Misplaced Pages

User talk:Malik Shabazz: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 22:46, 12 January 2011 editExxess (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users5,947 edits →Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution: new section← Previous edit Revision as of 04:20, 13 January 2011 edit undoHallersarmy (talk | contribs)69 edits Blue Army (Poland) Once again a tag match of altering material which cannot be disproven. With threats.Next edit →
Line 307: Line 307:


Thanks -- ] (]) 22:46, 12 January 2011 (UTC) Thanks -- ] (]) 22:46, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

==Blue Army (Poland)==

Malik,
You have a short memory. These changes made by your friend Faustian, are uncalled for. He in the name of editing, changed my text which was somewhat inaccurate, which could be OK, BUT he has also changed my section heading and thus the meaning of my section. He took it from Jews IN Haller's Army to Haller's Army and Jews. Two separate and different topics. It appears you cannot handle the fact that Jews were in this supposedly anti-Semitic army. I trust you have warned Faustian about making 3 changes in less than a 24 hour period, his 3 were before mine.

Anyway, bring on the dispute once again, you gave in on the last challenge after you were shown your comments were unfounded and misguided.

This is your warning to quit editing material by changing sections and then rewriting the text to fit the new section topic. If you want, send me to the dispute deparment for review. I invite it and even insist upon it. Have the dispute sector contact me about this matter. Its stated here publicly and results will be monitored. In the meantime, I'm changing the "corrections" by you and Faustian back to the way they were at the beginning. Keep the racist remarks to yourself.

] (]) 04:20, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Revision as of 04:20, 13 January 2011

This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

User:Malik Shabazz/Header

Welcome to my talk page. Please sign and date your entries by inserting ~~~~ at the end.
Start a new talk topic.
Are you here because I deleted your article? Please read this before you leave me a message.
This is Malik Shabazz's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 10 days 

Archives
Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 2 sections are present.


Lerner

I'm trying to add citations to a lot of the material that has been removed before I restore it. The 3rr page that 3rr is allowed if it is "Removal of libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material that violates the policy on biographies of living persons (BLP)." The new attacks on Lerner's ordination fall under that criterion, IMO--WickerGuy (talk) 21:08, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 3 January 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:47, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

1918 Pogrom article

Hello, Not sure if this is going to get to the correct person. I have read the article on the 1918 Lwow pogrom and have found some gross errors. I tried to explain my views and they were erased. I cited my source and these were erased.

Just because something is cited in a work does not make it correct or accurate.

My point, How could Haller's army be involved in the November 1918 pogrom in Lwow when they were still fighting in France? Haller himself is seen and documented at ceremonies for Marshall Petain receiving his baton in Metz the first week of December 1918. The Blue army did not arrive into Poland until April 1919, again well documented as their passage was restricted by German authorities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hallersarmy (talk • contribs) 10:02, 4 January 2011 (UTC) are likely one of 40 sockpuppets of the banned user loosmark. The investigation is here: . To repeat myself from there:

There is a pattern of loosmark's sockpuppets in that they are typically single-issue accounts devoted to removing historical information that involves something negative about Poland. In the case of User:Hallersarmy, it is the issue of Józef Haller and his army's actions. Two of loosmark's other socks, whch I have interacted with, each followed this pattern. User:23Michal was devoted to removing referenced info from the article about the Carmelite Church, Przemyśl (see his edit history here: ) and User:J.kunikowski was devoted to removing referenced info concerning the Massacre of Lviv professors (see his edit history here: ).
Also, one of loosmark's already-blocked sockpuppets, User:Agoodhistorian, edited on the same topic as User:Hallersarmy and did the same thing - removed referenced information. See diff here: . Faustian (talk) 06:21, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Your comment

Thanks for making me aware of that - I have now changed the style. Please let me know any other issues and I will sort. Oncenawhile (talk) 18:20, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Could use a look though on Poland Jewish history in Białystok

Could use an opinion if the history section of Białystok provides a decent summary of Poland Jewish history. There's some good stand-alone articles I tried to reference, but could use an extra set of eyeballs to look at. Thx in advance! Ajh1492 (talk) 23:24, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Why did you delete the article 'Egyptian Hip Hop (Band)'?

Why did you delete it? They are a real band and if you typed it in on google you would realise that they're a band of minor, but notable significance. I'd love to hear a response.

