I seem to have been mistaken about his notability. However, that article is linkless and un-wikified, so I shall leave those tags there. Good luck finishing it, and happy wikipedia-ing. Cornell Rockey 05:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a copyright violation, it seemed like there might be a copyvio so I picked a phrase out of the Wikipedia article at random and there was only one single result returned, and it was from the ClickCommerce website. Citing the article does not give "permission" to copy long phrases from a company's website. Quatloo 14:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am fixing on the temp page. Do you find any of that problematic?--Samiharris 14:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that some copyright violations are unintentional. Flagging an article as a copyright violation isn't a personal attack, it is just pointing out something that has to be fixed. I hope you didn't see it as anything personal. As to your other question, no, I am not an administrator. Quatloo 14:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I certainly take no umbrage as to your pointing this out. I am comparatively new and still learning the ropes.--Samiharris

What is your opinion of this edit?[1] --Mantanmoreland 00:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is a link to an anonymous website showing a very partisan and biased approached to the issue that does not meet Wikipedia standards as I understand them.--Samiharris 15:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[2] The words "undue weight" come to mind, and also there is another source that could be used[3], as well as WP:BLP issues.--Mantanmoreland 13:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch on the error in the quote of a Times article. I hadn't noticed that. Some editors are so intent on pushing an agenda that they forget WP:BLP. --Mantanmoreland 19:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sami, I just saw your comment about not using the Weiss blog. This is just to let you know that you are allowed to use Weiss's blog as a source in his own BLP, although it can't be used to discuss third-parties. But it can be used as a source of information on Weiss and his interests, career, and so on. See the section on self-published sources in WP:V. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Was this intended to be a section edit?[4] I assume it was an unintentional booboo. Not sure what happened so I just reverted.--Mantanmoreland 00:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was a cut and paste gone haywire. Very sorry for my dumb mistake.--Samiharris 00:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've nominated Dealbreaker.com, an article you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but in this particular case I do not feel that Dealbreaker.com satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion; I have explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dealbreaker.com and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Dealbreaker.com during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you.—greenrd 02:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"ten percent is correct" -- sad, isn't it? 8-) Servalo 20:49, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since you are an expert in military history, I wonder if you might have an opinion as to the article on this book. Is being used as a truncheon to beat up on George Soros, but apart from that I wonder if the book is sufficiently notable as to warrant its own article. I am suspicious by the lack of a prominent publisher, and the sensationalist claims being made. --Samiharris 16:05, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My area of knowledge is World War II, specifically the Pacific War but I checked around to see what I could find out about this book. After looking at some online forums it appears that the book is a real book written by two Chinese military officers. The US government appears to have translated the book and made it freely available to whoever wants to read it. I think it's ok to be used as a source for information for an article, but it should be pointed out whenever it's used that it's one single source of opinion. It may or may not be notable enough for its own article in Wikipedia. The article as is currently doesn't have enough sources to support it, so, if you wanted to nominate it for AfD for that reason, it might stand a fair chance of being deleted, especially if you explain in your rationale paragraph that there aren't enough secondary sources available about the book to support its article. Cla68 20:42, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much! That's helpful and I will think about a deletion nomination.--Samiharris 22:53, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A "{{prod}}" template has been added to the article Unrestricted Warfare (book), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but yours may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. 85.181.26.166 04:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure. ;^) Crum375 02:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This refers to editors; however, the sources themselves must be highly reliable, which would include expertise in a given field. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:27, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I appreciate the help with this.--Samiharris 13:45, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you go over to Michael Savage (commentator) and clean out the pile of baseless libel backed up by point-of-view pushing single sources? Or are you only interested in keeping to WP:BLP for left wing articles? Ursasapien (talk) 10:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider seconding the AfD-process for "Unrestricted Warfare" by starting the Discussion page (which I cannot do as an "anonymous" editor) and repeating your arguments there. --85.181.39.131 13:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please create a user name and do it yourself.--Samiharris 17:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The term has been around since 2002. That isn't, say, last week. It's probably about as well-established a word as "blog," for example. I agree, though, that an article about the term should be strictly limited, and shouldn't be just another way to re-fight the anti-nakedness wars. I've commented on the Talk page of that article and made some changes to the article itself. --Christofurio 00:14, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm asking for a straw poll to settle the Soros discussion. Please participate. Smallbones 18:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I put up a compromise solution on the Soros page and wanted to see if you could stop by and give it a yea or nay so that we can resolve the whole thing. Also, any other input would be greatly appreciated. |3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 14:51, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted my thoughts about this on the Soros page, in which I hope I've accurately referenced your concerns.[5] Please let me know if I got it wrong. Thanks! Eleemosynary 06:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently frustrated by his inability to build a consensus, Bellowed has decided to resort to untruths. He is attempting to state the 5-4 divided vote on the George Soros Talk page as an overwhelming consensus for including the O'Reilly material.[6]. Please stop by the Talk page; your help would be greatly appreciated. Eleemosynary 00:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Has the matter been resolved?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  12:43, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. It has been declined. Please keep me informed. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. Would you mind stopping by the Bill Moyers Talk page and weighing in with your opinion? The same situation on the George Soros page--wherein two editors are claiming that attacks by Bill O'Reilly should be included as legitimate "criticism" of the article subject--is breaking out on the Moyers page. Any thoughts you have on the matter would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. --Eleemosynary 05:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for bringing this to my attention; it was as a result of your post that I discovered a huge sockpuppet farm, including the editor in question. Regarding WP:NPF, I suspect it would apply in this case. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the paragraph in question. When I reluctantly agreed to that compromise paragraph I was A) Unaware of WP:NPF and B) Unaware that the editor who was pushing inclusion of a significantly larger version of that paragraph had a history of antagonism on that particular article. --Samiharris 04:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]