Well, I added the 5th source which directly comments on the MPAA numbers and their lack of credibility. I don't think it would look so much like syn if I distributed the sources throughout the paragraph so that they directly proceed the respective statements. Everything in there is directly stated in the sources at at least one point and I'm pretty sure no one statement is derived from two individual sources (syn).
I don't know, I could be wrong. pyrogenix
The first sentence of the reference to the WSJ article is deleted because it is NOT supported by what the WSJ reported. The WSJ reported that an e-mail was sent to NEJM staff (it doesn't specify who) from a PR representative the night before the EOC was released. The WSJ does NOT state that the EOC was either produced or timed based on any outside advice, and the entry stating otherwise is both false and not at all supported by the source material. The WSJ language is quite careful and explicit on this matter.
you must understand that the sentence in question was originally added as a joke (by me, and i regret that), but later was restructured and even supported with a botched up "evidence" by someone with a vested interest of laundering the effects of msg. there is no evidence of the effects on humans being different from that on rats. the "supporting study" that i keep deleting is a non-scientific SURVEY. GIMME A BREAK! some freakin SURVEY is used to PROVE that msg does not cause obesity in people???
just flip a few weeks back in the history and you will see how the original subsection appeared.
I was curious if I could use your picture "Image:TRAX train downtown.jpg" on my website promoting streetcar transit. I'll give credit to you. :) PerryPlanet 05:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for reverting back to my changes. I cant get the higher ups to put semi protection or full protection up (Obviously the people who are putting those images up have no life and I equate it to vandalsim). But I appreciate it :)
When you get a chance, can you take a look at the competition law page? Real WP:OWN problems there, and the editor refuses to acknowledge a legitimate NPOV tag other than minor cosmetic changes to some of the more blatant problems. THF 09:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
The Special Barnstar | ||
I'm awarding you this barn star as a gesture of appreciation for your contributions. Wikidudeman (talk) 14:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC) |
The Vaccine controversy article is a public health hazard. There are sources of the worst, unreliable, partisan types, promoting dangerous ideas. We need to only allow scientifically firm sources. I'm not sure what to do, but this stuff causes deaths, especially of children. The AVN list has been known to praise parents who have stood firm to anti-vax principles and allowed their children to die of easily preventable diseases like whooping cough. In at least one case they stood so firm in their anti-medical stance that they even refused to seek treatment once the child was sick and could still have been saved. When the child died the parents were treated like heroes. This is criminal behavior, but the AVN link is there.-- Fyslee/ talk 13:53, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
ConfuciusOrnis is getting harassed, his user page vandalized, and the vandal is violating 3rr in a couple places. He needs help immediately: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User:ConfuciusOrnis&action=history -- Fyslee/ talk 21:56, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
I want to apologize for my comment about the list being ridiculous the way it is. I got frustrated with the back and forth stuff. Also, saying it needs proof of weight by other editors when this is a biography about Barrett and not needed, well, anyways, I'm sorry for allowing my emotions to get out of control on this. I still think deep linking is more consistent on the article but will accept the way it is now if that's the consensus. Again, sorry. -- CrohnieGal Talk 11:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
I love the AT&T Corporation history link; however, it does not refer to AT&T Inc. in the slightest bit. In fact, on the very last section of the history page ("The New AT&T", which actually is referring to AT&T Corporation following its name change from American Telephone & Telegraph Co. to AT&T Corp. following its spinoff of Lucent and NCR) it lists "March 2005", the last time that the page was ever updated. The IP user that continues to note this link as the "AT&T Corporate History" is misleading users into believing that it is the history of AT&T Inc., when in fact it is the history of the old AT&T Corporation that wasn't eliminated from the AT&T website database upon purchase by SBC Communications. The reason I eliminated this history link from the AT&T page is because it is appropriate on the American Telephone & Telegraph and Bell System pages due to the fact that AT&T Corporation existed then; it has no reason on the AT&T page because of the fact that it hasn't been updated in almost 2 1/2 years (otherwise it would have noted the closure of the buyout by SBC).
This dispute over having this link also comes down to an ongoing edit war this IP user has dragged on as he disputes the SEC in its records that AT&T Inc. (current company) was incorporated in 1983 - he continued to vandalize the page changing it to 2005, then claiming that AT&T Inc. is the exact same company today as it was in 1885, ignoring official citations - nevertheless, I personally do not feel the AT&T Corporation history link appropriate on the AT&T page; rather, it is better fit on the American Telephone & Telegraph and Bell System pages. However, a .pdf file from the AT&T website would be perfectly fine, which I am adding, as AT&T Inc. clearly denotes that the AT&T today is SBC renamed, and it also lists the histories of the Bell Operating Companies, Baby Bells, AT&T Corp., etc. that became a part of SBC, now AT&T. I don't want to remove the AT&T Corporation history link from the AT&T page until I receive further input from yourself regarding this link.
