User talk:IPWAI

Welcome!

 * }

Eisner
Well, here is my concern really. From what I can see (and please correct me if I am wrong), this is not something that was a big deal at the time of the funeral. I mean, the sense I get is that Hitler is now theorized to have been there by some scholars, and so they are analyzing this photograph to determine what it says about Hitler's views in those days. This is why I feel it is completely removed from Eisner's life experience. Its not a notable part of the funeral if no one remarked upon it at the time. It may say something about Hitler, but then its about Hitler. I mean, this is wikipedia, if you include a bit on this on a Hitler page and link it to Eisner, then a curious reader will be able to find out who Eisner was and draw whatever conclusions they want. Its not about burying the information or something. I just do not see how it relates to Eisner other than the fact that Hitler may have happened to be there as part of the honor guard and may have worn some armbands that reveal something about his politics at the time. If there is coverage contemporary to the funeral remarking on Hitler, then it relates to Eisner's story just as whatever the media remarked on at Kennedy's funeral is important to that story. If its just scholars having a go at some old photos, then it really does not belong on an Eisner page, though it might belong on a Hitler page. I am not asking that this info be banished from wikipedia entirely or anything. Indrian (talk) 02:19, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Onace again, I am not entirely sure you are seeing my point. I am well aware that the funeral was a big deal at the time.  I see no evidence that Hitler's participation in the funeral was a big deal at the time.  From what I gather, no one remarked on his presence then, and no one is even 100% sure that he was there now.  That makes Hitler utterly unimportant to Eisner and vice versa.  That is why if the information belongs on wikipedia, it belongs on a Hitler page, because the only value of this piece of information is that it demonstrates some of Hitler's political beliefs at the time.  His participation in the funeral itself was trivial. That said, there may be a tasteful way to work Hitler into a larger funeral section as a brief mention; I am not completely opposed to the idea, but I think it needs to be more than just "Hitler was there and wore some armbands."  If scholars have placed a larger significance on his participation, then it could deserve a sentence or two. Indrian (talk) 09:23, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Michael Totten add to Joan Juliet Buck criticism
Firstly, read the Joan Juliet Buck article in which you keep trying to insert Michael Totten's quote. Carefully. There are three criticisms (to ONE support) ALREADY: "The Jewish Journal of Greater Los Angeles called the article "vexing" and "muddled," while a staff writer for the London Guardian said that Buck's "mea culpa" was "almost as disastrous as the initial interview."[43][44] The Tablet suggested that Buck "was being used again, this time by Tina Brown", editor of The Daily Beast.[45] Erin Burnett of CNN's OutFront expressed on the other hand that the article was "really worthwhile in reading, it's sort of a minute-by-minute of what [Buck] saw and what happened. I have to say that I enjoyed it much more than the first article that [Buck] wrote.""

Secondly, READ ABOUT THE VERY SOURCE YOU WANT TO ADD. Under Michael Totten: "Totten has described himself as a "weird combination of liberal, libertarian, and neocon."[6] He has supported the Iraq War, stating during the run-up, "If you don’t join us now, when Saddam’s regime falls and Iraqis cheer the US Marines, you are really going to feel like a jackass. And your jackassery will be exposed beneath klieg lights for all to see."" Thus a neocon.

Step three: Bark up another tree. --Aichikawa (talk) 16:11, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Michael Totten add to Joan Juliet Buck criticism again
You just played your hand my friend, you called it "politics."--Aichikawa (talk) 14:59, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Joan Juliet Buck
I wish you would stop writing edit summaries like this. An administrator is not going to "come". All editors on WP are deemed to be adults, and they are expected to sort out their own differences through the process of bold, revert, discuss. There is a talk page, Talk:Joan Juliet Buck, which is there specifically for editors to talk to each other about improvements to the article. Please start using it. Otherwise an administrator is going to "come" and block you for edit-warring, and that will be the end of it. Scolaire (talk) 08:12, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

August 2012
Your addition has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text, or images borrowed from other websites, or printed material without a verifiable license; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of article content, such as sentences or images&mdash;you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Dougweller (talk) 11:11, 15 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Note that I've rewritten this - I thank you for adding it (it was on my todo list), but it was copyvio. Dougweller (talk) 11:12, 15 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Apologies, it was the Samson article. Dougweller (talk) 08:42, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Hi, I'm Ebe123, an volunteer at WP:DRN. I'm here to inform you that there is a thread of which you have been listed as a party. Your comments will be appreciated. The section is Dispute resolution noticeboard. Ebe 123  → report 10:35, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Recent edits to technical articles
Hi IPWAI, I've reverted two of your recent edits, to vector space and scalar multiplication. In both cases, you changed a preposition that had a precise technical meaning to a different, wrong preposition. Please be careful when editing technical articles to avoid this sort of problem. (Details: a group action is an action of the group on (not "in") a set; functions can be multiplied pointwise when they take values in (not "from") a field (or other setting in which multiplication makes sense).) Thanks. --JBL (talk) 17:38, 24 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I repeat my request. Your latest batch of edits includes an ungrammatical  sentence fragment inserted as part of another sentence and the removal of perfectly valid and sourced material for dubious reasons (both in the article forecasting) .  Please try to stick to constructive edits while editing Wikipedia.  --JBL (talk) 13:03, 29 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Your refusal to engage on substance is very saddening -- normally, a person who has created a nonsense sentence will, when it is pointed out, correct their own mistakes. If you prefer, I can continue cleaning up after you, but I'd rather that you WP:AGF and be more careful in you editing. --JBL (talk) 06:07, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:53, 24 November 2015 (UTC)