User talk:Cafeirlandais

Welcome to Wikipedia!
Great job with gentle intervention at Ward Churchill misconduct allegations. I think your edits are well written, and definitely in the right spirit. Perhaps someone like you with no prior "stake" in the topic can cut the gordian knot.

In my perception, I've spent a lot of effort fending off POV-warriors who want to bring in an anti-Churchill agenda, and turn the several articles dealing with him into editorials rather than encyclopedia entries. On the other hand, I'm a pretty bristly type of guy, and don't have a lot of patience with editors once I perceive that type of sin. I just stumbled into trying to maintain the articles against POV stuff a few months back, but by now am much-hated by those editors who want more anti-Churchill stuff. On the other hand, if I revert some change they make, they are even more strident in their reaction than they might be if some calmer voice urged attention to principles of NPOV and the like.

There is an odd phenomenon I've found on the Churchill pages. I've seen it in other Wikipedia topics, but more on Churchill than anywhere else. There are about a half dozen editors (all anti-Churchill in slant) who edit the articles on Churchill nearly exclusively. The either never touch other topics at all, or do so rarely and slightly. On the other hand, none of the editors sometimes accused of being "pro-Churchill" (like me, though the characterization is silly; or even more-so like MONGO, who is actually pretty vehemently opposed to Churchill's way of thinking as an external matter) edit the Churchill articles as more than a sliver of their contributions. I suppose something like a tenth of my edits might relate to that... though I wish it was less, since almost all the Churchill work is combatting POV-mongering rather than genuinely enhancing the articles.

All the best. LotLE × talk 20:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * All of the previous comments from Lulu is self-important, back-slapping BS, designed to make you believe that Lulu is a "non-bias" editors, which, of course, is just simple BS. Lulu thinks Churchill is a "hero" to the working masses and he is willing to buy just about anything that Churchill sells.  Also, your editing out of the introduction the fact that Churchill's heritage has been questioned will be edited back in.  Count on it.   --70.114.201.27 00:59, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


 * In response to the above two comments, I would like to say that I do not have a dog in this fight. I am neither looking to defend nor admonish Ward Churchill.  That’s not to say that I don’t have an opinion on the subject, believe me I do, but rather that my decision to make an edit to the article lay strictly in my previously stated objective of improving the grammar of the article.  I mean to criticize no one, but in the end bad grammar is, well, bad grammar.  To my tin ear, the wording in the introduction just did not work.  I absolutely did not try to change the content, at least not in any way that may be considered biased.  With respect to Mr. Churchill’s alleged Native American heritage, I thought I had simply moved that issue from the second paragraph to the first.  I believe that it is a salient point in this article and if my edits failed to adequately address this issue then I apologize.  Again, I am new to Wikipedia and I fully understand that I will be making mistakes.  Your comments, and criticisms, are most welcome. Go raibh maith agat.  Cafe Irlandais 04:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Haunani-Kay Trask
Why did you remove the tag? (Not looking to start a fight, just was wondering if you could give a reason). Cheers Vizjim 19:27, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

As a native Hawaiian Ms. Trask is Polynesian, not Native North American. Sláinte --Cafe Irlandais 23:25, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Fair enough! :) Vizjim 12:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Anna Mae Aquash
I find your edits to Anna Mae Aquash to be thoughtful and always improve the article's flow, grammar, and structure. Not everyone who had worked on that article took the care you do. Badagnani 17:12, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I prefer just continually improving articles rather than coming up with some sort of "review," which may impose arbitrary, rather than organic standards that may not fit the article well. I do believe that her early life is not covered at all and that needs work. Thanks for all your work, too. I'm sure she would appreciate the fact that people care about all the hard work she did for Native people, and that she's remembered. BTW I'm not convinced that the Peltier and polygraph parts should be removed. There are some parallels between the Graham case and that of Peltier. Badagnani 21:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Leonard Peltier
Hello,

Thanks for your reply. I also agree that that anonymous post was partial, but at least some of the content seemd valid, some possibly based on knowledge I certainly don't have of the case. Which is why I'm against removing it entirely. But I would not have minded an edit, removing or altering some of the additions and adding a reference request for some of them (as Max rspct did). I also found this anonymous editor's language excellent (I'd say professional), obviously much better then my own. I only wish 64.149.46.84 was interested enough in the topic and wikipedia to back up his edit some more and contribute regularly. I myself know too little of the case (my main interest lies with AIM which I covered somewhat in college political sciences) to actually edit the article.--Caranorn 12:23, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Irish Whiskey
Nice pic this one. You should replace the Powers with the powers 12 yo, which I bet you have in your collection seeing the midleton bottle ;). Superdude99 15:23, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Ward Churchill Luxemburg Drawing
Hello, I've provided more details about the reason for the Luxemburg drawing removal at and I plan to remove it from the main Ward Churchill page in the next couple days if the original poster does not have a source that meets Wikipedia WP:RS guidelines.

I don't doubt that Churchill made the drawing, or that the original poster obtained the drawing from Churchill. And, I assume the poster was using Good Faith when he uploaded it, but using Good Faith does not mean that one does not need to abide by WP:RS guidelines.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ward_Churchill —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Uncle uncle uncle (talk • contribs) 18:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC).

Thank you for posting the (Devil's Advocate style) logical explanation, based on Wikipedia policies for the continued inclusion of Luxemburg drawing. I may not agree with the conclusions and I may post counter evidence when I have time, but your argument was not unreasonable.

Also, I had no problem with the image at: although I prefer this image  as it appears that someone has utilized some of the whiskey as was is meant to be used - Whiskey is not meant to sit around on a counter and look pretty. Uncle uncle uncle 21:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Verifiability as to the creator of the Rosa Luxemburg drawing
In preparation for an RFC at [WP:RFC/BIO] on the verifiability of the attribution of the the Rosa Luxemburg drawing to Ward Churchill, I have placed the appropriate section on the page. There is a location available for Statements by editors previously involved in dispute. I have placed this notice on the talk page of the editors previously involved in the dispute to allow time for supplying these comments prior to requesting broad input from the Wikipedia community.

Does the source provided for satisfy the Wikipedia policies and guidelines [WP:RS], [WP:V], and [WP:CITE] to support the claim that the drawing was created by Ward Churchill? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Uncle uncle uncle (talk • contribs) 23:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC).

about Wounded Knee Massacre and Buffy Sainte-Marie
For what it's worth I wasn't trying to make it a platform for Buffy's music. I like the current edit. The point was as it stood it looked like the song was just about Wounded Knee when even a cursory review of the song would show that cannot be "just" about that event. But it isn't ignoring the event either - Wounded knee, as covered in the article, has elements for the Native culture that resonate to the present. So the song should be mentioned in the article AND reflect that set of issues in the present. That's all - just trying to make the article better so to speak.--Smkolins 02:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Message posted on Saturday, May 5, 2007
Please do not post copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

✤ JonHarder talk

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC)