User talk:Bigglove/Archive Aug 2007

Keith Ellison article
Your edits are libelous, Ellison did not make any comment that would assign responsability of 9-11 to anyone other than Al Queda. Look at the quote from the Star Tribune: "The fact is that I'm not saying Sept. 11 was a U.S. plan, or anything like that". The comments about Cheney preceded his comments comparing the after effects of the fire to those of 9-11 and are upon the same theme in the same speech. I have noticed that you continue to try and rearrange segments to make it look as if Ellison said Bush is behind 9-11 but the references state the exact opposite and Wikipedia will not place itself in a position where it can be accussed of libel. We can quote notable figures that interprete his words in the same manner you are interpreting them, as has been done with the John Gibson quote. But your edits are not neutral and the series of phrases you have been suggesting for the segment title plainly accuses him of saying something he did not say, and are therefore unacceptable. Please stop unilaterally reverting the article to suit your opinion, you are coming close to violating the Three-revert rule.
 * --Wowaconia 23:05, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I am really suprised at your comments, which are not reality-based in the least.
 * 1. The article in Wikipedia can not and should not rehash the entire speech he gave.  The section is about the CONTROVERSY and the CONTROVERSY is about the meat of the quote from Ellison that my edit led with.  The cheney thing you keep putting up there is not really part of the controversy and does not belong in the lead to the paragraph.
 * 2. I am leading with Ellision's own comments.  It is in no way shape or form libelous to quote someone directly.  What are you talking about?????????????????????
 * 3. The edit then outlines the reaction to what Ellision said, in the words that were  in the article previous to me touching it.  Please if you have a problem with this track down whoever wrote it and discuss with them.
 * 4. Finally, my edit order:  quote, reaction, further comments.  This is neutral.  Your order: your interpretation, quote, Ellison's further comments, THEN reaction, is less neutral.   My order is preferable.
 * 5. We need to come up with a meaninful title that actually conveys the nature of the remarks that we can both be happy with.  Yours have not fit the bill. You are not happy with my ideas. Please feel free to suggest something else.
 * 6. I think that everyone is allowed to edit wikipedia and you've changed every single one of my edits back around to something else.  Aren't you violating the same rule you are acusing me of violating?

Bigglove 23:23, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Further comments: Look at what you wrote above:


 * "Ellison did not make any comment that would assign responsability of 9-11 to anyone other than Al Queda. Look at the quote from the Star Tribune: "The fact is that I'm not saying Sept. 11 was a U.S. plan, or anything like that".


 * Here is the ACTUAL quote, "The fact is that I'm not saying [Sept. 11] was a [U.S.] plan, or anything like that because, you know, that's how they put you in the nut-ball box -- dismiss you"


 * It is misleading to parse a quote as you have done. Bigglove 23:35, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

what the hell is your problem?
I'm sorry, but you need to stop the nonsense on the Southern California InFocus page. You don't like me, fine. You don't like Muslims, fine. You don't like Muslim newspapers, also fine. But that is no reason to disrupt Wikipedia like this. You're just game playing on that page now and it is really annoying. I am laying off the page completely (for now); you should take this time to consider what you actually believe the page should look like and make an argument for that in talk rather than just changing it to whatever you think will annoy me the most. Remember, Wikipedia is not a Battleground. I'm sorry I have pissed you off but your reaction is not called for. csloat 02:35, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but we differ in opinions about what is nonsense.
 * The deletion of sourced relevant material is nonsense. You did this repeatedly on the page.
 * Removing content that is not acceptable by WP:V, which I did, is NOT nonsense.
 * The page itself may WELL be nonsense, please see my point by point discussion regarding notability criteria and this article on the talk page (and also comments of others above mine by other users)

Also please note that the kind of statements you are making against me about not "liking muslims" or "liking muslim newspapers" are personal attacks. You have also made personal attacks on others accusing them of "Extremist Islamophobia" on the talk page of this article. Please see WP:NPA. (note: this diff also shows your lack of appreication of the Notability criteria for Wikipedia). I have also explained reasoning behind edits on the talk page of the article or at the very least in edit summaries. I am not sure why this user thinks that my edits are motivated by "whatever I think will annoy" him--that is nonsense--but he should read WP:AGF. Bigglove 02:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)