194.202.143.5 (talk) 17:35, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. In order to qualify for an encyclopedia article, a band must be "notable". Please see WP:BAND, the relevant notability criteria. The article Egyptian Hip Hop (band) was deleted because it made no credible claim that the band was notable. If you can provide independent reliable sources that indicate the band satisfies Misplaced Pages's notability requirements, I would be happy to restore the article. — Malik Shabazz /Stalk 04:36, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

You haven't even looked to see if there is any press on them, have you? You're just sitting in your desk chair feeling like wikipedia king, master of global knowledge, but yet you are infact just a naive and ignorant little boy. Here's the proof so you solemnly desire:

Thank you for providing sources. I've restored the article. Please expand the article based on what the sources say about the band, or the article may be deleted again. — Malik Shabazz /Stalk 16:33, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Question

Greeting! First of all, I wish You great new year! :)
I have been occupied with polish Wiki past months writing and improving historical articles. I also educated myself a bit in writing articles which I hope will provide some good stuff from me in the future, although I really dont have so much time right now.
I just run into heavy subject regarding jewish and polish relation. Do do have relevant knowledge to discuss matters but I really need to discuss those with someone that knows the subject. I was thinking that You might know something about it or...You know someone with great knowledge in subject. This because Im into art on swedish Wiki right now to improve them.
The subject is so complicated that its difficult to do it alone, I spend some 20 years of reading about this and I feel that Im still not able to make any conclusions that Im satisfied with. So Im asking You for help in this matter if You can provide such. I would rather not discuss this here since its to long discussion with to many aspects, to many different views and to many theories. Could we discuss it by mail? Or chat on Facebook?
Thank You for taking time reading this! Best redargs and wishes, Camdan 23:10, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Israel and the apartheid analogy

Thank you foe the one revert rule notice, but the reverts were to different editors, not same editor. My understanding of the rule is that it derives from the three revert rule which makes clear that "...reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work". This includes one revert which was in obvious error as the editor did not examine the wikilinks he removed. I have just communicated this to him. Please have a good day. Regards Koakhtzvigad (talk) 00:00, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

WikiXDC: Misplaced Pages 10th Birthday!

National Archives and Records Administration (NARA)

You are invited to WikiXDC, a special meetup event and celebration on Saturday, January 22 hosted by the National Archives and Records Administration in downtown Washington, D.C.

  • Date: January 22, 2011 (tentatively 9:30 AM - 5 PM)
  • Location: National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), downtown building, Pennsylvania Avenue & 7th St NW.
  • Description: There will be a behind-the-scenes tour of the National Archives and you will learn more about what NARA does. We will also have a mini-film screening featuring FedFlix videos along with a special message from Jimmy Wales. In the afternoon, there will be lightning talks by Wikimedians (signup to speak), wiki-trivia, and cupcakes to celebrate!
  • Details & RSVP: Details about the event are on our Washington, DC tenwiki page.

Please RSVP soon as possible, as there likely will be a cap on number of attendees that NARA can accommodate.

Note: You can unsubscribe from DC meetup notices by removing your name at Misplaced Pages:Meetup/DC/Invite/List. BrownBot (talk) 02:05, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

1918 Lwow Pogrom

You have deleted my comments and edits about the Blue Army being responsible for the November 1918 pogrom in Lwow. You had stated I had not listed any references. Fair enough. I have 5 original citations from published works of men who lived through the time of the Polish Soviet War, (more if you need them). I am not arguing the fact that the Pogrom took place, nor that Jews were killed, nor that some Polish soldiers were invloved. My argument is the Blue Army is identified as the perpretators when in fact they were still in France until April 1919, months after the pogroms took place. I would like to post my paragraphs with citations but expect them to be quickly removed.

There is also a comment that the army was formed by General Haller in 1917. This is very far from the truth and easily could be disputed as well.

What do you think?

If the way I am doing the editing is not the best, I apologize but right up front, Misplaced Pages states anyone can edit as they see fit. So then I have to feel my opinions, with proper citations should merit their standing.

