Jump to content

User talk:Isaidnoway/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

Butchery of "Public response" section of Trayvon Martin Shooting article

Your recent "edit" was not really an edit. What it did was make the statement by Steele nonsensical. Without the first paragraph, the following paragraph becomes a non sequitor:

"It has given us a generation of ambulance-chasing leaders, and the illusion that our greatest power lies in the manipulation of white guilt. The tragedy surrounding Trayvon's death is not in the possibility that it might have something to do with white racism; the tragedy is in the lustfulness with which so many black leaders, in conjunction with the media, have leapt to exploit his demise for their own power."

"It" in this paragraph reads as though it refers to Trayvon Martin's death, which is not what Steele is saying at all.

With respect to Sowell's fine essay, which is directly relevant to the section dealing with unprovoked attacks on whites by blacks that have been linked to the Trayvon Martin case, you simply engaged in exactly the kind of censorship Sowell refers to. There was nothing "inaccurate" in the summary provided (I just reread Sowell's piece to make sure), and his valuable perspective was published just two days ago.

Steele and Sowell are two very notable, eloquent people, and their views deserve a place in the "Public response" section. Eliminating their views (Sowell) or butchering them beyond recognition (Steele)are uncalled for. Apostle12 (talk) 16:17, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

The Thomas Sowell piece opens with a description of "two white newspaper reporters who were beaten by a mob of young blacks, beaten so badly that they had to take a week off from work, that might sound like news that should have been reported, at least by their own newspaper, but wasn't. Then he goes on to talk about "violence by young black gangs against white people chosen at random", and the media and authorities tendency to try and sweep these episodes under the rug, and "what the authorities and the media seem determined to suppress is that the hoodlum elements in many ghettoes launch coordinated attacks on whites in public places." What has this got to do with the shooting of Trayvon Martin? This wasn't a case of "violence by black gangs against white people". This is a case of Zimmerman shooting Martin allegedly in self defense and the aspects surrounding this specific case. Sowell doesn't even mention Martin or Zimmerman at all or even try to make a significant or relevant connection to this case, nor mention that this "violence by young black gangs against white people" is "linked to the Trayvon Martin case" whatsoever. Furthermore, the section is titled "Public response", which indicates to me at least, that the "responses" made by individuals are directly related to the specific topic of this article.
Steele does write very eloquently and specifically referenced this case, but why give so much weight to his statements as opposed to other notable figures who made public responses as well. I would think the President is more notable than Steele, but yet his statements don't receive the weight you think Steele's statement's require. Why is that? I have seen more RS reporting on Obama's statements than RS reporting on Steele's statements. While is is important to reflect all relevant viewpoints on this case, we should also consider their viewpoint (Steele's) prevalence in reporting in RS. I don't think this article should give more weight to Steele's statements with the detail that is included without RS reporting that his viewpoint is more prevalent than other notable figures who made a public response. Steele's statements should be condensed or summarized appropriately and not being given undue weight in the public response section.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 18:23, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
I see that you have refused to answer the question of why you think Steele's statements deserve undue weight in this article.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 18:37, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
I commented at length on the article talk page. I do not agree that my edit constituted giving Steele's statements "undue weight." Apostle12 (talk) 10:38, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit notes "Shooting of Trayvon Martin"

Discussion archived

In your edit note you accused me of "editorializing" and not maintaining NPOV because I used the word "suspicious." Do you imagine that Zimmerman made his February 2 call because he did NOT find the behavior of a young man peering in the windows of an empty home "suspicious?" The source also says "the suspect fled." "Suspect"/"suspicious" is not much of an editorial stretch.

Also you falsely claimed that there was no mention in the source of Zimmerman "following protocol." Please note fifth sentence from the end of the Reuters source "...he followed protocol and waited for police to arrive." My edit changed the wording slightly to avoid charges of plagiarism.

