Deepstratagem

I welcome any comments and criticism. I try to dispell misinformation through my article edits and provide uncommon knowledge. If you think I've made a mistake I will feel happy to concede changes if you can make a sound argument.

American talk page

That wasn't a thread, that was an inexperienced user (Rodolfo Hermans/Godot) placing a comment in the wrong place. He wasn't responding to the old comments from 10 months ago. I'd appreciate it if you'd put the comments back at the bottom, or at least replace my comments that were deleted in your revert.--Cúchullain ^t/c 07:58, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

He was responding to old comments and so was I. I'm going to replace your comments but you could have saved me the pain by reading through the thread. Deepstratagem 08:03, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, sorry then. I'll replace my comments, don't worry about it.--Cúchullain ^t/c 08:07, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

It looks like you replaced them before I did. Deepstratagem 08:14, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

You are very consistent on your views and can reason extremely well. Congrats on the work you are doing on this page.LtDoc 13:34, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! I noticed your work on several related topics when I first joined Wikipedia and it's good to know others are trying to compensate for this well-documented bias. Deepstratagem 04:36, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I reverted your edit to Bill O'Reilly because...

You failed to cite your rather inflamatory comment in the Bill O'Reilly article. If you had cited it, I might have left it alone after checking out your citation. However as is, I had to treat it as a comment meant to inflame opinions. If you want to add it, but can't cite it, I suggest you add to toe the talk page and wait for a consensus before adding it again.

Please see Talk:Bill O'Reilly (commentator)#Inflamatory comment added for more information. Will (Talk - contribs) 23:59, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually I believe I removed it as it appeared to be vandalism. I apologize if it was a sincere attempt to improve the article, but please know that comments like that are probably not appropriate for any article in wikipedia, especially those that fall under WP:BLP. Happy editing, though, and please continue to contribute!  :-) Lawyer2b-blp 02:11, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Please read the latest post at Talk:Bill O'Reilly (commentator)#Inflamatory comment added. Will (Talk - contribs) 03:29, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

True, we'll need to find some citations, but it's all in the transcripts, particularly Media Matters and his "Factor" website, so it shouldn't be hard to find. Please see my response in Talk:Bill O'Reilly (commentator). Since it was posted under the controversies section, and the statement is true, I don't see the problem with it, if Bill O'Reilly is notable enough to have an article on Wikipedia, he should be represented accurately and that's what I believe I was doing. Deepstratagem 04:11, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Media Matters is an organization that O'Rielly claims is biased to the extreme left. So it would be better if the citations did not rely on them. His Factor website is another matter. I would still insist on verifying the site does say that, but I would accept the ref if valid. Will (Talk - contribs) 09:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

That's true, though there are few organizations that are not extreme left in O'Reilly's opinion. Deepstratagem 19:15, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Please become familiar with WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:BLP. Please stop adding negative unsourced information to the Bill O'Reilly article. In addition, please edit in a neutral tone on the other articles. If not your edits will continue to be deleted. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 20:43, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

It's now sourced. Now please stop interfering with factual information and free speech. Also, may I ask which other articles and on what specific grounds? Deepstratagem 20:59, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Drop the victim card, Wikipedia isn't your blog. You must comply with various policies here. You're adding unsourced POV edits to articles, and have been warned previously. Don't feign ignorance. Every one of your edits have been reverted for violating the above policies. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 21:06, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Please don't accuse me of using the victim card, as that is a personal attack. I've added several unsourced edits, and I sourced the last one, so your statement that every one of my edits has been reverted for violating the above principles is false. Deepstratagem 21:11, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Look, you've admitted to adding several unsourced entries to articles. Instead of hitting you with a vandalism tag, I nicely asked you to provide sources or stop making those edits (because editors will revert them quickly). Instead of taking my request in the good faith in which it was given, I get a "stop interfering with factual information and free speech" remark. To me that's playing the victim. You're in effect saying "The big bad man is silencing my voice". No one is doing that. No one is attacking you. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 21:23, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

