User talk:Zleitzen/Archive May 2007

AfD
A noble effort, but you see what you're up against. Would it have made more sense to nominate them all at the same time? Just a thought. Jayjg (talk) 01:14, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Hello Jayjg. I think the other editor who nominated originally should really have nominated them at the same time, but I think that if they were nominated together now there would be simply too many different issues to discuss and I have a feeling that it would make it even more likely that the article(s) would be kept. The problems behind any individual article seem difficult enough for users to grasp, so combining articles may simply confuse editors even more.-- Z leitzen (talk)  01:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * FYI, I also appreciate your efforts, and almost agree with you on this one. I think the problem is that in this particular case (AoIa), the discussion among reliable sources is so involved that it's really hard to argue for a complete merge at this point.  Indeed, unlike the other ones, you actually do have a very involved dialogue here, with many allegations, and many very direct responses to those allegations.  This doesn't resolve the POV problem with the title, but suggests some article on this discussion would generally seem appropriate under neutral criteria.


 * One possible suggestion is renaming to "Israel and Apartheid," which would seem more encyclopedic to me. I'm not sure how others would feel about this, or if it's been discussed before. Mackan79 15:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Like I said before, the only success will come if you nominate all of the allegation articles at once.--Urthogie 20:14, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Rashtrakuta Dynasty FAC
Thanks for your support.Dineshkannambadi 02:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

British anti-invasion preparations of World War II
Article British anti-invasion preparations of World War II has been promoted to featured article. Thank you for your help and support. Gaius Cornelius 07:48, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Cameroon FAC
Hi Zleitzen. I tried reworking the paragraph you said you disliked. Could you see what you think of it now? Thanks. Picaroon 04:22, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

progress may be made
see the articles talk page for the most recent merge proposal.--Urthogie 02:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Regarding "editorializing"
Please consider the article's subtitle: "Guantanamo echoes U.S. 'gunboat' past: 'Anti-American forces use Navy base as rallying symbol"

Please consider the following passage:
 * ''"One way to unload the problem would be to give it back to Cuba," she said. "The question is, would the Cubans want it back?


 * ''"Because it's become such a global symbol of what has gone wrong with America -- not just a symbol of our colonial impulses but of the anti-imperialist fight throughout Latin America -- it's something Cuba uses to greater benefit than getting the base back."

Please consider whether you are showing enough care before you accuse other contributors of "editorializing".

Cheers! -- Geo Swan 02:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but the "she" is Julia Sweig whose work I know very well. There isn't a chance that she would write "the Castro regime might prefer to have the base remain". And that's because she didn't. You did.   You've editorialised her point to shift its meaning.-- Z leitzen  (talk)  03:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * From your personal knowledge you feel sure you know that I mischaracterized Julia Sweig's statements. It is possible I did.  However, if I did, why aren't you assuming it was an honest mistake?  Why start your online relationship with me with an insult?  Geo Swan 05:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Please accept my Apologies. Not intended as an insult. I have no doubt it was an honest attempt to improve the article and I simply used the term editorialising in the summary to describe an edit that I thought was too far removed from the original text. Occasionally, in the melee of prolific editing, edit summaries can appear more curt than they are meant to be. -- Z leitzen (talk)  05:54, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Starships
Could I possibly get you to take a look at Starships! and get your advice? I know you must be busy, but if you can squeeze it in, I could use some honest and gentle critisism. Thanx in advance. Matt Brennen 08:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Hello Matt, sorry but I'm just not familiar enough with the subject matter to risk making suggestions that may be misplaced. I'm not sure what the criteria is for articles of that type, but I recommend checking the Featured Articles list to see if there is anything similar, and slavishly following that format. Particularly regarding the use and formatting of references.-- Z leitzen (talk)  11:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Luis Posada Carriles POV
Changes to present the Castro POV as "fact" continue in the Luis Posada Carriles page. My attempts to present both sides (although as you are aware I view the Castro government output as selfserving) are continually replaced by straight Cuban Government POV. Perhaps it is time to freeze this page for a while at some semi-balanced state. El Jigue 208.65.188.149 19:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Have added background on successful litigation against Ms. Barach by Cuban American Foundation: "Ann Louise Bardach was granted exclusive interviews with Fidel Castro; however, critics of her work are quick to point out that such interviews are rarely or never granted to those who might criticize the Cuban government, and one of Ms. Bardash's articles was subject to successful litigation . "  El Jigue208.65.188.149 20:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that page is marred by a bad lead, EJ. At one point there was a fairly neutral lead, then someone created a really bad lead, which you've seen and have tried to counter. What we need to do is create a lead that is more acceptable again. So rather than countering the bad lead, we should start again and create a fairly neutral lead building from there. This source is a good one by the way, I also found another extract from Posada's book that explained his position on another wikipedia page - but I can't for the life of me find it now. Anyway EJ, I checked your edits and you MESSED UP THE REFERENCE FORMAT AGAIN!!!!!!! Please, Please, Please, make sure you've formatted your references correctly before you leave a page! -- Z leitzen  (talk)  08:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment
I never said "f-you" to anyone...Tomas Basbool and I were having a disagreement...he finished a comment to me in which he made further accusations and then stated "have a nice day"..where I am from, when two people are arguing and one says "have a nice day" under those contexts it comes across as an F-you. I told him if he wanted to tell me to F-myself, he shoudl just spell it out and I then angrily told him in my way that no one ever talks to me in such a matter in person. Guinnog has the incidnet spelled out so it looks like it is all coming from me so I thought you needed clarification.--MONGO 05:23, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Apartheid pages
Just letting you know that I haven't forgotten about the Cuban page. I'm trying to think about what is the best way forward. Thanks for having the patience of Buddha through all of this. Kla'quot 06:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Please do
Please help. Please. Sincerely, Mattisse 12:03, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Mattisse
I noticed you offered help to Mattisse. I'm her current advocate, and it would be great if you and I could work together on this case. Please email me. Wal ton  Need some help?  12:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Response
The problem is that I have been harassed and stalked and nasty remarks posted all over Wikipeida about me for the last 10 months. One day 39 of my articles were stalked and reverted. I have tried to get help for this to stop but the sock puppet ring, Rosencomet, their supportor, and the newly arising sock puppet ring keep it up. They are supported by Fred Bauder, Thatcher131 and others. Yesterday some one blanked portions of my user page. Thatchter131 said that could not be done, but it was. He refused to help. I asked at Village Pump and they got into an argument about me that I cannot follow.

I need some rest. I am exhausted and have not eaten for days. Working on Dinesh's article meant that I was not monitoring the ANI boards or the actions of my harassers. That is fatal Two of my AMA Advocates personally attacked me and nothing was done. I was trying to find out why my case was under investigation and why I was not allowed an Advocate for Starwood.

I have no credibility anymore. Unless I am working under the protection of Dinesh I cannot work. There is no joy for me. And even under Dinesh things are being filed against me. I learned a long time ago that ignoring these filings and complaints makes things worse. There is no one I can turn to.

I know they cannot kick me out, although I wish they would as this place is bad for me. Most of my friends have left Wikipedia. For my own good, I need to also, even though Dinesh says that is letting the bad guys win. But Dinesh and others only want my writing and copy writing abilities. They do not care about my welfare. Sincerely, --Mattisse 15:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I read your post again -- thank you. I will try.
Please help me! Sincerely, Mattisse 16:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Would you let me do some work for you? Under your protection. I will try to do a good job. I will give me something to do to try to change the awful feelings I have now. Let me work on something for you, please? Sincerely, Mattisse 16:18, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Z
If we manage to get anywhere, I'll let you know :) Gatoclass 16:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)