Talk:Pennsylvania man named in alleged terror plot

Unprotected by Bawolff earlier today. Short term Flagged to let everyone know it's now unprotected and to get fresh look/input by other contributors. Neutralizer 13:46, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

protected|Edit warring. Please come to some agreement on this talk page. Protected by User:Brian New Zealand --Chiacomo ^(talk) 03:16, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Unprotected. --Chiacomo ^(talk) 04:10, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Little bit of a protect war are we having now? as of right now, last protected by Amgine. Bawolff ☺☻ 01:32, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Court transcripts

Does anyone know where to get FREE court transcripts? I want to get the ones the inquirer had or something. Jason Safoutin 14:45, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

This article should be published.

I do not need to remind any of you that under WN:NOT, further editing of this article is prohibited, and if you wish to report on something else, a new article should be made. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 19:56, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

per discussion in IRC we are awaiting on e-mails from 2 individuals on information retriveal. Jason Safoutin 20:04, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

This article should NOT be published

<br\><br\><br\><br\><br\><br\> <br\><br\><br\><br\><br\><br\> And yet, you still have not proven why it is not neutral, or given examples. I do not have sympathy for your views. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 22:01, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

No sympathy here either. You have not proven your objections as this article meets all standards for a news article. Unfortunately, YOUR OPINION of the U.S. government is POV there for is unactionable. Jason Safoutin 22:06, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Why not improve the article rather than pointlessly continue with conflicts? The concern seems to be that of POV information jilt in the article due to using only that stated by officials of the US government. What of other more locally focused news outlets, such as this article dated to the 14th, today, which is now the articles publish date, and reports of a letter that the accused wrote. What if the commonets of those motel workers and other that met him before his arrest are included, would that sort of information be adequate Neutralizer?

Aside, I do not see a direct quote from Reynolds in regard to the statement given in quotes, but rather so far only that at two-thirds into the Forth Worth Telegram article this line "Authorities say Reynolds told them that he was a patriot and intended to expose an al Qaeda cell in the United States," where it is not a quote but a comment on a statement as said by another. There is also this line "In fact, authorities say Reynolds told them that he, too, was a patriot and intended to expose an al-Qaeda cell inside the United States." in the Philadelphia Inquirer, again not direct quote but authority statement of it. Also this line "Government agents said that Reynolds denied trying to conspire with al Qaeda and said he was a patriot seeking to expose an al Qaeda cell inside the United States. " in the CBS News article. Should this matter of how it was related not be included for the line to be accurate and not as a falsely attributed direct quote? Opalus 00:00, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

There are NO actionable objections in this article. Jason Safoutin 00:04, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

You're comparing Wikinews to one other media source, and I don't know why you are. You are confusing me, Opalus, and I do not see any actionable objection in your statement above -- nor do I understand half of it. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 00:11, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Proper grammer would be to put excripts of the transcripts in either 1) Quotations 2)Italics...both mean the same thing. Just like the title of a book should be either or. So in turn we are QUOTING what the transcripts said. Your "objection" has absolutely no basis. Jason Safoutin 00:15, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Pay attention. No actionable objections preventing publication, that is a view of two who are fellow contributors in this, but it does not matter to me. I used the lines not in comparison but to demonstrate that others do not make the line a false direct quote but properly note how it was communicated, through an authority rather than direct quote from Reynolds. I will follow the suggested italicization for excerpts from the letter located to add some further information available at this time the article is to be fully published. It is the recognition of NPOV, which is acknowledged uniformly from any contributor and not only administrators that I note now. If NPOV prevents publication it will, otherwise go ahead and publish as these additions will be made to remove the NPOV problem I observe here regardless and the necessary problems then settled if any arise. Opalus 00:23, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I cannot understand you, so if you are seeking a reply from me, you probably won't recieve it. If you can find a direct quote by Reynolds, include it. Italicization shows emphasis; not attribution. NPOV requires reasoning to delay publication on the current article at hand. I haven't heard of one from either of you yet. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 00:26, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

