User talk:Mantanmoreland: Difference between revisions

• /Archive1
• /Archive2
• /Archive3
• /Archive4

yes, it can be sourced

http://www.hiphopdx.com/index/news/id.4374

http://www.byroncrawford.com/2006/08/xclan_reunite_b.html Chubdub 20:06, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if you want to put the correct tag on it, by all means put it back. I have no problem with the image as long as it's tagged. I'm not sure what the right tag would be. Rossrs 22:15, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks -- note my response on your talk page. It was tagged by the uploader as coming from Yahoo [2]and it appears to be a publicity photo. So it would appear to warrant a "promophoto" or "promotional" tag.--Mantanmoreland 22:45, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it looks ok. I think you've done the right thing. cheers Rossrs 10:43, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE, stop doing word by word edits on Ahmadinijad. THREE TIMES I've lost the same damn reply to your multiedits. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE write them up in another program, like Word, Spellcheck, proofread, THEN cut n paste in. Three times between you and Markovich. I want to help you convince him, but now i'm pissed and going to bed instead of replying. Each time i've written it, copied, pasted, sent, and it's gone through without an edit conflict notice, I've closed the program, and then it's LOST. Then I write a NEW reply with the new eidts accounted for, and that's gone. Good night. ThuranX 04:05, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that the 'edit conflict' screen doesn't occur. Instead, it shows me the page, but my comments are just LOST. it's truly frustrating. I'm going to do even more of my work in another text editor, but it's still a frustration. ThuranX 23:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've moved this page to your userspace at User:Mantanmoreland/On the Jews and Their Lies/condensation per the AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/On the Jews and Their Lies/condensation. Thanks -- Samir धर्म 08:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

btw, what do you think of the idea of Category:Self-hating Jews (alleged), an idea that I had. Not sure about it , but it's up for deletion already. Amoruso 04:37, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ian_Pitchford and Zero0000 are on with their vandalisying sourced material again, this time on Palestine. Amoruso 14:54, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These two users have repeatedly abused wikipedia and blanked out whatever they don't like, this time blanking out a primary source and verified sources - no less than 5 differnet ones... I don't know how I can proceed with dealing them or banning this kind of behavior. Amoruso 15:20, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ill change it up, school conflicts with alot of my time so i guess i just didnt bother to finish with that and ended up posting the main source material. the used multiple sources, the only section where i took from is the sept 11th, 2001 page thats it.

i actually wouldnt mind if you lend me a hand with this, get back to me and ill see what i can do.

-Pen

Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position. --Ben Houston 00:06, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. --Ben Houston 03:26, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your quote was removed by another editor in this edit. --Ben Houston 20:33, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing to my attention! Appreciate that you now agree with me that the material belongs in the article.--Mantanmoreland 14:38, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... I can't tell if you are being sarcastic or not... but I agree with the sentiments expressed by that other author, the quote isn't really appropriate. --Ben Houston 22:53, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree. I've tried editing it in the past, but I think there are some autobiographical edits going on, for both that article and some related ones (such as Market Wizards). I've been fighting them for awhile, but without much backup, I didn't want it to turn in into a one-on-one battle. I would really appreciate some help in getting things cleaned up though. :) --Elonka 03:38, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, what are your opinions on these two? CANSLIM, and William O'Neil? --Elonka 03:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lehi (group) Note that the page is infringing on many wikipedia policies, and the recent one is extreme WP:POV of opinions stated as facts and in the intro page ! many other issues were addresed by me but are being reverted by a few members. Please take note of this ! very annoying no doubt. Amoruso 16:36, 11 September 2006 (UTC) Last good version on 16:28...[reply]

thanks for taking care of the pezzulo article, you trimmed it down just fine, and took out all of the overexaggerated material from the copyright source. thanks once again, i barely have time to write anymore.