Hope this clears up confusion. KansasCity 04:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Good points here. It is in the nature of things that science is limited by verifiable facts, while alternative medicine has no limits, consisting of a combination of facts, fantasies, lies, deceptions, delusions, scams, etc. etc. etc. ad libitum. There is no doubt Barrett has (rightly) criticized "numerous" forms of sCAM (so-Called "Alternative" Medicine), but I doubt it can be proven he has criticized "most". -- Fyslee/ talk 19:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Now you've moved it, keep an eye on it please, with the Wakefield case proceeding there will be a flurry of revisionism around. Midgley 23:37, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Your recent change to Vaccine controversy replaced "immunisation" with "immunization" in a couple of places where it shouldn't. Any direct quote of a British source should use the spelling that the source used. For example, if the title of a British document was "Vaccination and immunisation policy" or if a British press release is quoted as saying "immunisation where appropriate" then WP:ENGVAR says the original British spelling should be retained, even in an article that uses American spelling consistently elsewhere. Eubulides 08:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
RUReady2Testify ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Hi Cool Hand Luke, I put a message on my talk page that I'd like you to look at. Thanks.
RUReady2Testify
20:25, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi - we have a persistant POV anon. I've reverted him twice for the same "labeling". If you're online, would you take the next shift? Thanks. WBardwin 23:42, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Hello there... How come Eric Dill has gone back to a protected redirect? It looked like that it was determined that he should have his own page during the discussion of the redirect, yet now he is back on the protected redirect. Thanks. SummerRidge123 09:23, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Though I did not nominate it, I thought you might like to know that a page you started has been nominated for deletion. I'm surprised the nominator didn't tell you. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Henry_Grow. – SESmith 04:54, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Following your recent participation in Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 July 30#Allegations of American apartheid, you may be interested to know that a related article, Allegations of Chinese apartheid, is currently being discussed on AfD. Comments can be left at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of Chinese apartheid. -- ChrisO 15:23, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
I added the owner of the station to the block, per your request. However, please don't delete all the work I did throughout the article. The items I added are well sourced and it's rude to off-handedly delete them. I wouldn't do the same for your articles. -- Vitalmove 18:16, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
If you look at the BBC's Wikipedia article, you will see that they have both ownership by the government, and independence, in the block. Since the BBC article mentions its independence in the block, the Wikipedia article should be allowed to do the same. Shouldn't it? -- Vitalmove 18:37, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
I decided to leave it alone. We'll leave it your way. It's ridiculous to debate one word in a block. However, do you mind if I move the ownership stuff to the bottom of the block? The BBC block starts with a description of the station then talks about ownership. The Press TV article currently talks about ownership first, which is kind of leading. -- Vitalmove 19:34, 5 August 2007 (UTC) Thank for the discussion. On second thought, I'm just going to leave everything as it was the last time you edited, with funding up top. Have a nice day. -- Vitalmove 19:44, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
I noticed you added criticism of Press TV from this article. [1]
The article however goes on to say "Only five days after launching, Press TV invited me to take part in a televised panel discussion about journalism in the Middle East. I argued that the biggest challenge facing journalists in the region is a lack of freedom and cited, among other examples, the case of Zahra Kazemi, the Canadian photojournalist who was raped, tortured and murdered by Iranian officials after she was arrested for taking photographs outside the Evin prison in Tehran. To his credit, the host and chief press officer, Shahab Mossavat, did not interrupt or silence me. He called my comments "offensive" to Iran but pointed out that I was given free rein to say what I wished by Press TV. He then steered the conversation toward obstacles confronted by journalists in Israel." Thus the author demonstrates that Press TV let him criticize the Iranian government. If we're going to add the critical parts of an article, shouldn't we add one sentence about the positive elements of the article too? What do you think? I'm going to move this to the article's talk page since it's easier to talk there. -- Vitalmove 23:07, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Regarding your post on his talkpage, he has not yet violated the rule. In order to violate WP:3RR one must make four or more reversions in a 24 hour period. Both Vitalmove and I have made three and thus have no violated the rule. My point in posting that is that if other users revert his edits he will be unable to revert anymore. If you click the link I posted on the talkpage you will see that this issue was previously discussed and consensus is that Press TV is 1. not independent 2. not at all reliable. Perspicacite 19:53, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Luke, what's up with these guys (Vitalmove and Perspicacite)? I see a 3RR violation by User:Vitalmove but with all the accusations flying back and forth I'm hesitant to act before knowing just what's going on. Note to Vitalmove and Perspicacite if you're watching, please don't chime in yet -- I want to hear Luke's take first. Raymond Arritt 22:22, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Hahaha I saw your post on Raymond's talkpage. I'm not sure exactly, but I think there is a grand total of six Muslims living in Angola. For future reference, I edit articles related to Angola. I am the only editor on the English Wikipedia who edits Angola-related articles with any regularity. I care neither about PRESS TV nor Islam. The dispute originated from another user, Seabhcan, trying to use PRESS TV as a source. Perspicacite 00:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. And thank you for offering to help me out by recovering them. Right at the moment, I think the more of those that can be recovered temporarily to my userspace, the better.
