User talk:70.15.116.59

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Welcome

This IP is primarily devoted to generic edits from one particular user - comments left here should be read sooner or later. 70.15.116.59 01:05, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] (regarding crediting Rudy Giuliani for decisions leading to the 7 World Trade Center fire and collapse)

Please use the talk page for controversial material, most issues have been discussed extensively there and the article is in a consensus version at this point in time, thanks. RxS (talk) 03:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I see no evidence of controversy there. The word "Giuliani" does not appear on the talk page; it appears once in Archive 2 in the context of an unrelated comment. Therefore, I doubt any particular consensus exists that I would be violating. All I did was add one meager sentence, "The decision by Rudy Giuliani to site the emergency response center and associated diesel tanks at a vulnerable site, despite a memo by his appointee Jerome M. Hauer advising a more secure location, has been blamed for the intense fire that consumed the building.[1][2][3][4][5][6]" Are you actually enforcing a policy that the article shall not be changed by anyone for any reason? What a whitewash. 70.15.116.59 (talk) 03:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Register!

Hello! I've seen some of your edits, and I really appreciate the contributions you're making to Wikipedia. I'm glad you're helping the project! You may wish to consider creating an account. It's quick, free, and anonymous (you don't have to give away any real-world information about yourself).

When you're logged in, you can do many things that unregistered users cannot, such as creating new pages, uploading media content, and keeping track of changes to articles you edit frequently. It helps the community, too - Wikipedians will be more likely to remember who you are when you have an account name!

If you want more information on the benefits of creating an account, click here. And once you've registered, please drop me a message and say hi! Don't forget to sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~). - Chardish 08:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A note

Please read sources completely and avoid making incorrect statements in edit summaries that cast doubt on the integrity of edits made by others. [1][2] I realize this may be an honest mistake, as you may not have realized the ABC source had three pages, so I've included here for you a printable version of all three pages. Welcome to Wiki! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction in edit summary; I don't like the idea that other editors may read through edit summaries (where one can't respond or discuss) and think I made a fraudulent edit :-) Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the note - I missed some of that article before. Sorry if it sounded like I was doubting your integrity (actually I'd been thinking the text had been mangled by copy-editing with quoted and unquoted text swapping places). I hope at least that you like the outcome quoting Chavez rather than an ABC article about him. 70.15.116.59 (talk) 17:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, the outcome is better; I originally used the exact quote just in case someone didn't care for whichever wording I chose. I realized you probably hadn't seen all three pages, because that has happened to me before; I did a search on an article, didn't find the text, thought it was wrong, and didn't realize there were multiple pages. So, while I thought that had probably happened to you, I was sensitive that it had been mentioned in edit summary, where others might see it, question my integrity, and there was no way for me to reply :-) You have to take care with what you write in edit summaries for that reason :-) But definitely the text is good now. Saludos, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Yahoo

Hi,

Sorry i have not returned your message sooner, i have been away. there is nothing wrong per se with citing yahoo as a source, except that yahoo links are often deleted VERY quickly. This is clearly pointed out in the guidelines when editing current events. I hope this helps. peace and love WikiTony (talk) 01:59, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

The reasoning is that Yahoo! News articles are deleted by Yahoo! after a few months, rendering the links useless if someone wants more information in say a year or two. – Zntrip 04:04, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Note on reliable sources

Per comments left at Antichrist in the edit summary and per WP:RS#Extremist sources, links such as this is considered an extremeist source. Others, such as this and this are blogs and are not credible sources because they are original research and are biased. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 04:16, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

That article is full of sources with some religious viewpoint (the Pope is the Antichrist, 666 is actually the wrong number, the "Rapture Ready" web site, Jerry Falwell's beliefs, etc.) There were two other sources you don't dispute in that edit, and one of the ones criticized here repeats the same statements. Another simply came up because they do the mathematics. If you'd gone after the actual sources you complain about instead of reverting the whole edit these guessing games would be unnecessary. Also take note that "extremist sources" are described as those widely acknowledged as extremist, and the burden of proof about that is yours. 70.15.116.59 (talk) 04:13, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding The Tainanmen Square incident page

Hi,

According to the analysis video 'False Fire', slow motion deconstructs of CCP broadcast videos reveal that Liu Chunling, the only 'self-immolator' who died on the spot, collapses from being bludgeoned on the head by a man in military coat and not from the flames.
According to the analysis video 'False Fire', slow motion deconstructs of CCP broadcast videos reveal that Liu Chunling, the only 'self-immolator' who died on the spot, collapses from being bludgeoned on the head by a man in military coat and not from the flames.

I just happened to see you comments on the talk the talk page of "Tienanmen Square.." article. Please take time to investigate the issue in more depth. There is much more to the topic than what the current article carries - in my opinion the current version is extremely biased and presents CCP's stories of "victims" and them being "imprisoned" as "facts" - completely ignoring the fact that it is merely the story presented to us by the CCP controlled news, of an event suspected by many, including several independent investigators and journalists, to be a hoax staged by the CCP to gain traction for its persecution of Falun Gong.

"In our investigation, the only deaths have been at the hands of the Chinese authorities; families have been broken up because family members have been killed by the regime; people have been broken down, not by Falun Gong, but by extreme torture, incarceration in mental hospitals with brutal treatment, hard labour in labour camps and other such practices. As was reported in the International Herald Tribune on August 6, 2001, the regime admits that it has officially sanctioned violence against practitioners in order to wipe out Falun Gong. The regime points to a supposed self-immolation incident in Tiananmen Square on January 23, 2001 as proof that Falun Gong is an "evil cult”. However, we have obtained a video of that incident that in our view proves that this event was staged by the government. We have copies of that video available for distribution." - International Education Department ( A U.S based Human Rights Agency)'s report presented to United Nations, Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights Fifty-third session, Agenda item 6 August, 2001


Also look into the discrepancies pointed out by the 'False Fire' video ( from which the gif on right was excerpted) and several articles written by journalists who had conducted independent investigations which are available on http://www.falsefire.com.

Regards ,

Dilip rajeev (talk) 22:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to pass judgment on Falun Gong or the Chinese government as a whole in that comment - it's just that I don't see the logic behind some of these alternative explanations. What would it prove if one of the people who set themselves on fire were instead killed by a police truncheon? What does that have to do with the circled scrap of cloth thrown around on the videotape you posted above? (At least to me it looks like someone turned and shot the fire hose at him, knocking him down and sending a piece of burnt clothing flying) How does this relate to the claims that these people weren't who they say they were or weren't Falun Gong practitioners? If the government staged the event, they staged it how? Do you mean that they only made it look like the Falun Gong people poured gasoline on themselves, or that they were ringers hired to claim they were Falun Gong before (and after) trying to burn themselves alive? I might even consider a claim that they kidnapped seven Falun Gong people and programmed them like in The Manchurian Candidate (using modern technology), but I didn't see that idea raised, or any others that I could actually see as a complete scenario. By contrast it seems quite believable that Falun Gong like every movement has small radical subgroups that do things the mainstream believers don't sanction. For the Students for a Democratic Society there were the Weathermen, for National Right to Life Committee there was Eric Rudolph, and so on. 70.15.116.59 (talk) 06:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)