User talk:Steven Argue

Welcome!

Hello, Steven Argue, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

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 place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!

The reason I am leaving this welcome message is because I noticed your additions to Mumia Abu-Jamal. Thanks for you additions, and I hope you continue to contribute here, but I'm letting you know that I removed what you added for a couple of reasons. First of all, the additions were from a very strong point-of-view (POV) and here in Wikipedia we strive to only add information which is from a Neutral Point of View. Please read that policy if you have time and it might make things clearer.

Also, another problem with the addition is that it is almost a verbatim copy of this web page; we are not allowed to violate whatever copyright that site holds on the information. Moreover, I think it should be clear that we should not directly add information from freemumia.com into Wikipedia, this web site will of course have a strong POV and a reason for writing what they do.

Again, I encourage you to continue to contribute to Wikipedia, but please understand that we must strive to give an NPOV presentation. That is what makes this an encyclopedia and not someone's blog. Cheers, Deville (Talk) 15:02, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed that you readded the same copyrighted material into the article again. Please do not do this. If you think there is something wrong with the article as it stands, please discuss this on the talk page at Talk:Mumia Abu-Jamal or make sure your additions are not copied directly from a website and are not holding a particular point of view. -- Deville (Talk) 17:17, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response: The information posted was from an article where I was the author. No copyright infringements have taken place. Upon reflection my original post was not set well to the format, but it was in reaction to biased version that contained only the prosecutions point of view. Both sides should be presented on such a controversial issue.

Hi, I noticed you were editing Mumia Abu-Jamal again. Could you please not add unsourced material to the article? Could you also please discuss any changes you want to make to the article on the Talk page first? We have discussed many of these issues there, and the current version of the article reflects community concensus. Please do not unilaterally make massive changes without discussion. For example, you add "and widely considered a political prisoner", and there is no justification for this addition. Do you have a source which confirms this? Thanks, Deville (Talk) 22:53, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response: Those who support Mumia Abu-Jamal include the European Parliament, Nelson Mandela, the Japanese Diet, the Congressional Black Caucus, The Rev. Jesse Jackson, Sam Jordan, Leonard Peltier, and many unions in the United States and around the world. In addition, Mumia Abu-Jamal has been made an honorary citizen of Paris by the French City Council. That honor was last bestowed on Pablo Picasso in 1971. This reflects the fact that many people veiw Mumia Abu-Jamal as a political prisoner.

Hi, you've yet again added information directly from a webpage into the Mumia Abu-Jamal article. I'm not going to change it back this time. You really need to communicate with fellow editors about these sorts of changes. I've left you several messages here and it seems as though you plan to ignore me forever. Like I said, I'm not going to change what you put back, but if you don't start a dialogue I'm going to start a discussion of your actions at Wikipedia:Requests for investigation. I really don't want to take it to that point (perhaps we could work this out if you could communicate with people on talk pages) but if you refuse to discuss your edits I'm going to. -- Deville (Talk) 00:12, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response: I'm sorry about not getting back to you earlier, I have only just now figured out the mechanics of how to respond to you. -Steven

Ok, thanks for finally getting back to me. Now, I know you're new around here, so you may not know how Wikipedia works. As I was saying above, you might find it useful to read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (NPOV). Just so you know, NPOV is one the fundamental principles on which Wikipedia is based and there is no getting around it.

Now, the edits that you have done to this article are extremely biased and come from a strong point of view. (If you had any question about it, just think: any material which is appropriate for freemumia.org is going to be, by definition, advocacy and intended to push a certain position.) As you said above, you've inserted an article written for that web site into Wikipedia, and this is definitely not appropriate.

It should also be noted that several editors have discussed this article extensively (see the talk page at Talk:Mumia Abu-Jamal) and have come to the conclusion that the article as it stood was reasonable. What you should do before making large changes such as this is discuss it on the talk page. You should also note that there is an article for the controversies involved in the trial, at Controversies surrounding the Mumia Abu-Jamal conviction. Most of what you have added should be in the other article, and in any case has been put there for the purposes of advocacy. I'm going to go ahead and give you some time to make the changes yourself, but I'm telling you now that the vast majority of what you've added will eventually have to be removed or changed. You really need to try to report the facts from a neutral point of view. I'd also suggest that you figure out what NPOV is all about before making more changes, because, as I said, most of what you're adding here is inappropriate and will eventually be removed. -- Deville (Talk) 02:02, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The current edits are not biased, but in fact correct only a few of the factual errors and omissions that were in the original biased version. I will move some things around as you have suggested and any further attempts at changes in content on Mumia Abu-Jamal will be directed through the channels you suggest. -Steven

Hi, I added a note to you on Talk:Mumia Abu-Jamal, which is probably the best place to discuss those edits. A lot of the edits you made should probably have been on Trial of Mumia Abu-Jamal. flammif e r^talk 12:48, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To respond to your last point: I agree that your latest edits are way, way, way better than your original ones. Both for reasons of NPOV and copyright. There's still a few things to change, mostly because, as Flammifer said, a lot of the information you added is in the wrong place (either wrong article or wrong section in this article). I'll move it around when I get a chance. -- Deville (Talk) 14:37, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, as I have already explained, the whole copyright question you keep raising is a red herring.