-Penfish

I suggest care in making accusations of vandalism. I believe there is no need for using such an aggressive tone. All wikipedians are free to edit articles in a manner that they feel would improve the quality of an article. I do just the same. I would also suggest not take these articles to personally.Muntuwandi 14:43, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You removed an entire section -- that is "blanking" and it is considered vandalism when done without proper justification.--Mantanmoreland 14:54, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I am sensing double standards. First you said if you don't believe something is written appropriately re-write it instead of deleting. When I do just that( re-writing with more relevant information you remove it). To put it bluntly, you do not like Mr. farrakhan and I think you are letting your personal feelings get in the way of better judgment. This is against the spirit of wikipedia's objectivity. Muntuwandi 03:27, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't rewrite, you replaced quotes on his racist statements with a lengthy self-serving rant from the "Final Call" newsletter. You are the one POV pushing, not me, pal.--Mantanmoreland 12:48, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have had made edits to Chifumbe|Muntuwandi work that has been reversed without discussion and then reversed again with discussion andno concensus. I am attempting to keep a dialogue on his page. I am somewhat new to this process. If I can be of service as another voice on the matter, please let me know. --DjSamwise 03:21, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[3] Amoruso 01:35, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid we'll never be able to insert the category anti semites in the near future. Now in the U.N his lies will be a very poweful tool by the deniers, which is why I think the compromise is for the moment the only possible choice, and therefore I think it's a good idea. I remind you the current enfoces version is without the category ! Amoruso 01:45, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, if you have hope... I'm sure those supporting him won't back down and they're relentess and won't allow the category to go back in. They won't allow both but there was some (maybe slim) chance for this one atleast. Amoruso 03:02, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It has been rejected as not an acceptable compromise. Remember that the concept of NAS itself is controversial. Editors who cannot grasp the anti-semitism of MA are not going to go along with the concept of New Antisemitism AND that MA is part of that phenom. No way ho-say.--Mantanmoreland 03:09, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not clear on your decision to revert my edits to Patrick Byrne. It's not a matter of "POV"...the prior version was messy and filled with fairly irresponsible generalizations ("market-wide conspiracy"?!!). If you feel I've moved it too far to the other extreme, I can respect that and would like to work with you to find a compromise. Shall we discuss it on the article's talk page? --Beware of Cow 06:21, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure who performed the POV pushing, you or previous editors, but it was blatant.--Mantanmoreland 06:49, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have put up a request for page protection for naked short selling - as I have been involved in the article in the past I don't feel it'd be appropriate for me to unilaterally protect the article, but I feel that is the correct course of action when an outside site solicits meatpuppets to push a point of view. I also added the {{unreferenced}} tag to Market Reform Movement - although it has 10 external links, none of them are reliable sources using this term, and if they aren't provided, the page will be proposed for deletion. (ESkog)^(Talk) 11:34, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, but please include yourself among those who are biased, and stop trying to push your own POV on the issue. You constantly reject out of hand all data and evidence on the issue that others, many of whom have no "agenda" other than to disclose as much information as possible about the issue, have assiduously worked to gather and consolidate here. You seem to have a pathological kneejerk reaction against any changes to what the majority of readers apparently perceive is a pro-naked-shorting bias in the version of the page you keep trying to revert to, but this isn't about "you", it's about disclosure. (Unbiased)^(Talk) 10:00, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks but I don't need preaching on "bias" from a Sanitycheck Meatpuppet[4]--Mantanmoreland 13:24, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I believe that some editors are trying to whitewash the anti-semitism of V. T. Rajshekar and his propaganda agency Dalit Voice by misusing WP:BLP. Please contribute on Talk:V. T. Rajshekar if you have any perspective on this matter.Thanks.Hkelkar 03:28, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the IP is a bit obnoxious, but his recent postings on his talk page are hardly worth acting on. If he gets active again elsehwere with similar commentary then I'd be inclined to seek a block. It appears likely that he is the same as WordBomb (talk · contribs). -Will Beback 17:15, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's for sure.--Mantanmoreland 13:04, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You deleted the following cited, referenced text from the Gary Weiss article:

"== Libel suit == In 1996, Gary Weiss and Business Week magazine were named as co-defendents in a libel suit brought by Julian Robertson, founder of Tiger Management Corporation, over an article written by Weiss in Business Week that Mr. Robertson felt contained erroneous and malicious information about him. The suit was withdrawn by Robertson in January, 1997 after Business Week agreed to retract some of the statements it had made about Robertson in the article.^[1]

"

That passage was actually the ONLY cited, referenced material in the entire article. You're supposed to explain on the article's Discussion page first why you believe cited, referenced material should be deleted. However, the rest of the text in that article is uncited. Therefore, please feel free to delete any of the rest of the text in that article, or else add some inline citations. Thanks! Cla68 23:39, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In looking at the "history" of your talk page, I noticed you removed a vandalism warning. You're not supposed to remove those. I added it back below:

Per ESkog, please do not edit or remove the Talk page comments of other users, as you did here, and here. This is considered a fairly severe form of vandalism, and if continued can result in a block.--70.218.97.149 14:35, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't remove it again. Thanks! Cla68 23:42, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]