User talk:Mehcaver

The edit process is too complicated and confusing. Please expand the explanation box to a multi-line editor (with stated character limit, if desired.) As it is, the explanation of my edit was not saved in its entirety, and I don't know why.

Welcome!
Hello, Mehcaver, 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: Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing 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! -- John of Reading (talk) 15:34, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Introduction to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

Edit summaries
I saw your feedback at Help:Edit summary. In cases where the edit summary box isn't long enough, the usual procedure would be to start a new section on the corresponding "talk page", and then to edit the article using only a brief edit summary mentioning the talk page. For example, I might say something like "Added a, see talk page".

Then the "page history" for the article stays fairly readable as an overview of what has happened to the article, while the talk page can be used for longer discussions. To pick an example almost at random, compare the brief notes at [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Venezuela&action=history the "Venezuela" history page] with the longer notes and discussions at Talk:Venezuela. -- John of Reading (talk) 15:34, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Michel Chossudovsky
The biographical entry for Michel Chossudovsky has been re-edited since 2012, but retains errors and violations of WP policy. Notably, the following sentence has been appended to the previous edit:

" Following the crisis in Ukraine, the web site www.globalresearch.ca (controlled by Chossudovsky) became a conduit of anti-Western sentiment and an apologist of militaristic expansion policies of Russia. "

Not only is this assertion unsupported by other sources, it is unsupportable in its current form. It makes editorial statements to the effect that the named website is a "conduit" of "anti-Western" sentiment and an "apologist" for Russian policies. These terms are not defined in the biography, and so do not permit verification. Nor are sources of the quote given. If independent sources of the quote were given, the resulting sentence should be placed in the preceding section, which describes criticisms of Chussudovsky and his website. Please demand that the author of this entry edit it to reflect these criticisms, or remove it from Wikipedia pages entirely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mehcaver (talk • contribs) 05:30, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi! Since I left you those messages in 2013, I happen to seen your new message here. But most editors won't see it. I suggest you post this again at Talk:Michel Chossudovsky. There, it will be seen by the regular editors of that article. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:36, 16 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi Mehcaver, I saw you wrote a section "Bobraynor is at it again"on Talk:Michel_Chossudovsky. FYI, I see Bobraynor being at it on United States Central Command;  he completely reverted an edit that added info sourced from the Centre for Global research as "unreliable source". Notably, 90% of the USCCOM page is unsourced, but that didnt bother him. When I reinstuted the edit (which wasnt mine), and mildly warned him with a censorship level 1 template for having removed sourced info, he reverted me, accused  me to "confuse" reliable from unreliable and complained that I used a template for him, an experienced editor. Really I consider this disrupting Wikipedia to make a point.--Wuerzele (talk) 22:20, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Re: In the Wikipedia document "DynCorp", in the section on controversies, we find the sentence, "CID spent several weeks investigating and the results appear to support (my emphasis) Johnston's allegations." As stated, the sentence is an endorsement of the results of the CID investigations, which should not appear, regardless of its validity. Perhaps the author intended to cite someone's decision. However, who that someone may be is not clearly defined. As stated, the sentence suggests that CID is the source of support of Johnston's allegations. But then a reference - 94 - is given. Ordinarily, this is laudable. However in this case the citation refers to a report from Human Rights Watch, which I believe is an NGO not connected with the CID, an office of the US military. The assessment, therefore comes from a secondary source. Is HRW's opinion its own, a result of an independent investigation into the whistleblower's allegations? Or is it HRW's conclusion as derived from the CID investigation? The author needs to clarify this issue to be in line with Wikipedia's guidelines. If the statement is an opinion, it must be removed or modified into an objective assessment. On the other hand, if "appear to support" is a CID conclusion, that should be stated explicitly. Otherwise, the conclusion should be presented as such. For example: "A Human Rights Watch investigation reached the conclusion that "...." in (..date..)" Same for the CID. Either way, the sentence should be followed by an unambiguous citation.