UnNews talk:Nebraska city suspends new immigration law

EMC, your Change Summary says, "Taking out SPIKE's soapboxness and adding funny," but what you have done is taken out funny and replaced goofy, based on your own political view, adding in your final Change Summary an implication that I consider all nonwhites interchangeably bad.

My article skewered proponents of the law for criminalizing things that aren't harmful (such as lighting someone's smoke) and skewered proponents of the status quo for winking at criminal entry into the US. That's pretty even-handed. What you did is completely change the character of the story.

I'm reverting it. And don't continue implying that I'm a racist. Spıke ¬ 17:48 29-Jul-10

Before this discussion gets off the ground on the wrong foot any and all participants should take a deep breath and remember rule 1. Any lashing out, insults or other shenanigans and both of you will win bans. --Chiefjustice3DS 17:51, July 29, 2010 (UTC)

Well, I read your version as politically motivated and one-sided. I tried to balance it out and add what I thought would be funny. I saw Zim put this on the VFH and instead of voting against or saying it needs more content I decided to do it myself. But you're fine to leave it as it is. Some things should be elaborated on though. For example, voter approved law? I'm assuming you're referring to a statewide proposition which the city council then decided to block, but other readers might not. I decided to include a bit about Nebraska's unicameral, nonpartisan house passing the frivolous measures (I live less than a mile from the Iowa and Nebraska border, so I know a bit about Nebraskan politics and decided to contribute my knowledge to help satirize). Also, Obama and Bush are irrelevant; more topical commentary like something from Karl Rove on Fox seemed more sensible to me (with a balanced quote from Robert Gibbs), and I thought highlighting that it's the federal government (a federal v. state issue), not Obama per se, suing. Also, you're clearly a racist because you don't want the picture of the Hispanics to be bigger. --EMC ^[TALK] 18:08 Jul 29 2010

I have no problem with the photo being larger--but not to respond to a name-calling dare. It's clear by the fact that the City Council could set the measure aside that the citizen vote was municipal, not statewide. Obama and Bush are not irrelevant; they both mainly dodge the issue of border enforcement, despite being supposed opposites, and that's worth the article's final word of ridicule. Spıke ¬ 18:34 29-Jul-10

Reverting an article after it's been nommed for VFH and is still being voted on? No matter how you defend it, User:Electrified mocha chinchilla, it's either a dick move or an idiot move. Since I believe you are normally neither, I won't ban you this time. Rev. Zim_ulator (Talk) I am the dirt under your rollers

On further review, EMC's claim of innocently trying to add Nebraska civics to the article is ludicrous. Removing the name of the (sitting) Obama and the (retired and discredited) Bush, in favor of their more obscure spokesmen, is not balanced. The hairsplitting between what the "irrelevant" Obama does and what his administration does is a diversion. The Attorney General does not file suit against a US state--tackling head-on the issue that destroyed Bush and McCain--without the approval of the President. (Nor does he drop the lawsuit against the New Black Panther Party for voter intimidation after they have been found guilty.) Bush suffered a huge legislative defeat on this issue, then two election-day routs. The same freight train is now aimed at Obama, and replacing the satire in this story with Randumbo was itself "politically motivated." Spıke ¬ 10:48 31-Jul-10