User talk:Michelle Bentley

Welcome!

Hello, Michelle Bentley, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! --Anna Lincoln (talk) 09:35, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Violence in Pakistan 2006-09[edit]

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Violence in Pakistan 2006-09, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

Article lead doesn't have enough refs in lead to make for separate article. This can be made disambiguation page for Terrorism, Drone attacks, sectarian violence and War in NW pak.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent 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.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, 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. Doorvery far (talk) 05:07, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am working on an improvement. I have today made more entries clickable on the map. I still need the incidents nr. 101 (Wah) and number 115. (Adezai,Orakzai Agency) to be added, but need the coordinates. Perhaps you can help? Generally you should view this article as an improvement, provididng a quick overview of all the violence. There should be no reason to want it deleted, as it does no harm and can exist peacefully alongside any other article dealing with the matter. There are more than a million pages on wikipedia. Sure many of them no doubt could be deleted, but starting with mine which I have put more than 15 hours of work in seems a little odd.Michelle Bentley (talk) 08:18, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your efforts, but all your text can be included in individual target articles. I feel this would be repetition of existing contents, so better to delete it and incorporate your work in other articles. I am still unable to understand why the article is not redundant, when 4 other articles dealing with the same. Doorvery far (talk) 05:30, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

May 2009[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Violence in Pakistan 2006-09, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted by ClueBot. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you believe there has been a mistake and would like to report a false positive, please report it here and then remove this warning from your talk page. If your edit was not vandalism, please feel free to make your edit again after reporting it. The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Violence in Pakistan 2006-09 was changed by Michelle Bentley (u) (t) deleting 140346 characters on 2009-05-16T13:57:51+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot (talk) 13:57, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was an accidental deletion by myself.Michelle Bentley (talk) 14:08, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Soapbox[edit]

Dear Michelle Bentley: I'm not sure if you are familiar with the Wikipedia policy called WP:SOAPBOX, but I thought it would be good for you to glance over it before making comments such as this one which are less about improving the template in specific or Wikipedia in general than in pontificating your political opinions. Thanks in advance for not violating this policy in the future. --GHcool (talk) 15:48, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2009 Caspian Airlines airplane crash[edit]

I've redirected the article you created to Caspian Airlines Flight 7908. Just a courtesy note to let you know. Title is a reasonable one to search under. Mjroots (talk) 12:06, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle,

BBC mentions trade embargoes as a consequence of the poor safety records of the Iranian aviation. This is due to the lack of spare parts for Western-built plane.

However you mis-use this quote for this article as the plane involved in the crash is a Soviet-made plane. This embargo had no impact on the safety of this plane. Unless you consider that Soviet-made planes are less safe than Western-made ones. But unless proved, it cannot be implied in a article.

Julien Julien1A (talk) 14:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have today added a paragraph about 'Cause' taken from 2003 Iran Ilyushin Il-76 crash.(so it was also a concern then.) And added the reasons why Iranians buy all these Russian planes in the first place. This is an unexpected consequence of the Embargo by western contries. If no embargo, the spare-parts for Boings and others would be coming in, or Iran would have used some of their considerable oil-proceeds in recent years to buy brand new airplanes. This is a side-effect of the Embargo that hurts Iranian people today, AND ONE THAT THE WORLDS MOST OBJECTIVE AND TRUSTED NEWS SERVICE, the BBC found reasons to mention, but interesting enough not any of the main American newspapers. So much for their perspective of what freedom for the press means, but we in the free world have a huge responsibility to accurately convey cause and effects of any current policies, and if we know a reason why many aircrafts-accidents happens [in this case in Iran] we ought to tell it.Michelle Bentley (talk) 07:25, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where did you find that this plane was not perfectly maintained? The airline had all the spare parts needed available. If it would have been a Boeing or an Airbus your point would have applied as spare parts are not available. This plane was old, but Caspian could have bought a brand new Tupolev.

BBC wanted to raise the fact that Iranian aviation, which is still widely composed of western-made plane, is in poor state because western-made plane cannot be well maintained. I agree that we can blame US for that, but that would be purely my opinion. As brand new western-made plane and western-made spare parts were not anymore available, Iran had to discuss with soviet suppliers.Unless proven, Soviet-made planes are not less safe than western-made. Iran could have a brand new fleet of Soviet-made plane and have a safe fleet. But Iran have no money for that and have to maintained it's current fleet of western-made plane.

so YES embargoes can be blame for the state of Iranian aviation, YES embargoes can be blame in case of an accident of a Boeing, YES embargoes can be blame in case of an accident of an Airbus and NO embargoes cannot be blame in case of an accident of a Tupolev! Unless you think that Tupolev are less reliable than a Boeing or an Airbus, but that would be your opinion not a proven fact. Julien1A (talk) 08:24, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I copied this discussion on the talk page of the article, feel free to answer there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Julien1A (talk • contribs) 11:50, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3RR[edit]