I certainly did NOT change the meaning of either section. You have really begun to get on my nerves with this sort of nitpicking. Please stop. Apostle12 (talk) 09:52, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I realize that you are a supporter of Zimmerman and his version of what happened that night, and that is fine with me. There are a lot of editors who support him and try to slant this article in his favor.
My concern is with your recent edits and comments pertaining to information you have inserted in the article. You recently commented in a thread that;
” There is evidence that Zimmerman was fed up with criminals who had been victimizing the neighborhood that, as Neighborhood Watch Captain, he had been charged with monitoring. That most of those criminals were black is well-known, yet hardly relevant to the behavior Zimmerman noted as suspicious--the 9-1-1 calls make it plain that Zimmerman noticed Martin because of his behavior, not because of his race.”
These comments reflect the opinion of the recent Reuters article by Chris Francescani. The article clearly states that it is written to provide ”a more nuanced portrait of Zimmerman that has emerged from a Reuters investigation into Zimmerman's past and a series of incidents in the community in the months preceding the Martin shooting.” The article was written with the sole purpose to present a “human” side of George Zimmerman. There is nothing wrong with that, Zimmerman deserves a fair shake from the media, after weeks of a negative portrayal of him.
But it is important to remember that the people he interviewed were merely giving their opinion of Zimmerman, and the review of documents and reports ultimately ended up in the final draft of the article as the author’s opinion and his editorial slant of the events that took place.
I believe that your recent edits that have primarily been from this Reuters article tend to reflect the “author’s opinion and his editorial slant” of the events. Take for instance, your recent edit that references the Reuters article about Zimmerman’s reason for buying a gun. Why is that relevant to this article? What difference does it make what the reason was for? Why is a dog running loose in the neighborhood relevant to this article? Zimmerman had a legal right to conceal and carry that gun, regardless of the reason he got it. He had a legal right to be carrying that gun on the night of February 26, regardless of the reason he got it. What is relevant to this article is ‘’why’’ Zimmerman used that gun to shoot Martin. Zimmerman claims self-defense. The prosecution claims 2nd degree murder. That is what is relevant about the gun, not the reason he got it. I see no relevancy in trying to justify his reason for getting a gun, other than presenting the “opinion and editorial slant” of Chris Francescani, author of the Reuters article.
Your recent edit about the prior phone calls in February came from that same Reuters article, and I believe are relevant if presented in a NPOV. But to say that Zimmerman thought the young black man’s behavior was suspicious is unnecessary. The source does not say that. What the source does say is that a young black man was peering into the windows of a neighbor's empty home. That statement alone indicates his behavior was suspicious, who wouldn’t think seeing a stranger in the neighborhood looking into a home as suspicious behavior. There’s no need to describe the behavior as suspicious when the direct statement clearly indicates that position.
The edit concerning his “following protocol” is clearly the author’s opinion and his editorial slant in describing Zimmerman in the context of why “this time” he didn’t wait for police to arrive. We don’t even know for a fact that he did “follow protocol” and waited for the police. Who says, the author? Re-read the paragraphs where the author is talking about the February 26 incident and you will see that sentence is the author’s opinion. And while you’re re-reading those paragraphs, pay close attention to this assertion by the author of the Reuters article; ” This time, Zimmerman was not so patient, and he disregarded police advice against pursuing Martin”. Is that a fact or the author’s opinion? Because you made a point of adding to “George Zimmerman’s account of events” that he didn’t “disregard the police advice against pursuing Martin”. You were very vehement that it be included that Zimmerman replied with "OK" in regards to the police dispatcher’s advice, and you also included that “Martin got away and the call ended, and Zimmerman said he was returning to his vehicle”. This assertion by the author of the Reuters article alone indicates that he has taken liberties with the facts as we know them to be and editorialized them to suit his purpose for the story. Can you not see that? We shouldn’t cherry pick his opinions and assertions to slant the article one way or the other. Stating that “Zimmerman was told to wait for the police to arrive and by the time they did, he got away” is a NPOV,’’ and is what the article should strive for.
As far as “nitpicking”, I will not stop when I see an editor inserting information in the article that is not relevant to this specific topic and not presented in a NPOV as per Wikipedia’s policies and guidelines.
I understand and respect your perspective; mostly I agree with it.
I would not, however, describe myself as a "Zimmerman supporter," except to the extent that I support his right to be considered innocent until proven guilty. The series of events that evening happened in such a short time frame (the time from the end of Zimmerman's call to the dispatcher to the arrival of the first police officer is only four minutes) that details matter, so I want our presentation of the facts to be as accurate and complete as possible. I know the jury will have to decide this case based on the facts presented by the prosecution and the defense; likely their decision will be a difficult one, since direct witnesses are lacking. While I do consider Zimmerman "innocent until proven guilty," I will fully accept a jury verdict of "guilty," and I am perfectly ready to condemn Zimmerman if it turns out he shot Martin for any other reason than justifiable self-defense.
Quite aside from the legal process, this case is complicated by the need to consider the ramifications of public perception. The case is highly charged racially, and we at Wikipedia must be cognizant of the need to provide enough contextual information so that most Americans will be willing to avoid an early rush to judgment. As things stand, I doubt most black Americans will be likely peacefully to accept any other verdict than "guilty" when it comes to Zimmerman's trial. Thomas Sowell's observation that we may be in the early stages of a "one-sided race war" seem relevant in this regard, though I do understand your reluctance to allow his observations in the "Public response" section, since he doesn't specifically reference the Martin shooting. I want to make sure the article contains enough contextual information that any leaps of judgment (pro-Zimmerman or pro-Martin) become more difficult. Broad exposure to the facts can prevent a great deal of trouble down the road.
In this regard, I think it matters that Zimmerman secured his firearm, not because he was temperamentally inclined to be a gung-ho-vigilante-wanna-be-cop, but because he was advised he might need it to protect himself, or family members, long before he took on Neighborhood Watch responsibilities. If I had taken on Neighborhood Watch responsibilities in a small community that had experienced dozens of break-ins and robberies during the previous year, with at least one shooting, I know that I too would have chosen to carry my previosly-purchased firearm, just in case I needed it. (I might also have purchased a special jacket identifying myself as a Neighborhood Watch captain, but that is a different story.)
With respect to the opinions of the Reuters author, I agree with you in many respects and I endeavored to keep the author's opinions out of the Wikipedia article. I did not refer, for example, to Zimmerman's "patience" or the lack thereof. However I do believe it is clear that Zimmerman strictly followed protocol during the February 2 incident. That he decided to follow Martin (at least up to the point where the dispatcher said "We don't need you to do that;" no one knows what happened after Martin said "OK") is a known fact; it is important that we also know why he might have decided not to remain in his vehicle. BTW, Zimmerman's statement that he "was returning to his vehicle" is not based on the Reuters article but on various other sources. At this point no one knows if his statement is true, or not. The cell phone records may be useful when it comes to giving us a clear record of Zimmerman's movements after the phone call to the dispatcher ended.
We are on the same team here. We both want the public to be as well-informed as possible. I am not trying to slant the article in a "pro-Zimmerman" direction, however I do think that, as a nation, we are in some danger if most Americans (especially most black Americans) are not aware of facts that indicate at least the possibility he could be telling the truth about shooting Martin in self-defense. Especially if Zimmerman is found "Not guilty" during the upcoming trial, such awareness could make all the difference to the "public reaction" aspect of this case. Apostle12 (talk) 23:12, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
The public watches the news to be informed of what is happening in the world around us and is influenced by what they report. Wikipedia is merely an online encyclopedia. This article will have little to no bearing on the public's reaction to the outcome of this case, as they will be able to watch it live on TV, just like OJ's case and Casey Anthony's case. Being that the current state of the article is heavily slanted in Zimmerman's favor, readers of this article will come away with the sense that the editors here are on his side. They won't get the NPOV which is supposed to be Wikipedia's goal in publishing articles like this.
Having followed this case in the cable, print and online news sources, I have not seen any reporting at all as to why he bought his gun, the Reuter's article is the only news agency that I have seen report on that and it is the only source cited for that info. But hey, reader's will learn something new by seeing it included here. I also suspect that the defense will bring it up in the trial to dispel the notion that Zimmerman bought it specifically for his neighborhood watch duties. So, in hindsight, it is a good addition to the article. As far as him following protocol in the Feb. 2.call to police, I guess one could assume that, considering he didn't chase him down and shoot him.</sarcasm> Actually, that is part of what the prosecutor contends was his motive in shooting Martin, he wasn't going to let "this one" get away.
As far as the part about him "returning to his vehicle", I do realize that it didn't come from Reuters, as I was the one who originally wrote his account of events and included that statement. It originally said "returning to his SUV", not vehicle. I used this source [1] which is still included in the article as a cite for that statement and also that Martin approached from the left rear.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 13:23, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Sounds then like we have arrived at reasonable compromises.
A note on Wikipedia and its influence. There was a case, three years ago now, that was also racially charged. A great deal of misinformation made its way onto the airwaves early in the case, and there was considerable danger that Oakland, California might erupt in violence. In fact there was a militant fringe element that actively encouraged such violence. A number of editors, myself included, worked pretty much around the clock to get the facts of the case into the article. It was, of course, highly controversial, but through careful sourcing the truth of what happened emerged.
I had the opportunity to talk to several of the reporters who were active in writing stories about the case, both locally and on a national level. Several told me that they began their research efforts by reading the Wikipedia article. They did not base their reporting on the article, but they used it as a jumping off point for their own research. Two thanked me for my part in helping them avoid common errors.
In that case, we were able to avoid a violent reaction in a city where racial division can sometimes be intense. The city remained calm and a consensus developed based on responsible, factual reporting. I believe Wikipedia was part of that process.
The article in question was "2009 shooting of Oakland police officers." Apostle12 (talk) 16:25, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Once the media interest in this story has died down and the case is over, then the unnecessary language can be removed and it can be restored to a NPOV article. Until then, you just learn to deal with it and go with the flow.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 03:17, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Shooting of Trayvon Martin

