Talk:Lavenski Smith

message: ::The hypocrisy of Joie de Vivre is undeniable, and her/his gall in crashing this page and wasting everybody's time is unacceptable.  The following demonstrates that her/his own edit record is one of an abortion crusader using Wikipedia to shill for favorite causes.  For instance, the following is a small example of what Joie has written on this very Discussion page:
:::*"What if someone were to go about demanding the removal of the phrase "pro-life" from various articles -- would catering to them be appropriate?"
:::*"[P]ro-life" [is] the well-known term[] which commonly frame[s] the abortion debate."
:::*"'Pro-choice' and pro-life are the most neutral, as these are the terms that each group applies to itself ... Anything else places a POV spin, which is inappropriate." (emphasis added)
::Those are the lecturing quotes of an editor whose apparent mission is to make us all play nice and be polite.  However, Joie's own editing record reveals something else: a disturbing activism.  In her/his edits to John Salvi, Joie inserted the following words to the article: "anti-abortion".  Also, Joie added the inflammatory term "Christian terrorist".  This edit was described as nothing more than "basic cleanup, spelling, adding orphan, unreferenced and stub tags," but clearly much more serious, and questionable, material was added which demonstrated a possible POV spin.  Joie added inflammatory material and then attempted to whitewash it with her/his edit description.  How does this reconcile with Joie's assertion that the term "anti-abortion" is nothing more than "POV spin, which is inappropriate"?  Clearly, Joie's admonitions to us and the guidelines she/he feels free to follow are quite different.
::Apparently, despite her/his own assertions, Joie has no problem using the term "anti-abortion" on Wikipeida; the problem is if anybody else dares to write the words "pro-abortion."  Not only is Joie not interested in removing that term from this site, Joie actually goes around inserting it on other pages when she/he can.  Is that fair and neutral editing?  Or is that hypocrisy and agenda-ism of the worst kind?
::Joie's edits here (like all of her/his on Wikipedia) are likewise part of an apparent crusade to ensure that all Wikipedia references to pro-abortion interests are presented in as appealing and welcoming a light as possible, while simultaneously attempting to edit "pro-life" into as hard-edged and unappealing a light as possible.
::Don't misunderstand me.  I have no problem with the description anti-abortion.  I think it's a very accurate and unloaded term to describe the position in the debate.  But I'm not the one using Wikipedia as a pro-abortion media campaign and causing the rest of us all extra and unnecessary work.  I believe using Wikipedia to advance a lobbying agenda should be grounds for discipline and Joie De Vivre should be subject to that.--Smashingworth 21:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:CIVIL Joie de Vivre 21:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's your rebuttal to clear and convincing evidence?  There's nothing in that guideline that prevents me from using your own record to expose you for the hypocritical activist you are.  And there's nothing in my above post that is "uncivil."  Is there anything in the guidelines about using Wikipedia to advance the abortion lobby's agenda?  Hmmm, I think there is.  Try again, activist.--Smashingworth 22:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Whether or not either of you are correct, it is a very good idea to make an increased attempt at civility. If you have a problem with someone's edits, and discussing them in a non-escalative manner does not work, the next step to take would be to ask others' opinions, not pointing fingers. WP:CIVIL is a very good place to start, and WP:NPOV comes highly recommended as well. Heck, while we're in Wikiland, take a break from this article and spend some time perusing the five-pillars-of-the-Wikipedia-building-that-needs-five-pillars. A good lesson to learn about Wikipedia is that when you just walk away from a tense situation and "win by losing," you become better than you were before. V-Man737 09:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Concerns regarding POV editing 

message: I do not understand the label of "press release" for what it is linked to - an archived copy of a planed.org page that does not say "press release" or give a date or in any other way resemble all the press releases I've seen.  I think this should be changed to more neutral language, as was there after I fixed the dead link, or an explanation given (here) why "press release" should be used.   (If I don't hear anything in the next few days, and no one else acts first, I'll change it back.)   John Broughton  |  Talk 22:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks and acts like a press release, the sort of thing lobbying groups release all the time and hand out all the time at Senate Judiciary Committee hearings and the like.  Would you prefer "analysis opposing nomination"?  I think it's important to describe it as "opposing" Smith, and it's pretty short for an analysis.  Just because PP has not archived it as a press release in this link does not mean that's not what it is.  But I see your point.--Smashingworth 22:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for changing the language; I have no problems with it now.   (I'm possibly quibling over "press release", but I think it actually improves the credibility of the link - if there is such a thing as link "credibility" - if the reader doesn't find something unexpected when the link is followed.)  John Broughton  |  Talk 00:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The text that was included in this article did not exist on the archive page mentioned; that is, the quote was not accurate as the page did not contain it.  I have deleted the link to the archived page, and provided a live link to another site with a cited quote.  Joie de Vivre 17:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "PP press release" ?

message: A temporary subpage at User:Polbot/fjc/Lavenski R. Smith was automatically created by a perl script, based on this article at the Biographical Directory of Federal Judges. The subpage should either be merged into this article, or moved and disambiguated. Polbot (talk) 21:09, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Bot-created subpage