You have reverted the Neocon template and the censorship of William Safire twice today. If somebody else reverts you and then you revert them, you will violate WP:3RR. Consider this your warning. --GHcool (talk) 20:55, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:American neoconservatives[edit]

A tag has been placed on Category:American neoconservatives, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Ray^Talk 12:09, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seing that the Category:American socialists exist[edit]

- I decided to create this category, because this issue is under-developed on Wikipedia (and I used the same sub-categories as Category:American socialists uses). It deals with an equally fringy political philosophy, but one that nevertheless has had a profound effect on developments in recent years, not least on the Iraq War, which probably wouldn't have happened, were it not for these particular neoconservatives. Given that the war has cost - according to some estimates 3 trillion dollar, and therefore have contributed significantly to the current poor health of the American economy, it is obvious that this is a category that attracts a lot of attention - and also why some might want to delete it, and just forget all about it, the same way that many neo-conservatives have given up their faith after the Iraq War, which was meant to be the first phase, from where democracy should spread throughout the Middle East.

But the people who wants to delete it, should not be allowed to. When we can have a category about american socialists, then of course we can have about neoconservatives - a group which have had a greater impact on America and thus the world, than American socialists have. I realise that there have been discussions about neoconservatives before, but never about American neoconservatives. I can also well understand why a Category called: "American conservatives" doesn't exist, cause they are covered by Category:Republicans (United States).Michelle Bentley (talk) 13:19, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded to this comment on Category talk:American neoconservatives. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 16:20, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since someone else saw fit to delete everything, here's my comment:

Be that as it may, this category has been created twice before and deleted twice by consensus. You need a better reason than people "shouldn't be allowed to delete it", and a better reason than WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Having said that, however, I'm not going to speedy delete this because (a) you ought to have a chance to make your argument, and (b) the previous "consensus" consisted of two out of the three commenting editors. I think a broader discussion is warranted. Therefore, I suggest you place a request on WP:CFD for further discussion and place notices about this discussion in other places where potentially interested editors are likely to see them, such as WT:WikiProject Politics and perhaps even the Village Pump. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 16:20, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To which I would add that you could take it to deletion review now if you wish. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 18:20, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Safire definition[edit]

Hello, Michelle. Can you please explain why you are removing the definition here: Talk:Israel lobby in the United States#Safire definition. Perhaps the placement needs discussion, but I am not understanding the justification for the removal. Perhaps I am wrong, and if so, would appreciate correction on the talk page. Everyone is "easy to manipulate," which is why we require sourcing. I am assuming, for now, that the quotations are accurate portrayals of what is in Mr. Safire's book. As such, they are eminently appropriate for the article. If anything, properly sourced alternative definitions would be welcome, but removing properly sourced, pertinent information is not appropriate. Again, if you have a valid wikipedia reason why the Safire definition is not appropriate, I request that you explain so on the talk page; if you are correct, then the article will be adjusted accordingly. But as of now, outside of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, I do not see any valid wikipedia reasons to remove it. I would like someone to confirm that the text is accurate, but as this is not a BLP, we do not need to remove the cite while checking; we can WP:AGF that the poster is not lying. -- Avi (talk) 20:35, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:American neoconservatives[edit]

A tag has been placed on Category:American neoconservatives, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Ray^Talk 18:19, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What have you been doing. You have reported this Category:American neoconservatives to Administrators for deletion two times this week? I demand an apology.[edit]

They write write this in the deletion log: (G4: Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion). You got to realise that this Category was created for the first time ever on Wikipedia by me on the 20th of July 2009. Never has this particular Category existed before, - not with this name, not with this description, and not with this sub-category: Category:American people by political orientation. Whereas other attempts to categorise neoconservatives have focused on neoconservatives all over the world, this Category focuses on neoconservatives in America, where it all started and therefore is the appropriate place to focus. For the first time ever on Wikipedia, American neoconservatives are subcategorised with people with similar utopian philosophies, such as American socialists, American pacifists, American white nationalists, American monarchists, American libertarians, American fascists, American anti-communists and American anarchists. This is unique. So any previous discussions have no relevance, because they deal with another matter, and anyway had very few participants. What is more, these discussions used as argument, that Category:Conservatives doesn't exist, and so [[:Category:Neoconservatives shouldn't exist. This premise is false, since as any enlightenent individual knows, American conservatives are adequately covered by Category: Republicans (United States). I hope you realise then that your deletion was a mistake, and I expect an apology, before I shortly shall re-create this Category for the third time this week!. An admin is supposed to be constructive and welcoming to all categorisation efforts, not destructive, going about deleting, based on hear-say from others, without him having investigated thoroughly the background for the creation of this Category. Michelle Bentley (talk) 11:00, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that playing up the outrage and demanding an apology from everyone who either has a different opinion than you do or takes an administrative action that is not in your favor is not a way to have a long, productive Wikipedia career. If a page is deleted and you disagree with it, Wikipedia has a deletion review process that you are more than welcome to avail yourself of. If you take the role of an antagonist, or persist in creating a category when now two admins have told you that you may not without deletion review, you are highly likely to find yourself blocked. --B (talk) 14:30, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aria Air Flight 1525[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to Aria Air Flight 1525 appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe this important core policy. Thank you.

