User talk:LeeHunter

Previous discussions:

Archive 1 (August 2004 to September 2005):

War on Terror

I saw your edit... though I was starting to like my "disclaimer" ;) - since you didn't remove the medal, do you think it belongs there? If so, could you help me out on the talk page on the discussion, explain why you left it in? Thanks JG of Borg 16:21, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I want to try to rewrite the article - however, I am afraid of either letting a subtle POV creep in or be accused of doing so - I'd like you to watch over my shoulder and make sure I maintain a NPOV, if I choose to rewrite it. JG of Borg 15:53, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please read

[1] BrandonYusufToropov 14:03, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Islamofascism (term)

Hi Lee. I saw you editing but not voting in the talk page! Cheers -- Svest 00:44, 5 December 2005 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up}[reply]

Attacks

If you are attacked anymore by the anon, report it. Thanks --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 19:14, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I am very happy to see that someone else is also watching these pages. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 19:30, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

He is banned user:enviroknot and any IPs from there can be reverted. Please report this if it continues to any admin who has dealt with him before. Thanks --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 21:41, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Lee. Just wanted to applaud your patience and effort at Talk:Islamofascism (term) and Talk:Islamist terrorism. Your input there seems relevant, reasonable and well-balanced to me. //Big Adamsky 23:13, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

aegeis edits

His/her version is still better than the current version and anything you and Geni have attempted. --Leifern 00:32, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I overreacted. Please accept my apologies. --Leifern 12:37, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hassan Akbar

Hello, could you add references for Hassan Akbar article? Thank-you.--FloNight 18:49, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rfa thanks

Hello Lee. Thank you for supporting my Rfa! I will try my best to be a good administrator. Please ask me if you need any help. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 17:43, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Islamist terrorism

Hum. Did you mean to revert my edits, or were they merely collateral damage in the ongoing War on Nonsense? Palmiro | Talk 00:45, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. No problem. Palmiro | Talk 00:50, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

replied on islamist terrorism talk page

Heya, I replied on the talk page. Please keep in mind that on a personal level I agree with the term Islamist terrorism as more accurate, but I also acknowledge that it's a subjective thing-- and no matter how hard we argue, it always will be like that. Thanks, --Urthogie 18:50, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

replied again--Urthogie 23:59, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

private discussion

Do you have AOL instant messenger? I think we could both elaborate our cases better and get a better understanding offsite.--Urthogie 11:49, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

awaiting reply

Are you still opposing the move? If so, please reply on the talk page.--Urthogie 09:00, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see you're mainly posting on the heading "serving the readers". Do you have any more questions or concerns relating to my interpretation of Wikipedia policies? If so, please ask them under that heading. Thank you very much for staying civil!--Urthogie 16:59, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving pages

Right before I noticed your last post I actually looked at your user contrib's and noticed that you've spent the better part of week only discussing this page. It is indeed a waste of time to be caught in a single argument at the expense of other editing and it's unfortunate you want to go. However, I just have to say that characterizing the arguments as just quoting Google hits and not using rational arguments and explanations is unfair. Here are three questions I never received answers to:

How can we unequivocally say that Islam forbids terrorism in its entirety, given that modern terrorism post-dates Islam and that there is a great deal of ambiguity surrounding justified killing within the faith?
Why does calling certain terrorism Islamic necessarily constitute a smear on the religion itself?
How does Islamism as a political force seeking to implement Islamic values in all spheres of life constitute a differentiation from Islam?

The last one is the big one I suppose and I have seen no answer from you or anybody else. And unless I can rationally come to grips with it the term will simply not make sense to me. The Muslims I live and work amongst would probably give me a blank stare if I tried to explain the difference between the terms--that the faith reaches to the highest levels of politics and the most mundane of everyday activities is taken for granted. Anyhow, I'm not asking for an answer or for agreement; I just wanted to make clear that I had a logical base I was arguing from, from the beginning. I didn't play bait and switch or endlessly quote Google. Granted, after posting questions like this Urth would inevitably pepper the page with two or three posts and you'd wind up responding to those rather than to me which is no fault of yours. I post this lengthy comment because I dislike leaving discussions with editors that strike me as good faith angrily. It wasn't until the latest thread that I found your comments snide and I apologize if I myself was unfair. Marskell 18:50, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I have two posts in mind: one arguing over each of the points and one simply accepting you responded in good faith. I think the latter is in order here. "Justified killing" particularly is a "let's argue—actually, let's not" point that I'm sort of itching over but I don't think it would serve any purpose now. To end with melodrama, I end with one of the more troublesome aspects of human history: religious texts necessarily require interpretation and interpretation nearly always creates conflict. Anyhow, the idea of the previous post was to point out that I was arguing in good faith myself and I assume the same of you. Cheers, Marskell 00:13, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for staying civil and respectful

