Talk:Ray Nagin/Archive 2

message: A user calling himself Long John Silver has been persistently reverting (at least 50 times) to a personal version of this article that contains uncited, highly POV claims that clearly violate WP:NPOV. he has also repeatedly violated WP:NPA calling other editors liars and Nazis. His edits usually have deceptive descriptions, this edit described as 'correcting spelling and grammer[sic]' actually replaces the entire article with his personal version: 
The user has also deleted this note.
The user is behind a NAT and the address frequently changes. The same IP address range has also posted racist grafiti on the Martin Luther King  and Danny Glover  articles and homophobic bigotry ("RectumReaper is a total flamer.") on the Fucked Company article. He has also made subtle redirect edits to turn redirect pages such as First responder into a personal platform for POV wingnuttery . There is no reason why an article on first responders should mention a current news event at all, let alone contain partisan criticism.
* 138.162.0.38/28
* 209.247.222.92/28
* 12.74.187.122
If the section 'Dueling Criticism' reappears in the article it has been reverted to the highly POV version. Rather than attempting to eliminate the POV in that article please revert to the mainstream version of the article that has been created by the named editors.
One point to watch, some editors have attempted to revert a POV edit by one IP address and reverted to another earlier copy of the text. LJS has then tagged his later reversions as being a revert to that editor's text 'Reverting to better version of this article by HallMonitor' even though HallMonitor did not wirte that text and in fact reverted immediately afterwards. 
One side effect of this vandalism is that criticism of Nagin is ending up being stripped out as editors attempt to revert the highly POV statements. --Gorgonzilla 14:38, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the update.  Check your watch Gorgonzilla and then revert the page to that time when it is convenient.  The Wiki guidelines suggest that these folks feed on reverts for their ego "I'm in control of the world..." So I dont want you to be wasting your time on endless reverts.  Perhaps for the moment, content editing should hold back and gel, until this storm blows over.  Otherwise, if its 50 times, get a temporary edit hold on the article.Kyle Andrew Brown 17:04, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: My own edits reporting comments critical of Nagin have been stripped out in the process. I agree with your analysis though. The article should be reverted to the non-POV version and locked. Discussion on the ongoing Hurricane Katrina issue should take place in that article and the article on the political fallout. This article should not be used as a place to dump POV theories. --Gorgonzilla 17:27, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert Warrior 209.247.x.x and 138.162.0.x 

message: Deleted personal attack.  I am not LJS nor have I ever posted rasist ramblings.  I post from an IP assigned to many many users.  Gorgonzilla's continued vandalism and personal attacks are not only a reflection on his intellect, they are a reflection upon his character.  -- HazeGray 138.162.0.42 15:29, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well perhaps if you can pursuade the vandal to stop doing this then you might not end up blocked. However deleting the vandalism notice and the wording of your comment indicates that it is most likely that you are the same person as 'Long John Silver' 'Honest Abe' and 'Swamp Fox'. --Gorgonzilla 16:58, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism in Progress 

message: The latest sockpuppet of Long John Silver/Honest Abe/Swamp Foxx/New IP/etc has reverted 6 times in the past 13 hours under his 66.43.173.74 alias. I suggest we get an admin to 1) block the accounts, 2) lock the article. --Gorgonzilla 14:24, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  6 Reverts in 13 hours by  66.43.173.74  / 9 reverts in 24 hours 

message: So now we know why the latest LJS sock has been denying who he is...
* Block log 22:52, 12 September 2005 Essjay blocked "User:209.247.222.89" with an expiry time of 24 hours (Vandalism)
I have filed a 3RR complaint for the new sock 
: added to Gorgonzilla's complaint a bit, describing LJS's last three reverts, and his refusal to accept any opinion but his own. Also made reference to his LYINGabout reporting other users as sockpuppets of Gorgonzilla in his article edit descriptions and generally taking everyone's criticisms of his edits and throwing them back. Sorry LJS, but what you're doing constitutes vandalism, and the reverting done by editors is called CONSENSUS. It has been agreed upon that many of the claims you make are unsubstantiated, unsourced or taken out of context, and frankly speaking, riddled with spelling errors and unfortunate phrases. --Jentizzle 23:18, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Technically none of that matters for the 3rr; all that matters is three reverts within a 24-hour period.  Stuff like people ignoring consensus and disputes that can't be resolved could be placed in a RfC or some other part of the dispute resolution process.  It might be time for that now. Reporting people for the 3rr isn't going to serve as a long-term solution; the dispute resolution process might. Aquillion 00:00, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Under the 3RR someone should be blocked for 24 hours, LJS is meant to blocked already but still does 11 reverts in 24 hours, nothing at all happens. I think it calls into question the idea that Wikipedia can police itself. --Gorgonzilla 00:58, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Long John Silver is BLOCKED 