No, because there is nothing to change. There is no NPOV issues at all. What other source would you like? China? France? There is nothing more to add unless its a new article. Jason Safoutin 00:29, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I will also add that is it against WN:NOT to change anything further in this article. Jason Safoutin 00:31, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Wrong. The development is well within the typical time for development of articles here. Apologies. The quotes present are not long enough to warrant that italicization treatment and as you say it would if done on such short quotes only distract. I will follow the suggested simple quote repeat instead. The details of Reynold's denial of both the grenade charge and the terrorism charge are present in the located article. To omit those is to only inform and so support only the prosecution. That is my claim of NPOV. Publish, I do not care, I only wish to resolve that observed NPOV state in the article by the described additions. Opalus 00:32, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Wrong. Adding/removing anything further, and you are in violation of WN:NOT. Jason Safoutin 00:35, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

No, Opalus, you are wrong. This article should've been published long ago. But instead, the repeated tagging without reasoning has delayed this article. THERE IS NO MORE DEVELOPMENTAL TIME LEFT ON THIS ARTICLE. You have wasted it. This article has been published. Anymore edits will be treated as violations under WN:NOT. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 00:35, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I will not repeat. However, the observed time frame for articles is 5 or 6 days editing and development and publish attempts before final and resolute publishing by practice in cases of this sort of conflict. Why do you believe WN:NOT applies despite this? Opalus 00:38, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

On the time for editing, how have I wasted it? I have been involved in spelling corrections and similar only before this conflict where immediately editing is closed without any authority to do so. I protest this and declare that I will make any necessary changes regardless. I will do this. Acknowledge it. If I must, I will go through all procedures of arbitration and similar to achieve the goal. The article is not compliant with NPOV as it only presents the prosecution with any detail. Defensive detail is available in proper time frame for the listed publishing day, I will add it. Opalus 00:41, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

There are NO NPOV issues here. If a tag is placed on this article then it will be site disruption. And I will move for this article to be protected. Any edits beyond this point is in direct violation of WN:NOT. Jason Safoutin 00:44, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

No, Opalus, you are trying to push a POV. I'm not going to tell you once more - you are describing, perhaps advocating, violations of WN:NOT. You will be met, if you violate these policies, with blocks. Take anything you want up with the ArbCom -- I don't support them, and as of today it is still a proposed policy. You had well enough time to develop this article, but wasted it. Check the original creation date -- and original publishing date. You and Neutralizer threw it away when you kept tagging it with NPOV and not doing a single thing of resolving the dispute, or any major edits to the article, either. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 00:45, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I am not pushing any POV but that of belief in the NPOV policy; such that in this article material from the defender deserves a place as much as material from the prosecutors and facilities. I have not had time. I attempt to obtain some agreement for edits on contested articles prior to editing in my practice as clarified by the last month's experiences. Your actions amount to refusal to allow the article to be made compliant with NPOV policy no matter how you deny it. Blocks for violations that do not actually occur are not just, but I will deal with them if necessary. Opalus 00:54, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Your continuing efforts to push your POV on the issue are not working. One more time: Any edits will be in direct violation of WN:NOT and the appropriate measures will be taken if necessary. Jason Safoutin 00:56, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Endless accusations. I will make no more, make no more of me, either of you. Let the careful users review to determine for themselves the actualities of this situation. I require a bit of time to format the additions into the current article before I can hope to add them in an acceptable format. Review the format, there will be no valid complaints hopefully but if there are any I will attempt to address them if so. Opalus 00:59, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

If anywiki is unsatisfied with an article after it is published the solution is to developtag it and then edit it. International 01:01, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I vote for publishing, as the most relevant and available source of information would obviously be the US Gov. Did you expect Egypt to start an investigation on the subject?--Spangle 01:06, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

