Welcome edit

Ealturner, welcome to Wikinews! Thank you for your contributions; I hope you like the place and decide to stay! If you haven't done so already, you may want to create an account.

Our key policies - if you read anything, read these!

Here a few pointers to help you get to know Wikinews:

There are always things to do on Wikinews:

By the way, you can sign your name on Talk pages using four tildes (~~~~), which produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, you can ask them at the water cooler or to anyone on the Welcommittee, or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! --Deprifry|+T+ 16:50, 30 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ealturner's talk archive edit

Page one of archived discussion here[1]

Headlines for all these Israel-Hezbollah stories... edit

Do you think it's an idea to standarize the headlines for those stories? Like "Day 42: Israel-Hezbollah conflict" or "Israel-Hezbollah conflict (Day 42)" or something? I'm not really sure if it's a good idea at all, just playing with the thought... I think we need a template or something for the stories. Seems like it's gonna last for some days to come. --Jambalaya 00:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I support that idea. "Hezbollah-Israel war: Day #" would do me. But I would only support "Hezbollah-Israel" for alphabetical and chronological reasons. I only say that because you wrote in your title above the other way around. Unless we drop the country names and give the war a nickname. Ealturner 00:42, 16 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Removing De-admin request edit

I will be removing your 2nd de-admin request regarding PVJ in a few moments. You have made no attempt at an external dispute resolution. You have a personal disagreement with the admin, and repeated de-admin requests against the user appears to be your chosen form of harrassment. If you truly feel the admin has violated the community's trust and/or their privileges, please work through the dispute resolution process including a Request for Arbitration to the Arbitration Committee. - Amgine | talk en.WN 14:03, 16 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Amgine, I have been in contact with PVJ on Brianmc's talk page. PVJ has refused to communicate directly with me. As you are an administrator I will leave it up to you whether to reinstate my complaint, that PVJ has abused his powers for a third time, on the administration page. Ealturner 14:10, 16 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
3RR is not an abuse of admin privilege. It is an abuse of editor privilege. - Amgine | talk en.WN 14:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

PVJ is an administrator Ealturner 15:09, 16 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What NPOV problems do you see with this article? It looks ok to me, and I would like to try to get it published soon. --Cspurrier 14:22, 16 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My objection was with the title, which had quoted an unamed source, which you have now changed. Ealturner 14:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image:Zidaneheadbut.jpg edit

Unfortunately, this image cannot be hosted on Wikinews. This image is from a news source regarding a news event, and it cannot be used as a fair use image on Wikinews which is also a (competing) news source. It also does not fall into any category of the Wikinews Fair Use policy. - Amgine | talk en.WN 15:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The use of the image was in accordance with a "fair use" rationale. Read more here [2] Ealturner 15:23, 16 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It should be noted that we have a stricter fair use policy than on Wikipedia; we only allow a few types of fair use. —this is messedr͏ocker (talk) 15:57, 16 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
<nod> Yes, which is why I linked to the Wikinews fair use policy. Wikipedia's policies are not in force on Wikinews, save where they are also the Wikinews tradition. - Amgine | talk en.WN 16:05, 16 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Neutralizer 3RR title violation edit

I'm not sure which article you're talking about — they both appear to be redirects. —this is messedr͏ocker (talk) 15:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cspurrier and Doldrums have edited one of the articles. Go to the page and look in history. The latter one is currently here: [3] (Israeli railroad station bombed). You can see the former on the mainpage. Neutralizer reverted more than three times, each in defiance of the concensus. Ealturner 16:00, 16 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Harassment. edit

Please note that putting up a Request for de-Administratorship against a user less than 24 hours after the last one was resolved [4] amounts to harassment. Further behaviour of this nature on your part will result in Administrative action being taken against you. PVJ(Talk)  17:39, 16 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I find your harassment notice aggressive in intent. Wikinews is not a theatre of war and you are a bully. In violating the three revert rule you abused your editor privilege and as an administrator this was a clear abuse of your position for a third time . The first time you edited a protected page. The second time you unblocked yourself while blocked. You edited this [5] protected page, protected due to your breaking of the 3rr, which makes four. Ealturner 17:47, 16 July 2006 (UTC) Edited: Ealturner 20:05, 16 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: PVJ here[6] archived the de-administratorship request himself. Administrator's note [7]. Ealturner 20:00, 16 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For a neutral point of view, edit

Neutral point of view is something very difficult to achieve. When you rise the number of people with different origins, cultures, the difficulties begin and its unfortunalty normal, very human.

