User talk:MWoodson
Welcome!
Hello, MWoodson, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Tutorial
- How to edit a page and How to develop articles
- How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
- Manual of Style
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! Mjroots (talk) 09:55, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash
[edit]I noticed you got a bit of a rough welcome on the talk page. Please take the time to read the linked pages in the welcome notice as they will give you a better understanding of what Wikipedia is. Please also read WP:NOT, as that will give you a better understanding of what Wikipedia isn't. Any questions, drop me a line on my talk page. Mjroots (talk) 09:58, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
- M Woodson, I appreciate what you are saying, but I feel that at the moment you will be wasting your time. The accident is still a "recent event" Expect the MAK to take at least a year and probably nearer two to publish their final report. If, in the future the issue of the independence of the investigation is raised, then such info can be incorporated into the article - particularly if it is reported on by reliable English-language sources such as AP, SKY, BBC etc.
- One thing you could do is create a sub-page of your user page where you can keep links to sources that have reported on the issue so that you have them in future if the above scenario comes to pass. Remember, there is no rush. Mjroots (talk) 05:42, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
- The comments and insights are much appreciated. As you know, I continue to post in good faith that the relationship between the chief investigator and a person with pecuniary interest in avoiding responsibility in the crash are highly relevant to understanding the permanent context of the investigation. The factual nature of the relationships ARE DOCUMENTED BY RELIABLE SOURCES. The persons whose relationships are documented are key persons related to the financial responsibility for possible impacts from the plane's upgrade, and to the investigation of all factors, including the plane. The context of the investigation and investigators is as important as the investigation facts. Despite this clearly relevant set of facts, I continue to get folks who don't get it, or, have a political propaganda agenda behind constantly deleting this small, contextual paragraph.MWoodson (talk) 00:19, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- See WP:SYNTH please. --John (talk) 05:58, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
- MWoodson, how about proposing text on the talk page and trying to get consensus for its wording/inclusion into the article first. It's a technique I've used successfully where there was a dispute - see talk:Montefiore Windmill#A sensitive area? for details. Mjroots2 (talk) 06:04, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, I have added a new section on this to article talk and there would be the place to propose your changes. --John (talk) 06:06, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
- Gentlemen and/or Gentlewomen, thanks for your comments and engagement. That was not the way things were going on the article's talk page where I started out. I was running into a significant flak barrage of unreasoned condemnations (not all) of proposals to document issues of balance in the portrayal of this momentous event. What has happened is so incredibly significant for the balance of power in Europe and the potential dial-back of changes initiated by the end of the 20th century Cold War, I cannot see letting official reports and Russian press releases be the primary record on this power-shifting event. Having studied Soviet propaganda in the past, I recognize some of the same absolute phrasings and emotional misdirections in headlines and narratives from ITAR-TASS, Izvestia et al. That said, and although I question the reliability of many of the sources cited as support for large portions of the article, I have not deleted same. I'd rather discuss decisions to delete a great deal more than ask others' permission to add an entry since I'd expect those with input on how and where to put it to pipe up. Thanks again, and I'll try to implement as many of your suggestions as possible over time.MWoodson (talk) 00:18, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- Look forward to discussing your reliable sources for this material in article talk then. Nice to meet you. Incidentally, remember to sign your posts in talk with --~~~~. All the best, --John (talk) 07:18, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
- No you don't. If you really meant that, we would see more balance in the principal article. We don't. We essentially see a Russian government press release filtered through insufficiently critical news gathering organizations.MWoodson (talk) 21:43, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
- Look forward to discussing your reliable sources for this material in article talk then. Nice to meet you. Incidentally, remember to sign your posts in talk with --~~~~. All the best, --John (talk) 07:18, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
- Gentlemen and/or Gentlewomen, thanks for your comments and engagement. That was not the way things were going on the article's talk page where I started out. I was running into a significant flak barrage of unreasoned condemnations (not all) of proposals to document issues of balance in the portrayal of this momentous event. What has happened is so incredibly significant for the balance of power in Europe and the potential dial-back of changes initiated by the end of the 20th century Cold War, I cannot see letting official reports and Russian press releases be the primary record on this power-shifting event. Having studied Soviet propaganda in the past, I recognize some of the same absolute phrasings and emotional misdirections in headlines and narratives from ITAR-TASS, Izvestia et al. That said, and although I question the reliability of many of the sources cited as support for large portions of the article, I have not deleted same. I'd rather discuss decisions to delete a great deal more than ask others' permission to add an entry since I'd expect those with input on how and where to put it to pipe up. Thanks again, and I'll try to implement as many of your suggestions as possible over time.MWoodson (talk) 00:18, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
June 2010
[edit]
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on Talk:2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. You are welcome to rephrase your comment as a civil criticism of the article. Thank you. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:41, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- OpenFuture: specify the attack you are referring to, or, if you can, quote it in your next opinion spammed into my Talk section. Generalized isn't in good faith. Yours are the only personal attacks I've seen on Wikipedia so far, so your comment above is a non-starter. For anyone else reading this response, which I doubt seriously, I suggest a thorough reading of OpenFuture's comment history for a refresher course in the prohibited wikipedia behaviors.MWoodson (talk) 04:31, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
- It was a list of minor incidents like claiming that I wasn't "for real" etc.
- Oh, ok. Minor. Got it.MWoodson (talk) 19:49, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
- It was a list of minor incidents like claiming that I wasn't "for real" etc.