User talk:212.100.250.228

Please do not delete items from talk pages whether you agree with them or notCathar11 (talk) 20:52, 26 December 2009 (UTC)


 * That is a misleading, erroneous and bullying accusation, Cathar11. Please withdraw it soon to avoid this copying to your talk page.

This is NOT the discussion page for an IP user
This is NOT 'the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's numerical IP address.' As the panel below itself states, 'Some IP addresses change periodically, and may be shared by several users.'


 * Yea, and like it says below, register if you don't want to be confused for someone else then. Someone using this IP address vandalized Talk:Manuel Zelaya when it deleted talk page comments. Moogwrench (talk) 04:56, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


 * That's no excuse for robotic calumnies. Repeated attempts to register resulted in a Wiki witch-hunt, resulting in a perception of registered editors as approved Wiki poodles.

December 2009
Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Talk:Manuel Zelaya, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. ''Removing talk page comments because you believe them to be POV is not acceptable. Talk pages are places where differences are aired openly and different POVs are considered. Removal of such constitutes vandalism and has been reverted.'' Moogwrench (talk) 04:58, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.


 * Where does it say POV is acceptable on talk pages? Even if it does, it doesn't make unsubstantiated, libellous material acceptable.

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. --SineBot (talk) 12:25, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the term "ouster" and editorializing
Please see my comment here regarding use of the term "ouster."

Also, try to avoid editorializing in the articles. We can all get passionate about subjects, but it is wise to leave qualifying statements and opinions to RS source. An example would be your use of the word "clearly" and the unsourced opinion in this edit you made. Please review WP:EDITORIAL and especially MOS:OPED and leave me a comment on my talk page is you have any questions. Thanks. Moogwrench (talk) 10:27, 31 December 2009 (UTC)


 * You must be one hell of a teacher, Moogwrench. You are simply promoting your own (albeit standard US imperialist) opinions as fact, and demeaning mine as 'editorializing.' You are also untrue to the motto of the Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians: 'Conservata veritate,' which translates as, "With the preserved truth". (This motto reflects the inclusionist desire to change Wikipedia only when no knowledge would be lost as a result). You are assisting in the coup cover-up by helping to conceal the false, unrepresentative methodology of the opinion pollsters, who have helped the coup leaders.--212.100.250.228 (talk) 01:38, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * If you will look under the wikilinks that I provided, you will note that certain qualifiers (i.e. "clearly") are indeed editorializing. Please see "Adverbs that editorialize" under WP:EDITORIAL.  Unsourced assertions, such as the one I cited above, should also be avoided. Please see "Avoid editorial opinion" under MOS:OPED. Thanks. Moogwrench (talk) 17:07, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, thanks for the copy work on Manuel Zelaya. Moogwrench (talk) 10:30, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You mean correcting the broken English, ungrammatical crap which was left by some pro-coup Honduran, by the looks of it(?). Just so you can sail in and reimpose your US imperialist bullshit?--212.100.250.228 (talk) 01:38, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * No need to be uncivil. Moogwrench (talk) 17:07, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, to reiterate:

The term "ouster" is used extensively in the RS, essentially as a synonym for "coup." See: AP in the US, Reuters UK in the United Kingdom, AFP in France, etc. It is obviously not just a US word. Moogwrench (talk) 17:36, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The term "ouster" implies illegality whereas removal from office would seem to be pro coup and sugest a legal process which obviously wasn't the case.Cathar11 (talk) 21:10, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Does Moogwrench agree with that?
 * The 'UK' link he twice quoted recently is to a Jewish American reporter on Reuters UK, and the AFP link doesn't mention the word. It says 'coup.' As for 'clearly,' it means just that - unless you happen to belong to some impossibly cynical, doubletalking culture. How is that 'editorializing?'--212.100.250.228 (talk) 22:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The Honduran articles have been savaged by pro coup POV editors. You can help redress the balance.WP:FIXIT I've tried. Look at the history and see the mendicous edits and try and untangle them. In fairness to Moog he has also tried to restore NPOV to these articles. One of the problems is using pro coup Honduran media as a RS when clearly they are not. Most UK media refer to the events as a coup and avoid the word ouster which is a novel use of the verb oust. Cathar11 (talk) 23:17, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Let's take these issues point by point, not to be contentious but to help you (212.100.250.228) understand what I am trying to say:
 * Reuters UK exercises editorial control over their reporter's work and is considered the source, not the individual reporter.
 * As to the AFP source, maybe you didn't actually read it? The third paragraph is as follows: "Vasquez was a key figure in the June 28 ouster of Zelaya and has defended the expulsion, but has said he was only enforcing a Supreme Court ruling" (emphasis mine).
 * Please pay attention to the following words of your edit which I reverted:
 * "But in a country where two thirds live below the poverty line, the logistics of such opininion polls are, crucially, clearly even more contentious than in wealthier countries" (emphasis mine).
 * The content isn't particularly contentious, however, it is an opinion for two reasons:
 * 1. You use adverbs that editorialize.
 * Clearly is even spelled out specifically in EDITORIAL:
 * "Some adverbs can imply that a matter is without doubt or so obvious that no explanation is necessary, whereas they often express a viewpoint or are plain rhetoric."
 * Crucially also falls under that same set of guidelines at EDITORIAL.
 * 2. Your statement lacked a source and/or attribution. Under Verifiability, the burden of evidence is upon the editor placing the content to provide a reliable source for their statements.
 * Also, along the same veins, this and the first portion of this employ editorial license and/or weasel words. For this reason they were either modified or removed.
 * Again, I don't have anything personal against you, I just think that you need to make sure that all your facts are cited, and that you try to keep your point of view from coloring your editing and damaging your relationships with fellow editors. Calling other editor's work "bullshit," as you did above, doesn't really promote a healthy environment in which to work. Moogwrench (talk) 00:03, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * First of all, apologies for having missed the word 'ouster' in the AFP bulletin. However, it still strongly suggests to me a non-British euphemism for a coup, playing down the military action - including lethal violence. I refute the idea that direct or indirect employment by Reuters UK makes the source 'British.' It still looks quite alien and euphemistic to a reader of the British press, and, looking at the source of this weasel word, is reminiscent of those countries' history of being slow to challenge dictators (France, US).
 * As an authoritarian, you are adopting the rules laid down by the institution (Wikipedia, in this instance) as if by rote. Wikipedia indeed asserts that words like 'clearly' may be POV. You take it that little step further, and conclude that such words are inevitably POV. My use of 'clearly' was quite different from that, and designed to remind the reader of obvious realities which are not immediately apparent - the imperfect nature of sample polls, and, in this particular instance, the obvious bias which would be introduced by e.g., telephone polls in an impoverished population not on the phone. This is also a 'crucial' fact, because polls are all the reader has to go on, here and in most parts of Honduras and elsewhere, in deciding the popular view on the ground, apart from mere individual opinion.
 * My other insertions which you criticise and tamper with are in the same vein.
 * Perhaps 'bullshit' was too mild a description of your editing. To employ, or, in fact, misuse rules in order to suppress the truth is not just 'bullshit,' Moogwrench, it is plain evil (and politically motivated, no doubt).--212.100.250.228 (talk) 17:29, 5 January 2010 (UTC)