No need for that as it already is published. International 01:13, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Reverted

This article was reverted at 10:05pm eastern by DragonFire1024 per WN:NOT. Please not that any edits made to the content of the article is in violation of WN:NOT. Jason Safoutin 03:06, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Reverted again per WN:NOT at 10:10pm (est) I move for protection of this article and immediate action due to contiuous policy violation. Jason Safoutin 03:11, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I have protected this article for 10 mins, in what ever version was on at the time. Plese talk about it here. Brian | (Talk) | ^{New Zealand Portal} 03:13, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

As per request (by another admin) on IRC i'm incressing the protection for longer Brian | (Talk) | ^{New Zealand Portal} 03:37, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

External administrators, provide input on whether policy infraction of WN:NOT policy has occurred. I do not believe it has as the article development has been clearly in progress prior to my addition and only antagonistic intent has caused the accusation and revert; others claimed it would and of those two, one (Safoutin) was responsible for the revert of my purely constructive and NPOV policy conforming edit of the article which upon my revert, was again reverted and the article placed into protection temporarily. I followed International's description of the proper method for any wiki to accomplish resolution, yet it was reverted no less still. Opalus 03:19, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

The article was published first on the 11 or 12 of February. and was constantly tagged for NO actionable objections which to this moment have not been described. The article was then majorly edited and sourced accordingly. There have been no actionable objections then and none now. If you do not rely on the US Government, then thats your POV. Jason Safoutin 03:26, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I've read the edit and the article, quickly, so it's possible I'm overlooking something... Other than the fact that it doesn't really flow well (which is an editorial issue and not a policy violation), I don't see a big problem -- so long as the new content is germane to the topic of the article. I'd like to know which provision of WN:NOT is being invoked. I'm not reading the rest of this talk page, by the way. --Chiacomo ^(talk) 03:28, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

To note, I have not been involved with any tagging. My involvement has previously been rather limited to spelling and standard corrections of the article and pure discussion on this article talk page. I have neither applied nor removed any flag from this article, ever. I have stated my lack of interest in flags repeatedly; it is curious that it is continually returned to. What is the practice now regarding the material that I attempted to add? Opalus 03:34, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Are there any objections to the content of my formerly attempted edit now that the article has been returned to development? The content that I realize is most important and so all that I will add to this article has been attempted to be added. The matter of mechanism before is dropped as insignificant in comparison. If there are problems let us solve them. Opalus 03:43, 15 February 2006 (UTC) Sorry, for a moment I forgot. To see the edit, follow this link. Opalus 03:47, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes. I object. I will not have the opinion of the motel owner in the article. He is not a qualified person to make a judgement on whether someone was stranage or not. He is not qualified. His OPININION is 100% POV. There is nothing wrong with the article and I dispute ANY further edits to it. If you have something new, start a new article. Jason Safoutin 03:48, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

The interaction dates to before his arrest and the majority of my edit was regarding a letter written before the story described here. Have I included that the motel owner thought he was not strange? That is in the source article, not my edit. I omitted it for similar reason. Do you mean the comment of the housekeeper? I do not object, I only thought it added to the article. Opalus 03:52, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

The question was what part of WN:NOT you are referring to. And since this seems to cause you difficulty, let me explain. Anybody's opinion is 100% POV. That holds for motel owners as much as presidents. But we can still report what they say, this has nothing to do with WN:NPOV. Maybe confusing at first, but if you try a little I am sure you can understand. --vonbergm 03:56, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I do not see the need to ad anything regarding any of the employees of the hotel period. I also do not see a need to put in the letter. I am sorry but It has been 3 days for this article and I am going to continue to stand by my citing of WN:NOT. Jason Safoutin 03:56, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Opalus, in the interest of consensus, can the article be published without your addition? --Chiacomo ^(talk) 04:04, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Though its character does not seem adequately neutral to me, I am one editor and conflict resolution is more important so long as delusions of policy violation are not maintained. This is negotiation only. I do not find the information of my addition adequate for its own article yet so it will be left alone fully until if and when in future article developments it might be useful. If it is the decision to remove it despite the publish date here it will not be further contested. Opalus 04:08, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Cutting a line

We need to stop bickering about *this* article, and write new ones.

