User talk:SulejmanSchwartz

Unexplained Reversions on the Stephen Schwartz Article
Please note that when undoing edits in an article, such as Stephen Schwartz (journalist), you are required by Wikipedia policy to explain your reason(s) for so doing on the Talk page of the article in question. Failure to do so would commonly be seen as sufficient basis for reverting the previous reversion(s) ie., undoing your undos, as it were. Which, if I'm not mistaken, has already been taken care of by other parties, prior to my having set out to do so myself (as would have been otherwise quite likely to occur).

Thank you for your cooperation, and attentiveness to the rules by which we are all required to operate. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 15:13, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Your Remarks on the Talk Page & My Response to Them

 * "To exaggerate my comments in a TV interview through a snippet"


 * Your remarks were not "exaggerated." I typed them into this article, verbatim, from the source.  As was noted properly, via the References section, in the customary manner, here at Wikipedia.


 * "to ignore that in the interview I was specifically shown disclaiming any support for illegal surveillance, and to further ignore that  the TV station later, on air, withdrew its characterization of my work"


 * Do you have a source for those claims? Because if not, then they mean nothing.  I have a source indicating the things I wrote were actually said.  You now claim other things were said, and that the KRON-TV news report was disavowed.  Your claim is not sufficient; you need evidentiary support.  I provided evidentiary support for what I wrote.  You removed it, because it was an unflattering portrayal.  I'm sorry, sir, but I don't know how to write an article about the life & times of Stephen Schwartz (journalist) that won't, if honest and thorough, tend to come off as rather unflattering.  Its not my fault you've lived your life the way you have, sir.  The world can not provide you with a flattering encyclopedia reference, merely because you believe you are entitled to such.  Many public figures do not come off remarkably well in their articles at this site.  And we would frankly not be doing a very good job on this site, were that not the case.  You are simply among that number who come off somewhat unfortunately, albeit merely from a subjective standpoint; certainly nothing I have written about you is unsourced, malicious, insulting, or defamatory.  Like so many prominent Americans in the early 21st century, the truth just ain't your friend, alas.


 * "But anybody should perceive that to turn a couple of lines in a controversial interview into a section under an inflammatory heading about the intelligence community is also unacceptable and obviously malicious."


 * I disagree. I believe, in all sincerity, that your remarks in that KRON-TV interview, speak for themselves, and paint a picture that is both disturbing, and worthy of being acknowledged in the public record, such as within the context of the Stephen Schwartz (journalist) article, here at Wikipedia. You are, of course, free to disagree, but I think its immensely clear which of is less likely to be associated with anything even remotely akin to a Neutral Point of View.  You clearly have a vested interest in keeping some of your embarrassing public remarks, and other behaviors, as far away from the public eye as possible.  I, on the other hand, an unemployed grocery clerk (U.F.C.W., Local #420), have no conceivable interest in attempting to harm your interests per se.  I am simply interested in adding informative, interesting, amusing, and properly sourced anecdotes from your frankly somewhat odd life, to an article that is about...your life.  That might irritate you, but to suggest it constitutes misbehavior on my part is a totally unfounded allegation, and one which I shall demonstrably ignore.


 * Thank you, and have a pleasant day. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 16:00, 14 February 2009 (UTC)