20 years ago i spoke with a journalist from a well known french newspaper : Le Monde. He explained to me that neutrality come because people from different sensibility write for Le Monde. it's works because there's chiefs in fact, it's the trick !

The NPOV writen into Wikinews policy, is alien for me, very strange for people outside english (more or less) culture. For me not neutral at all, a fake neutrality in fact. BUT i am trying to play the game for fun.

NPOV is not something we need dogmatic, it's not a sin to be un-neutral. All our life we are bombed by nonneutral information, it take time to understand that.

exemple : remember SS-20, it was the name of a russian nuclear weapon. It was not the official russian name BUT the name given by CIA. and SS usage was not neutral just after WWII. We all use words like SS-20, built by agency, lobbiists, gouvernment, ..., and because EVERYONE -we know- use this kind of word we think they're are neutral. but many are not.

You can pass your time checking each word for neutrality, but all you check is a very specific, a very self centric neutrality not shared by many others,...

And i do not speek of people openly for one political side (i hope no one work for political party or agency, brrrr) ...

We need open minded people not dogmatic zealot !

it's my POV of course ( i love these words)


Jacques Divol 22:23, 16 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, it was nice of you to message me. As a trained journalist and an individual educated with two degrees I am happy to give my time to help you out here. I'm not a very political person.

My approach is open and methodical. Here it is. Perhaps you'd like to comment?

1. Words shall be used according to their dictionary definition. Words should not be applied out of context.

2. A.R.S.E :)

A - Attribute R - Relevance S - Source E - Everything

Nice to meet you :) Ealturner 23:40, 16 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You know, normal people do not use dictionary, pro-writers like journalist do. Wikinews is not a pro-journalist nest :)
I agree with your second point, but remember that wikinewseers do not practice journalist courses about "how to find truth into gouvernmental press release". All we have to work our ARSE is our experience, our good will and intelligence and the will to share and work with other in order to propose the best we can of neutral revelante news.
see you ! Jacques Divol 11:47, 17 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Jacques Divol, you hammered the nail in there. Wikinews aims for higher standards of neutrality than commerical news but has to do so without professional journalists. The "best we can" is probably the most we can expect. I'd need to run my own news site to get the news totally neutral under my system. That's not to say we should expect second best but that less experienced journalists or those who do not want neutrality will make life impossible for those who want NPOV in direct and indirect ways. Ealturner 14:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please be aware edit

I am finding your editing actions on articles related Israel to be disruptive, and pressing a personal point of view to the detriment of the NPOV policy. As an admin I am concerned at this behavior, especially from a user I consider to be a valuable contributor in articles dealing with other topics. Please be conscious of your personal biases, so you may fairly report news. - Amgine | talk en.WN 22:47, 16 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am hurt by this. Can you give an example? Ealturner 23:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Here's my latest article. Arab League, Group of Eight leaders discuss crisis in the Levant. If there's something I'm doing wrong I'd like to know. I take the Wikinews NPOV mandate seriously. Ealturner 23:53, 16 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

After convening on 15 July, the Council of Arab Foreign Ministers failed to draft a single joint declaration. Instead, it issued three separate declarations on Lebanon, Gaza and the Middle East peace process.EGYPT: Arab League meeting on Lebanon falls short, say critics The Arab League failed to reach an agreement on the issue while the Group of Eight released a joint statement.
Please note the misleading by ommission.
An emergency summit convened by the Arab League (AL)...