Your additions to the talk page are helpful and informative. I hope you continue to offer your insights over the long term. Cheers! ArishiaNishi (talk) 19:48, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

OT: I find it a bit too scary to edit this article anymore, what with all the opinions and with how quickly it's all happening here in the Wiki. Glad to see you are still working on it. Cheers! ArishiaNishi (talk) 19:01, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I still follow the Shooting of Trayvon Martin pages daily. Though I don't always agree with you, you have my respect. How you manage to keep your balance is beyond me. Keep up the good work. ArishiaNishi (talk) 20:38, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Discussion closed - moved to talk page of article

Your recent edits to Zimmerman's version of events made the section too truncated for readers to understand his perspective on how the events unfolded. I take no position as to whether his version is true, or not. However, readers need to know what his version is. Please do not edit out various aspects of what Zimmerman says happened that night; if he is not telling the truth, that will emerge during the trial. Also, it is not necessary to add phrases like "according to Zimmerman," "Zimmerman claims," etc. so as to qualify the content of this section. The intro makes clear that the entire section is Zimmerman's version; lack of qualifiers does not constitute an endorsement of his position. Apostle12 (talk) 05:01, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Your recent addition sounds more like you are writing for a newspaper aritcle, rather than for an encyclopedia article. This is not a gossip column or a tabloid. We usually don't put in disclaimers saying "this is not an endorsement." Your last reference is a dead link that needs to be properly referenced and the rest of the story is from "George Zimmerman's dad says" and what a "source told the police department". When a source you reference says that the information you want to include is from someone else other that George Zimmerman himself, we usually try to include that at least once in the article. George Zimmerman didn't actually give an interview to any of these sources and that needs to be clarified.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 06:08, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Much as the tone of what you say grates, I do see your point. However, it seems to me that Zimmerman did provide statements to the police and to his father. If we attribute them, with appropriate sourcing, it becomes possible to piece together the chain of events according to Zimmerman. Much of the reporting, especially early on, obfuscated this chain of events--making it sound, for example, as though Zimmerman was from the beginning following Martin on foot. Also most people continue to labor under the mistaken impression that Zimmerman did not heed the dispatcher's suggestion not to follow Martin--in fact all the following took place before that suggestion was made. It is a difficult story to get one's head around, and I don't pretend to know what is true and what is not. My hope is that Zimmerman's version of the events, whether true or not true, becomes accessible to Wikipedia readers. Don't know how the final link got corrupted; have not been able to revive it. Apostle12 (talk) 07:21, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
That is a little better. Much of this new information is also disputed by the prosecutor, and that is in the article too. Usually when we have an opposing view of the way it happened, we try to include it as well to provide a balanced view. I will work on it a little bit and try to improve it. Rene Stutzman who wrote the piece has been working on this case from the very beginning and usually her work is pretty reliable, so she probably does have a source inside the police, but we just need to make sure and provide it in a NPOV. Let me see what I can do with it.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 12:35, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Mark O'Mara

Further to your question on WP:MCQ, you may find it useful to read my image copyright information page for a wider view of image copyright issues. ww2censor (talk) 15:45, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

witness 9 straw poll

Why did you revert your closing of the section? Gaijin42 (talk) 16:07, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I did it wrong, I closed the whole talk page instead. I'm working on fixing it.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 16:09, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Shooting of Trayvon Martin

