User talk:LeeHunter/Archive/Archive-Jan2007

War on Terror
I saw your edit... though I was starting to like my "disclaimer" ;) - since you didn't remove the medal, do you think it belongs there? If so, could you help me out on the talk page on the discussion, explain why you left it in? Thanks JG of Borg 16:21, 21 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I want to try to rewrite the article - however, I am afraid of either letting a subtle POV creep in or be accused of doing so - I'd like you to watch over my shoulder and make sure I maintain a NPOV, if I choose to rewrite it. JG of Borg 15:53, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Please read
BrandonYusufToropov 14:03, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Islamofascism (term)
Hi Lee. I saw you editing but not voting in the talk page! Cheers -- Svest 00:44, 5 December 2005 (UTC) Wiki me up&#153;

Attacks
If you are attacked anymore by the anon, report it. Thanks -- a.n.o.n.y.m t 19:14, 14 December 2005 (UTC)


 * No problem. I am very happy to see that someone else is also watching these pages. -- a.n.o.n.y.m t 19:30, 14 December 2005 (UTC)


 * He is banned user:enviroknot and any IPs from there can be reverted. Please report this if it continues to any admin who has dealt with him before. Thanks -- a.n.o.n.y.m t 21:41, 14 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Hey Lee. Just wanted to applaud your patience and effort at Talk:Islamofascism (term) and Talk:Islamist terrorism. Your input there seems relevant, reasonable and well-balanced to me. //Big Adamsky 23:13, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

aegeis edits
His/her version is still better than the current version and anything you and Geni have attempted. --Leifern 00:32, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I overreacted. Please accept my apologies. --Leifern 12:37, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Hassan Akbar
Hello, could you add references for Hassan Akbar article? Thank-you.--FloNight 18:49, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Islamist terrorism
Hum. Did you mean to revert my edits, or were they merely collateral damage in the ongoing War on Nonsense? Palmiro | Talk 00:45, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. No problem. Palmiro | Talk 00:50, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

replied on islamist terrorism talk page
Heya, I replied on the talk page. Please keep in mind that on a personal level I agree with the term Islamist terrorism as more accurate, but I also acknowledge that it's a subjective thing-- and no matter how hard we argue, it always will be like that. Thanks, --Urthogie 18:50, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * replied again--Urthogie 23:59, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

private discussion
Do you have AOL instant messenger? I think we could both elaborate our cases better and get a better understanding offsite.--Urthogie 11:49, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

awaiting reply
Are you still opposing the move? If so, please reply on the talk page.--Urthogie 09:00, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I see you're mainly posting on the heading "serving the readers". Do you have any more questions or concerns relating to my interpretation of Wikipedia policies? If so, please ask them under that heading. Thank you very much for staying civil!--Urthogie 16:59, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Leaving pages
Right before I noticed your last post I actually looked at your user contrib's and noticed that you've spent the better part of week only discussing this page. It is indeed a waste of time to be caught in a single argument at the expense of other editing and it's unfortunate you want to go. However, I just have to say that characterizing the arguments as just quoting Google hits and not using rational arguments and explanations is unfair. Here are three questions I never received answers to: The last one is the big one I suppose and I have seen no answer from you or anybody else. And unless I can rationally come to grips with it the term will simply not make sense to me. The Muslims I live and work amongst would probably give me a blank stare if I tried to explain the difference between the terms--that the faith reaches to the highest levels of politics and the most mundane of everyday activities is taken for granted. Anyhow, I'm not asking for an answer or for agreement; I just wanted to make clear that I had a logical base I was arguing from, from the beginning. I didn't play bait and switch or endlessly quote Google. Granted, after posting questions like this Urth would inevitably pepper the page with two or three posts and you'd wind up responding to those rather than to me which is no fault of yours. I post this lengthy comment because I dislike leaving discussions with editors that strike me as good faith angrily. It wasn't until the latest thread that I found your comments snide and I apologize if I myself was unfair. Marskell 18:50, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * How can we unequivocally say that Islam forbids terrorism in its entirety, given that modern terrorism post-dates Islam and that there is a great deal of ambiguity surrounding justified killing within the faith?
 * Why does calling certain terrorism Islamic necessarily constitute a smear on the religion itself?
 * How does Islamism as a political force seeking to implement Islamic values in all spheres of life constitute a differentiation from Islam?