Hallersarmy (talk) 05:32, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

As far as this goes I think he's right - AFAIK Haller's Army didn't return to Poland until April of 1919 . The Polish Army units which participated in the pogrom were possibly those of Michał Karaszewicz-Tokarzewski (5th Infantry Legion Regiment). Haller's Army might have been involved in anti-semitic incidents during the Polish-Bolshevik war in the Ukraine but this would have been in late 1919 or early 1920. Or maybe some individual units from the Blue Army got there in 1918 (though that'd be the first time I heard of that). I can get the source being given for this info - Hagen - tomorrow when I'm on campus and have easy jstor access and will check it out. Volunteer Marek  07:12, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
That's a content issue. The info is referenced and referenced info shouldn't be removed, nor should unreferenced opinions about the referenced info be put in. For all we know, it could have been parts of Haller's army who got there earlier. Could Hagen be contacted for clarification?Faustian (talk) 14:09, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Since there's a SPI ongoing to see whether Hallersarmy is Loosmark or not I'm gonna hold of on any edits until that's concluded. If s/he's not then the reverting can be attributed simply to inexperience with Misplaced Pages ettiquette (lots of new folks just revert what they see as wrong info when they first start editing Misplaced Pages because they don't know any better). If it is Loosmark, then of course, appropriate measures should be taken.
In regard to the content, contacting Hagen for clarification might be a good idea, if you think there's a chance he might reply - particularly since as stated the claim is dubious; I've never seen anything to indicate that any units of the Blue Army made it back to Poland from France before April 1919. Sigh. It might be just the case that these "reliable sources" are plain wrong (it happens, particularly with Western authors writing about non-Western topics). Anyway, we should take it to the talk page. Volunteer Marek  00:39, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

First of all, I am not Loosemark whomever that is. I am also relatively new at making edits that are more lengthy than just bad English or grammar. I have already written to Professor Hagen and am awaiting a reply. Its been three days only, so let's see what happens. I would VERY MUCH like to see the original source for stating that the Blue Army were the soldiers committing atrocities when to all records I've seen, they are in France until April 1919. The Blue Army should not be confused with other Polish army units unless they are those outfitted by the French and fought on the Western front until the Armistice. They had the French blue uniforms and thus were called the "Blue Army".

I have 5 citations from original published articles from officers who fought in the Polish-Soviet War and will be glad to list the data as well as the published source information. I have come across 2 more since gathering the first 5 and know that there will be more if needed.

I also am insulted by the opening terms which are footnoted with derogatory statements as "so-called" Blue Army, an acceptable title both in Polish and English, nothing so-called about it. Also, General Haller did not take command until October of 1918 and less than a year, was relieved of his command as the regiments of Blue Army soldiers were incorporated into the forming of the new Polish Army of Pilsudski. He was not involved with it during 1917 as it did not come to fruition until recruiting started October 1917 and was called the Polish Army in France, not Haller's Army. This measure brought animosity between Polish military units as they were shortsighted in their opinions that if you wore a different colored uniform, you were not a Polish Army.

I will be glad to post the information, but am tired of having my research criticzied by those who most likely do not know the differences, nor care to explain in simpler terms, what is required. I posted these quotes on the Haller's Army page on Misplaced Pages and notice that the questionable citation by Dr. Hagen appeared recently on that page. Faustian, whomever that is, "allowed" them but thinks they are unpublished articles. Do your research and you can find them as I did, but of course under Soviet domination, this topic was forbidden and most materials were destroyed. Hallersarmy (talk) 02:48, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Unlike Faustian, I don't care whether you're Loosmark. I can assure you, however, that your Misplaced Pages "career" will be short-lived if you continue to edit-war.
Here is the relevant paragraph from the quote from Hagen's paper:
Insightfully, Segal observed that "the pogroms surprised not only the Jews, but also the Poles. They tried therefore to make excuses not only to the world, but to themselves," blaming Jewish black marketeers and price gougers, along with the Jews' alleged pro-Bolshevism and anti-Polonism. These were alibis that tallied precisely with Endek propaganda. They fit the Lemberg case particularly well, Segal argued, since the Jews' prime tormenters there were not civilian and criminal "elements of disorder," as the Polish government lamely claimed, but the Endeks' Haller army.
Note the last sentence: The Jews' prime tormenters in Lemberg were Haller's army.
You should take a look at Misplaced Pages:Verifiability: "The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth; that is, whether readers can check that material in Misplaced Pages has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." In other words, no matter how implausible it may seem to you that members of the Blue Army could have been in Lwów (Lemberg) in 1918, a peer-reviewed journal has published it and readers can verify it. It satisfies the "threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages".
Unless Hagen sends you a letter saying that his paper was full of lies, it really doesn't matter what his private correspondence says. Personal correspondence is not considered a reliable source.
Finally, quoting the remembrances of five, or seven, or even 100 soldiers in Haller's army doesn't negate the peer-reviewed journal article. Do you know whether the soldiers were telling the truth? Did anybody verify their accounts? Misplaced Pages articles generally are written based on secondary sources such as journal articles, not primary sources such as soldiers' accounts. (See WP:PSTS for more about primary and secondary sources.) — Malik Shabazz /Stalk 04:51, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

