Ed Poor wrote "It all hinges on what a "Palestinian"
is, and this was not well-covered."
Sounds like it would be very good to get this one
point cleared up. Perhaps we can do it using
"American" in place of "Canadian" and "Canada" in
place of "Palestine" during the discussion and perform
a global search and replace at the end. (actually
this is a serious suggestion. easier to talk about,
less heated discussion perhaps, even if Canada's
boundaries have changed greatly over time and its
majority population is relatively (re)newed.)
how's this for starters?
Canadian:
a person born in that geographical area OR country
known as Canada,
a citizen the country known as Canada,
an object having characteristics specific the
geographical area OR country known as Canada,
a language spoken by the majority of the population of
the geographical area OR country known as Canada.
Lance6Wins
--- "Poor, Edmund W" <Edmund.W.Poor(a)abc.com> wrote:
I admit that I edited a protected article. In my
defense, I did not
realize that Ambi had protected it, and I
immediately unprotected it
when its 'protected state' was pointed out to me.
Since then, to show
good faith, I have made NO EDITS WHATSOEVER to any
article; I've
confined myself to talk pages until this is sorted
out. Like Martha
Stewart, wanting to start her sentence before the
appeal? You decide....
As far as hijacking a vote is concerned, well, I've
never been a fan of
"votes for deletion". Every time somebody wanted to
delete an article I
like, I've simply rewritten or expanded it and asked
for a new vote. I
can't recall a time anyone's really objected before.
Have the rules
changed while I wasn't watching? It wouldn't be the
first time.
If you vote about a situation, but the situation
changes, I think this
calls for a new vote.
Besides, I think people are trying to sneak in their
POV any way they
can: including 'voting'. This is not good for
Wikipedia. We should write
accurate and unbiased articles that shed light on
all points of view
(POV).
Especially when there are organized forces trying to
SNEAK THOSE POV'S
in to the real world debate on these issues.
It all hinges on what a "Palestinian" is, and this
was not well-covered.
The redirect simply glossed over the fact that this
stuff was not well
covered.
Anyway, this kind of matter should not be decided by
a vote. The
tradition has been, that before eliminating an
article (either by
deleting it, or REDIRECTING from it), that good
information from it
should be merged into another article. Voting to
ignore the elephant in
the living room is not a valid option.
I'll follow what ever the arbcom or Jimbo says; I
agree in advance, even
not knowing what they'll say. But it this point I
don't think I've done
anything wrong.
172 gave me a lot of grief for breaking the
[[Augusto Pinochet]] logjam,
and I weathered that storm. I think I can handle
this too. If not, well
I always did want to go down in a blaze of glory ;-)
Ed Poor
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
_______________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today!
http://vote.yahoo.com