 * Well, I have two posts in mind: one arguing over each of the points and one simply accepting you responded in good faith. I think the latter is in order here. "Justified killing" particularly is a "let's argue—actually, let's not" point that I'm sort of itching over but I don't think it would serve any purpose now. To end with melodrama, I end with one of the more troublesome aspects of human history: religious texts necessarily require interpretation and interpretation nearly always creates conflict. Anyhow, the idea of the previous post was to point out that I was arguing in good faith myself and I assume the same of you. Cheers, Marskell 00:13, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

thanks for staying civil and respectful
I really want you to watch the page(even though its being moved to a place you disagree with, that doesnt mean you cant help with the content), but if you don't want to that's your decision. I just want to thank you for staying civil throughout the debate, and I know many lesser editors who would resort to personal attacks in your position-- you helped the debate happen civilly, and I just want to express my gratitude, that no matter what the result of the debate was, I'm very grateful of how respectful you were throughout.--Urthogie 13:16, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Instead of reverting Islamic extremist terrorism
Why not fix it?--CltFn 01:12, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Please do not characterise others' work as "Tangential nonsense." I can't see that it usefully summarizes your edit, and can only be expected to antagonize people in an already contentious situation. I see no basis at all for your summary dismissal of my edits to the introduction; I think my changes are moderate and reasonable, building as they do on the earlier work of several others. Certainly there is room for improvement. I don't see how that will happen if you revert anything you don't like. I'm open to discussing whether the recent elections should be included in the article, and I made some remarks on the talk page. I invite you to do the same. Tom Harrison Talk 02:21, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I can understand "Tangential" as a reference to the elections, although I still think "nonsense" is needlesly inflammatory. But why did you revert over my changes to the intro? Tom Harrison Talk 02:42, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi; Saying for your edit summary, "dude. knock off the crazy-ass editorializing" is completely inappropriate. Per WP:NPA, Abusive edit summaries are particularly ill-regarded. Please try to use the edit summary to just summarize the edit. Tom Harrison Talk 02:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Request
Sorry to single you out, but yours and Geo Swan's names seem to turn up the most often in these cases. I was wondering whether it would be possible for you to create a Category:Ghost Detainees or Category:People captured in the War on Terror or something, instead of constantly seeing random ghost detainees listed under Category:CIA or Category:Human Rights Violations. You could make Ghost Detainees a sub-category of HRV, but we really can't afford to put every single person in the world whose had their rights violated in that category, it fills up too fast. Much thanks! Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 17:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Bat Ye'or
Hi,

I understand the frustration of trying to edit on articles like this, but perhaps you could respond to the remarks I made on the talk page regarding the Chebel quote, rather than just reverting it back in?

Well done, in any case, on all your hard work trying to keep Wikipedia in reasonably close relation to reality and preventing it becoming a pulpit for bigots. Palmiro | Talk 18:43, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Woops. You were quicker off the mark than me. Palmiro | Talk 18:50, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Inappropriate revert
reverting cost considerations on colon hydrotherapy was unjustified. If you have different cost estimates you may include them. Steve Kd4ttc 14:17, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you
I appreciate that the discussion on Colon Hydrotherapy has elevated to a much higher level. Thanks, Steve Kd4ttc 23:39, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Invitation
Please weigh in on this proposal and see User:Leifern/Wikiproject health controversies. Thanks in advance, and feel free to spread the word. --Leifern 17:29, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Guantanamo Bay
Someone moved it in a way that was against the consensus and someone else just set up a new poll on what had already been asked before. Please come again. ROGNNTUDJUU! 15:13, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Wik
The edits of a banned user are automatically reverted, and Wik has been creating sockpuppets solely for the purpose of edit warring and violating 3RR. I'm certainly not going to allow Wik to bully this (or any other) article into the form he wants. I have no idea what the controversy is about, or even what the text in question says, but if there's a conflict over it, you need to work it out on the Talk: page. Jayjg (talk) 01:26, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I've responded on the request for unprotection page. And I fail to understand why things can't be worked out on the Talk page regardless of the current state. Come to an agreement, and it will be implemented. Jayjg (talk) 01:40, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Copyedit not traditionally substantive
Hi Lee. I saw the last edit you made on the "MEMRI" page we have been collaborating on, and I wanted to make a comment which is more addressed to you than the talk page. THe last edit you made on the MEMRI page summarized as "copyedit" put back in a sentence on "selectivity" which had been previously removed due to concerns over POV (and is fully treated elsewhere in the article). I think it was more of a substantive edit than a copyedit. Would ask that you be more specific on the edit summary to improve clarity for other editors. Best regards and I hope you are having a great Friday (if it is in fact Friday where you are---not sure about the time/date zones) elizmr 17:10, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply on my userpage. Would still urge use of more descriptive edit summary than "copyedit" if editing more than word order or punctuation just to help the editing process along for all of us. elizmr 17:24, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Removing text as "irrelevant" and POV on the MEMRI page
Hi Lee,

I'm wondering if I could ask you to consider NOT taking stuff out of articles that others have put in based on "relevance". I've noticed that you have done this to stuff I've worked on and put in a few times now and I am finding it frustrating. What is relevant or irrelevant is a matter of opinion.

