User talk:RavenJA

Michelle
Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Michelle Rodriguez, you will be blocked from editing.  JenAW  Talk 12:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC) A number of people have reverted you, yet you insist on illiterate and badly formatted edits. Please stop. JenAW 12:37, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

--

I did not "vandalize" this page. I reverted your changes in the past because you insisted on posting inaccurate information which has finally been removed.

Blanking
Do blank vandalism warnings 16:53, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Stop
I agree with anonymous. The bisexual page is for: "people who have had sexual relations with, or have expressed sexual attraction to, both sexes." That is the only definition. That has been settled for a long time. "Bisexual" is an impossibly vague term in itself - see the article bisexual. Please so not try to impose your own narrower views. What is important is that the list announces what it is. Also please allow the readers to judge evidence - especially of the dead. Don't set yourself up as censor or gatekeeper. Be cool. Vandalism is removal of sourced information for no good reason. And also being objectionable is imposing your views on other people when they can perfectly well make up their own minds. JenAW 10:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The term "bisexual" may be vague but it's ridiculous to label someone as bisexual when they clearly identify as heterosexual. If we were to add every person who has "had sexual relations with, or have expressed sexual attraction to, both sexes" then we'd have to add every Gay and Lesbian person who's dated someone of the opposite sex(Rosie O'donnell for eg). But that's another issue.... at no point have I attempted to impose my supposed "narrower views". The source cited on the Elizabeth Arden entry (glbtq.com) provided NO evidence whatsoever of a sexual relationship between Elizabeth Arden and her friend Elisabeth Marbury. It simply describes their frienship, having a lesbian friend does not make someone bisexual or lesbian. Try doing a google search yourself, lgbt.com is the only site that suggests their relationship may have been more than platonic. I also noticed that you reverted my changes to the Joey Lauren Adams entry. The information I added was an exact quote from a recent interview in which she states; "I’m not bisexual but I’ve seen on the internet that it says that. It’s a rumor". I cited the source and I see no reason why that information should have been removed.
 * Actually, the definition of vandalism is "any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia". I edited the information you added to the Michelle Rodriguez article because it was inaccurate and misleading. You're the one who attempted to "impose your views on other people" instead of allowing her words to speak for themselves. I'm glad to see you've removed the "in the closet" comment.RavenJA 07:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

MEChA
Hey Raven. I still maintain that the article is quite balanced before your edits. It should be -- I and many others have worked hard for it to be so. If you look at my past edits and comments on the Talk:MEChA page, you'll see I'm no anti-MEChA partisan.

It's not POV to point out that some people say nasty things about MEChA. Merely pointing out some of the nasty things being said does not lend an air of legitimacy to them. It's not necessary to append "but other people say those critics are full of shit" every time a critic is mentioned on wikipedia. Never allowing a critic to have the last word also gives a very distinct POV impression.

Regarding American Patrol, they are already well discussed in their linked article. And in this case, it really doesn't matter who they are. Like someone said on Talk:MEChA, critics of George Bush range in ideology from Pat Buchanan to Nancy Pelosi to Hugo Chavez to Osama bin Laden. "Critics of the president, which include terrorists and communists ..." is POV. Even a terrorist or communist can make a valid point from time to time. Things don't suddenly become false just because a bad person says it. To imply otherwise is to make an ad hominem argument. Cashton 19:36, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not suggesting that you're anti-mecha, but the claims made by American Patrol are very serious and the fact that American Patrol has been identified as a hate group is very relevant. Most people reading this article are unfamiliar with American Patrol and they will most likely assume that it's just another conservative organization or publication (which it is not). The article doesn't even provide evidence of this supposed widespread Racist, Seperatists, Irredentists and Pro reconquista behavior. It is not balanced to allow critics to make such serious accusations without providing evidence and then deny the other side the opportunity to address those criticisms. I was not attempting to get the last word in, I was simply trying to get a word in by addressing them. It's not as if though I hurled insults at the critics in the same manner those critics have done to Mecha. The information I added are all basic facts, by no means is it POV:
 * a) The harshest criticsim has come from conservative publicatons
 * b) American Patrol has been identified as a race based hate group

c) Aztlan does not refer to to a Reconquista movement as the article implies.


 * Yes, it is true that "Even a terrorist or communist can make a valid point from time to time." I'm not suggesting that the criticism made by American Patrol should be deemed invalid simply because it has been identified as a hate group. It's up to the reader to determine the validity of the point being made and whether they choose to agree or disagree with it. But in order to arrive at that decision, it is necessary for the reader to be aware of the source of the criticism, especially when they're asked to accept it at face value.


 * "Like someone said on Talk:MEChA , critics of George Bush range in ideology from Pat Buchanan to Nancy Pelosi to Hugo Chavez to Osama bin Laden. "Critics of the president, which include terrorists and communists ..." is POV."
 * Your example of the Bush criticism is not at all relevant to the edits I made. First of all, I did not criticize any of the anti-Mecha critics. I simply pointed out the fact that American Patrol has been identified as a hate group. Second of all, I did not lump in American Patrol with other mainstream publications or organizations. This article specifically referred to American Patrol without mentioning the fact that it's been identified as a race based hate group. It would be POV if Bush's article included serious accusations by a terrorist organization without mentioning the fact that it is a terrorist organization.


 * I believe my edits should remain in this article. Again, I just added a few basic facts and basic facts are not POV.

RavenJA 22:15, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:38, 23 November 2015 (UTC)