You continue to delete factual comments, so yes, you are silencing my voice. The last one was sourced. You've accused me of feigning ignorance and making personal attacks after I asked for specific information regarding which articles you were speaking of. You simply said "In addition, please edit in a neutral tone on the other articles." So how am I supposed to know what your objections are? Deepstratagem 21:29, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Check the page history before making accusations. All of my reverts have been under WP:BLP grounds. Here is the history:First I made this revert [1][2], which you admit was correct. Then I warned you here about my revert [3]. Then you added the MSNBC cites, and then Kane5187 deleted it for his reasons. Just now I made this revert [4] because of more unsourced information from you under the Jessica's law heading. WP:BLP in its simplest forbids the introduction of negative unsourced material about living persons. Editors are told to delete it on sight. That is the policy. So please, again I ask you, stop adding unsourced negative information to articles on living persons. If not I will have no choice but to report to the incident noticeboard. For the record, I did not accuse you of making personal attacks, and surely you know what a neutral edit is. All I am asking is that make your edits, on whatever article it may be, neutral. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 21:49, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I never claimed your reverts were not under WP:BLP if by chance that's what you are implying. I won't add anymore unsourced statements to BLPs, but I stand by my claim that they were all factual and therefore not vandalism, but rather an attempt at making the article more accurate. Deepstratagem 22:04, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

You claimed I was deleting factual information, when I was deleting negative unsourced information from an article about a living person. I was not trying to silence your voice. I was just enforcing one of Wiki's policies and trying to telling you how it works. Also, although at first I thought it was vandalism, I never called it that or placed a vandal warning on your page. I did put an accidental npa tag, which I quickly deleted. It was a botched cut and paste job on my part. Anyway, now that you are aware of the policy, let's put all of this in the past. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 22:14, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I removed your note that Bill O'Reilly has been called the "worst person in the world" by Keith Olbermann because it is a gimmick on Olberman's show -- he elects three worst people per day, so you can see why such an election isn't a very major thing. However, Mike Wallace doesn't pick a handful of "most provocative news figures in America" every day. See what I mean? It's not that it's false that Bill O'Reilly has been chosen as a Worst Person of the World multiple times, but it's like saying that George W. Bush was called a "fascist" by a blogger. Maybe true, but just not one of the most fundamental characteristics of him as a topic: doesn't belong in the lead. Dylan 21:55, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Olbermann does pick three worst people per day, but he makes a special note of O'Reilly pretty much every day, and devotes almost entire programs to the innacuracies of O'Reilly's show, so in fact he does stand out, though perhaps not nearly as notably as on Mike Wallace's show. Deepstratagem 22:04, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

There are a handful of people who constantly pick a bone with O'Reilly: Al Franken, Media Matters, etc. Point is, according to WP:LEAD, you should use the lead section to introduce the subject, summarize the article quickly, and explain why it is notable. Mike Wallace's quotation fulfills the last point in a way that Olbermann's does not: it gives a cited opinion from a reliable source about O'Reilly's notability. The thing about Olbermann is perfect for a criticism section (or, as we have it now, Bill O'Reilly critics and rivals, which is even better because Olbermann is hardly the only one criticizing him). Dylan 23:28, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Hannity and Colmes

Oh please, What do you mean "Colmes calls himself a moderate". Newsflash: look up Colmes' book Red, White, and Liberal where he defends the beliefs of liberals. Look, Colmes' calls himself a liberal, the President of Fox calls himself a liberal (http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1158), in fact, everybody calls him a liberal--because he is one! Except you. Please revert your edit. No one wants an edit war.

FYI if Colmes was a moderate, that would hurt Fox's dubious claim to fair and balance coverage, because a debate between a moderate and a conservative is inherently slanted towards the conservative. Imagine two people playing on the teetertotter with one sitting on the end and one in the middle.

Fooeditor1 00:21, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

It does hurt FOX's credibility to fair and balanced coverage. I agree that Colmes is a liberal, compared to Hannity, but he's not a liberal compared to your average liberal. At the very least, he doesn't really voice liberal opinions; he voices moderate opinions and not very well at that. If you are interested finding out how fair and balanced Fox is, you could watch a video called Outfoxed, which is freely available on the internet for educational purposes. In fact the very source that you just cited completely agrees with my edit. Deepstratagem 06:37, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Assistance at Use of the Word American

I added the US-centric template at Use of the word American, American in Other Contexts. Do you have any resources available (not to mention that most precious resource--time) to globalize it? What do other American countries have to say in their laws, &c.?

On the history of the word, I was wondering what the Mexicans called the invaders in the 1830's-40's? Were they Americano, Norteamericano, gringo, yanqui? I know that by the 1890's Hawai'i's Queen Lili'uokalani called them American without qualification in Hawai'i's Story by Hawai'i's Queen. Difficult as it is, tracking the history of the use of the word outside the U.S. with some documentation would be good for the article. I was hoping you might have more success than I have, as I am limited to free online sources.