Thank you for your diplomacy and collaborative spirit in recent discussions on this article. I appreciate your willingness to discuss and consider compromises. Minor4th 18:42, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for stopping by and for the comments. You do offer a fresh perspective and your ideas for improving the article are usually pretty solid.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 05:31, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
No offense intended by my little "not invited" message. I admit I have been very inactive at the talk for the article. But I do watch it and have been impressed with your fair participation. ```Buster Seven Talk 18:29, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

So, we've butted heads several times on issues, but I do want to let you know I respect your positions and role as an editor even when I disagree with you. We have occasionally drifted into WP:FORUM on the talk page, which I am certainly personally guilty of more than once. to try and nip that in the bud somewhat, I created a mini-essay on my talk page about my editing, and overall views of the case. You may be interested in order to better understand where I am coming from (although you probably have learned the bulk of it through our previous discussions). Obviously the opinions I have there are my own personal POV/OR, so I do try to avoid making those arguments directly in the article/talk. But They do serve as my own filter for how I am dealing with the WP:N and WP:V information we are editing in, as you alluded to in your recent comment. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:35, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

TM comment

"Yes, it could have happened that way. I certainly hope that it didn't though. Could be a real problem for the prosecution if it did" - I dont understand how a procedural difference of measuring the body could be a problem for the prosecution? Gaijin42 (talk) 19:10, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

TM tense changes

Somewhat confused by the changes. Are all of those positions that you changed from "is" to "was" actually not in those jobs anymore? Or are you just doing it to indicate that these events happened in the past, but not that they have moved on from the job? I can see arguments for both styles, but it is a bit confusing. Obviously in the LONG term perspective (eventually all of these people will be dead), the "was" tense will be correct, but since the case is ongoing, it has some implications that maybe they quit/fired/etc possibly as a result of their actions on the case. Not sure how we could address that though. (Im not saying that YOU are saying any of those implications, merely that it could be ambiguously read that way, and we should avoid it if possible) Gaijin42 (talk) 16:47, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

also, if you could comment on my "summary" edit to the pre-trial section, it would let me know if it is an acceptable path to try and take with some of the other sections. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:50, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
I don't think its worth a big debate or anything, I'm mostly fine either way. But I will note that Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biographies#Tense seems to imply we should use "is". The guideline does not address how to deal with someone who is still alive, but no longer "active" in their role. I suppose when thats an issue we could add "retired" or "was at the time" to everything as appropriate. Was at the time would be accurate now as well, but again has some implication that the status may have changed later. Sigh. So confusing! :) Gaijin42 (talk) 18:51, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

case overall

I agree with you that murder is very unlikely, due to the intent issues. Manslaughter or reckless injury are much easier, but between SYG and the photos of the bloody nose/head etc, I think proving SD wasn't applicable is going to be tough, unless they can get a very good set of testimony out of the neighbors and #8 that consistently says Zimmerman was on top etc. Zimmerman is an idiot, and could have easily avoided the whole thing by just waiting in the car. But showing that it wasn't valid defense at the time of the shot is going to be real tough. That might put the burden of proof in the wrong place, but that's an issue for the legislature to fix, have to judge him under the laws as they were at the time.

If he gets off, I think we are probably in for another round of nice riots and things, and Zimmerman will probably have to move to south America or something to live out the rest of his life.

Of course, pleas make everything moot. If the judge rules against him in the SYG, I could see him accepting a manslaughter plea if they went for a relatively low number of years (statutory min is 9 for manslaughter?) vs the life he is up against. But its a big gamble. So much will depend on the jury makeup, and which viewpoint they see the case from.Gaijin42 (talk) 19:11, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't think the judge will rule in Zimmerman's favor at the SYG hearing, it would be much easier to just pass it off to a jury and let them be the fall guy, so to speak. The prosecution's case is incredibly weak, in my opinion, and there is enough reasonable doubt to fill a dump truck. If this case makes it to trial (there won't be a plea bargain, Zimmerman's ego wouldn't permit that) I predict the prosecution's only tactical advantage they can pursue is to hammer away at Zimmerman's credibility, and if he takes the stand to try and create a scenario where he is just a "liar" who can't be believed about anything, much less what happened that night. The wild card in this whole case will be the jury, I can see them very easily voting not guilty, regardless of the evidence presented, just because of Florida's liberal gun laws and their right to conceal and carry and their right to self-defense outside their homes.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 19:39, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

This is incredibly clearer. How crump/prosecution can think that providing such inferior versions of these recordings, the zimmerman photos etc and still satisfy discovery astonishes me.

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2013/3/7/135336/1271 Gaijin42 (talk) 20:32, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Your deletion of sourced information

The reason I think it is important to include that a break-in--in fact a home invasion--did in fact happen in the community is that a great deal has been written about the supposed "hysteria" of the community, and of George Zimmerman in particular. The previous sentence implies that there were merely "reports" of break-ins. This goes to the question of whether Zimmerman overreacted in calling the police after observing a young man acting suspiciously, and whether he was justified in trying to keep tabs on Martin until the police arrived. I think it IS very important, and I would like to add it back; it is well-sourced and at least as important as many other aspects of our coverage of this matter. Apostle12 (talk) 18:33, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Closing discussion at Talk:Shooting of Trayvon Martin

Hi, Regarding your edit,[2] I don't think it's proper for you to use the template "Archive top" to close the discussion. As I mentioned in my previous edit summary, please see Template:Archive top, which states "When used on a talk page this template should only be used by uninvolved editors or administrators in conjunction with the talk page guidelines and relevant advice at refactoring. It should not be used by involved parties to end a discussion over the objections of other editors." Would you care to discuss this? Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:56, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

TM

Here is some random analysis of the witness list you were discussing recently http://diwataman.wordpress.com/2013/03/27/witness-list-2/

More interesting IMO is this analysis of the recent filings. Obviously a source leaning pro-Zimmerman, so to be taken with a large grain of salt, but it does raise some significant credibility issues against Sabrina Fulton, Crump, and possible the prosecution. And I think the Brady stuff is going to be a huge open door if appeals are needed. Especially those quotes towards the bottom of the article make it clear there is strong precident for releasing the information, especially when specifically asked for.