On the subject of MEMRI on the talk page of that article you write: "[MEMRI] is "dedicated to "influencing US politics in favor is Israel"Italic text That is clearly a strongly POV opinion and not a piece of factual information.

There is nothing wrong with having a POV, but based on the fundamental Wikipedia principle Neutral point of view as editors we should be letting stuff we don't agree with stand in the articles.

elizmr 00:18, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

elizmr 00:18, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Lee--you replied: Elizmr, every single edit by any editor requires some degree of judgement as to whether it is relevant or not. The fact that a public servant served under one administration or another is irrelevant with respect to his or her party affiliation. In other words, when government changes they don't fire all the public servants who were hired by the previous administration (with the possible exception of a few top level advisors). It is especially irrelevant in the case of Israel where governments, more often than not, are built on coalitions.

Comments on the talk page do not have to be NPOV. It's a discussion not an encyclopedia article. --Lee Hunter 13:10, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Reply:

1) Of course I understand that comments on the talk pages do not have to be NPOV. I am making a different point. I must not have made it very effectively. Let me try again. Your comments on the talk page indicate that you have a strong strong POV on this issue. Because of your strong POV, your bias is likely to inform what you find relevant or irrelevant. It is natural. Because of this I am asking you not to take out stuff that you don't find "relevant" if it is something you haven't personally put in.

2) About the text on the main page itself, I totally accept that you find the comment about serving on two governments irrelevant, however I disagree and others disagree as well. In the context of Cole accusing Carmon of being a Likud mouthpiece, it is relevant that he served on various governments. It is accurate as a piece of info. It deserves to be there.

3) I see from your user page that you are a technical writer. I also have been an editor of a peer reviewed journal in the past. I think our professional roles can inform the way we "work" on Wiki, but Wiki is a whole different animal. It is a collaboration and not a situation where one has been hired personally to write something or fix something. We are supposed to be airing all POV on the main pages in a neutral NPOV way. I am trying to work in that spirit. If you think this is not the point of Wikipedia, I certainly stand to be corrected. elizmr 14:43, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Your reply and mine:
 * Whether I have a POV or not doesn't change the absolute and indisputable fact that public servants are always serving governments that may or not reflect their personal beliefs. You can certainly, in another part of the article, write that Carmon served various governments but to insert it into a section where his affiliation is in question, as if this stray fact proves some kind of point is entirely inappropriate and I will certainly remove it. We're here to edit. Removing information where it doesn't fit is part of the job. --Lee Hunter 15:08, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


 * LeeHunter--Why not add something to that effect to the sentence rather than taking out the sentence? Some do consider it relevant. Please consider that your opinion on this does not represent the totality of the truth, just part of it. In the spirit of collaboration, it should stay. Can you really disagree with this? elizmr 15:17, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

your reply on my talk page: Whether or not you "consider it relevant" doesn't change the absolute and indisputable fact that public servants in democratic societies normally serve governments that may or not reflect their personal affiliation. The onus is on you to explain why it is relevant, not just say "oh I think it's relevant so it has to be in the article". I have explained myself over and over. I'm still waiting for you to respond. --Lee Hunter 15:21, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

my reply to you: Lee, I think you are taking a very antagonistic tone. I brought this to your talk page, originally, because I observed you to be taking stuff on the basis of "relevancy". I wanted to raise the issue that you might be allowing your strong and stated POV inform your judgements as to what may be or may not be "relevant". This was not appropriate for the article discussion page. Please see the article talk page, where I have already outlined my position on this point of content. elizmr 15:37, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately you have not addressed my point on the talk page. Public servants in any given democracy can have a wide range of political beliefs - there is a near-total disconnect between their affiliation and whatever party happens to be in power. If you believe this to be true (and I can't see how you could possibly argue otherwise) there is absolutely no reason to talk about how Carmon serving various administrations. It has no bearing on what his affiliation was at the time of his service, and certainly not, on what his affiliation is today. --Lee Hunter 17:30, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Lee, I have discussed on talk. Please take this to MEMRI talk if you want to discuss content as I am not the only party who disagrees with you on this. OK? And I have to say I find your tone bullying. Please consider taking it down a notch. OK? elizmr 17:42, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello
Holi greetings. I saw your comments on Talk:Terrorism in Kashmir, and have replied there. Nice to meet you. --Bhadani 16:40, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

