User talk:Horse Badorties

Welcome!

Hello, Horse Badorties, 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:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! Miranda 02:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ANSWER edit

Please see WP:NPOV before removing material for no other reason than you personally disagree with it. Jinxmchue 17:32, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please use Talk:A.N.S.W.E.R. for issues related to the A.N.S.W.E.R. page. Thank you. Also, do read WP:ABF before making any more silly accusations. --Horse Badorties 02:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The ADL part currently is in a better place then where you were trying to hide it. This was just plain ludicrous. Sheesh! Jinxmchue 04:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Assistance needed

Could you please look at [1] ?

This shows the edit I believe is better than the one being reverted to.

My contention is that 1) "thrown" is too much open to interpretation. "Escorted" could easily become "thrown" when it's being done by ones political enemies; and 2) "Without getting permission from the U.S. Trotskyist organization..." is irrelevant. There's no end of people or organizations that could be added from whom she did not get permission to move to Mexico. Before this sentence, there is no mention of this organization (which actually doesn't exist, unless they're referring to the SWP. But they don't say that they are, and even if they did, it would still be irrelevant).

I'm still a bit new to Wikipedia editing, so I don't know which terminology to describe what I consider this to be. I've been referring to it as editorializing. --Horse Badorties 02:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You should discuss all conflicts out on the article's talk page. Miranda 02:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We have been. They (two party members) think that because it's in their book, it's OK. I think it makes for a bad article. That part, anyway, not all of it. --Horse Badorties 02:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you could get the opinion of other people, Wikipedia:Resolving disputes has some ideas (eg Wikipedia:Third opinion and Wikipedia:Accuracy dispute). You could ask for help from a relevant WikiProject. Perhaps you just need to find more sources for the article (not easy sometimes I know), then discuss the new sources on the talk page and see what people think.--Commander Keane 02:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you are new here, so welcoming is in order! I reverted to the other version yesterday because the facts seemed nontrivial and interesting and your arguments against them didn't seem to amount to more than personal preference. I am honestly ignorant of the what POV is being pushed (That's wiki-ese for what I think you mean by "editorializing") by their inclusion or non-inclusion or about your and the other editors' POVs and wouldn't mind some enlightenment. My personal mild interest in Dunayevskaya comes from reading a couple of her philosophical books years ago and an interest in Hegel Your arguments above seem to have more meat to them than the ones on the page, but still it is quite unclear to me just what you find objectionable and why. BTW, the argument there so far has been positively gentlemanly compared to many others, e.g. those in my most usual wiki-haunts.John Z 03:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You should discuss these issues on the article's talk page. I only now found these comments. I don't know what you mean by "two party members," but you are mistaken. Don't you think "assuming good faith" means you should take what people on the talk page are saying seriously rather than dismissing it based on your mistaken assumptions about party affiliation? Also, what does "it's in their book" mean? What book are you talking about? How did it become "their" book? You should really get your facts straight before you go making statements like these.

It is a documented fact that she was thrown down a flight of stairs. It is not an interpretation. The word "thrown" is in the encyclopedia article that is cited: "she was literally thrown down a flight of stairs." Franklin Dmitryev 22:11, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Raya Dunayevskaya

Hi - there has been discussion around the issue of "editorializing" which you raised on the talk page, and there is no consensus to remove the two lines you highlight. If you still believe that they should be removed, please continue the discussion, rather than reverting the article. Warofdreams talk 12:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Defending the West: A Critique of Edward Said's Orientalism (2nd nomination)

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and the page that you created has been or soon will be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Mhiji 22:44, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]