relatively neutral article about a very controversial person. I've created many articles and not all of them can be listed on my user page. I'm a bit offended that you picked one article I contributed to and used it to attack me becuase it suited your argument. For the record, I'm Australian and have no real interest in the Middle East.

A lack of neutrality does not automatically equal bias and that's not what I suggested about the article - it simply didn't contain enough material to make it comprehensive and therefore neutral. It's an article about a vessel but doesn't include any history, construction information, re-assignment information, etc. Ironically, I also extensively edited the article MV Oceanic Viking; an ordinary ship later involved in a political issue for which it recieved extensive coverage. There's no reason your article can't conform to the same standards and my tag was on that basis.

Please assume good faith rather than simply jumping to conclusions. I am, quite openly if you look at my userpage, a new page patroller. My issue with the new article was based on the fact that the the citations were (and still are) not really done properly and the article was created as a direct result of a current news event and not on the basis of a need for an encyclopedic article, something another editor picked up on too. For the record, the article has now been edited to the point where it is far more neutral and for that you should be commended. I did not tag it for speedy deletion (which if you've seen my edit log I've done to about 20 pages in the last 24 hours) but simply highlighted that it likely needed work to make it, 1. more neutral; and 2. properly referenced. Stalwart111 (talk) 11:26, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No offense taken, as the question was posed - did not see how it was originally not neutral. The Israeli comment was said with a smile - hard to tell in a land of text and no emotion I know...BGinOC (talk)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on MV Amalthea. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100711174101/http://channel6newsonline.com/2010/07/israel-requests-the-un-to-prevent-libyan-aid-ship-from-violating-blockade/ to http://channel6newsonline.com/2010/07/israel-requests-the-un-to-prevent-libyan-aid-ship-from-violating-blockade/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:48, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]