User talk:Silent SAM

Please do not leave a new message.

Hello, I'm not sure if I've got the write person here, but I just wanted to tell 'Nimmo' that I in no way meant to antagonise him/her with my statistical fact about my home, Shotley Bridge.

He/she seems to have got the impression I intended to vandilise the article, whereas my intention was purely to enrich peoples knowledge of the geography of this lovely place, while simultaneously sharing knowledge on the physiological attributes of snails.

I must have considered this to be relevant to the article on Shotley Bridge, as I was labouring under the apparent delusion that the article on Shotley Bridge should contain facts about Shotley Bridge.

I wonder if, to prevent further confusion, he/she can tell me which FACTS are considered vandalism and which ones aren't. Also, if possible he/she could clarify the exact mechanics of this decision making process and his/her position of authority which allows him/her to decide which facts are relevant.

I hope this message will be taken in the spirit it was intended. As a polite inquiry.

Thanks for your time,

                    Alfonso Toastrack the Third.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alfonsotoastrack (talk • contribs) 17:19, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I admit that you are right in saying that some of my earlier posts were unfortunately nonsense. I accept responsibility for this. The last Shotley Bridge entry I still believe to be debatable however and certainly don't consider it to be vandalism as it is factual informtation. I wont try and add it again however, as I think I may be punished for it, without my view on the matter being taken into account.

Thanks for your time mate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alfonsotoastrack (talk • contribs) 17:51, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs: Red Brigades; Yitzhak Shamir; IMI Galil; .38 Long Colt; Dan Goldstick; Bernard Lewis; Democratic Party (South Africa); Faurisson affair; Land for peace; M16 rifle; Vin Suprynowicz; Teresa Gorman; .38 S&W; Sieg Heil; Tommy Körberg; Eric Margolis; KSVK 12.7; Benjamin Sehene; Ahmed Bouchiki

Cleanup: Irv Rubin; Homemaker; Gun politics in Canada
Merge: United Nations Security Council Resolution 242; Barbara Warner; Armor piercing round
Add Sources: Israeli Gaza Strip barrier; Leonard Part 6; .577/450 Martini-Henry
Wikify: Rob Merrifield; Jim Inhofe; James Bamford
Expand: Universal reconciliation; Binational solution; Jewish state

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 04:41, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Falklands War

Hi,

I added the section on the British press. In doing so, I was trying to get across the following messages.

1. In general the British press coverage was decidedly neutral. 2. The two main tabloids (Sun and Mirror) had diametrically opposing view points.

If you don't think the Sun's headlines and coverage was jingoistic and xenophobic what adjectives would you prefer?

By the way the Gotcha headline was even condemned by its own editor as unsuitable. Thats pretty damn universal. Justin talk 21:14, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted your change, you have not quoted a source and WP:IDONTLIKE is not a suitable reason. The Sun dehumanised the enemy as "Argies" thats xenophobia. The Sun's articles were aggressively nationalistic, thats jingoism. You don't have to do either to be patriotic.

Argentine press was full of propaganda, the British press wasn't. The article reflected that balance but your edits now seem to indicate that the Sun was also full of propaganda. If you wish to discuss a change, fine, but please talk it to the talk page and first achieve a consensus. Disruptive editing is not the way to make your point. Justin talk 09:28, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war? I did in fact try to discuss this with you first. OTOH you just went ahead and changed it. Justin talk 09:30, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Troll (Wikipedia)

I've often heard a Wikipedian accused of being a troll. So I wanted it defined. I do not understand why you would think that that's irrelevant. Best to you. --Ludvikus 10:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Being an American I did not fing you impolite (you probably are thinking of your use of "irrelevant." I simply was rather surprised (as your Brit cousins would say) by your position. My point, simply, is that this ussage by Wikipedians should be made explicit, wherever you put the definition. And also, Wikipedia is now a large community, making Wikipedian language usage a significant subject for lexigoraphy. But also, it's a broader usage/meaning (I think) than Troll (Internet)