RFc????
Hi Lee, I notice that have suggested that there should be an RFc against another editor on the MEMRI page. I had to look this up to see what it was. Please look at some of the things you said in just ONE POST (your last one) on the talk page there:

"It is either profoundly silly or profoundly paranoid" "Your sentence is so strange and convoluted that it makes no sense" "the sentence is totally incoherent" "the awkward tangent dumped into the middle of the sentence" "a deliberate misrepresentation of what Cole has written" "you replace with your broad smear that tries to create the appearance of anti-semitism" "Your conduct is reprehensible"

Your language is abusive and not in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines. I don't think that this other editor has done anything which would warrant an RFc, but quite honestly you are getting really close to warranting one yourself. Please consider trying to work as a team on the article. Sure, there are differences of opinion but we can get the thing done anyway. elizmr 20:54, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Hi Lee, I just wanted to thank you for the supportive remark on the MEMRI talk page. As you say, we have been on two sides of the fence often, and because of that I especially appreciated your remark. Take care, elizmr 12:41, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

User conduct RFc???
I guess your civility was only temporary. I am finding the language you are using to criticize the contributions I am making (and those of others you disagree with) to the MEMRI page insuluting. Are you interested in having me pursue a user-conduct RFc? I don't want to do this, but you don't seem to be taking the WP:NPA seriously at all. elizmr 19:53, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Lee, I disagree with you. I believe that the your statements are personal attacks. When you say that I "mangled and misquoted" something it is a personal attack. (it is also wrong) elizmr 21:07, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


 * adding one more: "meaningless hodgepodge of quotes" elizmr 02:26, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Collegial behavior
Please consider working collaboratively to bring positive and negative views of Cole to the article we are working on. elizmr 18:10, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Homeopathy
Hi Lee. Your calm good sense could come in handy on homeopathy right now. I'm keeping my head low as I'm already stretched; peter morrell needs some protection as a newbie with a lot to offerGleng 18:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Understand, enjoy real life ;)Gleng 07:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Srđa Trifković
Lee: In reply to your ms PLEASE enough already of Stephen Schwartz's villification of Trifkovic in the opening paragraph, especially as mention of Schwartz is made in the main body of the text. Reinserting him in the intro is wrong, especially since "discredited" in this case has a clear, specific, empirically verifiable meaning. In January 2003 David Horowitz published the following on his >Frontpagemag.com<: "Frontpage regrets characterizations of Serge Trifkovic... that were made in an article by Stephen Schwartz (CAIR's Axis of Evil) to the effect that Trifkovic is an Islamophobe, is associated with Pravda or Antiwar.com, and "was the main advocate in the West for the regime of Slobodan Milosevic." Serge Trifkovic is not associated with either Pravda or Antiwar.com. He was not a supporter of Slobodan Milsoevic. He is not an Islamophobe nor would Frontpage have given extensive space to a summary of his book if he were. Frontpage regrets any pain or injury this may have caused to Mr. Trifkovic.-- David Horowitz" I rest my case. Schwartz's offhanded label ("Islamophobe") is an invitation to a Fatwa -- and in any event, it's already contained in the main body of the text on T. (whose work I readily admit to liking and respecting). RL

Your edits on Srđa Trifković have been reverted again, without being referred to as "barbarous" or a "jihadist vandal" or a "barabarous hooligan" or ""barbarous", etc, which is nice, but, no edit comment has been given at all.. which is not so nice. I'm on Revert Patrol (one Revert per week) specifically for engaging in revert Wars of this kind, and that infamous (at least in my mind) one on Peter Tatchell, and so cannot, and don't want to get involved in one here. That being said, The amount of Single purpose accounts here is rather strange. Note the Contibutions of, and  - as well as ,  and. Also, I made proper refs throughout that article and now they are all gone.. thats really annoying!!Anyway, Your thoughts on how to proceed are requested. --Irishpunktom\talk 15:51, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I shall await their reply ! --Irishpunktom\talk 16:41, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Technical communicator vocation?
It's been a couple years since you made your edit on Wikipedians/Technical Communicators, but I'm curious what your vocation is and/or how you would define "technical communicator." I would love to have a full-time job editing sites like Wikipedia; do you know of any avenues that would make this a possibility for me? I'm watching this page, so you can reply here.