Lebanon has been under attack from Israel since 12 July following the abduction of two Israeli soldiers by Hizbullah in Lebanon. EGYPT: Arab League meeting on Lebanon falls short, say critics

The meetings came after Hezbollah attacked Israel on July 12, killing six soldiers and kidnapping two. Israel retaliated by attacking Lebanon, which lead to over 100 civilian deaths. Hezbollah subsequently fired 700 missiles across the border, causing civilian casualties in Israeli towns, including Haifa.
Please note the disparity in reporting details, in number of retaliations, scope of effect, number of deaths and injuries, area of effect, estimated damages to property in value, and so on.
We call upon Israel to exercise utmost restraint, seeking to avoid casualties among innocent civilians and damage to civilian infrastructure and to refrain from acts that would destabilize the Lebanese government.

The most urgent priority is to create conditions for a cessation of violence that will be sustainable and lay the foundation for a more permanent solution. This, in our judgment, requires:

  • - The return of the Israeli soldiers in Gaza and Lebanon unharmed;
  • - An end to the shelling of Israeli territory;
  • - An end to Israeli military operations and the early withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza;
  • - The release of the arrested Palestinian ministers and parliamentarians.

G8 Statement on Middle East [Emphasis added]

"We call upon Israel to exercise utmost restraint," the statement said.
Please note the disparities in your reporting, even of a document "welcomed by Israel" and which is widely perceived as showing the USA's support of Israel.

I could further dissect this article, but frankly I haven't the time. These first few will have to suffice. - Amgine | talk en.WN 00:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Amgine, you have torn that article to shreds, it should never have been published. I appreciate you spent the time doing that as it will help me improve my news writing.

Please note the misleading by ommission.

- You quote the summary. The Arab League did not reach an agreement. Statements by the Arab League are under the Arab League part of the article. I would not object to adding the information into the summary. However wikinews is not about copying and pasting stuff from elsewhere so I summarised the basic facts. I did not deliberately miss out the fact three separate statements - which are not agreements - were released.

Please note the disparity in reporting details, in number of retaliations, scope of effect, number of deaths and injuries, area of effect, estimated damages to property in value, and so on.

- This was a summary. Not all those facts are listed in the source you linked. Those facts mentioned have been widely reported and the job in the summary was to acquaint the reader with a background. I mentioned both Lebanonese and Israeli casualties. You have not mentioned that.

Please note the disparities in your reporting, even of a document "welcomed by Israel" and which is widely perceived as showing the USA's support of Israel.

- I did not read the G8 statement, I got that quote from the sourced article. My intent with the report was to contribute to wikinews and get the news out in a fair way.

Amgine you have made lots of good criticisms that I am grateful you have given; I am not at the high standard of journalism you are at and you have given me an insight of what I should aim for.

