User talk:Prangel

This article needs Speedy Deletion for these reasons
I did attempt to edit this article several times. The original article writer and/or others may have erased my edits, and have attacked people who disagree with their point of view. I got tired of having an editing war with this person or these people, so I started researching Wikipedia to find out my recourses.

In DOING MY RESEARCH, I discovered that erasing the SENSATIONAL, SLANTED, AND UNCITED portions of this DIVISIVE and INFLAMMATORY article, I learned that my action could be taken as vandalism. I immediately ceased doing so. I also learned that the talk page should be used to discuss the editing of this article, and I modified my actions.

I have spent SEVERAL HOURS, reading NPOV standards, and I stated on the request for deletion pages my reasons which include, the page has been flagged for lack of citation (verifiability), the page contains many references to tabloid reports (sensational and lack of original research), the page has gender biased, heteronomative speculation about the subject's husband's sexuality (which someone claimed to remove) and overall, the article has a tone which does NOT pass Wikipedia's test for fairness and a sympathetic tone.

For these reasons, I upgraded my request for speedy deletion.

Your statement "such frivilous nominations as yours will be ignored, except insofar as they might get you in a bit of trouble" was harsh, abrasive, rude, assumptive, accusatory, and threatening. I do not appreciate it. Just because Star Jones Reynolds happens to be in the media right now is NO EXCUSE for WIKIPEDIA TO LOWER ITS STANDARDS.

If the ADMINISTRATORS WILL take the time to read the talk page, you would see that several other people agree with me that this article is DIVISIVE and INFLAMMATORY.

Finally, it was my understanding that by signing into my account is was not necessary to sign my posts. Again, I understand that was in error. It was not attempt to hide, as you will see by my signature below..--prangel 01:59, 29 June 2006 (UTC)Prangel

Image Tagging for Image:SJR1.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:SJR1.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 23:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Star Jones
Hi,

Nominating an obviously notable article for deletion can be considered disruptive. I'll assume that you are very new here: the way to remedy POV defects in an article is to edit it, not delete it. An obviously notable person should have an article at Wikipedia, and such frivilous nominations as yours will be ignored, except insofar as they might get you in a bit of trouble. Do be careful, and please read the Deletion policy before using AfD again. Best wishes, Xoloz 01:06, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

My Response to your comments
Dear Xoloz,

You said

"Hi,

Nominating an obviously notable article for deletion can be considered disruptive. I'll assume that you are very new here: the way to remedy POV defects in an article is to edit it, not delete it. An obviously notable person should have an article at Wikipedia, and such frivilous nominations as yours will be ignored, except insofar as they might get you in a bit of trouble. Do be careful, and please read the Wikipedia:Deletion policy before using AfD again. Best wishes, Xoloz 01:06, 29 June 2006 (UTC)"

I want to tell you that your categorizing my request for deletion as FRIVILOUS is very offensive to me. While you are correct in your assumption that I am new, you are INCORRECT in assuming that I have NOT ATTEMPTED to edit this article. Had you taken the time to read the talk page of the article, or clicked on my username, you would see that I did attempt to edit this article several times. The original article writer and/or others may have erased my edits. I got tired of having an editing war with this person or these people, so I started researching Wikipedia to find out my recourses.

In DOING MY RESEARCH, I discovered that erasing the SENSATIONAL, SLANTED, AND UNCITED portions of this DIVISIVE and INFLAMMATORY article, I learned that my action could be taken as vandalism. I immediately ceased doing so. I also learned that the talk page should be used to discuss the editing of this article, and I modified my actions.

I have spent SEVERAL HOURS, reading NPOV standards, and I stated on the request for deletion pages my reasons which include, the page has been flagged for lack of citation (verifiability), the page contains many references to tabloid reports (sensational and lack of original research), the page has gender biased, heteronomative speculation about the subject's husband's sexuality (which someone claimed to remove) and overall, the article has a tone which does NOT pass Wikipedia's test for fairness and a sympathetic tone.

For these reasons, I upgraded my request for speedy deletion.

Your statement "such frivilous nominations as yours will be ignored, except insofar as they might get you in a bit of trouble" was harsh, abrasive, rude, assumptive, accusatory, and threatening. I do not appreciate it. Just because Star Jones Reynolds happens to be in the media right now is NO EXCUSE for Wikipedia to lower its standards.

If you had taken the time to read the talk page, you would see that several other people agree with me.

Now as to not signing my posts on the talk page, I understand NOW that that was in error. It was my understanding that by signing into my account is was not necessary to sign my posts. Again, I understand that was in error. It was not attempt to hide, as you will see shortly.

Now, I request that you reconsider your decision, and employ a more courteous tone when speaking to me.

Sincerely, Prangel


 * It was certainly not my intent to offend; I understand that your nomination arose out of confusion, and I apologize if that was not clear in my remark. However, your nomination was unintentionally frivilous, insofar as it was clearly outside of deletion guidelines.  I was, and I am, aware that you have edited at the article in question: simply because you have failed to affect all desired changes is also no reason to undertake an effort at deletion.  I have taken account of the discussion on the talk page; I note incivility on both sides of the discussion thus far.  I suspect the article will soon be protected so that this dispute might be resolved.


 * Again, with apologies for my imprecise language previously, there is no substantive reason to reconsider your deletion request. Notable people belong in Wikipedia, and editing squabbles present no compelling reason for deletion.  What might be said of Mrs. Jones-Reynolds, she is encyclopedic. Best wishes, Xoloz 02:23, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Please edit or rewrite Star Jones Reynolds
Please edit or rewrite any parts of the article Star Jones Reynolds that seem to require fixing. The article as a whole cannot be deleted, but it can be improved. --TruthbringerToronto 01:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Exactly how can I do that when my edits are continually VANDALIZED?
If you will please read my statements above your own, you will see that my edits have been repeatedly deleted several times. If you are the person doing the erasing of my edits, I would appreciate it if you would stop deleting my edits.--prangel 01:58, 29 June 2006 (UTC)Prangel

Stop making unexplained deletions from the Star Jones article for which there is no consensus.
It can be considered vandalism. Eleemosynary 02:24, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Take the time to read my explanations for which there is consensus
That is a false statement. If you would take the time to be objective, you would see that I have outlined my reasons for deletion in very great detail. Even if you don't agree with my reasons, it is false to say that I have not given reasons. Just as it is false to say that there is no consensus. If you will read the discussion page of the article, you will find several people who agree with me. If you or anyone else is deleting my edits, it is you who are being vandals. Please STAY OFF My page. I find your repeated negative comments very trollish. If you want to have a discussion, let's have it on the Star Jones Reynolds page. Thank you.--prangel 02:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)Prangel

Protection
I have now protected the article so that everyone may make points in an orderly way on the talk page. You are invited to contribute at the article's talk page. Please make specific references to the portion(s) of the text of the article that you feel is/are in need of revision. For clarity's sake, please be as concise as possible in outlining each suggested change. Thanks, Xoloz 02:36, 29 June 2006 (UTC)