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2013/3/29/74056/4011

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2013/3/27/211732/645

Gaijin42 (talk) 15:44, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the links, but I have been following Jeralyn and talkleft for quite some time. Actually, long before the Zimmerman case. She has always been very pro-defense on any case she takes an interest in and writes about, as she should, considering that's what she does for a living.
All this discussion about witness 8 and her credibility, and Crump and Martin's mother is really not that big of a deal, if you ask me. She is not a "star" witness as the media has been trying to portray her as. At this point, I don't see the prosecution as even needing her to testify to anything, they can easily establish what she would testify to through other evidence. We know Zimmerman was following Martin, he admitted it. We know there was a confrontation between the two and words exchanged, he admitted it. What else does she know - nothing! Why call a witness when you know their testimony can be impeached, doesn't make sense.
As far as the prosecutor misconduct concerning the release of evidence, I just don't see that as an issue either. O'Mara is doing what he is supposed to do, he has to preserve it for the record, or he can't argue it on appeal, pretty standard stuff. You can't argue something before an appeals court, if you didn't bring it up beforehand. And what Jeralyn and other's are leaving out of this argument, is that the defense has to prove that their misconduct had a prejudicial effect on their ability to prepare for trial and the prejudical effect affected the outcome of the trial (if he were found guilty). And furthermore, since O'Mara has brought this issue before the trial judge and she will rule on it first, the appeal court would review if the trial judge erred in her decision. If she imposes a sanction against the prosecutor, then I would say O'Mara has a pretty good case on appeal.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 15:44, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

thank

Slightly confused by your thank. I removed content that you appear to agree with? :) Gaijin42 (talk) 16:23, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited State of Florida vs. George Zimmerman, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Orange County Sheriff's Office (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:59, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Martin shooting article

Back on April 6th on the Talk page you commented on section being added for Zimmerman's attorney and added a  Done, but I can't find the section. I think it should be restored if it was deleted or written if it was never added. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 03:53, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Wow, that was a long time ago wasn't it. That section was added to the article, but a separate article was created, State of Florida v. George Zimmerman, and all the information about the lawyers and judges and court proceedings were moved over to that article. I don't know if there would be a consenus right now to add that section back to the article, but I would certainly support inserting a couple of sentences pertaining to the lawyers involved in the case.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 05:28, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Ah, ok. I missed the link to the other article, sometimes the links seems a little overly subtle especially when information is moved to a secondary article. I think more consistency between the two articles would be a good idea. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 18:42, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Trayvon Benjamin Martin (2) (September 17)

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit if you feel they have been resolved.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:53, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Trayvon Martin (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Skittles, Gangsta, Street culture and New Milford High School

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:52, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Shooting of Trayvon Martin - recent RfC

As I am sure you are aware, the recent RfC was closed with a judgment of there not being consensus on the proposed wording. What is your current feeling regarding the discussion we had concerning your proposal for two sentences along the lines of "During the months leading up to the February 26, 2012 shooting, Zimmerman called the police several times to report people he believed to be suspicious. On each of the calls, Zimmerman waited until he was asked by the dispatcher to provide a description of their race, and then reported that the people were black males."? Would you accept inclusion of the final version I proposed if it incorporates these two sentences you proposed as well as a deletion of the information about the stolen bicycle that was proposed by NickCT? Dezastru (talk) 23:33, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

My only concern, regardless of what version we choose, is not to imply that Zimmerman was racially profiling anybody. The whole point of that sourcing, as I understand it, it to dispel that notion. I also think it's important for the sentence to be worded to reflect that he was asked by the dispatcher first, instead of saying, "they were all black males, although he waited until asked". I think by saying "although", it sounds like we are diminishing the fact he was asked, which is really a relevant point the sourcing is trying to make.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 02:39, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Bradley Manning/October 2013 move request

Greetings. Because you participated in the August 2013 move request regarding this subject, you may be interested in participating in the current discussion. This notice is provided pursuant to Wikipedia:Canvassing#Appropriate notification. Cheers! bd2412 T 21:35, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Shooting of Trayvon Martin page question

Hello! I am an artist and researcher working on a project about the shooting of Trayvon Martin. I would like to ask you some questions about your involvement and work on the wikipedia page as part of my research. I do not know the best way to contact you but would love to talk further about your involvement and why you are interested. Thanks for listening, please be in touch. Wordisbond17 (talk) 00:35, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

@Wordisbond17 You can contact me through my talk page or email. Just let me know which you prefer.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 22:41, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Great! I'll email you. Thanks! Wordisbond17 (talk) 19:41, 13 December 2013 (UTC) Hey, did you ever get that email I sent your way? 70.109.163.223 (talk) 21:33, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

revdel

Since you edited while logged out, you may wish to have an admin revdel those revisions to hide your IP. not sure if you care about that sort of thing. Gaijin42 (talk) 03:57, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Nah, it's ok. I have nothing to hide. I was at work, so it wasn't my regular pc. Isaidnoway (talk) 04:31, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions notification

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Eastern Europe, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:35, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Please carefully read this reply

Gee, thanks for posting this big fat notice on my talk page. I was totally aware of the discretionary sanctions authorized by the arbitration committee as there is a notice on the talk page of the article I am currently editing and I have cited it a couple of times as well to other editor's. One should WP:AGF that I am able to read and comprehend notices posted on article's talk pages.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 14:13, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Question