So you gave me a paragraph which you selected. Fine. What is the listing for the original work, date, publication information?? I prefer to read it from the original, not filtered through a tertiary source. Someone named Segal wrote it, When? Where? Complete name? Also, you would not take the word of the author, William Hagen? After doing research and writing history, all authors discover material they did not know about at the time of compilation. If something has come to light after what I write, I check it again and if I find it to be contradicting, I change my views. But only if they are documented and verifiable. You say you won't accept the words of 100 soldiers who were there because you cannot verify if they were speaking the truth. But one or two Jewish accounts are acceptable? Were they speaking the truth? They were not named as well? How accurate are those sources? Primary sources are far more important than secondary or tertiary conclusions. Interpretation of historical materials is always done, but the originals cannot be changed and must be read as written. Those sources written and author identified carry much more weight than "a man said" or " a woman cried about..."

Just take a look at what is taking place with the revisionists of Mark Twain.

And please do not "threaten" my career on Misplaced Pages. We all have careers! I am still awaiting an email from the dispute board. Hallersarmy (talk) 21:39, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what you prefer to read. The fact that a reliable source reports something makes it verifiable and therefore acceptable for Misplaced Pages purposes.
If it helps you, "Segal" is Binjamin Segal, who wrote for the Allgemeine Zeitung des Judenthums. And yes, I take Segal's word—validated as it is by a contemporary historian writing in a peer-reviewed journal—over the unverified accounts of soldiers in the Blue Army.
If you think Hagen's account (or Segal's) is wrong, find a reliable source that says something different. But self-published books and the like don't qualify as reliable sources for Misplaced Pages purposes. — Malik Shabazz /Stalk 18:39, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

You're also welcome to read what you want, but if there are numerous reliable sources printed over the years which conflict against your opinions, then give it some thought. As for being a reliable source, that will only be determined over time and further corroboration or dispute. Many works over time have not had the luxury of a University or "peer" review board, so using that as judgment for reliability is greatly flawed. One only has to look at Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia for "official" approval of works written for the political agendas by "educated" scholars. You provide one source, fine, I provided 5, have more, and others have produced even more. The sources I quoted were not self-published. Somewhere you seem to have a problem with that one. Why do you assume my sources were self-published? Comments?

Hallersarmy (talk) 01:55, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Phil Ochs: There But for Fortune

Hi, Malik Shabazz. Thanks for the link. I started a stub on the film and plan to take this up at least through Start class over the weekend. The 'net is replete with stories and reviews on the film, so for once, the cup runneth over. My access to other materials on Ochs, however, is somewhat limited, so anything you can add or vet would be appreciated. Allreet (talk) 20:11, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Malik Shabazz. You have new messages at Jayjg's talk page.
Message added 00:09, 9 January 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Ina Garten needs protection, rollback

This edit to Ina_Garten contained a personal attack on a wikipedia editor from User:Ranger_Range. Note the reference to another editor's naked mother. This is a brand-new account that is being used for spite and vandalism. Could you also check to see if there are connections between this account and User:Fatherwannabe. Also please consider some protection for Ina_Garten. --Javaweb (talk) 00:10, 9 January 2011 (UTC)Javaweb

UPDATE: I believe as of Sun Jan 9 Ina_Garten has been put back in reasonable shape. I'm still wondering if there has been collusion because of this remark by User:Fatherwannabe. Please consider some protection for the article. Thanks .... --Javaweb (talk) 18:54, 9 January 2011 (UTC)Javaweb Thanks for your reply --Javaweb

AMX

I thought you had finished with your copy-edit so I started an FAC for AMX. Perhaps you could help me resolve some of the issues that come up at the FAC — GabeMc (talk) 22:23, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure where the page numbers for the Dyson cite went. — GabeMc (talk) 22:40, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Malik, the article needs your insight, and I won't be able to get it through FAC without you. My guess is I put the Dyson footnote in planning to find the page numbers later but I never did. — GabeMc (talk) 23:59, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank You for Contacting Me

Please familiarize yourself with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines concerning editor behavior, especially WP:Civility and WP:No personal attacks. Comment on content, not on the contributor.