However I want to contribute the best I can and I don't want to be POV. You claimed I was "disruptive, and pressing a personal point of view." I think you did not prove that. There are examples in that article where I demonstrate neutral perspective such as noting both sides of the story. I do agree the article can be improved. A lot.Ealturner 00:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Right, Amgine, I've edited the article with your comments[8] - except the second comment. I don't understand how that relates to POV? To my mind it's a matter of detail and my intention was not to go into great detail - I need more instruction to proceed there.
Also, looking at what you said again would like to highlight this quote.
"Please note the disparities in your reporting, even of a document "welcomed by Israel" and which is widely perceived as showing the USA's support of Israel
I believe it documents your own POV ie. that the document was "welcomed by Israel". Of course, you were not claiming you were NPOV and I was which is why I was taken to task on this. Ealturner 02:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Of course, these are only from the past 5 hours or so. - Amgine | talk en.WN 02:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry, what I said was 180 degrees from being correct. "Israel concurs with the position of the international community, which places responsibility for the conflict on extremist elements," said Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni. [9]. I'm an idiot. Well, thanks for stopping by to help me. You have been professional and I respect that. I would like more help but you're a busy person; I will do my best to remain NPOV as far as my little brain can do so. Ealturner 02:38, 17 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Arab League, Group of Eight leaders discuss crisis in the Levant I've added your latest info to the article. It's really big news. Again, I'm an idiot. Ealturner 02:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Regarding these edits, you have very clearly introduced bias in your word choices. The G8 did not "ask Israel" any more than they "demanded Hezbollah"; they made a statement regarding what they think is necessary for peace. However, your choice of phrases clearly ascribed condemnation of the latter and support of the former - which may be true but was not actually present in the document. If you cannot report accurately when given the actual document, well, I must assume it is purposeful since you do not claim to lack either training or skills.
As to the synopsis/backgrounder,
The meetings came after...
Hezbollah attacked Israel on July 12, killing six soldiers and kidnapping two. ... Hezbollah subsequently fired 700 missiles across the border, causing civilian casualties in Israeli towns, including Haifa. 202 characters, 28 words
Israel retaliated by attacking Lebanon, which lead to over 100 civilian deaths. 79 characters, 12 words
I sincerely hope I do not need to explicate this comparison.
Hezbollah: 1 raid, 3 rocket attacks, 1 missile attack Israel: 180-300 helicopter sorties involving bombing/rockets/missiles, 21 jet strikes involving bombing/rockets/missiles, missile attacks, ship bombardments/shelling (numbers are those found in news reports and, I believe, completely innacurate)
Columnar inches should be relevant to actual actions, or the relevant weight of those events. Do I need to be more blunt?

I apologize for the edit conflict in trying to add this to your talk page. Ignore it if it is no longer relevant. - Amgine | talk en.WN 02:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've stayed up 4am here to talk to you and try and sort this out. But honestly I'm too tired. I'm very sorry. If you feel it right do what you need to do with the article. I started it. My intent was NPOV. If you have a problem with it, as you seem to, I trust you to edit it appropriately. Ealturner 03:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Before I go, on a personal level it was good to meet you. I am 29 years old, from England. I have two degrees in International Politics - masters and BA - and have had journalism training. My sole aim here is to get better at news writing. I honestly don't intend to push any POV, my aim is to get a job. I will work hard to correct any errors. Thanks. Ealturner 03:08, 17 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Further apologies... but just go to bed and yell at me about it in the morning. No personal elements meant; you tripped the pedant trigger when you asked to have it explained. I'm terrible in that way. - Amgine | talk en.WN 03:10, 17 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, you did accuse me of agenda pushing, so maybe I should yell at you. :) I've never seen analysis like you have done above and it will make me think about articles in a different way. I am not a political person. My approach to neutrality is methodical. Here's the method I try to go by

1. Words shall be used according to their dictionary definition. Words should not be applied out of context - deliberately misused words imply agenda pushing.

2. A - Attribute R - Relevance S - Source E - Everything

All claims must be attributed, relevant to the article and sourced.

I believe if we all followed these basic rules we'd go a long way to getting neutrality.

On your principles above I would suggest you would say

3. 50:50 text

The amount of words and characters dedicated to either side in an article must be equal (or roughly equal).