The article does not appear to have actionable NPOV disputes. Instead of *fixing* this article further, other than copyedits, create new articles reporting further details which have come to light.

Wikinews is not an encyclopedia. Articles should be published in a timely fashion representing what was known at a given time. Corrections and clarifications belong to future articles as that information becomes known. - Amgine | ^{talk en.WN} 04:01, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

No matter now, provided condition. My concern is the character of this article given that the new publishing date before my involvement increased itself included the article from which I obtained the basis of my edit, contested as it is. The article does include it in scope based on even the publishing date decided on by those who object to my addition. Opalus 04:04, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Amgine, I see your argument in principle, but it does not fit this article. The date of this article has been bumped up by the very people who now oppose to the addition of certain information, but before had no problem adding other information. The point here is that certain editors displayed extremely aggresive editing behaviour by relentlessly reverting edits that they do not like without giving atequate reasons. Even after the request by several people, they have not even made the slightest effort to explain their disruptive behaviour but simply hide behind a vague WN:NOT. In this situation, your comments amount to ignoring the concerns of the less agressive editors and rewarding the behaviour of editors that resort to reverts without proper explanation. It is considerate of Opalus to drop his concerns in the light of the blatant incompetence of other editors to even explain their actions, but I really do not unerstand why you implicitely condone the agressive editing behaviour of others. --vonbergm 07:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

There is no consensus

That is the point,imo;Chiacomo ; it is not reality to now try and let it go through on the basis of a fabricated "consensus" or strange interpretations of WN:NOT.Opalusis not the only person pleading for a bit of NPOV(I think this is the most libelous and POV article we've ever published).

Nor; Amgine does it make sense to just move ahead when there is about as many editors feeling it's unsuitably POV than those who feel it's just fine the way it is.

I support this addition of Opalus and then there may be a real consensus (and no-one will be 100% satisfied; which is likely a good ending for a collaborative process sometimes). Neutralizer 13:00, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree to build a concensus for Opalus editing International 13:12, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

What to do?

I see a pattern of some kind of abuse here that is close to what I see as structural pow. Two users/administrator get what they want by belligerent editing with unconsistent refering to policy. Somewikis interfere active in the aggressive users favour whith forcefull metods like locking pages and blocks or by not acting aganst their disruptiv editing. It is very discouraging and must be adressed and solved. International 13:12, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I would like to put it back to "develop"

as Chiacomo did yesterday with this notation; "develop -- until editors work this out on the talk page". However, first I need to know whether I am allowed to do what Chiacomo did or whether I will be blocked? Neutralizer 13:32, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the formal best way (harkl) is to put it to develop, revert to Opalus edit and publish. That is what I will do and refere to the consencussituation. If somwiki disagree it is ok to unpublish and wait for resolution here on talk with protections and stuff. International 13:45, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

3 days.

That's how long this has been put in and pulled out of publish mode. I am disappointed by all Wikinewsies who violated WN:NOT on this article, and am extremely disappointed that users, instead of giving some reason not to publish, instead chose to tag this article with NPOV without any coherent reasoning to do such. The excuses given were also in violation of WN:NOT. I say this article should be published today or deleted -- and if the latter is chosen, those who are responsible for delaying this article should be held responsible for becoming qualified as a vandal under the disruption section of WN:BP. Three days is too long - especially when there was no reason to hold the publish, and when there were no neutral edits made since then that weren't violations of WN:NOT. Come on. Cut the crap. We're not here to bicker; we're here to write. If some of us here can't realize that, some of us should explore other options. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 21:14, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. This article was published before DragonFire (once again) reverted the edits discussed on this page without giving a proper reason (Neither me, not Chiacomo nor anyone else who participated in the discussion could figure out what part of WN:NOT justified any of the reverts), and DragonFire did not care to explain. --vonbergm 21:19, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Agree. Now what about Opalus editing that DragonFire removed. He is still with heavy language defend his inconsistent position. International 22:34, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