Incidentally, I think the closing admin on pac-man did userfy it for me, after a space of time. He or she put a link on my user (not user talk) page. AndyJones 17:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Excellent. Many thanks for your efforts. AndyJones 18:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
I think your warning was merited and has been heeded; however, I think since you have been involved before with Ted Frank being accused of making biased edits in favor of his employer, it seems you may want to give him a warning as well that writing an anti-Michael Moore article for a magazine his employer, AEI, publishes, being paid for it, then strenuously arguing for its inclusion on the Talk:Sicko page, and then trying to have it inserted on two other film pages, doesn't look so good on the WP:COI front. And I don't think I'm the only one who will think so, aside from his very impassioned defense of the magazine at AfD (where he did little to provide evidence, but did provide a lot of argument), this subject from July seems very pertinent. I think a warning to him would be warranted to "cool it" since it has been an issue in the past. It's your choice, Luke, but I'm surprised you warned me and not him. But thanks for the warning - it was merited. Have a good night! -- David Shankbone 03:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
I didn't userfy it due to the overwhelming consensus to delete it outright. Go on and userfy it if you want, but I'm not sure the problems it had can be fixed. -- Core desat 20:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Would you check into the [2] article? A cool head is desperately needed since the article is no longer protected. A large amount of info is being removed and then reverted and so forth. I really don't want to see the article protected again since the same old feuds will begin again. I tried to get everyone to talk on the talk page but it doesn't seem to be helping all that well. Someone who is not really active will be useful I think. A couple of editors are deleting things saying there is no consensus yet it all needs to be talked about. And there is more going on but mainly I don't like to see the incivility and the warring. Your help would really be appreciated before things really get bad. I will understand though if you are too busy with other things. Thanks in advance, -- CrohnieGal Talk 20:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand your 22:35 comment. THF 22:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I'd really like to avoid further disputes with DSB, but I have to object to this WP:POINTy , if only because I was threatened with an indef block in the identical situation involving Jance when she changed her user name. THF 01:54, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
I think they may have a big influence on the libel suits that are being disputed. [3]
[4] -- CrohnieGal Talk 20:50, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for heads-up. Tyrenius 19:48, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
I'clast and the Nautilus is the same person but it looks like another editor is adding input. I don't want to start a feud with him so I am asking you to do this. Thanks, -- CrohnieGal Talk 12:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Your revert summary for this edits reads: All of these changes are necessitated by removing the unsupported last line and mentioning the CDA interpretation dismissal earlier
The problem is that you are reverting a lot of other research and work along with the one sentence you are trying to delete which only really needed a "citation needed" tag at the moment. The other sentence is actually more correct per the Fonorow suit which supports it. The Fonorow suit was not about Fonorow using the CDA to protect himself, but rather Barrett trying to use CDA against Fonorow and having the judge blow it back in his face. Please re-read Fonorow and I am sure will agree. Then consider self-reverting your edit. Thanks. -- Levine2112 discuss 06:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Cool Hand, I undid your change again, but after reading the old version that it reverted to I was highly dissatisfied with it, too. It's wrong to say it's "incorrect" to use the word Mormon for anything but a reference to the LDS Church (and you do know which one I'm talking about). I changed the opening paragraph of the article to reflect that the usage of Mormon to refer to an LDS member is so common that any other usage is esoteric. The Greeks call themselves Hellenes and insist that the real Greeks were only a small and disreputable tribe among their richly diverse demographics, but that doesn't change the fact that Americans know what THEY mean when they say Greek. Similarly, let's not use an article that's supposed to be informative to confuse people. And your statement that the article should represent all points of view is simply unachievable. It's not a worthy goal because no article can represent all points of view; it's not supposed to represent any point of view. Everything in it is supposed to be fact.
And the fact is, when people say "Mormon," they're thinking of the guys with nametags riding on bikes. Or, as will soon be the case, the folks associated with the Mountain Meadows Massacre. People can argue about whether other sects share the same heritage, but there's no basis for argument about what virtually all people mean when they say "Mormon." Preston McConkie 14:27, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for moving this article per my request. I greatly appreciate your assistance. ConoscoTutto 15:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I messed up on setting up the templates for the merger proposal. Sorry about that. Noroton 23:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Your unblock doesn't seem to have taken. THF 04:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar | ||
To both Cool Hand Luke and Kurykh, for stopping the Michael Moore stuff at WP:ANI from getting (too) out of hand. ANI shouldn't be the place to argue COI and external link policies. David Fuchs ( talk) 13:07, 24 August 2007 (UTC) |
Blogs may be used in very limited circumstances. I left two links to a "Overlawyered" page which contains a copy of an article from "Reason" magazine, though we also have a guideline against linking to copyright violations. Blogs may be used as references for the articles on the bloggers themselves, but blogs should never be used as sources for 3rd parties, per WP:BLP. Regarding using blogs as sources for the opinoins of the bloggers, every blogger has an opinion on something. Unless the blogger is notable enough for a Wikipedia biography, they are probably not notable enough to have their opinion quoted. Even so, I did leave the one link in which the blogger is specifically referred to by name. Are there any specific articles that you think the blog should be restored? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
OK, so blog entries actually written by Walter Olson may be used with caution in topics related to his field of expertise. However blogs are never acceptable for biographies of living people, WP:BLP. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Also, if there are other links which violate WP:EL or other guidelines or polices then let's remove those too. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:55, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I agreed with some of the removals, and I think the Chip Berlet removal was probably appropriate, and I will self-revert Ralph Nader, but most of these refs look OK to me: they often just contained primary documents on the BLP or were citing somewhat expert polemic on the other topics. If you excuse me, I'm breaking for lunch now. Cool Hand Luke 18:04, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Speaking of realclimate, there is a discussion at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Christopher_Monckton on the subject. As you participated in WP:RS/N#Overlawyered, you may be interested in a recent discussion on the BLP use of blogs at this noticeboard. THF 11:59, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
The fact that the response to my rebuttal resulted in Wikidemo creating a new articlespace page was not quite the remedy I was looking for. Now that this future can of worms has been opened, can you watchlist it and keep an eye out for BLP violations? I suspect RFPP will be needed at some point. THF 21:11, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
"has been quoted as critical of plans to allow homeowners to keep their homes in the face of foreclosures" isn't true. Who is the SPA a sock of? THF 21:30, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Can you double-check my edits for this article? I'm not sure if I got the footnote citations right. THF 13:42, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Separately, don't go too far out on a limb on any of this other stuff. My biggest concern is the neutral and reasonable application of COI rules, and it's not worth spending political capital on the battles that are going to be lost because they're a proxy war for opinions about Michael Moore or the SlimVirgin controversy. Better to ban anonymous editing altogether consistently. THF 13:42, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm much better at being a pain in the butt than in showing appreciation. And thanks for the unblock, too.