Is it fair to say you agree with that? Ealturner 11:17, 17 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, actually. The NPOV does not prescribe "equal" treatment. An example of a case where this might be relevant is political events such as elections, where such a prescription would mandate equal coverage of all parties - include micro parties with constituencies too small to reasonably be considered viable.
Another would be a case such as the Israel-Hezbollah situation in which one party has made small military actions which have provoked a response tantamount to a major war (estimates of explosive tonnage seem on par with the Bosnian war, against a government which is not actually a participant in the conflict.) Each reportable event or action needs to be covered. The synopsis of the larger crisis should reflect the number and nature of these events, but balanced against (not equated with) the initial provocation.
Dictionary definitions are a useful tool. You have, however, argued previously against the most commonly accepted definitions of terms, which exemplifies why this is not a panacea. Shades of meaning and idiomatic usage also, as well as analogy, can add emotional baggage to factual reporting, possibly biasing the reporting.
I appreciate your efforts to engage in good journalism. - Amgine | talk en.WN 16:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay, then I won't have that as a rule, but in certain cases one would have to learn it would be important to note how much news is devoted to each side within the article. Ealturner 16:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As per the conflict in the Levant and the response - Lebanon broke UN 1559. Ealturner 16:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Dictionary definitions are a useful tool. You have, however, argued previously against the most commonly accepted definitions of terms" This is not true. I supported all my definitions with definitions from dictionaries. If you are referring to the term "invasion" the definition is very clear in all dictionaries - it implies conquest. The problem is when some people want to interpret the facts in a way that the facts don't currently support the use of the definition for. But let's not argue. I'm glad you appreciate my efforts. Now I want your help to better write from NPOV so I will send you my next politics articles to look over. You may comment on them or ignore them. :) Ealturner 16:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hmmm - you have a funny talk page, it takes one to another site. I don't want to register again so I'll post the link to my newest article here. Don't make this page any longer with your comments. Please discuss this one on that article's discussion page. Thanks! Ealturner 17:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rocket-launcher weilding gunmen massacre 60 at market in Mahmoudiya, Iraq

Contribution among projects edit

I would like to try this: International Contribution.

Take a look.

For example, pick the story: Severe tropical storm Bilis leaves 178 dead in south-east China.

You are free to improve the writing case something is written wrong. Thank you very much.--Carlosar 21:47, 17 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That looks like fun. I'll try the translator but won't promise it will be any good. :) Ealturner 00:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I did it but forgot to translate the title. I'll translate some more featured articles. Ealturner 10:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No Personal Attacks. edit

Wikinews is not a theatre of war and you are a bully. That was a personal attack. Next time I will take action against you for such behaviour so be careful. PVJ(Talk)  06:47, 23 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • PVJ, Can you take this up with me on my talk page? I'd like to see the edits you're referring to. It's about time you and Ealturner got over your differences, you both want to work towards good articles that represent NPOV, and when I overlook the hostile exchanges between both of you I see that result from both of you working on articles with a little 3rd-party mediation. Most of the time I suspect you need to look for what you consider the opposition position in the media and read it. Try and appreciate what your fellow contributor may hold as an opinion on the event or situation and accept that the truth probably lies somewhere between what the media in North America presents, and what the media in India presents. Or, the more usual case is that both sides are reporting the truth, but selecting which items they include and exclude. --Brian McNeil / talk 20:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RfA :( edit

Thanks for voting on my RfA. Unfortunately a consensus was not reached. Anyway, thanks for voting. MyName 01:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

BTW, this message is the same for everyone :)
Thanks. It was nice for you to reply. Ealturner 11:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Clarification edit

Im afraid I wrote in a unclear way and spelled very bad and as you reacted I like to clearify to avoid bad feelings.

1. I reverted vandalism from [[10]]

2. I reverted your edit in the same time. [[11]] I agreed with doldrums argumentartion.

I like to make clear that your edit is not a case of vandalism, just late in time in my view. Sorry that you was angry of my uncomprehensible talkpage edits international 10:47, 28 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Clearify" is not a word so I've changed this heading to the English word "Clarification" which I believe you mean. If you'd like another English word change it. Ealturner 10:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Link to the talk page[12]. //I revertes som vandalism and a edit of Ealturner, though absolutly not vandalism.// I don't know what to make of you sentence. But you did seem to raise the possibility my contribution could have been vandalism if only to then rejected it. That is not civil.