Please see talk page for explanation. Mjroots (talk) 12:37, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your addition has been challenged so you really need to discuss it on the talk page, please dont keep adding it and starting an edit war it is not how we work. MilborneOne (talk) 13:15, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ITN for Kunduz airstrike[edit]

On 5 September, 2009, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article Kunduz airstrike, which you created. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the In the news candidates page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 20:24, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Something new that should be covered in "In the News"[edit]

The UN releases a report that finds that Israel and Hamas committed war crimes and crimes against humanity. One excerpt about Israel:

"The Report states that Israeli acts that deprive Palestinians in the Gaza Strip of their means of subsistence, employment, housing and water, that deny their freedom of movement and their right to leave and enter their own country, that limit their rights to access a court of law and an effective remedy, could lead a competent court to find that the crime of persecution, a crime against humanity, has been committed."

Source: http://www.unhchr.ch/huricane/huricane.nsf/view01/9B63490FFCBE44E5C1257632004EA67B?opendocument

This should be covered in Wikipedia somewhere and it also is quite newsworthy and could be covered in "In the news...".

--John Bahrain (talk) 15:31, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw your post today. I havent been following Wikipedia and its front page for a while, so I cannot tell whether it was mentioned there. Israel have been working frantically to ensure that neither the US nor Europe will bring it up in the UN, and have treatened the Palestinians with a cancellation of a highly needed extension of the mobilephone- network on the West Bank, if they press the case further. But the latest news is that Turkey - which is a member of the Security Council - will.

»Whoever are responsible, they shall be identified and will have to face the necessary sanctions« the prime minister of Turkey, Tayyip Erdogan, said.Michelle Bentley (talk) 06:31, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sock puppet[edit]

This account has been blocked indefinitely because it is suspected to be a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not.

If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. MuZemike 03:23, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Michelle Bentley (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

There has been a mistake. I only have this account.

Decline reason:

Not according to this. TN X Man 18:40, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Michelle Bentley (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Yes 77.215.83.48 is me allright. I was not logged in on these occasions (and by the way I am not very fond of the idea that my IP adress is now made public in this way). And indeed I am the same as 'John Peters' in Denmark. But the others I have no knowledge of. This block comes very inconvenient, because I am in the midst of some very creative work, which will contribute in a great way to Wikipedia. For the first time all Coalition-causalties in the Taleban stronghold of Helmand and Kandahar in Afghanistan are gathered into one table. This is unique, I dare say in the world. And for example, by placing the flags in 2 columns, one can quickly see how the American losses went up in the second half of 2009, when their presence - in large numbers - commenced. In my Sandbox is the data for 2006-07 almost ready to be published.

Decline reason:

In your last unblock request you claim to have no other account (I do not include your IP address)). Now you concede that you are also John Peters. And checkuser investigation shows at least one other username which is also you. So how can we trust you enough to unblock you? --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 13:09, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Michelle Bentley (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

John Peters is only in Denmark and Michelle Bentley only here. I've never mixed the two, ie. never edited as John Peters here or Michelle Bentley there.

Decline reason:

Yes. You are blocked for the inappropriate use of multiple accounts. Since you have inappropriately used multiple accounts, I do not see a reason for unblocking in this request. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:53, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Michelle Bentley (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I don't know what you are talking about. I only have this account. Also ask yourself: What is the problem? Am I some terrible guy/woman intend of bringing Wikipedia down, or is my latest edits of high quality?

Decline reason:

How many times do we have to tell you? (Well, this will be the last one since the page will be protected because you have continued to waste our time). Checkuser says you're lying when you say this. Please use the mailing list for any further unblock requests. Thank you and good-bye. — Daniel Case (talk) 14:19, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Nomination for deletion of Template:International Security Assistance Force map[edit]

Template:International Security Assistance Force map has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Nigej (talk) 19:52, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]