I really want you to watch the page(even though its being moved to a place you disagree with, that doesnt mean you cant help with the content), but if you don't want to that's your decision. I just want to thank you for staying civil throughout the debate, and I know many lesser editors who would resort to personal attacks in your position-- you helped the debate happen civilly, and I just want to express my gratitude, that no matter what the result of the debate was, I'm very grateful of how respectful you were throughout.--Urthogie 13:16, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To LeeHunter for standing to his position in a way that showed respect and civility.--Urthogie 13:16, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of reverting Islamic extremist terrorism

Why not fix it?--CltFn 01:12, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not characterise others' work as "Tangential nonsense." I can't see that it usefully summarizes your edit, and can only be expected to antagonize people in an already contentious situation. I see no basis at all for your summary dismissal of my edits to the introduction; I think my changes are moderate and reasonable, building as they do on the earlier work of several others. Certainly there is room for improvement. I don't see how that will happen if you revert anything you don't like. I'm open to discussing whether the recent elections should be included in the article, and I made some remarks on the talk page. I invite you to do the same. Tom Harrison ^Talk 02:21, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply. I can understand "Tangential" as a reference to the elections, although I still think "nonsense" is needlesly inflammatory. But why did you revert over my changes to the intro? Tom Harrison ^Talk 02:42, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi; Saying for your edit summary, "dude. knock off the crazy-ass editorializing"[2] is completely inappropriate. Per WP:NPA, Abusive edit summaries are particularly ill-regarded. Please try to use the edit summary to just summarize the edit. Tom Harrison ^Talk 02:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request

Sorry to single you out, but yours and Geo Swan's names seem to turn up the most often in these cases. I was wondering whether it would be possible for you to create a Category:Ghost Detainees or Category:People captured in the War on Terror or something, instead of constantly seeing random ghost detainees listed under Category:CIA or Category:Human Rights Violations. You could make Ghost Detainees a sub-category of HRV, but we really can't afford to put every single person in the world whose had their rights violated in that category, it fills up too fast. Much thanks! Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 17:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bat Ye'or

Hi,

I understand the frustration of trying to edit on articles like this, but perhaps you could respond to the remarks I made on the talk page regarding the Chebel quote, rather than just reverting it back in?

Well done, in any case, on all your hard work trying to keep Wikipedia in reasonably close relation to reality and preventing it becoming a pulpit for bigots. Palmiro | Talk 18:43, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Woops. You were quicker off the mark than me. Palmiro | Talk 18:50, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate revert

reverting cost considerations on colon hydrotherapy was unjustified. If you have different cost estimates you may include them. Steve Kd4ttc 14:17, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

I appreciate that the discussion on Colon Hydrotherapy has elevated to a much higher level. Thanks, Steve Kd4ttc 23:39, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation

Please weigh in on this proposal and see User:Leifern/Wikiproject health controversies. Thanks in advance, and feel free to spread the word. --Leifern 17:29, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guantanamo Bay

Someone moved it in a way that was against the consensus and someone else just set up a new poll on what had already been asked before. Please come again. ROGNNTUDJUU! 15:13, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wik

The edits of a banned user are automatically reverted, and Wik has been creating sockpuppets solely for the purpose of edit warring and violating 3RR. I'm certainly not going to allow Wik to bully this (or any other) article into the form he wants. I have no idea what the controversy is about, or even what the text in question says, but if there's a conflict over it, you need to work it out on the Talk: page. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:26, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded on the request for unprotection page. And I fail to understand why things can't be worked out on the Talk page regardless of the current state. Come to an agreement, and it will be implemented. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:40, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copyedit not traditionally substantive

Hi Lee. I saw the last edit you made on the "MEMRI" page we have been collaborating on, and I wanted to make a comment which is more addressed to you than the talk page. THe last edit you made on the MEMRI page summarized as "copyedit" put back in a sentence on "selectivity" which had been previously removed due to concerns over POV (and is fully treated elsewhere in the article). I think it was more of a substantive edit than a copyedit. Would ask that you be more specific on the edit summary to improve clarity for other editors. Best regards and I hope you are having a great Friday (if it is in fact Friday where you are---not sure about the time/date zones) elizmr 17:10, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply on my userpage. Would still urge use of more descriptive edit summary than "copyedit" if editing more than word order or punctuation just to help the editing process along for all of us. elizmr 17:24, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removing text as "irrelevant" and POV on the MEMRI page

Hi Lee,

I'm wondering if I could ask you to consider NOT taking stuff out of articles that others have put in based on "relevance". I've noticed that you have done this to stuff I've worked on and put in a few times now and I am finding it frustrating. What is relevant or irrelevant is a matter of opinion.

On the subject of MEMRI on the talk page of that article you write: "[MEMRI] is "dedicated to "influencing US politics in favor is Israel"Italic text That is clearly a strongly POV opinion and not a piece of factual information.

There is nothing wrong with having a POV, but based on the fundamental Wikipedia principle Wikipedia:Neutral point of view as editors we should be letting stuff we don't agree with stand in the articles.

elizmr 00:18, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]