The Special Barnstar | ||
for civility and grace in bringing me your objections, reasoning and advice in a recent controversy. Even where I continued to disagree, I found your messages helped me to think about some issues and even eventually change my mind about some things. Your attitude exemplifies what "getting along with others", "assume good faith", and "keep cool" is all about. And it was inspiring. You set a great example. Thanks! Noroton 20:54, 27 August 2007 (UTC) |
This category was recently nominated for deletion and your input would be appreciated at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_August_28#Category:Reality_films. Thank you. -- Pixelface 12:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
As the creator of this article I am letting you know I put a PROD tag on it. I also nominated Brainwashing 101 for deletion. Jeez - you'd think I was the Deletionist! lol. --David Shankbone 04:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Content such as this is totally unacceptable. haven't you ever read WP:CRYSTAL? -- lucid 05:38, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
for the cleanup on my userpage. Much appreciation. CitiCat ♫ 17:13, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi, i'm going to try to stay out of this but finding out that THF was forced off was shocking, that makes two in two months and the first was an admin. This has to stop or there will be no-one left (or right as the case is with THF). (Hypnosadist) 23:26, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Hello,
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/THF-DavidShankBone. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/THF-DavidShankBone/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/THF-DavidShankBone/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon (t) 18:25, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
That would be because I defined the task too loosely. Don't worry, it was just a one-time job. Just revert my bot as you see the mistakes. MessedRocker ( talk) 03:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
There was a phony account Ted Frank ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who made a few edits on Ted Frank. I notice you have previously deleted and restored that article. Do you think you could also do these three edits? Fred Bauder 23:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I saw that you have deleted this page based on this discussion. There has been a discussion in Persian Wikipedia over censorship and because of that, I looked at this article on Sep. 2. I don't remember seeing any AfD tag. Could you please check the history to see if the AfD procedure is done properly? Alefbe 23:13, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Remove VandalProof error and moved it to correct editor. -- Storm Rider (talk) 19:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Many thanks -- Kaaveh 05:39, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
I would really appreciate a quick response. Thanks, -- CrohnieGal Talk 22:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi Luke, thanks for the welcome. You seem interested in law and in Wikipedia policy so you might be the best person to ask where I can find (or initiate the creation of) policies for the law articles.
The most obvious question is content duplication (something on which I am surprised not to find a Wikipedia-wide policy), which makes it hard to check/correct accuracy and verifiability issues. For example I tried to verify the claim in the competition law articles that "a French funeral service was found to have demanded exploitative prices". This is attributed to case C-30/87 Corinne Bodson v. SA Pompes funèbres des régions libérées [1987] ECR 2479. I read the judgment and it does not make such a finding (indeed it does not make any finding of fact: it is a preliminary ruling on an issue of law). Also the reference is wrong: it says [1988] ECR 2479 on the judgment. Now these errors, according to the search tool, appears in four different articles. This degree of duplication cannot be the right way of going about writing a verifiable encyclopedia.
Related to this example too, I am wondering whether case law references are too close to WP:OR, at least when some broad conclusion is being drawn from a case without giving specific paragraph number references.
And obviously there are enormous problems of failing to identify the countries to which the discussion applies. An Anglosphere bias seems fair enough but sometimes it sounds like we are talking about 19th century England only!
Finally for now, I think I saw somewhere a statement that no disclaimer was needed on Wikipedia articles. Is that really safe?
Thanks for any help or pointers you can give. Proz 07:30, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
At any rate, you really shouldn't antagonize people with sarcastic comments either. There might be spurious accusations tossed about, but the appropriate response is not to belittle editors. [6] Ossified 03:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Thought I'd ask you this, seeing as how you seem to be a regular helper outer at WP:SPLICE. Is the move repair stuff, which I understand is for the benefit of GFDL compliance, relevant to talk pages? I've just discovered Talk:European and Talk:European ethnic groups, but while the untidiness of the move makes me grind my teeth and claw at my cheeks, I know that's just my rather anal attitude to keeping things tidy, and I may have to just... (deeeep breath...) put up with it. If I can slap a {{ db-histmerge}} tag on it that'd be just grand, but I wanted to check before I added it to the list. Cheers, -- DeLarge 11:34, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, I added the 5th source which directly comments on the MPAA numbers and their lack of credibility. I don't think it would look so much like syn if I distributed the sources throughout the paragraph so that they directly proceed the respective statements. Everything in there is directly stated in the sources at at least one point and I'm pretty sure no one statement is derived from two individual sources (syn).