This article is now published and any changes to text and or statements is in violation of WN:NOT...period. Jason Safoutin 22:38, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

International, that is EXACTLY the attitude that keeps these wars up. I will not tolerate it. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 22:39, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

This is not war, this is just hypocrisy. My two hypocritical friends with the U.S. attitude, the attitude that make a whole world love that nation, must understand that you cant both keep and eat the applecake. Opalus put some vanillasauce on it to make it tastier. Wich might be very necessary because the apples was rotten in the first place. International 23:05, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Food analogies would not do good in this discussion, since I can think of a dozen items that could be used to describe this conversation with you. Good night. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 23:08, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

reverts

No appropriate reasons were given for the repeated reverts, will return the article to its full state until objections are explained properly. --vonbergm 23:21, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Vonbergm and International: IF either of you revert this one more time, you will both be blocked for violation of WN:NOT. I do not see how much clearer I can make it. Neither of you supercede policy. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 01:20, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

WN:NOT is not appropiat here, your threat is actionable.International 01:22, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Article locked again

This article appears to being edited in violation of WN:NOT. I am locking in reverted form, but unpublished, while I examine the edit history. - Amgine | ^{talk en.WN} 01:23, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

What part of WN:NOT was the eiting in violation of? Please be specific in describing the violation. The word "violation" is being used frivolously sometimes, I think; and "instruction creep" is a term that is similar in essence to"violation being claimed creep" imo. Neutralizer 05:35, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Violations are simple. This article is 4 days old...was bumped to the 14 per Admin advice. There is no need to edit this article further as it violates WN:NOT policy.

• What Wikinews articles are not Quote: 5. Wikinews articles are not works in progress. Developing articles are marked with the {{develop}} template. Once written and published they are historical documents; they should not continue to be updated or changed. Especially, they should not be altered to an angle or POV not reflective of the article as it was published. Wikinews is not an encyclopedia. Jason Safoutin 12:44, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Doublespeak?

Haven't we just fallen into the classic 1984ish pattern of Doublespeak? How can an article be described as being "under development" when it is "locked"???? Please rationalize this seeming conundrum. Neutralizer 05:42, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to wade into this dispute at all... Were this a regular article and were it locked for edit warring, it should continue to be developed on the talk page. As it stands, an article that's not published is developing -- in this case, because it's disputed. I'm probably babbling -- I'm tired. --Chiacomo ^(talk) 05:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Archiving talk page after 24 hours?

Perhaps this is normal but I don't remember seeing this before [1] I personally prefer that the entire discussion remain; is it ok to put it back? Neutralizer 05:52, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

If the conversation is stale and is moving in another direction, it is common to archive long talk pages. The reason, I assume, is to shorten the talk page for individuals who may be reading from mobile devices, dialup connections, etc. In the past, there was a limit as to the size of pages that could be displayed in some browsers -- I'm not sure if this is still a problem. I'm not necessarily in favor of reinserting the text (though I wouldn't oppose it by reverting). I'd rather not have to scroll past outdated text. --Chiacomo ^(talk) 05:59, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Article is unworthy of Wikinews

I just read the article again and it is grotesque to me in the extent of the vicious attack upon this, under U.S. law, innocent until proven guilty American citizen by U.S. government officials; with everyone on down to a Highway Superintendent guy named Outhouse getting in on the slander and being reported as an authority. Government officials are employing every possible use of exagerated wording relating to the so-called crimes of today and 28 years ago(1978) as well as using 1984ish jibberish like; "a plan to disrupt governmental function."