The news piece on the humanitarian crisis quoted the UN's Mr. Engeland selectively. Mr. Egeland also put part of the blame for the crisis on Hezbollah. "Hezbollah must stop this cowardly blending ... among women and children." You removed this quote, why? Ealturner 10:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Clarification 2 edit

Theese are not direct Hezbolha sources, its 2:nd hand sources. Call them and complain if you think they spread Hezbolha propaganda.

international 18:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article rests on speculation from the San Francisco reporter who allegedly was at an "off the record meeting" a year ago when an unnamed Israeli defence bigwig (allegedly) outlined war plans in southern Lebanon. Not only is their no record of the meeting, or who was involved, there is no way we can get an alternative view of what the meeting was about or prove the meeting actually took place. A professional army has contingency plans and I would be surprised if Israel did not have a Lebanon defence plan - an off the record discussion about such a plan is not such a far-fetched claim. That does not mean that Israel planned to attack Hezbollah one year ago. The article peddles a conspiracy theory and does untold damage to what reputation wikinews has by way of our sister site, wikipedia. Ealturner 22:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You are editing in missinformation edit

Read article and look in the sources. "according to the Red Cross, at least 56 displaced civilians, including 37 children" . Dont sink down to vandalizing. international 23:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You do not respect my intelligence or my contributions to this site.
The Red Cross announced yesterday that 28 bodies, including those of 19 children, had been found at the site.[13]and[14]
You have your facts wrong. And, once again, I am left appalled at your arrogant, bullying and frankly constant disrespectful behaviour towards me and other contibutors.
So, who is the one "editing in misinformation"? I don't expect an apology because I have not seen you demonstrate the depth of thought necessary for contrition. Ealturner 12:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't expect an apology because I have not seen you demonstrate the depth of thought necessary for contrition.

I warn you once again, breach of policy regarding personal attacks and civility may result in your being blocked. PVJ59Opinions 13:03, 15 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

BrianMc provided a forum on his talkpage for us to talk. Why have you ignored that forum? Again, you demonstrate you use your power here to do nothing more than bully members. After your abuse of your administration powers the vote of confidence other administrators gave you was conditional on your performance rising to the level expected of someone in your position. The vote in your favour was not unanimous. The pattern of unprovoked attacks that you have continued to direct towards me does not go unnoticed. Ealturner 19:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am not attacking you in any way. I am merely reminding you of the fact that as per Wikinews policy, you are to remain civil in your behaviour toward other users, failing which you may be blocked. BrianMc's talk-page would not have been a suitable place for me to issue an official warning to you, which is why I chose to communicate with you here. Also, for the record, there was no consensus reached with regard to my having misued my Administrative privileges or that my conduct is unbecoming of the position I hold. Once again, do avoid indulging in personal attacks. PVJ59Opinions 10:20, 16 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As someone with "history" with me - history of unprofessional behaviour toward me - it would be better if you got another administrator to tell me what you want to say. BrianMc is an intelligent and fair man who would be more than happy to help you. You might not intend this but you PVJ59 (or PVJOpinions) reminding me to stay civil is aggressive and to the neutral looks like you are trying to make me feel bad about myself. The good administrator does not throw oil on the flames. Put a little more thought into how you handle yourself here. I'm happy to give you advice if you need it but I won't pester you as you have harassed me because that is uncivil. Ealturner 23:42, 18 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Neutrality. edit

I notice that you have once again started making (baseless) allegations against certain articles (this time the one about two journalists in Gaza), claiming they are not neutral. You have, in the past, employed this as a tactic to stall other (I daresay more productive) editors with your long-winded (and mostly pointless) "discussions" on the talk-pages of these "non-neutral" articles, thereby wasting the time of more contributing editors than you and consequentially, harming Wikinews. I remind you of the fact that you are not the sole custodian of neutrality on this project and there are far more experienced and valuable editors to ensure that our articles do not push a point-of-view. I have already warned you of the fact that your activities are almost trollish in nature, but I do not see any change in your behaviour. The next time I come across you unilaterally declaring articles as "disputed", I will resort to admininistrative action against you . PVJ(Talk)  07:39, 27 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

PJV you are a incorrigable bully, an administrator who has broken his administrator code three or four times (listed under "Harrassment" above) and has refused to accept intermediary (BrianMC) to mediate your dispute with me. There is no way I will listen to what you have to say because it lacks both subtlety and intelligence. Never have I seen someone in a position of responsibility abuse his position as much as you have toward me, and in the process put shame on your fellow administrators who have had to clean up after you. Ealturner 15:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]