I'm only trying to hand this off to you because I suspect I'll be tied up with arguments about the law from a certain pompous young attorney, and trying to address the ramblings of Jcchat. Perhaps that will give you time to do something constructive.

Also, note the entry from The New York Times Manual of Style and Usage. That's an interesting distinction between America and the Americas. The latter is the collective term for the countries. I hadn't run across that distinction anywhere else. I think a lot of the confusion (and I'm sure I touched on it on the Talk page) revolves around different political, cultural, and physical definitions.

.s

X ile 13:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, X ile, I'll see what I can do. Relevant material regarding use of the word outside might be difficult to find because most of it will be in foreign languages. There will be a lot of material in books, but those are often frowned upon as sources. The biggest hoop involves the fact that most online material is also US-centric. As time goes by, new relevant sources will become available. It may take a while, but I'll get back to you. Let me know if you think of any other specifics to research as well. Deepstratagem 14:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Warning?

Stop making false allegations in the O'reilly factor forum. your history shows this is not the first time you have done it. Stop at once or you may be reported. Teniii 12:58, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

What false allegations? Deepstratagem 06:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

For future reference these are the substantiated and fully sourced statistics I added to The O'Reilly Factor article. Deepstratagem 05:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

WilyDs wikistalking and obsession with me

For future reference, there is no WP:POINT. I am not for or against Manifest Destiny unlike suggested below.*
*If anything I lean against it.

Context to the below, I have no idea what citation was "provided...yesterday", which is irrelevant anyway. WilyD is obsessed with Manifest Destiny and likes to attribute everyone's actions to it, because the town he lived in was long ago burnt down by "Americans" (Which he undoubtedly attributes to Manifest Destiny, too). The edits involved:

[removing two songs irrelevant to the disambiguation page] [adding the technical name of the American landmass]

WP:POINT violations on America?

Deep, please stop disrupting America to make your point. If you feel the need to cite something, instead of adding a {{fact}} tag, why not add the citation I provided you with yesterday? Furthermore, don't remove relevent entries from disambiguation pages, this won't convince anyone you're trying to be constructive. Look, Deep, I know you're a huge fan of Manifest Destiny, but it is not appropriate for you to try to slant every article to read like an endorsement of it. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and if you continue to treat it as such further steps will have to be taken to prevent you from being disruptive. WilyD 16:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

What point is that? What citation? What does Manifest Destiny have to do with anything? What exactly do you mean by being disruptive; as far as I can't tell you keep reverting everything I do on every page, like you are a wiki-stalker or something... take a deep breath and calm down. Deepstratagem 17:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Why do you ask me questions to which you already know the answers? Is it a rhetorical device? WilyD 18:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

There is no need to use scathing language when I'm trying to figure out what your objections are. Deepstratagem 18:47, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Intervention?

Given your persistant disruptive behaviour, I've been forced to make a report Here. You may wish to respond. WilyD 18:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked for violating the three-revert rule at America. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. The duration of the block is 24 hours. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I made a 3RR mistake and went on an involuntary wikivacation. Deepstratagem 06:29, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Americas

Hey there. I have just seen your arguments in the talk page. No matter what you think, or the reasons you give, nobody is going to accept what history actually reveals. For us, the Spanish speakers, the right usage of the name is America, and not Americas. You will see what I say if you go to the Spanish wikipedia article. As for my point of view on the subject, I gave all my reasons as a Spanish native speaker. If you see, in Spanish we have a name for the people born and raised in the USA, and that is estadounidense. Americano may refer to the people born and/or raised somewhere in the continent. However, since the American media has a great effect worldwide, most Spanish speakers, at least here in Spain, say americano when they are talking of things connected with the USA, and they rather prefer sudamericano when talking about South Americans. Personally, I think it is a great mistake, and I made my point clear enough. As an English linguistics student I dare say that this misunderstanding of the word is what we know as false friend (or falso amigo). For instance, in English, people do not have a clear nationality for the people born in the USA, and as a result they use American, while we prefer estadounidense. In conclusion, since we do have a most defined terminology for it, there is no need of desambiguation. So, the proper translation would be as follows: American=estadounidense or "americano"; Americano (Sp)= ??? (possible words, North and/or South American). The wrong usage of the name and the mistake of translation is, unfortunately, growing everyday. I found the name America offensive, as most Latin American people do, but we have to accept that in this USA-dominated world, there is no place for arguments. So, I recommend you to stop arguing about the subject, because nobody is going to change this unfair truth. Greetings (saludos) --Gustave - May I help you? 01:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the page on the use of the word American was a mess and got cleaned up by several citations shown on the discussion page. Now the article is much more accurate and relatively fair. I'm aware of the Spanish Wikipedia article. Hablo en español perfectamente bien. Me da mucho gusto que hayas venido a este articulo a discutir con esos pobres ignorantes. Si hubieras estado aquí durante el año pasado te darías cuenta que si vale la pena arreglar el artículo. The fact that America (U.S.) is a colloquial contraction derived from America (continent) and history is enough by itself. But this is Wikipedia, so a few more online sources here and there over a period of time will go a long way to back up the logic and the truth. That's why I'm not worried. Deepstratagem 02:18, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm happy because of your point of view. We, as Spanish native speakers, share most of your ideas. Si quieres me puedes contactar en mi página de wikipedia en español; soy administrador allí, y he redactado 8 artículos destacados. I hope to c ya there, since we need some help. Saludos, --Gustave - May I help you? 12:14, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Tags