I don't know, I could be wrong. pyrogenix
The first sentence of the reference to the WSJ article is deleted because it is NOT supported by what the WSJ reported. The WSJ reported that an e-mail was sent to NEJM staff (it doesn't specify who) from a PR representative the night before the EOC was released. The WSJ does NOT state that the EOC was either produced or timed based on any outside advice, and the entry stating otherwise is both false and not at all supported by the source material. The WSJ language is quite careful and explicit on this matter.
you must understand that the sentence in question was originally added as a joke (by me, and i regret that), but later was restructured and even supported with a botched up "evidence" by someone with a vested interest of laundering the effects of msg. there is no evidence of the effects on humans being different from that on rats. the "supporting study" that i keep deleting is a non-scientific SURVEY. GIMME A BREAK! some freakin SURVEY is used to PROVE that msg does not cause obesity in people???
just flip a few weeks back in the history and you will see how the original subsection appeared.
I was curious if I could use your picture "Image:TRAX train downtown.jpg" on my website promoting streetcar transit. I'll give credit to you. :) PerryPlanet 05:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for reverting back to my changes. I cant get the higher ups to put semi protection or full protection up (Obviously the people who are putting those images up have no life and I equate it to vandalsim). But I appreciate it :)
When you get a chance, can you take a look at the competition law page? Real WP:OWN problems there, and the editor refuses to acknowledge a legitimate NPOV tag other than minor cosmetic changes to some of the more blatant problems. THF 09:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
The Special Barnstar | ||
I'm awarding you this barn star as a gesture of appreciation for your contributions. Wikidudeman (talk) 14:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC) |
The Vaccine controversy article is a public health hazard. There are sources of the worst, unreliable, partisan types, promoting dangerous ideas. We need to only allow scientifically firm sources. I'm not sure what to do, but this stuff causes deaths, especially of children. The AVN list has been known to praise parents who have stood firm to anti-vax principles and allowed their children to die of easily preventable diseases like whooping cough. In at least one case they stood so firm in their anti-medical stance that they even refused to seek treatment once the child was sick and could still have been saved. When the child died the parents were treated like heroes. This is criminal behavior, but the AVN link is there.-- Fyslee/ talk 13:53, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
ConfuciusOrnis is getting harassed, his user page vandalized, and the vandal is violating 3rr in a couple places. He needs help immediately: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User:ConfuciusOrnis&action=history -- Fyslee/ talk 21:56, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
I want to apologize for my comment about the list being ridiculous the way it is. I got frustrated with the back and forth stuff. Also, saying it needs proof of weight by other editors when this is a biography about Barrett and not needed, well, anyways, I'm sorry for allowing my emotions to get out of control on this. I still think deep linking is more consistent on the article but will accept the way it is now if that's the consensus. Again, sorry. -- CrohnieGal Talk 11:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
I love the AT&T Corporation history link; however, it does not refer to AT&T Inc. in the slightest bit. In fact, on the very last section of the history page ("The New AT&T", which actually is referring to AT&T Corporation following its name change from American Telephone & Telegraph Co. to AT&T Corp. following its spinoff of Lucent and NCR) it lists "March 2005", the last time that the page was ever updated. The IP user that continues to note this link as the "AT&T Corporate History" is misleading users into believing that it is the history of AT&T Inc., when in fact it is the history of the old AT&T Corporation that wasn't eliminated from the AT&T website database upon purchase by SBC Communications. The reason I eliminated this history link from the AT&T page is because it is appropriate on the American Telephone & Telegraph and Bell System pages due to the fact that AT&T Corporation existed then; it has no reason on the AT&T page because of the fact that it hasn't been updated in almost 2 1/2 years (otherwise it would have noted the closure of the buyout by SBC).
This dispute over having this link also comes down to an ongoing edit war this IP user has dragged on as he disputes the SEC in its records that AT&T Inc. (current company) was incorporated in 1983 - he continued to vandalize the page changing it to 2005, then claiming that AT&T Inc. is the exact same company today as it was in 1885, ignoring official citations - nevertheless, I personally do not feel the AT&T Corporation history link appropriate on the AT&T page; rather, it is better fit on the American Telephone & Telegraph and Bell System pages. However, a .pdf file from the AT&T website would be perfectly fine, which I am adding, as AT&T Inc. clearly denotes that the AT&T today is SBC renamed, and it also lists the histories of the Bell Operating Companies, Baby Bells, AT&T Corp., etc. that became a part of SBC, now AT&T. I don't want to remove the AT&T Corporation history link from the AT&T page until I receive further input from yourself regarding this link.