I think the edits that I have made should remain where they are at, since they only begin to answer some of the bias and anti-Mumia falsehoods that are contained on the page. Without my edits the page lacks even the semblance of objectivity. -Steven

Atheism

Please post to Talk:Atheism here about some of your recent additions - thanks much! KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV

Some friendly advice: you really should read WP:NPOV. It is crucial. Your latest edits to Mumia and related pages are very POV. Your dedication to your cause(s) is admirable, but Wikipedia really isn't the place for it. I'm telling you now, most of what you've recently added to these articles isn't going to last very long. You might find it useful to edit some articles which you aren't very passionate about, to learn the ropes around here. Of course, this is just my two cents. --Deville (Talk) 03:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deville, some friendly advice right back at you: you really should read WP:NPOV. It is crucial. Your attempts to defend viewpoints that are not backed up with citations, first by editing out views that actually are backed up by citations and then, when that doesn't work, claiming the article is too long, this shows the lowest intellectual integrity. I don't know why you hate Mumia Abu-Jamal so much, but Wikipedia is not the place for you to push your one sided undocumented point of view. It is like you are a fanatic out there that's just sitting hovering over this article, leaping in to edit corrections to undocumented factual errors as soon as anybody makes them. The current material I posted is factually correct and backed up with citations. That material belongs where it is. --Steven Argue (Talk)

Removing warnings

Please do not remove warnings from your talk page or replace them with offensive content. Removing or maliciously altering warnings from your talk page will not remove them from the page history. If you continue to remove or vandalize warnings from your talk page, you will lose your privilege of editing your talk page. Thanks. W e s!  ^T _c 08:13, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see anything malicious about it, simply read and deleted what was here, not knowing there was a rule against it. -Steven Argue

Fidel Castro

You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule on a page. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from further editing. 141.153.121.104 06:40, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Somebody keeps removing a relevant link. Seems like they are committing vandalism. --Steven Argue (Talk)

I would recommend you read the rule on this matter. Click here. Further violations are likely to get you blocked. 141.153.121.104 10:43, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mumia Abu-Jamal

I have a solution to our current dispute over the ballistics section of the Mumia Abu-Jamal page. Why don't we just devide it up into 2 sections: a section for what his supporters claim, and a section for what the supporters of the prosecution claims(the wikipedia article on his trail uses this format) Otherwise it seems we'll just keep going on in circles, as we both seem to think each other's sources are biased.Chainclaw

Perhaps that would work. -Steven Argue

Or, you could just work on the ballistics section of the trial article instead of creating a duplicate, no? flammif e r^talk 20:11, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On Cynthia White

Evidence that Cynthia White was a police informant can be found in the following courtroom testimony by Pamela Jenkins here. It is rather lengthy so let me pull it out for you:

It contains the following testimony:

Q. To your knowledge, did she have any relationship to the police?

A. Yes.

Q. What was that?

A. Prostitution.

Q. Was she providing information to the police?

A. Sometimes.

Other evidence presented this information in more detailed form, again from the court hearing:

MS. WOLKENSTEIN: In the affirmation of Pamela Jenkins, paragraph 4 -- this is from Pamela -- I know that Cynthia White worked as a prostitute in the Center City area, specifically at Locust and 13th Street, during 1980 and 1981, and that she was a prostitute, police informant, and turned tricks for the police officers in the district.

We certainly did, Pamela certainly made the statement already that Cynthia White, also known as Lucky, was a police informant.

In addition Pamela Jenkins, also working for the police as a prostitute and police informant, testifies how the police tried to get her to lie about Mumia’s case:

Q. And what did they say in connection with Mumia?

A. They just told me -- well, in other words, they were saying that it was a shootin' and that Mumia had did it. And they was making slurs across me, trying to make, you know, trying to pressure me into saying I was somewhere that I wasn't.

Q. Did they want to pressure you to say that you saw Mumia shoot the officer?

A. Yes, they did.

Q. Did you think they were trying to get you to lie?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. And what was there about that evident interrogation that gave you that impression?

A. Because they kept asking me, you know, was I there. They kept being persistent, pushing it. And Ryan know I wasn't there, and they knew I wasn't there. So that's what I assume, it was pressure, if they are going to keep asking me the same question over and over again and I am telling them no I wasn't there.

Q. And you were there for three hours?

A. About three hours.

As you can see, all of this backs up the source that I originally provided. --Steven Argue (Talk)

Historical roots

I hope I didn't seem too abrupt when removing those links; on reflection, I probably didn't provide enough reasoning for my action. You have made many excellent and valued contributions to Wikipedia.

I felt that the historical roots sections were an awkward way of presenting the information. In general, I'd far rather use prose than a series of links. However, I wasn't keen to do that here, as it would require repetition in a large number of articles. Could I suggest creating an article on Trotskyism in the United States, which could provide an overview of the historical roots of all these groups in an accessible format, in addition to a summary of the tendencies in existance today, and would seem to me entirely appropriate to add to "See also" sections, or to link inline? Warofdreams talk 22:18, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Liberation News (Internationalist)

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Liberation News (Internationalist), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of the page. Duncan (talk) 00:18, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:56, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Liberation News (Internationalist)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, introducing inappropriate pages, such as Liberation News (Internationalist), is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Under section G3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, the page has been nominated for deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Skiyabu1 (talk) 13:18, 25 January 2018 (UTC) Skiyabu1 (talk) 13:18, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]