And the inclusion of the alarmist personal "twilght zone" report of a 28 year old incident from Drew Outhouse , the North Salem Highway Superintendent ...."he tried to blow up his parents house (1978)...seeing what he was trying to do that one night, it doesn't surprise you that he could move on to something like that."...that 1978 incident might have been a suicide attempt or an accident; but since a conditional discharge was the penalty, I doubt there was any proof at all of an attempted murder.

The reaction toward any small or timid attempts at NPOV has been over the top, I think, leaving us with an article that is ready for the Natl. Inquirer imo, and they wouldn't have to change a word. Just put a photo of Mr. DrewOuthouse, North Salem Highway Superintendent, talking about his close encounter in 1978 with the demon Michael Curtis Reynolds. Neutralizer 14:08, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

As we have stated before, your objections are NOT actionable. All information provided in article is backed up by sources. Whether you like the fact that ONLY the US can be the source or not thats not my problem. This article is very much worthy of Wikinews, however; your POV of the US goverment is NOT worthy of Wikinews. Jason Safoutin 14:20, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Please tell me why the Outhouse version of a 28 year old incident is in the article? Please tell me why the link to a "Whitehouse fact sheet" is in the article? Neutralizer 14:28, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Quote is in because of the mention of the blowing up parents house. Completely relvant. Also the external link is there becuase it is a lost of foiuled plots etc. IF this is one then it will be added shortly. Jason Safoutin 14:30, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

your response makes no sense to me at all. I will move on. Neutralizer 14:35, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Whatever you say. i refuse to get into this with you or ayone else. Your objections are not actionable. Not my fault or Wikinews' fault you do not like the US gov't. Your POV of them has no basis here. Jason Safoutin 14:43, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Respectfully, DragonFire1024|Jason Safoutin , this is nothing constructive at all. International 14:48, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

What about locking at Opalus edits and try to come to a concencus

Employees of the Thunderbird Motel in Pocatello have given statements regarding Reynolds time spent there prior to his trip to Idaho. Housekeeper Lorie Thomas made comment that "Nobody stays in a motel and brings that much stuff," regarding the items that Reynolds had at the hotel which included a computer, electronics, paperwork and foreign currency in the form of coins. Thomas remarked on Reynolds enjoyment of conversations on politics and travel and stated "He said he's been in Thailand," and that "He'd rather be in Thailand. He said, 'Anything but here.'"

The Times-Tribune received a letter on the 13th that used Reynolds’ return address at the Lackawanna County Prison and bears a rubber stamp as used to mark outgoing mail from the jail that detailed Reynold's denial of ties to al-Qaeda. The letter is postmarked with a date of February 10th, before the Philadelphia Inquirer story was published.

Titled "Patriot Games," the letter's content addresses the charge regarding the grenade found at his residence in a comment stating that it was planted there "by someone known to myself and to the FBI." In denial of work for and also in denial of any desire to work for al-Qaeda, Reynolds wrote that “I know what losses terrorists inflict on people. I would never work to assist them or harbor any,” referring to his claim of a colleague being killed in the September 11 attacks on the Twin Towers.

In the letter Reynolds explains the investigation that he claims to have been working on to track "a person that I had believed to be a terrorist" and to expose them "once I had solid proof of who or where they operated from."

Reynolds claims that his family founded Bedford Hills, New York in 1676. He further claims that he personally has given military service in the US Army, written a Military police handbook, trained SWAT and drug enforcement teams. He further claims to have been an engineer with military clearance and to have taught in Thailand as a first grade teacher and also an English teacher to Buddhist monks.

As an explanation for his prosecution, Reynolds has written that he believes it to have been due to his military service and that he believes the case would be dismissed provided a hearing in front of a judge.

When questioned as to the authenticity of the letter, prison warden Janine M. Donate said that the letter appeared to be from the prison.