If you continue to harass other editors, including User:Piotrus, you may be blocked. — Malik Shabazz /Stalk 17:46, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for contacting me.
I'm not justifying my behavior.  I think the content I've provided so far speaks for itself.  I do understand and respect this is an encyclopedia, not a battleground.
This is not dispute resolution.  This is simply providing context, and I hope this is not too far off topic in regards to the ethos of Misplaced Pages -- "summation of all human knowledge."
To cut to the very short of it User:Piotrus, since nearly the first day I've joined Misplaced Pages, has consistently cast aspersions upon my motives -- single purpose account, conflict of interest, family spam, genealogy, rigging deletion debates.  This is all in regards to one particular article, which has been singled out for "special treatement":
User:Exxess/Żądło-Dąbrowski z Dąbrówki h. Radwan
The article in question, in a much rawer and different form, survived a first deletion nomination by said editor.
Time passed, and if memory serves me correct, said editor again nominated this article for what I believe was speedy deletion.
The article did not survive that deletion nomination after debate.
I do understand and respect consensus is the essence of Misplaced Pages.  So, keeping that in mind, I do believe the article under discussion does meet Misplaced Pages:GNG, with the always possible exception of consensus.
Said editor is pushing me to the point of Misplaced Pages:Ignore all rules.  I should take the moral high ground, but it's a bit difficult because said editor User:Piotrus is extremely active on Misplaced Pages, while my topics are often in several foreign languages, are somewhat obscure, and require years of research to obtain authoritative sources, so I'm not making major contributions on a daily basis, which gives his accusations undue weight.
Quoting said editor in his own words at Talk:List of szlachta#Purpose of the list and criteria for inclusion:
"It is certainly not a complete list - rather a list of most famous noblesz."
"Please note that the critieria for inclusion in the list are stricter then those for notability"
That is the root of this entire matter.
I do not care at all to have my article in any way associated with this list, although I mistakenly put my article there not being aware of his statements regarding his criteria above and beyond Misplaced Pages:GNG.  I probably typed in the Polish word for nobility (szlachta) in the search box, and this list appeared, so I hit the edit button, and this being an established noble Polish family, I mistakenly put the article in that list of Polish noble families.  Said editor, admits in his own words he's establishing his own criteria, which is the reason the article in question does not belong there.  I believe the article meets Misplaced Pages:GNG, but as far as being "famous," no, I do have to concede this family is not famous since the surname is Polish, and English readers in general know very little about Poland, but the family does have significant coverage from secondary sources, which I provide in the article.
Said editor is convinced said family is not worthy of a stand-alone article on Misplaced Pages, and looking at his own statements and criteria above, plus his actions, they will never be worthy - NEVER.  I hardly think that's the point.  I think the point is stated at the ever proverbial Misplaced Pages:GNG, and all I can say in regards to that is see the article's sources.  Should this article ever make its way back to mainspace, I fully expect a THIRD deletion nomination from said editor.
Short of my concerns with deletionism, I regard the entire affair as over and rather mundane.  I try to spend as little time as possible on Misplaced Pages with anything even having the appearance of the personal, but this matter has tested my endurance.  Thank you for your consideration. -- Exxess (talk) 01:16, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

14th Amendment Article

I added a lot of material to the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution article.

Given the subject on your talk page, I feel it's appropriate contacting you about this material.

User:Loonymonkey UNDID ALL MY CHANGES.  He's claiming WP:OR and WP:RS.

Every assertion I made had an authoritative and factual citation, one from the U.S.C.!  Title 42...

It's there for the entire public to read.  I didn't publish the information.  The UNITED STATES Government did.

Would you be so kind to read the material I contributed by BEFORE User:Loonymonkey obliterated it?

I'm not asking for mediation in an edit war.  I'm curious about your opinion on the matter.

With User:Loonymonkey, I'll probably have to put my material on the article's discussion page before adding it to the article.  That's fine.  I think over 100+ people watch that page.

I don't think that material is justifiably WP:OR and WP:RS.  I even quoted the Utah Supreme court.

