Talk:National Organization of Short Statured Adults/Archive 1

message: "We at NOSSA disagree with Mr. Mangano 100% and he has been removed from his position as Secretary with the National Organization of Short Statured Adults."
This doesn't say that Mr. Mangano is no longer in the organization; just that he is no longer Secretary.  Until there is a statement advising that Mr. Mangano is no longer welcome in NOSSA I will continue to update your page with this story and information.  In my opinion you have a pedophile in your organization that the world needs to know about.  
-I4I
* Firstly, I don't know how many NOSSA organizers are actually responsible for the content of this page.  I am not a member of NOSSA in any way, but I am interested in helping Wikipedia which is how I have come onto reading this article.  Secondly, Mr. Mangano was the Secretary of NOSSA and made public comments picked up by the Associated Press concerning the NE case of another man.  NOSSA was in no way linked to the case other than by the statements made by Mangano, who himself wasn't the guilty party of the trial in Nebraska.  ju66l3r 03:53, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: NE child molestation case

message: I have had to recreate major portions of this article because the previous version was direct copyright violation of the NOSSA "About Us" page.  I would appreciate any input and help on expanding the introduction a bit, but editors must be careful not to use the NOSSA website (or any other source) word-for-word even in good faith to expand this article.  With this rewrite and recreation of the article, I have archived all old discussion since it may pertain to earlier versions that are no longer directly valid.  Thanks. ju66l3r 04:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrite of this article 

message: This person Ju6613r without question has some sort of malicious intent on attacking this organization. After previously making a comment that he was unsure of the need for an article about this organization (before he learned of the organization), this person is now intent on seeing to it that the article remain in his own words (or that of those who agree with his opinion) and with considerable mention of the "May 2006 Controversy". How does one unfortunate incident define an organization? Why is Ju6613r so intent on seeing to it that this article remain with this isolated incident clearly attached? Another example of a major flaw with the Wikipedia system. This man holds all the power to defame and to distort the truth in any way he sees fit. You don't belong on Wikipedia Ju6613r, if you allow your editorial actions to reflect your personal opinions!
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.109.106.14 (talk • contribs) .
:I have no malicious intent against NOSSA; to suggest that I do goes against Wikipedia policy to assume good faith from other editors.  I do not protect my own words and you can find many examples in the article history of others working towards improving the article.  This article does not define NOSSA by the May 2006 controversy, but it does mention it because it did happen and in happening it did involve the organization.  In fact, prior to my own work on the article, others were content to simply quote from a CNN story looking down upon NOSSA and not examine NOSSA's response to the unfortunate comments made by one of their own people.  I pulled information from their press release and included it in the article in one of my edits; otherwise, the article would likely still say something like "A NOSSA rep thinks criminals should be let go if they're short".  I have no personal opinions on this matter, but I do uphold the encyclopedic nature of an article and the blanket removal of important and relevant information is vandalism and will always be reverted.  There are means available to you and others if you think the article is wrong, including changing the text to better suit what you think it should say.  But removal of the entire section is not one of those options because as it is currently written there is no justifiable reason to remove that text.  It is neutral and notable therefore includable.  If you have pertinent suggestions or changes, be bold and change it but do not simply remove it.  Also, my name includes an L and not a 1, for future reference.  ju66l3r 14:55, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd like to make you aware that much of what you've just written is uncivil and goes against the policies of this website.  I have put a template on your talk page that introduces you to the pillars of good editing and discussion here at Wikipedia.  Seeing as you've made your views pretty clear on what you think are some of these tenets, I'm hoping that by actually reading the guidelines you may adjust your views and become another useful member at this site.  Please refrain from the personal attacks and the threats of litigation as these are counterproductive and will lead to administrative action against the hostility.  ju66l3r 14:55, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editing Issues 

message: *Link to my additions on UninvitedCompany's Talk page regarding this article's previous copyright violation
It is becoming painfuly obvious that you have an axe to grind against this organization Ju6613r. Your accusation that NOSSA themselves are responsible for trying to "wipe away the controversy article" are unfounded. You sir, are a perfect example of everything that is wrong with Wikipedia, and I will not sit back and "assume good faith" from someone whose actions are so clearly biased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.109.106.14 (talk • contribs) 
:First, please add new comments at the bottom of the page and remember to add ~~~~ to the end of your comments so that other editors can better read your contributions in context with everything else on the page.  It is also unnecessary to copy'n'paste whole sections of other wiki-pages, so I've replaced the copy with a link to the section of UninvitedCompany's talk page that you quoted here for discussion.  Next, if you have comments directed to me pertaining to my editing, please feel free to make them on my talk page.  This page is for discussion and improvement of the article itself and not problems you perceive with an editor.
:Now towards your assumptions, you are incorrect in saying that I have an axe to grind.  My comments to UninvitedCompany were not accusatory, but instead assumptive.  It takes quite a bit for an administrator to blanket-delete an article without starting with a copyvio template that allows for the recreation and removal of copyright violating material.  That "quite a bit" is often contact with someone associated with the article (in this case a member/officer of NOSSA).  That may not be the case, but I certainly didn't want to see the entire article destroyed over a few lines of copyvio amid an otherwise good article.  Considering the number of other editors who work with me on many other articles than this one and find my edits beneficial, I think your bias against me leads you to disagree with my edits on this page and therefore call them bias yourself.  I have been very limited in following up on the last time you used this discussion page to disparage me because you may be willing to contribute in a positive manner, particularly elsewhere on Wikipedia.  If you believe I am not editing appropriately, then there are many methods for dispute resolution available on this website.  Feel free to engage one of those avenues.  But please leave this talk page for discussion of improving the article and not about your opposition to me (which can be taken to my talk page if you can do so without the personal attacks).  Thanks.  ju66l3r 21:03, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accusation of misconduct