User talk:SQuast

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! Hope you like it here, and stick around.

Here are some tips to help you get started:


 * To sign your posts (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type &#126;&#126;&#126; (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; (4 tildes).
 * Try the Tutorial, and feel free to experiment in the test area.
 * If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk
 * Follow the Simplified Ruleset
 * Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
 * Remember Neutral point of view
 * Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Good luck!

Meelar (talk) 05:25, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Samuel Alito
Read the discussion page on this article - the content you claim to be RV'ing the removal of has been determined to be informationally biased and an attempt to POV-Push. If you can find dissenting opinions from Democrats and Republicans as well as supporting opinions - so there is a spectrum of POV then it will not be POV pushing anymore. The Miers article did not contain ANY quotes and I feel that is the proper thing.

Readding without POV-neutralizing edits will result in RV-ing - READ the Talk page for the Alito article before you claim to be RVing

Lordkazan 19:46, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Nope. If you can find additional quotes you are welcome to add them. Till then we can stick with the lierals I've added. I'm sure you can find a conservative or two to balance things out. Go and do it. --SQuast 05:21, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Lewis Libby
Please read up on 3RR. If you revert an article more than 3 times in a 24 hour period, you can be blocked. I believe at this point you've exceeded the 3RR, but because I'm not sure whether you're actually aware of this policy, I won't be reporting you for this particular incident. FYI. &middot; Katefan0(scribble) 05:52, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I haven't reverted, I have edited mand repaired vandalism. Reverting is when you take an old version of an article and save it again. I have done this exactly once when accused by someone of being a right-winger who reverted my edits. I am not. I am a moderate. --SQuast 19:54, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

As Joe Wilson has repeatedly said, he was saying in that quote that Valeria Plame stopped being a clandestine agent the day she was outed. He did not mean that she was no longer clandestine prior to her outing. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:17, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Regardless, there is no proof she was clandestine prior to the Novak article and there is a great deal of evidence she was not. Do you have a link as I have furnished? --SQuast 04:19, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
 * If she wasn't clandestine, why did the CIA ask the FBI to investigate her outing? Where is there a single bit of evidence that she was not clandestine?  User:Zoe|(talk) 04:24, 30 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Do you know the difference between classified and clandestine? Your question suggests you dont.  In any event I find it strange that someone who no doubt protested the Ken Starr investigation is now implying there is no such thing as a political witchhunt.  Your logic doesn't wash.  You have no proof of a clandestine status.  It cannot be claimed here accurately she was clandestined until you provide that proof.  --SQuast 05:20, 1 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Your personal interpretation of that quote is also not acceptable under the NPOV rules of Wikipedia. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:27, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

So you have no link to your claim then? I see. But you're asning me to prove a negative. Who says Wikipedia isn't a den of LW'ers, eh? Even though you haven't answered my question I will answer yours. The FBI investigated as a Special Counsel was assigned to investigate whether a violation of the Identities Protection Act had occurred. As there were no charges on that score clearly it had not.

Your second guessing and bizarre interpretation of the quote, without evidence, is clearly a violation of Wikipedia's NPOV rules. --SQuast 04:31, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Your last chance. You have reverted the article three times now. Once more will be a violation of the 3 revert rule, which can lead to your being blocked from editing for 24 hours. User:Zoe|(talk)

See http://mediamatters.org/items/200507150003 and the AP retraction of their interpretation of the quote, which is the same as your interpretation. AP admits that they were wrong. Will you? User:Zoe|(talk) 04:55, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Media Matters is a lunatic LW blog and clearly not credible. Give me a link to a mainstream media source that says Wilson recanted his claim and I'll be happy to remove it. All my links are to credible sources like CNN and the NY Times. You need to do better than that. --SQuast 05:06, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
 * He didn't recant his claim because he didn't make the claim you're trying to say he made. AP recanted their interpretation of his claim.  User:Zoe|(talk) 05:07, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Media Matters has no credibility and you distort their reporting to an even further LW extreme. I'd like to see a link to the AP "retraction." But even accepting MM's version of what the AP said just for the moment for argument's sake, Wilson's quote clearly does not claim Plame was covert at the time Novak reported his story. Here is what MM claim's the AP quoted Wilson to have said:

"In an interview Friday, Wilson said his comment was meant to reflect that his wife lost her ability to be a covert agent because of the leak, not that she had stopped working for the CIA beforehand."

Nowhere in this quote is the claim Plame was still covert. Instead Wilson says Novak's reporting hurts Plame's chances to be effectively covert in the future. Yet Wilson proved Plame was not covert later when the duo volunteered for the Vanity Fair article. That is not the action of someone with covert status. --SQuast 05:17, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
 * So where's your link to a quote by Wilson which corroborates your interpretation? And the Vanity Fair article was after the fact, when she was well known and had no chance at being clandestine again.  User:Zoe|(talk) 05:23, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

You've already got it from the CNN transcript. Until you produce a credible source that refutes CNN and Wilson CNN trumps extreme LW blogs. --SQuast 05:26, 30 October 2005 (UTC)


 * You're using the transcript to try to make an interpreation which is incorrect. He did not imply what you are trying to say he implied.  For you to repeatedly insert your interpretation is a POV revert war, and I won't let it in.  If you want to add the quote without interpreting, I might allow it to stay, depending on what else you say.

Funny, somebody who seems to be a newbie seems to know their way to the 3RR dispute page awfully quickly. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:08, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Unlike others, I studied Wikipedia's rules. One of which is the definition of revert. Reverts do not include edit changes as you allege. --SQuast 17:11, 31 October 2005 (UTC)