I saw your follow-up to my comment at WP:AN/I about that guy, which left me a little puzzled. We are in agreement about this matter, more or less? It is clear that I was emphasizing how disruptive he was, not trying to justify his actions in the least. By mentioning names like Annie Sprinkles, Harry Reems, James Deen, Jenna Jameson, etc. I was trying to emphasize that there existed no credible grounds for derogatory language. These are people notable for being porn stars, & only a person on a personal vendetta would blank them along with less familiar names. BTW, I regret that events didn't allow me to act more decisively in this matter, & settle it before it turned into its current dramafest. -- llywrch (talk) 19:32, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

@llywrch I was tired and should have already been in bed when I posted that, but to clarify, yes I agree with you on this issue. I just thought it was important for editor's to be able to have a look at the "original" page in question that started this fiasco. As far as I can tell, this is one of those articles that was created years ago with good faith intentions, and has had additional info added over the years in good faith edits. As Wikidemon pointed out below my comment, we found zero evidence of contentious claims being made about any of these actors. So, without agreeing or disagreeing about the current inclusion criteria for lists of this nature that is being discussed across the various boards, I think the question needs to be answered that when a WP article (any article) is discovered that is several years old and needs updating, do we just indiscriminately blank it, or do we give the volunteers an agreed upon amount of time to fix it, and if it's not fixed then request an AfD. I initially supported the retention of this article at the AfD and stated then - that this article could probably use some updating and volunteered along with some other editor's to undertake this mass project, but I also think that when you have a particular editor with an agenda creating a disruptive editing environment, it's hard to achieve the goal of improving encyclopedic content in that sort of environment. Isaidnoway (talk) 22:07, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Well it's clear that you can express the point far better than I. And it's clear that he's clearly pushing an agenda. Let's hope that we can blunt his pointiness. -- llywrch (talk) 06:26, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Removed your AN/I report

Just wanted to give you a heads up, I removed your AN/I report. Generally we try not to attract additional attention to things like that, even when already revision deleted (which I have done). I've also reported the edit to the oversight team for their review. In the future, I suggest either finding an active admin and requesting revision deletion directly, or just reporting it to the oversight team via email, with AN/I only as a last resort. Monty845 16:13, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Also, if you want to post a new AN/I report on just the remaining issue, I don't have an objection, however the talk page of the article may be able to resolve that part. Monty845 16:17, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Thank you User:Monty845 Isaidnoway (talk) 16:20, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Three Pontiac firebirds

Very cool. I once had a 1968 Firebird convertible. --Kevin Murray (talk) 14:48, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Brown shooting

We may disagree on the point about the lawsuit, but I want to reiterate that I greatly respect your abilities and intentions as an editor, based on our experience at the Martin article, and so far on the Brown article. That extends to even when you are obviously wrong and I am right ;) Good to work with you again.Gaijin42 (talk) 18:38, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Gaijin42, I know, it's like DejaVu all over again. Good to see you again - making all the wrong arguments:) Isaidnoway (talk) 18:51, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Michael Brown

I noticed that you are also involved in the editing of Shooting of Trayvon Martin. I think this article is well done and balanced at least for the Lede. I noticed that the editors there use a foot note in the Lede, with the popup feature. I've not used footnotes in the Lede before, but it seems like a brilliant way to get detail at the readers' finger tips without clogging up the flow. Best to you. --Kevin Murray (talk) 18:19, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't like to be on the other side of issues from you, as I do feel you are among the best and most conscientious editors involved in this article. I may disagree with your points, and think you might have become to close to the issue, but I know that your intent and spirit are without reproach. Best. --Kevin Murray (talk) 15:38, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

If you wish to revert my archiving of the RFC, feel free. I think it is correct to remove the content while ongoing, as it was 2:1 for removal and a BLP/V issue, but if people want the RFC to stay open longer I have no objection. My main problem was some obvious WP:GAMEing from some of the participants. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:59, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
I have no intention in getting involved in an edit-war over this closing. It is not 2:1 for removal. Excluding 2kindsofpork because he !voted twice, the tally is 7 for removal and 5 for no criminal record, that is not a clear and convincing consensus. It just looks like to me, regardless of what the outcome of the RfC was going to be, it didn't matter - because some editor's feel they don't have to abide by consensus. Isaidnoway (talk) 20:10, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
I reverted myself. In any case had you reverted I don't think any would would consider that an edit war. I had missed that pork !voted twice, and darkfrog is a latecomer to my count (which is a good reason to keep it open longer, I freely admit). You are right that 7-5 is not SNOW territory. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:15, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

September 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Carnival of Rust may have broken the syntax by modifying 4 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • Fall|date=24 May 2006}}</ref>and has sold [[Music recording sales certification|platinum]].<ref>{{cite web|title=Carnival of Rust sells platinum|url=http://www.poetsofthefall.com/news/893_carnival_
  • album is featured in [[Helsingin Sanomat|Helsingin Sanomat's]] "Best albums of 2006" article.<ref>{{cite web|title=Carnival of Rust in HS's best albums of the year|url=http://www.poetsofthefall.com/

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 05:55, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I know, I fixed it. Now get lost. Isaidnoway (talk) 06:07, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Alex the Dog may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • allaboutbeer.com/features/225dogsandbeer.html Beer (and) Man's Best Friend For Beer Dogs Everywhere], AllAboutBeer.com, November 2001. Accessed 5 March 2008</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:11, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

October 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Nathaniel Kaz may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • //www.nationalsculpture.org/nssN/index.cfm/fa/cExhibits.exhibitAwards National Sculpture Society]]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 06:51, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Rich Duwelius, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Mark Miller, Pat Powers and Dave Saunders. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:16, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Curse of the Komodo, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Paul Logan. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:01, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

October 2014

These long template messages are not necessary. Don't do it again. Thanks. Don't really care if it's twinkle or sprinkle or fairy dust, don't do it again

Your recent editing history at Shooting of Michael Brown shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. - MrX 21:12, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

These long template messages are not necessary. Don't do it again. Thanks. Isaidnoway (talk) 21:15, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, but no. I use Twinkle warnings for convenience. You can delete warnings once you read them. By that way, you have already violated 3RR so I recommend that you self-revert or you may be blocked anyway.- MrX 21:27, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
MrX, for whatever my opinion is worth, I don't consider his last revert a 3RR violation, per what I said in the next section below. And I think reverting that would be a mistake, as it would put the article into the wrong state. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 21:31, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
That's fine. I don't intend to report it. I would just like to see the edit warring stop.- MrX 21:33, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

What a cluster fuck!