message: Several states have passed legislation forbidding the seizure of firearms from law-abiding citizens in time of disaster or emergency, largely due to the seizures ordered by Mayor Nagin in the aftermath of Katrina.
California Governor Schwarzenegger signs AB 1645
Federal and State Laws since Katrina Seizures
NRA: The Untold Story of Gun Confiscation After Katrina
--71.105.36.125 (talk) 06:39, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Multiple states move to restore and protect citizen's gun rights in the aftermath of Katrina

message: Perhaps we could consolidate the controversy sections into one, instead of embedding each individual one under its respective subject? Its just that nearly every other page follows this format, and it would be nice to see this page conform.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by LarsendeSLO (talk • contribs) 18:07, August 26, 2007 (UTC) 
:I disagree, Nagin has been involved in too many controversies to coherently consolidate into one section.  As it is, the article only mentions about half of them.  If the controversies were somehow related to one event or even each other I would agree, but they aren't. (D.c.camero (talk) 14:48, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy sections 

message: I"m not the writer that others are.. This seems like it should be added to the controversy section.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/tx/5999702.html  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.185.6.18 (talk) 22:14, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hurricane Ike comments 

message: Hi, I was looking over the page and I wanted to say - I doubt that Uptown New Orleans is of the most diverse racially. How is it diverse racially? Who are at least 90% of the inhabitants? Zoodly (talk) 15:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Diversity comments 

message: At least on my computer, this article displays itself with too much space between referenced text and the seguing superscript—likewise with braced comments inserted by editors.  Some characters become overstruck by others.  
Arrows pointing to external links are removed by 2cm (the better part of an inch) to the right of the links to which they refer.  
Are these display quirks the result of a plague in the article or on my machine?  Can anyone fix them?  
Rammer (talk) 14:55, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spacing 

message: There's a heading for "Jamaica trip controversy" but no prose under it. Is something on the way? Did a section get only partially merged or deleted?  What's the situation?  Rammer (talk) 15:51, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jamaica trip controversy? 

message: i don't particularly like nagin's politics and his controversies merit documentation, but i feel like the current article focuses and microscopes everything negative and diminishes anything positive about him.  I'll grant that i'm a recent transplant to new orleans and my knowledge of nagin's entire history is minimal, but i question whether or not there can at least be a token area where his merits (if any) can be summarized to help offset the overall negative tone. Darknote (talk) 18:31, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  neutrality? 

message: I fail to see how any of the section is remotely biographical; it is in quite great detail. Even if it was important -which the article fails to deliver - it can be shorter and with a personal focus on Nagin, with a  tag on the section. Ohconfucius (talk) 08:45, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hurricane Katrina 

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests November 2011 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:54, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Nagin in 2005.jpg Nominated for Deletion

message: I started trying to fix grammatical, spelling and syntax problems in this article, but there are just too many.
The spell check shows the spelling mistakes, so that's easy enough to manage.  The article starts off being pretty well written, but later sections degenerate badly -- different authors?
Whatever the reason, some one person needs to take responsibility for cleaning up these problems, so there is a unified voice for the article as a whole.  Zlama (talk) 21:47, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy aside... 

message: I noted previously that the section on Hurricane Katrina was non-biographical. I just don't get it. It's a huge coatrack that has no direct relevance to this article, yet it has remained as a glaring fault. If his role during the hurricane was controversial, it should be made explicitly so, backed up with sources. Right now, the article is neither here nor there, and thus unacceptable. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 03:10, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, obviously having armed men going door-to-door for confiscation while letting looters do whatever they want didn't exactly make him popular afterwards, either.  Especially when he had to nerve to blame the feds for a slow response when he refused to give the order to evacuate...  This whole event is rightfully laid on the city and state governments by many people.  The feds didn't help when refusing volunteers though.  Stringing together two words starting with C.F. come to mind.  ;)  71.196.246.113 (talk) 09:42, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's up? 

message: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ray_Nagin&diff=next&oldid=559829782
NOLA and USNEWEWS are good news sources. What the hell? RocketLauncher2 (talk) 21:55, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  "please address the stated concerns on the talk page"