User:Noitall

NOITALL IS SLOWING DOWN HIS CONTRIBUTIONS DUE TO VANDALS WHO INSIST ON DESTROYING WIKI

Noitall gets paid (not a lot) for knowing Maryland politics of both parties. Noitall has many reliable sources, which get double and triple checked.

Apologies (should) work - If an editor is half intelligent and somewhat opinionated, they are bound to find themselves in an "edit war." When an apology is given or an error admitted, accept it with grace and move on.

Editing Comments[edit]

Most Humorous Use of "Nonetheless" in an Edit - The following description (not written by me) formerly described the life of Pamela Harriman. It was appropriately changed to something boring, but we will miss the original:

Pamela Harriman's new husband "Randolph Churchill, decided to improve her education by reading Gibbon's The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire to her in bed. Nonetheless, she managed to become pregnant" a few months later.

Darwin May Not Have Been Right – Some editors go to great lengths to prove that not all of mankind fully evolved. For instance, see the conspiracy nuts who edit the topic 9/11 domestic complicity conspiracy theories.

Best title for a subsection: "What if they had an edit war, and nobody came?" at Talk:Iraqi insurgency.

Stupidist Reference to Google: On the Lincoln (disambiguation) page, one editor actually argued that Lincoln, Nebraska was more prominent than President Abraham Lincoln based on Google results. By the way, Lincoln, Nebraska started out as the village of Lancaster before being named after the President. How many miniseries feature Lincoln, Nebraska (boy, that would be exciting!)? Did Lincoln, Nebraska really save the Union? How many monuments are in the most prominent place in Washington, D.C. named for Lincoln, Nebraska? By the way, where is Lincoln, Nebraska?

Best resolution of problem: Lincoln page re-written by User:TShilo12 to state the history along with providing a good lead for disambiguation.

Most accurate backfiring gun - all the editors attempting to censor intended discussions at Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedians for Decency in the name of opposing censorship.

Significant Contributions[edit]

(or those contributions that the evil "reverters" have not erased)

I think it significant, of course, if I wrote most of the article. I also believe it significant if I added new ideas, improved the idea, or made the article more neutral.

Edit count

Cemetery Project[edit]

No, this isn't to bury editors whom I dislike, it is to categorize and note who is buried where, using Category:Cemeteries by country and creating the "Burials at" series of categories.

Lost cities Project[edit]

Created the new Category:Lost cities and towns to document lost cities.

Historic London Town and Gardens

Political and History Contributions[edit]

Religious Contributions[edit]

Entertainment Contributions[edit]

Common Sense Contributions[edit]

POV Watch List[edit]

Decency and Encyclopedic Content vs. Censorship[edit]

This is encyclopedic and decent enough for Wiki:

File:Tbcatw.gif

Tyra Banks on the catwalk, during a Victoria's Secret fashion show.

NPOV success[edit]

Hillary haters[edit]

Totally POV source at Hillary Clinton and unjustified conclusion (with some further conclusions on the source):

One study done on "Hillary Hatred" related it to an overall unease with American cultural shifts since the 1960s, and concluding that the level of passion is far greater than can be accounted for merely by her positions[1]. This study assessed the question, "Does Hillary's mind create a threesome, a porno flick with her, Monica and Bill?" The study did not assess the reliability of making broad conclusions about the motivations and psychology of thousands of the American public. Nor did the study compare such political passions to such other passions such as "Bush Hatred."

And that was supposedly a pro-Hillary source! Then another editor labeled properly: "Hi. I looked this reference up. It is not a "psychological study", it is an informal book by a psychiatrist. It's not peer reviewed. Judging by the online content it does not belong here" Well, the "source" was really really funny while it lasted.

Terrorism and 9/11[edit]

To paraphrase Abraham Lincoln, "It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God's assistance in a suicide bomb attack against harmless civilians, women and children, but that is the state of Islamist terrorism."

POV remains[edit]

Ishmael and Old Testament historicity[edit]

Abrahamic religion Issue[edit]

POV push: Christianity is just like other religions and that all religions came from the same source of belief.

Although just about every half-reasonable editor agrees that Christians generally do not believe that their religion is an Abrahamic religion, some POVers insist on misleading and inaccurate statements on the Christianity page. Currently, a somewhat acceptable compromise has been reached on Abraham and Abrahamic religion.

LGBT Issues[edit]

POV Push: Category:LGBT rights opposition - title includes "rights" and "opposition", and is intentionally POV. Used by POV warriors to label individuals they disagree with. It was a candidate for deletion, [2], vote 6 delete, 9 keep as a result of POV warriors being drummed up by the Wikipedia:LGBT notice board, but lost. Some actually stated: "I don't think it POV to note that some people are opposed to gay rights, and some laws are drafted with the idea that gay people should be withheld certain rights." Many people actually had the gall to, at the same time, vote against Category:Pro-1st Amendment, Category:Pro-U.S. Constitution, Category:Pro-Marriage and Category:Pro-Family, which acted as a Wiki NPOV Rorschach test, and which a majority failed.

POV Quotations[edit]

POV Push: Only on Ann Coulter, POVers (and they admit it, at least), insist on including a laundry list of selective quotations without any context and without writing a single statement about the issue. Many have told them to put in as many quotes as you want, just do it in a proper Wiki article. But it is too difficult for them to get in their POV and write an article. Yet, considering far more famous quotations, that have been parodied in every source, including Saturday Night Live, William J. Clinton's quotations get deleted by the same POVers. so far, this also acted as a Wiki NPOV Rorschach test, and which a majority failed.

Archives[edit]

Category:Inexplicable Political Endorsements

This category is for candidates for political office who have been endorsed by a major newspaper despite qualities or lack of qualities normally required for public office. This is not to record political disputes of views, but where an objective organization has determined that a person has a serious deficiency, yet a major newspaper endorses said candidate despite these deficiencies. For instance, a typical candidate may have been recently or repeatedly disbarred by a court for serious breaches of ethics and competence, yet the regional newspaper endorses this candidate for public office.

Notes[edit]

The Bible and history -- Galileo views of science & history

Terrorism definition

United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan described the bombings as "an attack on humanity itself", and joined other world leaders in condemning the attacks. He said that he was personally "devastated" by the events. [3]

The United Nations Security Council condemned "without reservation" the terror attacks and urged nations to prosecute perpetrators of such "barbaric acts." In a resolution adopted by a 15-0 vote in an emergency meeting, the council expressed condolences to the victims of the bomb blasts. [4]

Slavery [5]

Taney statue Mount Vernon [6]

Annapolis, sculptor William Henry Rinehart [http://www.famousamericans.net/williamhenryrinehart/]