I have no idea how we got into a situation where your revert could result in something that resembles existing consensus, but we did and I'm not feeling inclined to analyze that at this point. But it's a good example of the confusion that can result when people don't follow established process. There should have been one revert followed by a freeze until consensus was reached for change. The alternative is chaos, which is pretty much what we ended up with. I don't like fighting. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 21:22, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

It's simple and straightforward to me. All four media outlets used anonymous sourcing. What I don't understand is this idea that we give preferential treatment to CNN's anonymous source and just dismiss the other's - FOX and ABC as propaganda by government agencies. FOX and ABC both have those stories up on their sites and I don't see where they have retracted their reporting. Am I missing something here? Does CNN trump all other media outlets with their anonymous sourcing? Isaidnoway (talk) 21:47, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
I didn't mean to extend the talk page discussion here, and there's nothing to gain by having the same discussion in two places. You may have a good point, and if so I think we'll reach consensus for your change. If the majority is too dumb to see the value of the change, well shit happens and we move on. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 23:01, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Re-open RfC?: Genital modification and mutilation

WP:AN POST
It seems evident from subsequent editing that my intervention here is hindering rather than helping evolution of this article, so with apologies to all I shall put my tail between my legs and withdraw my objection to this RfC/close assuming that sources are used in such a way that WP:V is respected, and hoping the WP:SYNCing shall be improved as the article evolves. - Bon courage

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hello. Would you be willing to re-open this RfC? I added the agreed upon RfC wording to the article, but there is a user that decided to use significantly differently wording. I was thinking about pinging everyone from the RfC to see what their thoughts were. And since it hasn’t been 30 days yet, I see no issue with re-opening the RfC. Prcc27 (talk) 20:17, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

This was a bad RfC but the close was fair enough if "meh" (executive summary: the article should be edited normally). However, since this now seems to have become the locus of some problems, it is right that any challenge follows the correct process of WP:CLOSECHALLENGE, which would appear to be a challenge at WP:AN. Bon courage (talk) 20:53, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
The first step per WP:CLOSECHALLENGE: “contact the editor who performed the closure and try to resolve the issue through discussion.” I suppose the RfC may be a valid close. In that case, maybe we still need to go to a third opinion noticeboard or AN. Prcc27 (talk) 21:01, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
  • In fact on further consideration this is a bad close. This article is meant to be an overview article pointing off to main articles on various topics using the "main" template. The principle is that material should be in WP:SYNC with those main articles so referenced. By allowing novel material to be spliced in here, that principle is ignored and - rather - there's is an invitation to WP:POVFORK. Thus I take it the close can only be complied with in such a way that WP:SYNC is observed, otherwise it's running counter to the WP:PAGs. Bon courage (talk) 21:29, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
    That doesn’t make it a bad close.. You or someone else could have made those points while the RfC was still open. The closer made the close based on the existing discussion. Prcc27 (talk) 21:57, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
    Closes can't be a WP:LOCALCON. I wasn't aware of the RfC. Bon courage (talk) 21:58, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

@Prcc27 and Bon courage: — I closed it based on the existing discussion. It wasn't a contentious topic area, nor was the discussion heated or controversial, and there wasn't any challenges to the proposed wording. I also highlighted the comment about sources being used. I didn't consider arguments that weren't made or could have been made in the closure, which would have been a supervote on my part. So I believe a consensus was established to implement the proposed wording. Just because an editor wasn't aware of the RfC and didn't get to participate, isn't a good enough reason to re-open it, in my opinion.