I will not stop removing tags you've placed in bad faith. You are well aware that the US sense of American is not a neologism but a perfectly legitimate use of the word, and the only one common in English. Those articles make it clear they are discussing American topics. If you can think of a better title, suggest that, but your tags are entirely inappropriate.--Cúchullain ^t/c 22:46, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

"I will not stop removing tags you've placed in bad faith."

And I no longer object to the flags you removed*, but you ought to know they were not placed in "bad faith".

*See my response to Leihoiberri in White Hispanic and Latino Americans talk page.

"You are well aware that the US sense of American is not a neologism but a perfectly legitimate use of the word, and the only one common in English."

I disagree that it is not a neologism, but I agree that it is a legitimate use of the word.

"If you can think of a better title, suggest that, but your tags are entirely inappropriate."

Not exactly. Hispanic and Latino in the United States carry racist connotations. Hispanic because it is equated with illegal immigrants, and Latino because it is primarily used by promoters of political organizations like La Raza and MeChA.

I withdrew my objections because the articles clarify that those terms are not supposed to indicate race.

However, I do apologize for the personal attacks directed at you. Deepstratagem (talk) 23:53, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Apology accepted, though we'll have to continue agreeing to disagree on most of the rest of that.--Cúchullain ^t/c 03:49, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: Latino/Latina

I doesn't matter if its plural or singular, but when you are being gender neutral, you use masculine. You said "Latino as used in the United States is Spanglish rather than Spanish," but doesn't that invalidate your argument of the word "Latino" in Talk:White Hispanic and Latino Americans, since it is a article about a group in the United States? Lehoiberri (talk) 02:20, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Seeing your previous comments, you actually think that Hispanic=Illegal Immigrants and Latino=Chicano Nationalism?! Seriously, I'm not trying to be an ass, but this is silly. People use these two words to unify people of Latin American ancestry into one group, instead of splitting them by nationality (Mexican, Argentine, Chilean, Guatemalan, Cuban, ect.) Chicanos are not the only ones who use "Latino", in fact Chicanos don't really like the word "Latino" and "Hispanic" because they associated with Latin Americans, while Chicanos have roots in Southwestern United States before it was even part of the United States. In regard to "Hispanic", you probably have been hearing too much of the Hate-filled rhetoric from the Far-Right in this country. To these Racist douche bags, Hispanic does equal Illegal Immigrants, but to the main stream it does not. I can see you don't like these people, like Bill O'Reilly, but these idiots don't represent the view of American society. Lehoiberri (talk) 02:44, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I noticed on the discussion page that you agreed with my revision to the introductory in White Hispanic and Latino Americans. If it is still true, perhaps then you could try editing it yourself. M5891 (talk) 00:54, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Criticism of Bill O'Reilly (political commentator)

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Criticism of Bill O'Reilly (political commentator). We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of Bill O'Reilly (political commentator) (3rd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:08, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Romania

Hi! From your edits, it looks like you might be interested in contributing to WikiProject Romania. It is a project aimed at organizing and improving the quality and accuracy of articles related to Romania. Thanks and best regards!

--Codrin.B (talk) 06:08, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Brown people AfD

Hello, I saw that you voted on the deletion of the article Brown people / Brown race back in January 2007 here. As you probably know the result of the voting was a slight keep, so the article is still there. I found the article recently and considered it unacceptable, so I nominated it for deletion again. Could you please visit the article or deletion page and cast your vote? I would really appreciate it. Thank you. FonsScientiae (talk) 01:30, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

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) 12:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Deepstratagem. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Deepstratagem. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Deepstratagem. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)