User talk:Texture/Archive-2004 August

Conspiracy links?[edit]

Why are you deleting my links? You have done so twice.

One of the links was from ABC News 20/20

ABC News 20/20: The White Van Were Israelis Detained on Sept. 11 Spies? (June 21, 2002)

Certainly it cannot be because it is not relevance or because the source is not official, especially when you don't have an issue with the following link from a propaganda website:

Palestinian Authority Threatens Cameraman Prevents Broadcast of Palestinians Celebrating Attack on U.S. (September 11-13, 2001)

But for some reason you are trying to censure information that you may not like.

But please let me know perhaps you do have valid explanation and you are not just vandalizing...

These strange theories are only good for amusing people. They do not belong in a serious article. - Tεx τ urε 18:26, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Did you even bather to read the ABC News 20/20 Article?

No one is accusing the "Jews" or "Israel" the article is not about that, if that is that your particular problem.

But the fact remains that there where five Israelis celebrating the destruction of the towers. Perhaps they where just immature people, much like the couple Palestinians filmed celebrating. But You don't seem to have a problem with that link from www.us-israel.org (a propaganda site) saying that Palestinian Authority threatens cameraman prevents broadcast of Palestinians celebrating attack, but you do have a problem with a similar piece of News about Israelis celebrating attack..

The Associated Press wrote articles about it at the time and the link cites the Foreign Press Association. These are documented. - Tεx τ urε 19:26, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Then post the The Associated Press articles and not the propaganda site link

Just because you would not like people to find out about something does not mean it did not happened that way.

Read the article, if you know of information that contradict that article le me know, maybe you are right and I am wrong. But don't just delete the link just because you may not like what you read.

I read the article. It's infonews fluff about five people who filmed the attacks out of five hundred thousand who had cameras that day. Their misfortune was that they were middle eastern. The real news is that they were mistreated for their appearance. I'm not the first person to remove your links. They were not "mistakenly" removed. - Tεx τ urε 19:26, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yes fluff, a compromise would be to remove both links, since 10 Pals celebrating among 4 millions is also fluff...

Texture again, if you have something to add please do so. If you believe my links are incorrect let me know. But can you please stop deleting my links just because you don't like them. That is your personal opinion, and you are entitle to it. Let people read the article and decide by them self. How would you react if I visit everything that you have posted and decided whether I like it or not and remove it base on my opinion?

If you don’t know, but what you are doing is vandalizing and censure base on your taste and opinion.

You appear to have no interest in compromise. Anything less than an advertisement for your website seems to inflame you and cause you to attack me personally. Please discuss this on the appropriate talk page. Apparantly you took no notice that I left the news story that I still think is fluff but you still debate it. Please don't advertise your agenda and conspiracy web site on Wikipedia. - Tεx τ urε 20:14, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

OK Texture Let Talk. I will not update the links anymore if we can reach an agreement. Deal? For The records deleting something that someone else wrote, just because you don't like it in YOUR OPINION is not a valid reason.

I in fact it is my opinion that the link from www.us-israel.org is not relevant to the page since it is just used to create a “conspiracy theory” where the Palestinian where somehow also responsible and it offer as proof that footage from Palestinians possible celebrating the attack may have been deleted by the PA. But hey, I believe readers will read the article and see thru them. Maybe I am wrong, but I will not DELETE like you are doing a link just because I don’t like it.

Now To my links First: Why do you believe a compromise is to add to my link the wording “Conspiracy Theory”? Especially when I am posting a link to a news article reported by ABC News 20/20. Did you even read the article? They are not talking about a theory. There in fact where 5 Israelis that where celebrating the attack and where videotaping the attack. After been question their first response was “We are not your problem, the Palestinians are” Those are the facts. Now who where they we don’t know. Probably just a couple of loser who happen to be from Israel. Like the couple of loser from Palestine that where celebrating.

The problem is that by adding the wording “Conspiracy Theory” You are stating an opinion that will make the reader create pre-judge their opinion about the article before reading the link. How would you feel about adding the word “Propaganda Site” infront of the www.us-israel.org? Would you call that a compromise?

Second: the Second links is as worthy as the www.us-israel.org site. But if you are willing to remove that site I would be willing to remove this site. After all Why a group of people celabrating is more newsworthy than the other if both group had nothing to with the 9/11 attack.

