Leslynjd

People don't belieives that a media source implies it is only reporting what the subject of the article said. People believe that the media source has verified a subject's statements, unless clarified otherwise. That is why the journalistic standard (and for good reason) is to report that the subject said certain things. If those statements are not verified from a source with knowledge (e.g., the Army), using the reporter as the source implies that what the subject said has been verified, which in this case is not true. Statements in this entry that are not verfied by a source with knowledge should be changed to "Snowden said," or "Snowden told." We've already seen the discrepancy in what Snowden reported as his annual salary, and what it actually was--only 2/3 of what Snowden said. That in itself is enough loss of credibility to clarify that Snowden is the source of his unverified statements.Leslynjd (talk) 21:14, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Leslynjd, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi Leslynjd! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! SarahStierch (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:17, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Edward Snowden

Welcome to Wikipedia. I see you've reverted a deletion I made on Edward Snowden. This type of activity is known as "edit warring" as is considered poor etiquette. I encourage you to review WP:EDITWARRING and WP:TALKDONTREVERT, then undo your last revert and start a talk page discussion in order to reach for consensus on the issue. Thanks. --Nstrauss (talk) 19:33, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Kendall K-1 has reverted you. Please don't re-revert without consensus. --Nstrauss (talk) 19:43, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the references. I was interrupted in my edit by the message of conflicting edits--then my computer burped--and I returned and finished the edit.

Snowden's credibility as a person is an issue affecting his perception by the public, his motives, and his prior and later statements, including whether he has more SECRET information. Therefore, I believe it is important to make his wiki (which many people refer to as fact) as balanced and truthful as possible, especially when he has made statements that are contradicted by credible sources. Snowden's attempt to "enlist" in the "Army Reserve Special Forces" but being discharged after "breaking both legs in a training accident" may have been his statement, but it is full of factual errors and STILL contains those errors--"Army Reserve Special Forces" and "breaking both legs in a training accident." These errors should not be allowed to stand. They mislead the reader. I believe you do not intend to do that, but without the corrections Snowden's entry is not balanced. We do the reader a great disservice by allowing them to think the statements are true.

Perhaps you know that there is a difference (and lapse of time) between attempting to "elist" in a military unit, and acceptance into the military and transport to basic training. This four-month lapse of time in Snowden's resume is reasonable for the Army to discover reasons to discharge him from his enlistment. In any case, Snowden never received "any training," and could not have (heroically) broken "both legs in a training accident."

IOW: It's a LIE from Snowden. It should not be allowed to stand as fact.

Pertinent to this topic, I note 1) that Snowden's wiki entry as "working for" his web club doing "anime" has been removed since I posted his friend's description of it as a club, not employment. In attempting to be kind to Snowden, I did not include his friend's humor at anyone thinking this activity was "employment." 2) Snowden has backtracked on his claim of an annual salary of US$200,000 at Booz Allen Hamilton, saying it was "prior" but not providing any details. In contrast, the original interview clearly implied that US$200,000 was his salary at the time he left Hawaii and Booz Allen Hamilton. 3)Snowden has never been confirmed as working under "diplomatic cover" in Switzerland, nor as being "a spy." He's an IT guy. That is far removed from the covert world.

These statements should also not be allowed to stand without external confirmation.

Revert if you will, but that appears biased in order to show Snowden in his best light, not the light of day. In any case, it is allowing a lie to stand.Leslynjd (talk) 20:19, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Your arguments would be better made at Talk:Edward Snowden where everyone can participate and respond. --Nstrauss (talk) 22:24, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I see you did add them there. For clarity's sake can you please move them to a new discussion thread there? --Nstrauss (talk) 22:27, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Leslynjd, your behavior is starting to cross the line into disruptive editing. If you keep at it you could be subject to administrative sanctions. We all have our opinions, and diversity of opinions is valued here, but we should all be here to write and improve articles. That means you should try your best to stay WP:CIVIL and seek WP:CONSENSUS. In the span of a few hours you've managed to engage in edit-warring, make disparaging comments about my editing, misrepresent by views, and repeated misrepresent Wikipedia policy. Please take a step back and arm yourself by reading up on Wikipedia policies before storming in guns blazing. --Nstrauss (talk) 23:07, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

UserNstrauss, please take a step back. Disruptive editing is "a pattern of editing that may extend over a long time or many articles" and I hardly think this reversion qualifies. Threats are not nice. I have not engaged in "edit-warring" over one revert that occurred with the message, "conflicting edits." I have not "misrepresented Wikipedia policy," I have cited it. How have I misrepresented you? Leslynjd (talk) 00:55, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

This is where you misrepresented my views. And this is where you made disparaging comments about my editing. --Nstrauss (talk) 03:36, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

• • intended to expose Snowden's credibility issues (see this edit). I don't see anything inherently wrong with this, but it's something to watch out for. --Nstrauss (talk) 19:41, 18 June 2013 (UTC). My misrepresentation was in not including more of your quote.

Nstrauss, I agree with you that Leslynjd is misrepresenting your views and has made disparaging comments about your editing, and his behavior is starting to cross the line into disruptive editing. I will keep my eye out for behavior that is not WP:CIVIL, but please let me know if you have any further issues with their misrepresentations or disruptions. Cheers. Azx2 17:40, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

June 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Edward Snowden may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 07:36, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Edward Snowden (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to This Week

Glenn Greenwald (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Peter King

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:44, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 16

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Glenn Greenwald, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Matthew Hale (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:40, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:Association of the Bar of the City of New York, Formal Decision 2003-02, "UNDISCLOSED TAPING OF CONVERSATIONS BY LAWYERS"

A tag has been placed on Template:Association of the Bar of the City of New York, Formal Decision 2003-02, "UNDISCLOSED TAPING OF CONVERSATIONS BY LAWYERS" requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it must be substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{substituted}}</noinclude>).

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page's talk page, where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. — Paul A (talk) 07:50, 4 November 2013 (UTC)