Hope this clears up confusion. KansasCity 04:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Good points here. It is in the nature of things that science is limited by verifiable facts, while alternative medicine has no limits, consisting of a combination of facts, fantasies, lies, deceptions, delusions, scams, etc. etc. etc. ad libitum. There is no doubt Barrett has (rightly) criticized "numerous" forms of sCAM (so-Called "Alternative" Medicine), but I doubt it can be proven he has criticized "most". -- Fyslee/ talk 19:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Now you've moved it, keep an eye on it please, with the Wakefield case proceeding there will be a flurry of revisionism around. Midgley 23:37, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Your recent change to Vaccine controversy replaced "immunisation" with "immunization" in a couple of places where it shouldn't. Any direct quote of a British source should use the spelling that the source used. For example, if the title of a British document was "Vaccination and immunisation policy" or if a British press release is quoted as saying "immunisation where appropriate" then WP:ENGVAR says the original British spelling should be retained, even in an article that uses American spelling consistently elsewhere. Eubulides 08:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
RUReady2Testify ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Hi Cool Hand Luke, I put a message on my talk page that I'd like you to look at. Thanks.
RUReady2Testify
20:25, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi - we have a persistant POV anon. I've reverted him twice for the same "labeling". If you're online, would you take the next shift? Thanks. WBardwin 23:42, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Hello there... How come Eric Dill has gone back to a protected redirect? It looked like that it was determined that he should have his own page during the discussion of the redirect, yet now he is back on the protected redirect. Thanks. SummerRidge123 09:23, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Though I did not nominate it, I thought you might like to know that a page you started has been nominated for deletion. I'm surprised the nominator didn't tell you. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Henry_Grow. – SESmith 04:54, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Following your recent participation in Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 July 30#Allegations of American apartheid, you may be interested to know that a related article, Allegations of Chinese apartheid, is currently being discussed on AfD. Comments can be left at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of Chinese apartheid. -- ChrisO 15:23, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
I added the owner of the station to the block, per your request. However, please don't delete all the work I did throughout the article. The items I added are well sourced and it's rude to off-handedly delete them. I wouldn't do the same for your articles. -- Vitalmove 18:16, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
If you look at the BBC's Wikipedia article, you will see that they have both ownership by the government, and independence, in the block. Since the BBC article mentions its independence in the block, the Wikipedia article should be allowed to do the same. Shouldn't it? -- Vitalmove 18:37, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
I decided to leave it alone. We'll leave it your way. It's ridiculous to debate one word in a block. However, do you mind if I move the ownership stuff to the bottom of the block? The BBC block starts with a description of the station then talks about ownership. The Press TV article currently talks about ownership first, which is kind of leading. -- Vitalmove 19:34, 5 August 2007 (UTC) Thank for the discussion. On second thought, I'm just going to leave everything as it was the last time you edited, with funding up top. Have a nice day. -- Vitalmove 19:44, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
I noticed you added criticism of Press TV from this article. [1]
The article however goes on to say "Only five days after launching, Press TV invited me to take part in a televised panel discussion about journalism in the Middle East. I argued that the biggest challenge facing journalists in the region is a lack of freedom and cited, among other examples, the case of Zahra Kazemi, the Canadian photojournalist who was raped, tortured and murdered by Iranian officials after she was arrested for taking photographs outside the Evin prison in Tehran. To his credit, the host and chief press officer, Shahab Mossavat, did not interrupt or silence me. He called my comments "offensive" to Iran but pointed out that I was given free rein to say what I wished by Press TV. He then steered the conversation toward obstacles confronted by journalists in Israel." Thus the author demonstrates that Press TV let him criticize the Iranian government. If we're going to add the critical parts of an article, shouldn't we add one sentence about the positive elements of the article too? What do you think? I'm going to move this to the article's talk page since it's easier to talk there. -- Vitalmove 23:07, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Regarding your post on his talkpage, he has not yet violated the rule. In order to violate WP:3RR one must make four or more reversions in a 24 hour period. Both Vitalmove and I have made three and thus have no violated the rule. My point in posting that is that if other users revert his edits he will be unable to revert anymore. If you click the link I posted on the talkpage you will see that this issue was previously discussed and consensus is that Press TV is 1. not independent 2. not at all reliable. Perspicacite 19:53, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Luke, what's up with these guys (Vitalmove and Perspicacite)? I see a 3RR violation by User:Vitalmove but with all the accusations flying back and forth I'm hesitant to act before knowing just what's going on. Note to Vitalmove and Perspicacite if you're watching, please don't chime in yet -- I want to hear Luke's take first. Raymond Arritt 22:22, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Hahaha I saw your post on Raymond's talkpage. I'm not sure exactly, but I think there is a grand total of six Muslims living in Angola. For future reference, I edit articles related to Angola. I am the only editor on the English Wikipedia who edits Angola-related articles with any regularity. I care neither about PRESS TV nor Islam. The dispute originated from another user, Seabhcan, trying to use PRESS TV as a source. Perspicacite 00:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. And thank you for offering to help me out by recovering them. Right at the moment, I think the more of those that can be recovered temporarily to my userspace, the better.
