User talk:Nicky Scarfo

Warning

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing.

You know what I'm talking about. - Merzbow 17:59, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have stated my reasons for doing so. The only objection I received, I responded to by deleting the info from the Overview section, but moving the info to the Criticism section. However, someone restored the info to the Overview and deleted it from the Criticism. Well...if that's how you guys want to play it, then I don't see why I should bother reinserting the info into Criticism upon deletion.--Nicky Scarfo 18:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because deleting large pieces of an article that have been there for a long time, without consensus, and without explanation, is consider vandalism. See the paragraph on "blanking" here.- Merzbow 20:40, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but I most certainly did provide explanation-- perhaps you should read the discussion on that article again. As far as consensus is concerned, only one person objected on the talk page and s/he objected that I "deleted stuff which was not elsewhere", and in response I moved the deleted info to the Criticism section, but unfortunately next edit resulted in the article being changed back exactly how it was. That being the case, I chose to simply delete rather than rewriting next go-around. I'm sure you will outfox me on this issue and push your agenda through-- you have been editing longer than me and are no doubt a better parlimentarian when it comes to arcane wikipedia rules, but, rules aside, my edits make sense. History will absolve me of any minor violations of bureaucratic rules and procedures--Nicky Scarfo 00:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No Personal Attacks move

The following material has been moved here because of personal attacks and the people they refer to don't seem to be present nor responding. Please read Wikipedia:No personal attacks. (SEWilco 04:24, 2 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]

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.

Changes

Made some changes in the "Overview" section, which apparently was authored by Ann Coulter and Daniel Pipes. Someone wrote that CAIR was founded with funding from the Holy Land Foundation. This is stated as fact even though CAIR disputes it. Also presented as fact is CAIR alleged ties with terrorists, also disputed by the organization. Besides, there's a "Criticism" section in this article that mentions all these things, so there's no reason to state it twice. Well, actually there is a reason...so that anti-Muslim bigots can present their slanted allegations as fact within the first few paragraphs of the article, immediately leading the reader to believe that CAIR is a terrorist organization of some sort. Keep it in the criticism section, stormtroopers, and try to refrain from presenting allegations as undisputed facts. --Nicky Scarfo 16:34, 27 October 2007 (UTC)(retroactively signed as I forgot to sign in last time)[reply]

Somebody put back the text I removed in less than a day. Does WorldNetDaily have a full-time staffer to ensure a slanted article about CAIR on Wikipedia? Again, this information is disputed by CAIR and should not be presented as undisputed fact in the first two paragraphs of the "Overview" section. Mention of this information is made in the "Criticism" section already, that section can be augmented/expanded as the person who keeps reposting this information sees fit. --Nicky Scarfo 16:34, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The parent organization does not belong as part of its history? And you deleted stuff which was not elsewhere. (SEWilco 02:20, 28 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Again, since you didn't bother to read what I wrote-- CAIR disputes that the HLF was a "parent organization", yet it is presented as undisputed fact. This time I deleted the information from the Overview and added it to the Criticism section. IN other words, I did your work for you. You're welcome.--Nicky Scarfo 17:54, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, so that wasn't good enough for you-- you (or someone) just returned it back to the original. Well, this time I will delete it without rewriting the criticism section to compensate. And I will keep deleting it for as long as the right-wing bigots keep inserting it back to provide readers of the article a bias against CAIR in the first paragraph.--Nicky Scarfo 03:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So Merzbow, you are threatening to block me from deleting this information, and apparently keep re-posting it, yet have given no argument as to why such biased (and contested) information belongs in "Overview" rather than "Criticism". Perhaps you consider yourself too good to give justifications for your unilateral actions. I have given reasons for my revisions-- you have not. This is intellectual thuggery in the service of a smear campaign against Muslim civil rights/advocacy organizations, which is apparently acceptable on Wikipedia. I wonder how people would feel if the same sort of biased editing was allowed on the NAACP page by Klan or Council of Conservative Citizens sympathizers? --Nicky Scarfo 18:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You should read our policy on personal attacks at WP:NPA. That's the last time I'll respond to any post by you containing one. - Merzbow 20:43, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I read it, and after reading I do not believe I violated it.--Nicky Scarfo 00:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other articles

Added a section for other Wikipedia articles on Muslim and Arab advocacy organizations in the U.S. CAIR is the most controversial and loudest (and as a result, the most well-known), but it's not the only one. Of course, I'm sure to the right-wing bigots they're all equally evil. --Nicky Scarfo 17:09, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You sure know how to endear yourself to other editors with your tone. Good luck with that. - Merzbow 20:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your well-wishes! I tend to have a nasty tone with bigots, fascists and reactionaries. I'm funny like that. --Nicky Scarfo 03:56, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it up and you will find your Wikipedia career to be nasty, brutish, and mercifully short. - Merzbow 08:50, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Master Po, but such is life. --Nicky Scarfo 17:00, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently "mercifully short" because you intend on blocking me because you don't like my "tone", and although I have given clear and compelling reasons for deleting info from the "Overview" section and moving it to "Criticism", you seem to have no reservations about restoring that information unilaterally and threatening to block me without offering ONE reason as to why my edits are uncalled for. You've obviously been around here for a while, therefore you are above having to respond to my reasons for deleting information from one section and adding it to another. Instead, you simply play Wikipedia bully and repeatedly change my edits without cause and threaten to purge me. --Nicky Scarfo 18:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You need to get consensus first about moving that information around. You did not, and were reverted. Instead of trying to get that consensus on the talk page, you then decided to vandalize the article by just blanking the material out of spite. Do you now promise to not blank the material and get consensus for your edits instead? - Merzbow 20:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, it's hardly vandalism if I clearly explained my reasons for deleting the information, and, then, upon objection, attempted to move the info rather than deleting it. Second, I didn't delete out of spite-- the only objection to my deletion I addressed by moving the info, when that wasn't good enough I simply deleted not "out of spite", but because it was easier just to delete, and if my efforts to move information weren't good enough, I'm not going to spend more of my time moving biased, contested info from one place to another-- easier to simply delete. Don't blame me for that, blame those (perhaps yourself) who think that it's more imortant to smear CAIR in the first few paragraphs than to include contested information in a more appopriate section of the article.

Finally, three questions-- 1. So, then, consensus is required for every edit? 2. How do I achieve consensus when no one even responds to my intitial objections (save one, who no one can say I did not try to accomodate)? 3. If no consensus, then what? The biased and contested info stands at the beginning of the article uncontested? That seems a set-up which favors CAIR's bigot critics rather than objective fact.--Nicky Scarfo 00:03, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No response? Okey-doke. I'm removing this clause from the end of the first sentence in "Overview"-- "of the Hamas front Islamic Association of Palestine.". This is already addressed under "Criticism", and I believe CAIR (and others) dispute IAS's status as "front organization" for Hamas. It very well may be, but just the term "front" is a loaded term and organizations known as political fronts often dispute the designation, so the information is more appropriate in "Criticism", where it currently is in any event (no sense having the information listed twice). All the information is there, in its appropriate format, everyone should be happy, except the most virulent and nasty of CAIR's critics (or supporters). And with that I'm done editing the article (until the stormtroopers return of course). --Nicky Scarfo 20:59, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Please use edit summaries

Hi there. When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labeled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this:

The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.

Filling in the edit summary field greatly helps your fellow contributors in understanding what you changed, so please always fill in the edit summary field. If you are adding a section, please do not just keep the previous section's header in the Edit summary field - please fill in your new section's name instead. Thank you. Andjam 23:07, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks-- --Nicky Scarfo 00:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]