User talk:Ucscottb4u

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Fawcett5 20:13, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Islanders redundancy
Oops. For some reason, I thought I was reverting away from the redundancy rather than adding it. Thanks for correcting my edits. Croctotheface 20:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Al-Aqsa Intifada
"Al-Aqsa Intifada begins", while technically a whole sentence, is far too insufficient. Whether Sharon's visit was the cause -- or intent -- it's indisputable that the violence followed his visit, which is what the entry says. --CalendarWatcher 23:06, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * How about "The Al-Aqsa Intifada begins. 4658 people are estimated to have been killed during the conflict"?


 * An interesting new meaning of the word 'compromise' I wasn't previously aware of: you get to further emphasize the violence (such as your attempt to insert the 'six years' business) to advance your political views while leaving out the inconvenient detail you want left out by not mentioning the trigger -- which is precisely the point of specifying a date certain for its start. Perhaps you're unclear on the meaning of compromise? My guess is: no. --CalendarWatcher 14:21, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Give me a alternative, dont just insult me.


 * To what? Inserting the starting point for an event? And as for the 'insults', you can start by not insulting my intelligence. --CalendarWatcher 05:36, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi guys. This ought to be easier to solve than the actual Israeli/Palestinian conflict; it's just a headline in an encyclopedia. Here are the basic facts as I understand them:
 * Ariel Sharon did in fact visit the Temple Mount on September 28, 2000
 * Palestinian uprisings and demonstrations started on September 29, 2000
 * The October Uprising started soon thereafter.
 * Are we all agreed that the event that happened on September 28 was in fact Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount? That visit is certainly significant to the timeline, regardless of whether it's the ultimate or penultimate trigger, or merely a pretext for violence that would have taken place anyway.  Is there any objection to this phrasing?
 * 2000 - Al-Aqsa Intifada: Arial Sharon visits the Temple Mount in Jerusalem.
 * It doesn't claim that the visit triggered the Intifada; it merely says that the visit took place on this date (which is the point of the date pages) and was a significant event in the timeline of the Intifada. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs)  16:56, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! It looks like we've settled on a version that everyone can live with. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs)  06:22, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

September 28
Ok, you're both up to WP:3RR now. That's enough of the revert war for the moment...feel free to take it to Talk:September 28. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs)  00:12, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Che in Popular Culture
So what exactly is your criticism of using quotes throughout the article ? Is it that you don't agree with the sentiment of the quotes ? Not like the use of quotes in general ? etc etc.    Red thoreau  (talk Redthoreau 19:53, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I think there are several different issues i have with the quotes
 * 1. In part I don’t agree with the sentiment of the quotes though i recognize there not entirely positive quotes.
 * 2. I feel like the quotes make the article kind of fluffy. Admittedly its not a deep entry in the first place. But it is supposed to be a list of appearances of Che in pop culture. I don’t see the value the quotes add to the article. In fact i think they are a detriment making it feel like, as I said, a shrine to che. Do you really think they add to the merit of the article? You added them, what do you see as there value?Ucscottb4u (talk) 20:17, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * (1) It is ok to disagree with the sentiments of the quotes, but I would postulate that is probably in reference to your views on Che the man ... and add that this article is addressing his use in popular culture, which often times is separate. Also the reality is that the majority of films, books, articles, newspaper stories etc from reputable sources have an overall "positive" view of Che's life. (The overall Tally is probably something like 50 to 5). That is not to say it is necessarily the reality, but Wikipedia is about logging the existing thought and research of others, not about including an editor's personal views. (2) To me the value is in the fact that they express how a variety of people involved in analyzing Che's influence view his impact on popular culture. I was very careful to use quotes that were relevant and not random. Hence the t-shirt quote goes in the fashion section etc. (3) I am not sure how they necessary make it a "shrine" to him. The unfortunate reality (I guess for a Che detractor which you may or may not be) would be that most media reads like a "shrine to him" ... it is fine if you disagree with that view, but that is the reality of his legacy - which for most writers, scholars, reporters, is seen favorably. Now of course you have those on the right and Cuban exiles who use their personal blogs, and websites to make a whole host of "questionable" accusations about him (which may be true) - but unless those ideas are ran through the credibility filter, and given prominence in objective "established" sources, they are not appropriate for Wikipedia. (4) It would be understandable to view the article as "fluffy" in relation to the "Christ-like" section, especially if you dislike the man himself, but the reality is that some people do view him as a Saint ... and not a Butcher. And they either make that illusion their reality, or perceive him to be so in their own mind. (5) I don’t want an edit war … and I don’t want the article to be viewed as fluffy … so please feel free to include which quotes you feel don’t belong with a rationale … and in good faith I will consider their removal.  [[Image:Smile icon.png|16px]]  Red thoreau  (talk Redthoreau 20:35, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * im going to review the quotes next week. However for now i will say that it was a mistake on my part to say that the reason i didnt agree with the quotes being there was that i didnt agree with the sentiment. i believe i have been very honest about keeping my point of view to the side when editing on wikipedia. and my point of view wasnt why i wanted to remove them, but perhaps i let my pov interfer with how i read the quotes. Ucscottb4u (talk) 20:53, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, after you review them and let me know, I will act in good faith and consider their removal. Also take note that I have just started working on the article heavily, which needed a great deal of work a few weeks ago, so yes many things are not perfect, but I hope in time they will be. You are more than free to assist in that if you so choose. Also I think if the quotes are read objectively they are valuable in the sense that a "Che admirer" and a "Che hater" might both be offended by them. To me the sign of a credible and objective quote. As for your disagreement with the sentiment, it's ok and understandable, no worries, I trust (unless proven otherwise) that if you decide to edit the article in the future, that you will do your best to place that aside.  [[Image:Smile icon.png|16px]]  Red thoreau  (talk Redthoreau 20:59, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Mark Flood
As of right now, Flood is Injured Reserve which means is on the Islanders' roster. And when he is activated and assigned to Bridgeport, he will be hidden because he is on a two-way NHL contract and not a AHL contract like Pascal Morency and Tyler Haskins. Raul17 (talk) 23:56, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, you have a good point. How many players can a team have on a NHL roster? I thought it was twenty-three. looking at the Islanders' roster, there are twenty-six players listed!! Hunter, Nielsen, Reich and DiPietro are suppose to be on the Injured Reserve list (and I'm assuming Rechlicz was assigned to Bridgeport), but there is no indicators relaying that infomation. On the Devils' site, Brendan Shanahan was removed from the roster when it was announced that he was parting with the team. A few days ago I learned that the Devils moved him to a non-roster position. He did not retire, was not released, was not placed on waivers, was not assigned to Lowell (AHL), was not suspended, nor was he placed on Injured Reserve (and he couldn't be placed there)!! Last season the Isles had three players wearing the As: Witt, Park and Weight. However, for the last two months of the season, only Witt and Park had As next to their names and not Weight!! I'm like you, I would like to think that team sites are accurate and concise, but they are not. NHL teams are not allow to assign injured players to the minors and must be placed on Injured Reserve until they are healthy and assigned to the minors. I do not need to get into any more feuds!! Raul17 (talk) 19:52, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

my source

Talkback
Raul17 (talk) 00:36, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Recommend getting an opinon from WP:HOCKEY, for this dispute. GoodDay (talk) 00:39, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Mark Flood II
I like to include all all players that are on two-way contracts because you never know when those players will be recalled from the minors. Flood started the season on Injured Reserve (with the Islanders), activated and assigned to the minors. Now, he's with the Isles. Not a big deal, but I'm very lazy!! (^-^) Raul17 (talk) 01:34, 26 March 2010 (UTC)