Incidentally, I think the closing admin on pac-man did userfy it for me, after a space of time. He or she put a link on my user (not user talk) page. AndyJones 17:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Excellent. Many thanks for your efforts. AndyJones 18:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
I think your warning was merited and has been heeded; however, I think since you have been involved before with Ted Frank being accused of making biased edits in favor of his employer, it seems you may want to give him a warning as well that writing an anti-Michael Moore article for a magazine his employer, AEI, publishes, being paid for it, then strenuously arguing for its inclusion on the Talk:Sicko page, and then trying to have it inserted on two other film pages, doesn't look so good on the WP:COI front. And I don't think I'm the only one who will think so, aside from his very impassioned defense of the magazine at AfD (where he did little to provide evidence, but did provide a lot of argument), this subject from July seems very pertinent. I think a warning to him would be warranted to "cool it" since it has been an issue in the past. It's your choice, Luke, but I'm surprised you warned me and not him. But thanks for the warning - it was merited. Have a good night! -- David Shankbone 03:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
I didn't userfy it due to the overwhelming consensus to delete it outright. Go on and userfy it if you want, but I'm not sure the problems it had can be fixed. -- Core desat 20:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Would you check into the [2] article? A cool head is desperately needed since the article is no longer protected. A large amount of info is being removed and then reverted and so forth. I really don't want to see the article protected again since the same old feuds will begin again. I tried to get everyone to talk on the talk page but it doesn't seem to be helping all that well. Someone who is not really active will be useful I think. A couple of editors are deleting things saying there is no consensus yet it all needs to be talked about. And there is more going on but mainly I don't like to see the incivility and the warring. Your help would really be appreciated before things really get bad. I will understand though if you are too busy with other things. Thanks in advance, -- CrohnieGal Talk 20:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand your 22:35 comment. THF 22:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I'd really like to avoid further disputes with DSB, but I have to object to this WP:POINTy , if only because I was threatened with an indef block in the identical situation involving Jance when she changed her user name. THF 01:54, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
I think they may have a big influence on the libel suits that are being disputed. [3]
[4] -- CrohnieGal Talk 20:50, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for heads-up. Tyrenius 19:48, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
I'clast and the Nautilus is the same person but it looks like another editor is adding input. I don't want to start a feud with him so I am asking you to do this. Thanks, -- CrohnieGal Talk 12:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Your revert summary for this edits reads: All of these changes are necessitated by removing the unsupported last line and mentioning the CDA interpretation dismissal earlier
The problem is that you are reverting a lot of other research and work along with the one sentence you are trying to delete which only really needed a "citation needed" tag at the moment. The other sentence is actually more correct per the Fonorow suit which supports it. The Fonorow suit was not about Fonorow using the CDA to protect himself, but rather Barrett trying to use CDA against Fonorow and having the judge blow it back in his face. Please re-read Fonorow and I am sure will agree. Then consider self-reverting your edit. Thanks. -- Levine2112 discuss 06:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Cool Hand, I undid your change again, but after reading the old version that it reverted to I was highly dissatisfied with it, too. It's wrong to say it's "incorrect" to use the word Mormon for anything but a reference to the LDS Church (and you do know which one I'm talking about). I changed the opening paragraph of the article to reflect that the usage of Mormon to refer to an LDS member is so common that any other usage is esoteric. The Greeks call themselves Hellenes and insist that the real Greeks were only a small and disreputable tribe among their richly diverse demographics, but that doesn't change the fact that Americans know what THEY mean when they say Greek. Similarly, let's not use an article that's supposed to be informative to confuse people. And your statement that the article should represent all points of view is simply unachievable. It's not a worthy goal because no article can represent all points of view; it's not supposed to represent any point of view. Everything in it is supposed to be fact.
And the fact is, when people say "Mormon," they're thinking of the guys with nametags riding on bikes. Or, as will soon be the case, the folks associated with the Mountain Meadows Massacre. People can argue about whether other sects share the same heritage, but there's no basis for argument about what virtually all people mean when they say "Mormon." Preston McConkie 14:27, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for moving this article per my request. I greatly appreciate your assistance. ConoscoTutto 15:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I messed up on setting up the templates for the merger proposal. Sorry about that. Noroton 23:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Your unblock doesn't seem to have taken. THF 04:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar | ||
To both Cool Hand Luke and Kurykh, for stopping the Michael Moore stuff at WP:ANI from getting (too) out of hand. ANI shouldn't be the place to argue COI and external link policies. David Fuchs ( talk) 13:07, 24 August 2007 (UTC) |
Blogs may be used in very limited circumstances. I left two links to a "Overlawyered" page which contains a copy of an article from "Reason" magazine, though we also have a guideline against linking to copyright violations. Blogs may be used as references for the articles on the bloggers themselves, but blogs should never be used as sources for 3rd parties, per WP:BLP. Regarding using blogs as sources for the opinoins of the bloggers, every blogger has an opinion on something. Unless the blogger is notable enough for a Wikipedia biography, they are probably not notable enough to have their opinion quoted. Even so, I did leave the one link in which the blogger is specifically referred to by name. Are there any specific articles that you think the blog should be restored? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
OK, so blog entries actually written by Walter Olson may be used with caution in topics related to his field of expertise. However blogs are never acceptable for biographies of living people, WP:BLP. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Also, if there are other links which violate WP:EL or other guidelines or polices then let's remove those too. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:55, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I agreed with some of the removals, and I think the Chip Berlet removal was probably appropriate, and I will self-revert Ralph Nader, but most of these refs look OK to me: they often just contained primary documents on the BLP or were citing somewhat expert polemic on the other topics. If you excuse me, I'm breaking for lunch now. Cool Hand Luke 18:04, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Speaking of realclimate, there is a discussion at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Christopher_Monckton on the subject. As you participated in WP:RS/N#Overlawyered, you may be interested in a recent discussion on the BLP use of blogs at this noticeboard. THF 11:59, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
The fact that the response to my rebuttal resulted in Wikidemo creating a new articlespace page was not quite the remedy I was looking for. Now that this future can of worms has been opened, can you watchlist it and keep an eye out for BLP violations? I suspect RFPP will be needed at some point. THF 21:11, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
"has been quoted as critical of plans to allow homeowners to keep their homes in the face of foreclosures" isn't true. Who is the SPA a sock of? THF 21:30, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Can you double-check my edits for this article? I'm not sure if I got the footnote citations right. THF 13:42, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Separately, don't go too far out on a limb on any of this other stuff. My biggest concern is the neutral and reasonable application of COI rules, and it's not worth spending political capital on the battles that are going to be lost because they're a proxy war for opinions about Michael Moore or the SlimVirgin controversy. Better to ban anonymous editing altogether consistently. THF 13:42, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm much better at being a pain in the butt than in showing appreciation. And thanks for the unblock, too.