Per WP:RFCCLOSE - An RfC should last until enough comment has been received that consensus is reached, or until it is apparent that it won't be. There is no required minimum or maximum duration. The RfC was opened 28 days ago, with the last comment being 17 days ago, so keeping that in mind, the closure doesn't run afoul of the guidelines at RFCCLOSE. Isaidnoway (talk) 00:21, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
I think this is a WP:CTOP under the ganergate restrictions. I think the issue is that it seems some editors might interpret the close to be an override of WP:SS. This is an article which summarizes other articles, and should not contain novel content. Bon courage (talk) 03:52, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
I'm not seeing any extended confirmed protection restrictions on the article, like there usually is in a WP:CTOP designated article, and there is no notice on the talk page either indicating the article is covered by CTOP. The page protection says Allow all users to edit. If you have evidence that the article is covered by CTOP, please provide it. And WP:SS was not argued, or even mentioned in the discussion, so I couldn't consider SS in the closure. I closed it based on the existing discussion. And if you are editing the article against the consensus of the RfC, you really shouldn't be doing that either. Isaidnoway (talk) 05:56, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
Most CTOP articles do not have ECP (everything in COVID-19 and all biographies, e,g,). I remember GG being invoked for circumcision topics in the past. But why does this matter? The issue at hand is a claim that a close enable editors to ignore WP:SYNC and start putting novel material into summary sections. Bon courage (talk) 06:06, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
WP:SYNC was not argued, or even mentioned in the discussion, so I couldn't consider SYNC in the closure. I closed it based on the existing discussion. Isaidnoway (talk) 06:11, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
Were you aware that the discussion applied to a summary pointing to an article via a main template? Bon courage (talk) 06:13, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
No one argued, or even mentioned that in the discussion, so I couldn't consider arguments that weren't made. I closed it based on the existing discussion. Isaidnoway (talk) 06:21, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
Closers are meant to ensure closes don't run against the WP:PAGs, and that requires familiarity with the context. Also an RfC which mandates text without a reliable source (which may or may not exist to WP:Verify the content at hand) runs pretty hard counter to several policies, no? Bon courage (talk) 06:30, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
I said in the closure - An editor also noted that reliable sources should be used to support the wording which is consistent with our policies and guidelines. If you have any issues with the sourcing, that discussion should take place on the article's talk page, not here. Isaidnoway (talk) 06:38, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
And what if no such source exists? Bon courage (talk) 06:40, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
When the content was added to the article here, a reliable source was added per the RfC closure. Like I said, if you have any issues with the sourcing, that discussion should take place on the article's talk page, not here. Isaidnoway (talk) 06:50, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
So what happens to the mandated text if:
  1. The cited source (or a better source) does not support it?
  2. It is out-of-sync with the pointed-to articles?
Bon courage (talk) 06:54, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
I believe I have answered your questions satisfactorily pertaining to my closure of the RfC, and whether I would re-open it. I think we are done here. Thanks. Isaidnoway (talk) 07:00, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
With respect, you very much haven't; the issues are crystalised by the two points above. Bon courage (talk) 07:05, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
1. If you have an issue with the sourcing, discuss it on the article's talk page.
2. I did not consider arguments that were not made, or arguments that could have been made in the discussion, that would be a supervote, as I stated before up above. Isaidnoway (talk) 07:12, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
Again you are not answering the question, which is "what happens to the mandated text if ..."? Bon courage (talk) 07:23, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
Again, I believe I have answered your questions satisfactorily pertaining to my closure of the RfC, and whether I would re-open it. It appears to me you just want to make arguments now that weren't made during the RfC. So if you want answers to your question "what happens to the mandated text if ..."? Please open a discussion on the articles talk page and discuss it there. Thanks. Isaidnoway (talk) 07:44, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
No, I am asking a question about the close which just seems to mandate a particular form of words without any explanation of how that works in practice. As it stands, the close is manifestly unhelpful. Bon courage (talk) 07:51, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
It appears to me you are just wanting to re-litigate the whole discussion, and make new arguments now that weren't made during the RfC. I believe I have explained my rationale for closing the discussion satisfactorily.
Per WP:CLOSECHALLENGE - If you are unable to resolve the issue through discussion with the closer, you may request review at the Administrators' Noticeboard. Before requesting review, understand that review should not be used as an opportunity to re-argue the underlying dispute, and is only intended for use when there is a problem with the close itself.
If you believe that there was a problem with the close itself, and you were unable to resolve the issue here on my talk page, please take the next step(s) accordingly, either at AN or on the talk page of the article. Thanks. Isaidnoway (talk) 08:12, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
You keep deflecting into stuff about ECP (?), or my supposed motives rather than answering simple and direct questions about the close itself. There are three questions I have asked you have not answered. This is not "re-litigation". What's the point of discussing if you're not going to engage? As a reminder, the three questions are:
  1. Were you aware that the discussion applied to a summary pointing to an article via a main template? (NO ANSWER)
  2. What happens to the mandated text if the cited source (or a better source) does not support it? (NO ANSWER)
  3. What happens to the mandated text if it is out-of-sync with the pointed-to articles? (NO ANSWER)
As it is, the solution appears to be to ignore the close and follow the WP:PAGs, but if disruption flares up there may be a need to go to AN. Bon courage (talk) 08:25, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
The close itself was based on the existing discussion. Like I previously told you, (1) again, there was no discussion or mention in the RfC about SS, so I couldn't consider an argument that wasn't brought up or could have been brought up. (2) if you have any issues about sources being used, discuss that on the article's talk page, (3) again, there was no discussion or mention of SYNC, so I couldn't consider an argument that wasn't brought up or could have been brought up. So yeah, you are wanting to re-argue the whole RfC based on what you think shoulda/coulda been brought up (SS and SYNC) in the discussion. And I don't believe the solution is to ignore the consensus established at the RfC based on the existing discussion. Isaidnoway (talk) 09:09, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
  • As a general comment I also have to ask, why in the Hell was this RfC launched? WP:RFCBEFORE says "RfCs are time consuming, and editor time is valuable. Editors should try to resolve their issues before starting an RfC". Yet this just appeared from nowhere. Bon courage (talk) 06:40, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
    This was already addressed at the RfC itself. It did not appear from nowhere. Maybe you just missed the previous discussion on the matter..? Prcc27 (talk) 07:03, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request for Administrator Intervention: Conflict of Interest and Content Dispute on Gavin Wood Article

CLOSED
Lustigermutiger21 was blocked for 48 hours for personal attacks and advised not to impugn the motives of established editors. A report was also filed at ANI. Isaidnoway (talk) 10:52, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hello,

I am requesting administrator intervention regarding a content dispute and potential conflict of interest involving the user @Isaidnoway and the article on Gavin Wood. The issue involves the repeated removal of reliably sourced content that I believe should be included in the article. I would appreciate it if an administrator could review the case and help resolve the dispute.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. Lustigermutiger21 (talk) 07:42, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

If you have actual evidence, you should open a thread at WP:COIN rather than make pointless posts on an editors talk page and hope someone notices. Note that administrators have no special powers to investigate COI. If you have no evidence, and you've presented none, I suggest you drop this right now. IMO you're already on very thin ice with personal attacks considering the disgusting personal attacks you made against User:Bilby for which AFAIK, you didn't even properly apologise for instead just made a non-apology apology. In other words, if you open a COI thread or otherwise keep pursuing this despite an apparent lack of any evidence, expect to be blocked for continued personal attacks. Nil Einne (talk) 08:32, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Isaidnoway/Archive_1&oldid=1241462663"