User talk:68.62.150.155
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hi. Regarding your comment on my user talk page, I can't see any entry signed by you on the discussion page for Jeremy Glick (author). There are a lot of unsigned comments and suggestions that have apparently failed to reach any form of concensus. So to avoid things like this happening in the future, I urge you to consider:
- Creating an account, as people are generally less likely to trust anonymous (IP address only) edits, especially if they're removing chunks of content from articles. I'm sure you appreciate that in this respect your edit looks exactly like vandalism.
- Signing any comments you make. You can do this by adding four tildes, like this: ~~~~
Anonymous comments are barely worth the space they take up. Waggers 09:45, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
See my reply here. 68.62.150.155 10:50, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks. Your comments seem totally reasonable and I have reverted the article back to your last edit. Please accept my apologies for the confusion, and many thanks for dealing with this in the right way. Cheers, Waggers 15:49, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] George Miller
I'm not too impressed by the fact that you have accused me of being a pedophile (even though I'm only 18). I don't have the right to report your actions without contacting you first. Please can you apologize for making this vulgar statement by placing an appropriate message on my user discussion page within the next ten days. If you don't your actions will be reported and you may be blocked from editing in the future. Thank you. P.S. what's it like living in Tuscaloosa Alabama, Latitude 33.2276, and longitude 87.5443? I must say I'm surprised that someone from Alabama would make such a comment in an attempt to support Bill O'Reilly and defame somebody who doesn't agree with him. What next?
--Miller 20:23, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[[Image:Signature george.PNG]]
Well obviously the "lets not make any more childish comments statement" went unnoticed. I wasn't trying to put you down; my statement clearly says I want your views on how to clean up the article. In this way we won’t have to "agree to disagree". By the way I would like you to leave your comment on page. I also want to say that Alabama isn't known for siding with people like Jeremy Glick; I wasn't trying to defame you or your state, that's why I didn't call you a redneck or "back woods idiot" or any other derogatory term of the same effect. If you want to know how I really feel about your country why not read my statement at the top of the page? While we’re on the subject of that statement, what do you believe is the purpose and motive for this war? Fox News doesn’t give a very accurate description of how the rest of the world feels about it right now. If you got the wrong end of the stick and were insulted I'm sorry. Now please tell me how to change the article in a truly neutral way. Once we have created an article that both sides approve of we can finally stop arguing over it. Thanks for your time.
--Miller 18:12, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
According to a report by the Guardian using data from an online survey, the only country outside the US in which the majority of that countries citizens support the war was Israel.
When you mention Europes views on the war you point out France as being the bad guy and the UK as being the good guy. The only reason your country potrays the UK the way it does is because Tony Blair supports the war NOT the british people. A report on the opinions of the war published by the Guardian actually showed that a higher percent of British were against it than French people!
The article on Jeremy Glick is an article about Jeremy Glick. Simply putting the transcript of the interview would be out of place on the page. There was a link to a video and a transcript on the page. If they have been removed I'll put them back in place to help people make up thier minds on who's right and who's wrong.Miller 02:44, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
I've just looked at the article and found this:
External links
Transcript of interview on O'Reilly and the views of several people on the interview itself
Video of Glick interview
these were there all along! The transcript link even considers various peoples views on the article. Bill O'Reilly showed him self up in that interview and you don't like that, but the point of the article is to describe the things which Glick and O'Reilly said, not to hide the things O'Reilly said and potray Glick as being bad for not supporting the war. He didn't insult O'Reilly in any way. Why do you hate him so much? Doesn't he have a right to voice his anti war views in the land of the free (anymore)? --Miller 02:50, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
The survey was simply a webpage where you typed in your country and whether or not you supported the war. If you’re suggesting the people of Iraq, a country on the verge of civil war, appreciate America’s preemptive strike and occupation of their country you’re either misinformed, naive or extraordinarily stupid.
On the subject of changing the article, I don’t think there’s anything wrong with it; it’s you that thinks that. I’m asking you to single out individual portions which you consider NPOV violations so they can be appropriately modified.
To date you haven’t pointed out an individual section of the article which is an NPOV violation, you just don’t seem to like the article as a whole. I can’t blank the article in the way you did.--Miller 16:06, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 | This is the discussion page for an anonymous user, identified by the user's numerical IP address. Some IP addresses change periodically, and may be shared by several users. If you are an anonymous user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other anonymous users. Registering also hides your IP address. [IP info · Traceroute · WHOIS · Abuse · City · RDNS] · [RIRs: America · Europe · Africa · Asia-Pacific · Latin America/Caribbean] |