The Special Barnstar | ||
for civility and grace in bringing me your objections, reasoning and advice in a recent controversy. Even where I continued to disagree, I found your messages helped me to think about some issues and even eventually change my mind about some things. Your attitude exemplifies what "getting along with others", "assume good faith", and "keep cool" is all about. And it was inspiring. You set a great example. Thanks! Noroton 20:54, 27 August 2007 (UTC) |
This category was recently nominated for deletion and your input would be appreciated at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_August_28#Category:Reality_films. Thank you. -- Pixelface 12:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
As the creator of this article I am letting you know I put a PROD tag on it. I also nominated Brainwashing 101 for deletion. Jeez - you'd think I was the Deletionist! lol. --David Shankbone 04:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Content such as this is totally unacceptable. haven't you ever read WP:CRYSTAL? -- lucid 05:38, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
for the cleanup on my userpage. Much appreciation. CitiCat ♫ 17:13, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi, i'm going to try to stay out of this but finding out that THF was forced off was shocking, that makes two in two months and the first was an admin. This has to stop or there will be no-one left (or right as the case is with THF). (Hypnosadist) 23:26, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Hello,
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/THF-DavidShankBone. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/THF-DavidShankBone/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/THF-DavidShankBone/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon (t) 18:25, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
That would be because I defined the task too loosely. Don't worry, it was just a one-time job. Just revert my bot as you see the mistakes. MessedRocker ( talk) 03:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
There was a phony account Ted Frank ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who made a few edits on Ted Frank. I notice you have previously deleted and restored that article. Do you think you could also do these three edits? Fred Bauder 23:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I saw that you have deleted this page based on this discussion. There has been a discussion in Persian Wikipedia over censorship and because of that, I looked at this article on Sep. 2. I don't remember seeing any AfD tag. Could you please check the history to see if the AfD procedure is done properly? Alefbe 23:13, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Remove VandalProof error and moved it to correct editor. -- Storm Rider (talk) 19:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Many thanks -- Kaaveh 05:39, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
I would really appreciate a quick response. Thanks, -- CrohnieGal Talk 22:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi Luke, thanks for the welcome. You seem interested in law and in Wikipedia policy so you might be the best person to ask where I can find (or initiate the creation of) policies for the law articles.
The most obvious question is content duplication (something on which I am surprised not to find a Wikipedia-wide policy), which makes it hard to check/correct accuracy and verifiability issues. For example I tried to verify the claim in the competition law articles that "a French funeral service was found to have demanded exploitative prices". This is attributed to case C-30/87 Corinne Bodson v. SA Pompes funèbres des régions libérées [1987] ECR 2479. I read the judgment and it does not make such a finding (indeed it does not make any finding of fact: it is a preliminary ruling on an issue of law). Also the reference is wrong: it says [1988] ECR 2479 on the judgment. Now these errors, according to the search tool, appears in four different articles. This degree of duplication cannot be the right way of going about writing a verifiable encyclopedia.
Related to this example too, I am wondering whether case law references are too close to WP:OR, at least when some broad conclusion is being drawn from a case without giving specific paragraph number references.
And obviously there are enormous problems of failing to identify the countries to which the discussion applies. An Anglosphere bias seems fair enough but sometimes it sounds like we are talking about 19th century England only!
Finally for now, I think I saw somewhere a statement that no disclaimer was needed on Wikipedia articles. Is that really safe?
Thanks for any help or pointers you can give. Proz 07:30, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
At any rate, you really shouldn't antagonize people with sarcastic comments either. There might be spurious accusations tossed about, but the appropriate response is not to belittle editors. [6] Ossified 03:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Thought I'd ask you this, seeing as how you seem to be a regular helper outer at WP:SPLICE. Is the move repair stuff, which I understand is for the benefit of GFDL compliance, relevant to talk pages? I've just discovered Talk:European and Talk:European ethnic groups, but while the untidiness of the move makes me grind my teeth and claw at my cheeks, I know that's just my rather anal attitude to keeping things tidy, and I may have to just... (deeeep breath...) put up with it. If I can slap a {{ db-histmerge}} tag on it that'd be just grand, but I wanted to check before I added it to the list. Cheers, -- DeLarge 11:34, 15 September 2007 (UTC)