Sources *Tom Long and Robert Kalinowski. "Letter, supposedly written by Reynolds, denies any ties to al-Qaida" — Citizensvoice.com division of Northeastern Pennsylvannia's Largest News Team, February 14, 2006

International 15:15, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

citizensvoice source is a BLOG. that BLOG is not a news source. Opalus's edits are not justified. Jason Safoutin 15:38, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Let me quote MrM here (although this quote was regarding a right-wing blog, so I am not sure if it applies here: "While yes, it [the blog] may be biased - that doesn't matter. As long as a source can cite itself properly on the items it portrays, then it is a "credible" source in my book." --vonbergm 18:59, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Blogs are not a source of news. Especially this blog. The Blog is not an "adiquite" source. Jason Safoutin 19:01, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

DragonFire1024: Citizen's Voice is a daily paper, published by Times-Shamrock of Wilkes-Barre, PA. It is not a blog. Even if it were, a blog is not incapable of being a reliable news source. But you should seriously consider checking your facts before making such a statement. - Amgine | ^{talk en.WN} 01:35, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Who are we to decide what is real and what isn't? Bawolff ☺☻ 01:37, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with citing blogs, but you have to either quote the blog author and establish notability, or you have to corroberate the sources. Just don't go quoting some crazy teenage girl talking about her cat.

I sense that there is no interest in trying to come to a compromise here. I guess some editors are only willing to work on an article as long as they are disagreeing with the currently published vesion, but if the current version of the article looks fine to them they just ignore whatever is happening on the talk page (except maybe make some irrelevant excuses). Sad, but I guess this is a way to force edit wars... --vonbergm 17:10, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned, the current version reads reasonably. The key point to take away from this dispute is what level of cooperation people need to live with to avoid mass blocks like this mess needed. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 18:51, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

So since the article is fine as far as you are concerned, there is no need to addreess the any issues that other people see, right? --vonbergm 19:17, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

What do you expect me to do? Draw up a timeline with every version of the article and every comment added on the talk page? I'm offering an opinion as someone who has not been sucked into the flame war that appears to have taken place here. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 19:37, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I guess I am still a little edgy. While people were blocked on mass (why by the way, at this point I only understand the reason for the 3RR block), no effort was made to resolve the underlying issues. The current version of the article is the result of the action of admins who locked and reverted the article to its current version without giving adequate reasoning. The cited WN:NOT simply does not apply here at all, since the article was never "published" without dispute. --vonbergm 19:59, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

unprotected

1. Discuss changes here first (be extra cautious; don't be bold)
2. If you make someone mad in the process of editing, I will find you!

Bawolff ☺☻ 23:44, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

A comment in passing....

If my proposals for 3RR and administrators were in place, the chaos, ambibuities and stress of this process would have been much, much lessened. Please give them serious consideration. Whether you can support them or not, please comment. I am about to ask for a vote.

StrangerInParadise 01:15, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Here's what I'd like to do

Revert to this version by International(and Opalus)[2] but exclude the comments of Drew Outhouse, the North Salem Highway Superintendent, and exclude the alleged comments of the people at the motel.Neutralizer 13:36, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Neut...Yesnew contributers. I have voiced all my concern and stated what is right and wrong. I no longer wish to participate in this article. No offense to you or anyone else, but I just have no support for it and frankly, I have moved on. Good luck. Jason Safoutin 13:50, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks so much,Jason, I'll also wait and see if other participants have suggestions. Neutralizer 14:20, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok; not much general interest so I will proceed withe what I think are npov improvements in a little bit. Neutralizer 20:50, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok; I did the edits suggested above. If anyone feels they are not ok,please revert or edit. Thanks. Neutralizer 01:14, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Category

{{editprotected}}
'Category:Al-Qaida' should be replaced with 'Category:Al-Qaeda'. Van der Hoorn (talk) 22:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Done ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 23:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)