User talk:Dmalveaux

Welcome!

Hello, Dmalveaux, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome!  ITAQALLAH  01:39, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Manual of Style

Hi
Hi. I notice you are editing an article that has had an influx of editors that are newly formed. Welcome.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:21, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes indeed. Thanks for the welcome!
 * Hi -- I know that you are a new editor. But clearly you seem intent on muddling the message that clearly has two parts.  The first part is not a part that the critics are commenting on.  The second part is.  Your efforts certainly have the effect of confusing the reader.  I'll try to fix it.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:22, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

First of all, I actually left your edits alone for awhile and someone else came along and fixed them, apparently noticing the same problems I did. Secondly, in your latest edits, you've actually gone to the point of making the third-party neutral text completely supportive of the critic's opinion. Obviously, Rauf and others would dispute the notion that he gave a mixed or muddled message. For the neutral text to imply or say outright that his message was muddled is to take sides. And that, I think, is the definition of bias.
 * Not at all. Abdul Rauf said two things.  All manner of RS have pointed to the language that he used which has been criticized.  That is the part that has RS focus.  They are not criticzing him for his comments on Islam.  If you want those reflected as well, that's fine of course.  But clearly his critics are not criticizing his comments on Islam.  Your edits have the effect of not letting the reader see what all the criticism is about.  We don't want to hide the ball from the reader -- and that is the effect of your edits.  I'll make the appropriate edits to avoid that unintended bias.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:32, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

"Not at all" is not a response to my criticism, much less a logical one. The paragraphs currently effectively describe Rauch's criticism without injecting Rauch's opinion into the actual third-party, neutral text. I hesitate to question your motives, but on the discussion page for Cordoba House, other users have apparently also noticed your apparent bias regarding this article. Hopefully you'll be able to step back from your feelings on the controversy and appraise the situation more rationally. As for Rauf's comments on Islam...um what? That's not at issue. My only complaint is that you are injecting bias into the would-be neutral, third party text surrounding the Rauch paragraph.
 * AR is being criticized by a number of notable people for a statement. We should reflect that.  It is POV to obfuscate it, which is what your edits have the effect of doing.  I gave you a much longer response than "not at all", though that was indeed part of my response.  It introduces the rest of what I had to say, and summarizes the import.  The "other users" have almost uniformly been newly created accounts or IPs with very few edits.  Though not always the case, our checkuser histories have shown that such accounts are often socks, when they appear at the same page suddenly with the same edits, accounts by one person (or a few) made to seem as though they are many more.  That is why, on controversial articles, we often block IPs and newly formed accounts from editing the article.  To address this properly, we have to indicate what it is the critics -- including the politicians -- are referring to.  Clearly, it is not the language that is now being hidden within other language.  I have no problem with that language staying, but it should not be used to obfuscate the very language that makes his statement notable.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:33, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)