If this is an inappropriate request, accept my apologies. -- Exxess (talk) 00:00, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Wow. Thank you for that incredible reply. Very much appreciated. I think Jones v. Temmer is authoritative, but that's another issue.
Back to something less agreeable, I hope this explains my truculence and general irascibility on Misplaced Pages. Everyone's presuming I'm a single purpose account because my subjects are not the easiest to tackle, so I'm getting smacked with deletionism, due to presumption, in my opinion. I understand this is Misplaced Pages, but I'm not so prejudicial to new sources of information, hence my annoyance. 'Nuff said. -- Exxess (talk) 04:04, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 January 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 05:23, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks of late

Thanks for this edit. I thought indeed that the original intention was that she was deceased. Debresser (talk) 09:06, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Your requests for conciseness

I don't get it. If you are so busy in real life, and seem to be very active in Misplaced Pages, why get involved in more and more articles to the point that you can't give the other editors the time to read what they have to say. Misplaced Pages is not the Army where communication is performed with greater efficiency. I don't know who I am communicating with, so I think that I need to be very explicit and precise to get my thoughts across the electronic divide. If you have suggestions on this subject, I'm happy to hear them Koakhtzvigad (talk) 12:08, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

B class review notifications for WP:POLAND

Hi Malik. I've been reviewing B-class articles for our project, and leaving comments on their talk. In some cases I am not comfortable editing the talk page (for reasons you are familiar with), would you consider leaving such a note on those talk pages? The cases are:

  • this - I think the article does meet the B-class criteria;
  • this - no, reasons: neutrality tag, and unreferenced (advert?) "MGŁA (The FOG)" section
  • this - I think the article does meet the B-class criteria; also a map would be really useful
  • this - I think the article does meet the B-class criteria

--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:26, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

Would you check out the discussion at Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution?

I'm trying not to get personal, I really have no deep concern in the matter, but as you're aware, all my changes were removed on charges of WP:OR.

I quoted this case, Jones v. Temmer, 829 F. Supp. 1226, 1234-35 (D. Colo. 1993):

"The privileges and immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects very few rights because it neither incorporates any of the Bill of Rights nor protects all rights of individual citizens. See Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 36, 21 L. Ed. 394 (1873). Instead, this provision protects only those rights peculiar to being a citizen of the federal government; it does not protect those rights which relate to state citizenship."

That was completely exorcised from the article.

I don't think that qualifies as primary source. The 14th Amendment was 1868 and Congress ramming that amendment through, to the point the Utah Supreme Court commented many years later calling that amendment the "SO-CALLED 14th Amendment." That was exorcised from the article.

That case is 1993 and the judiciary. The judge upheld a monopoly, based on the above, so the governor had to pass new legislation, which means what was asserted about the 14th Amendment STOOD over 100 years later.

Is that primary source relative to the 14th Amendment?

I got a little sarcastic in the discussion, but I'm just going to let it go. The people watching that article WP:DON'T WANT TO TALK ABOUT IT to the point that the material I posted from LAW REVIEW journals in regards to controversy around that AMENDMENT was exorcised, which is secondary source material on the face of it.

Just need your opinion... I'm not looking to battle over this article. I made my comments, and I'm just going to let it go, but I just think obliterating everything, then refusing to discuss anything is a tad bit extreme to the point it boggles the mind, and I'm wondering if I'm missing something.

I'm getting a lot of I DON'T LIKE IT on Misplaced Pages, so editors immediately go to WP:DESTROY IT.

Main reason for asking is I'm just wondering how much time I'm going to need studying diplomacy formally.

Thanks -- Exxess (talk) 22:46, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Blue Army (Poland)

Malik, You have a short memory. These changes made by your friend Faustian, are uncalled for. He in the name of editing, changed my text which was somewhat inaccurate, which could be OK, BUT he has also changed my section heading and thus the meaning of my section. He took it from Jews IN Haller's Army to Haller's Army and Jews. Two separate and different topics. It appears you cannot handle the fact that Jews were in this supposedly anti-Semitic army. I trust you have warned Faustian about making 3 changes in less than a 24 hour period, his 3 were before mine.

Anyway, bring on the dispute once again, you gave in on the last challenge after you were shown your comments were unfounded and misguided.

This is your warning to quit editing material by changing sections and then rewriting the text to fit the new section topic. If you want, send me to the dispute deparment for review. I invite it and even insist upon it. Have the dispute sector contact me about this matter. Its stated here publicly and results will be monitored. In the meantime, I'm changing the "corrections" by you and Faustian back to the way they were at the beginning. Keep the racist remarks to yourself.

Hallersarmy (talk) 04:20, 13 January 2011 (UTC)