 * I'm a technical editor working under contract for a multi-national software company. These days I mostly edit documentation for software developers. Technical communicators include writers, editors, documentation team managers and the technical experts who develop special tools like content management systems. If you're interested in technical communication and you're based in North America, a good starting point might be to find the nearest chapter of the Society of Technical Communicators (STC) and start attending their meetings. I'd also recommend subscribing to the TechWR-L mailing list. It's free and will connect you to a very lively and well-informed group of technical communicators. Lee Hunter 01:55, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Excellent. That's exactly the kind of info I needed. I'll likely return in a few weeks and let you know how things pan out! --J. J. 14:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Lee
I saw you edits on the Islamic Terrorism page and they are very professional indeed to say the least. Too bad there are idiots on the wikipedia who don't think so and insist on posting their biased nonsense. keep up the good work

It is nice to know that you live in Ottawa too. This is where I live too. Keep in touch, I think we share a common ground and maybe we can collaborate on future edits and articles.

All the best M Marwan123 21:52, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Juan Cole
Thank you so much Lee for reverting Armon and restoring CSloats and CStar's consensus Best Wishes! Will314159 18:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Islamic extremist terrorism
There are many reasons why the entire quotes should stay on this page.

1. The quotes are TRUE. 2. The quotes were cited by a MUSLIM. 3. The quotes were cited by a TERRORIST. DAde 17:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Can you imagine?
We're in agreement on something! Don't know why today of all days I decided to re-involve myself in that troublesome page ("Islamist/Islamic/Islamic extremist terrorism") but do know (much as we've disagreed) that I know BS when I see it. This mass block of Qu'ran quotes that's being added should be removed post-haste. DAde can get his block, as that's all he's headed toward, and Hypo will be in a minority. Marskell 23:46, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Regarding reversions made on December 1 2006 to Homeopathy
You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. The duration of the block is 24 hours. William M. Connolley 09:52, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Re your mail... technically yes, its more than 24h. But you were edit warring. Sigh. I will unblock you, and I've semi-d the article, but if you dive back into reverting you'll get blocked again William M. Connolley 13:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

WHAT?
How is (of Bat Ye'or) "Born to a Jewish family in Egypt, she personally experienced living as a dhimmi in the early years of her life" original research? Which part of the sentence do you think is my addition to the facts available? If you want to call it irrelevant, I can accept that your perspective is different from mine, but to call it "original research" is just flat out wrong, Lee. -- DLH

You have been blocked for 24 hours for a 3RR vio
The violation is on Category:Quackery. --Woohookitty(meow) 10:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Health Wiki Research
A colleague and I are conducting a study on health wikis. We are looking at how wikis co-construct health information and create communities. We noticed that you are a frequent contributor to Wikipedia on health topics.

Please consider taking our survey here.

This research will help wikipedia and other wikis understand how health information is co-created and used.

We are from James Madison University in Harrisonburg, Virginia. Our university research committee approved the project.

Thanks, Corey 15:30, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Accusation of "bullying"
Since you have multiple 3RR violations it seemed prudent to remind you of it again. No threat existed in the comment or was intended and my being an admin is really irrelevant. I am however happy to see that you are not again revert warring on the matter. JoshuaZ 20:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Flynt Leverett
Hi, I've noticed you are a native editor of the Flynt Leverett article, please include details of the controvercial aspects of his carear in the lead paragraph. Thank you! frummer 05:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Esposito
How about this as a compromise? John Esposito, a professor of International Affairs and Islamic Studies a director at the Prince Alwaleed Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding at Georgetown University which is a recipient of a $20,000,000 endowment from Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal of Saudi Arabia has criticized Bat Ye'or for lacking academic credentials. --CltFn 17:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

OK moved this point to the talk page --CltFn 17:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Cease your agenda pushing
Listen, just because the CIA buys navigational charts from Jeppesen doesn't make them culpable to human rights abuses. Any schmoe can buy charts from them. Stop pushing your agenda. &mdash;Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 18:24, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Isarig
Have a look at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Incivility, disruptive editing, and stalking-like behavior from Isarig. What do you think? Abu ali 20:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Benazir Bhutto vandal
Got it, thanks. NawlinWiki 21:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Why are you people deleting the edits to Benazir Bhutto? I am linking to a factual article published in the New York Times!!!