Now Explain to me what is your reasoning for your behavior.--156.153.255.210 20:55, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Do you realize that Wikipedia is a cooperative effort on all articles? Anyone can add, edit, or delete content to improve an article. I improved the article by deleting dubious links. I compromised and included the ABC link despite my feelings for it. You have not compromised a bit or discussed on the Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks page so that others could comment on your opinion. The last change I made also did not include "Conspiracy Theory" on the ABC article since I was seeking to work a compromise. Instead you assault me again with these things despite my bending over backward to compromise with you.

I compromise over and over and you again and again make personal attacks that are unsubstantiated by the facts. Please direct your efforts to the appropriate talk page and gain community support if you want to continue to advertise your conspiracy web site. - Tεx τ urε 21:04, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Do you realize that you are vandalizing by deleting stuff you don't agree with and preventing other people from deciding for themselves? You are not compromising by deleting one of my links. Would you call a compromise if I go around and delete half of yours?

I feel I have been assaulted by your constant deletion of my links just because you don't like the title. You did not even bather to read the whole article before you concluded it should not be there.

It is obvious that you don’t seek a compromise since you keep avoiding to give an explanation of how did you concluded the links did not belong there.

I have not seen you offer a single compromise or even acknowledge my attempts to do so. You keep claiming vandalism about changes that I have undone and refuse to discuss the matter on the talk page. I've done all I can. You can continue to attack me but until you work with me there is nothing I can do. Obviously you have an agenda to advertise your web site and no compromise is acceptable to you. - Tεx τ urε 14:45, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yes there is something you could do. You can start by stop deleting the link and or tell me the real reason why you would not like other people to be exposed to related information.

To be honest I was introduced to wikipedia by a very naive co-worker who thinks that the idea of wikipedia was great because "every voice could be heard". Thanks to you I have been able to prove him that in this kind of "collaborative projects" there is always a bully who fells they are their "brother’s keeper" and feel they are the sole judge of what other people should read. So wikipedia instead of becoming a please where you get all the information from different sources and then your decided for yourself, it became the place where the must stubborn person (or group) push their agenda.

Anyway, Texture it is obvious that you, for whatever agenda you may have, feel more strongly about this than me. So if you want to delete the links go ahead. I have rested my case.

Peace

--156.153.255.210 15:56, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

So, if you get what you want you feel you got a compromise. I'm glad to hear this conversation is over. - Tεx τ urε 17:21, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Are you telling this to yourself? Because you are the one who feels that deleting one of link was a compromise...

Simple question and just try to answer instead of going to the tangent...

How would you react if I go over your stuff and delete your stuff, then say ok I will compromise and put half with a warning next to it base on my unique biases. And then if you complain say "well I was trying to be nice and compromise, but I see that there is no way to talk to you". That is what you are doing. You have no consensus on your actions you decided out of your own biases that you don't like that link and you will remove that link. Do you really don't see it?

BTW: I have been asking for an explanation and you keep just changing the conversation also and I did offer a compromise to remove both links the one I posted and the one from the us-israel.org, so don's say did not offer a compromised just because you like to write back before you are done reading what I wrote. Yes go back read my posts to see it I will bolded for you so it is easier to find.

What was your suggested compromise? Did you have one? Or did you suggest deleting a news story supported by the Associated Press and Foreign Press Association as being somehow inaccurate? No, you refused to compromise or even discuss compromise. I am not following you around as you suggest but rather supporting another users deletion of a link. (Which you claimed was "mistaken".) Go talk to that user or better yet do as you said you would and just stop. I'll be deleting this nonsense from my talk page. - Tεx τ urε 17:58, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

In hopes that you learn to work with others, here is some guidance that you failed to do in this case:

If more than one user deletes biased links to a page you are trying to advertise it might not be just one persons opinion.
Compromise. I can see you have no plans to but it would be good practice for you.
Discuss your version on the article talk page.
Do not attack a user for having a different opinion from yours.
When a user compromises and agrees to part of your "demands" you should acknowledge it and not continue to attack them for not agreeing on those points. It makes you look bad.
If you have unrelated changes you want made don't try extortion to get that other change done. Make it a separate discussion.

Hope this helps you grow and learn to work with others. - Tεx τ urε 18:03, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)