User talk:Fandriampahalamana

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Fandriampahalamana, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially what you did for Andrianampoinimerina. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! --Dynaflow babble 22:50, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Fandriampahalamana (talk) 23:21, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Infamous interview

I don't understand your edit here. [1] Infamous is the adjective used by the RS. It is an adjective which modifies interview. It is not used to apply to either Thomas or Nesenoff.KeptSouth (talk) 23:11, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don’t know what you don’t understand. I explained it very clearly in David Nesenoff that "infamous means "something bad", which means a bad interview; and while the source means bad for Thomas it is used here as bad for Nesenoff which of course is an unsupported opinion".

I am sorry, but I would not have asked for an explanation if I understood already. It would be a waste of time, and I would rather improve content than debate. By the way, I assume you didn't really mean to change the text to read interviews with rabbis, inluding his Helen Thomas interview so I fixed it. - Regards KeptSouth (talk) 23:39, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the source says "infamous" as I mentioned, but there, it is well understood what it means (and maybe because of the combination of "now-infamous"). In the article it sounded to me when I read it as if Nesenoff did something wrong and is now infamous for it, which means that the wording is misleading and not supported by reliable sources, plain and simple. Fandriampahalamana (talk) 23:27, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, a lot of the articles that are cited in these wikipedia "biographies" are opinion or contain opinion, and many of them slur the subject of the bio - so I understand your sensitivities. What do you think about the Helen Thomas article? Fair and balanced or not? - Regards - KeptSouth (talk) 23:47, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neither fair nor balanced. I'm still busy getting the lead right before I can really get into what is right or wrong with the rest of the article. Fandriampahalamana (talk) 23:56, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: this edit [2] (The source given says “really”, not “adequately”. Why should we interpret, when we can give the exact word?) The reason we re-phrase is to avoid plagiarism - I judged that to be an adequate substitute. There is a WP policy on plagiarism that explains this issue thoroughly. Sorry, I don't have the time now to give you the exact link, but it shouldn't be too hard to find. - Best regards, KeptSouth (talk) 23:39, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Come on! plagiarism? If that is the case then we should delete almost the entire Wikipedia as it is written and based on sources. I've never heard that we need to consult a synonym dictionary when we use reliable sources lest they sue Wikipedia. BTW, FYI, the laws of plagiarism doesn't allow similar words either. We shouldn't judge and substitute words just like that, but use the exact words, or as I did, not use it at all.

BTW, the word "notable" doesn't ring right, but I'll leave it to another spell meister. Don't know why we have to add such words just because ONE source was found. A little common sense is in order. Fandriampahalamana (talk) 23:51, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive editor

FYI -- pls note (you will see that I mentioned his deletion of your talk page comments as well ... something that, judging from his block history, he had a penchant for).--Epeefleche (talk) 02:03, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]