Hello, welcome to my talk page. To leave a new message, click here. Please try to keep it relatively organized by signing your posts, posting new topics on the bottom of the page, making relevant headings about your topic and using subheadings, not new headings, for replies. I will almost always reply on this page to messages. I reserve the right to make minor changes of formatting (headings, bolding, etc.) but not content in order to preserve the readablilty of this page. I will delete without comment rude and/or insulting comments, trolling, threats, comments from people with a history of insults and incivility, and comments posted to the top of this page. Also, I'm much more informal than this disclaimer implies. Thank you. Rock on.
Archives: 3-8/04 | 9-11/04 | 11/04-2/05 | 2-4/05 | 5-7/05 | 8-10/05 | 11/05-2/06 | 3-7/06 | 8/06-1/07 | 2/07-12/07 | 1/08-5/08
Some people will do anything to avoid answering a question, eh? I gather that's one of the few reasons for editing a talk page that way. I'm glad you stepped in before I saw it. :-) -- Doug Weller ( talk) 17:39, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
At the deletion discussion for Featherproof books, you endorsed the nominator's demonstrably false accusation that the publisher was a "vanity press." I am curious as to why a responsible person would do such a thing. The Enchantress Of Florence ( talk) 18:13, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I see you created the article Lincoln Kennedy coincidences. In case you hadn't noticed, there is another article, Lincoln Kennedy coincidences urban legend, which contains much of the same information, so perhaps a merge is in order. Just wanted to let you know. Zagalejo ^^^ 18:31, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Would appreciate your input/thoughts at the Reliable sources Noticeboard. Cirt ( talk) 23:25, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry for my stupid messages, which I wrote for you. Very sorry, because this messages were as you wrote "trolling", so I think that my block was OK. Very sorry Alden or talk with Alden 18:41, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I appreciate you jumping in, but is it your contention that my 3RR report was "bogus"? I stand behind it. / Blaxthos ( t / c ) 14:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I thought you should be made aware of this. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 16:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Are you aware of this complaint by User:Arnold1 [1]? Doug Weller ( talk) 02:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
So you have problems with such language, but when Boody accused others of antisemtitism and trolling, that was perfectly acceptable and did not merit a single word of criticism? Could you be so kind and explain the difference to me? PS. I don't endorse Poeticbent style there and I support your warning there, I just wonder why you have warned him and not Boody.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:39, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
---|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 23 | 2 June 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot ( talk) 07:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
You left the following message on my talk page.
I do not know which specific editorial change that you are referring to...—Preceding unsigned comment added by C08040804 ( talk • contribs)
Greetings,
I just checked the Flora-bama article and saw that it was up for deletion and that you had suggested it be deleted. While I agree that it does not have any references, it is a very notable bar. By far, I can easily say that it is one of the most renown bars of the Gulf South. I added the link to the bar.
Regards,
Joshua Melder —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.177.34.33 ( talk) 00:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, you restored a citation, but it is a citation to the Nation, a publication that does not have a neutral point of view and has a record of hostility to Judicial Watch. What you did was restore the introductory sentence of this article offering the Nation's description of Judicial Watch. If I changed the introductory sentence of the ACLU article to offer the National Review's description of the ACLU and then cited to a National Review article, you'd be all over me for non-neutral point of view. Your claim of a copyright problem, which you do not describe (there is no problem) is also a non-starter. Rather than have a continual battle, why don't we agree to put the introductory paragraph of Judicial Watch on the same playing field as the ACLU--that is, just as the intro paragraph of the ACLU describes the ACLU in accordance with the ACLU's web page, so to the Judicial Watch's introductory paragraph should describe Judicial Watch in accordance with the Judicial Watch's webpage. As for the positions, I will leave them as is and then put in a separate section afterwards explaining criticisms of the ACLU's positions (the same could be done for Judicial Watch--a section on Judicial Watch's positions, followed by criticisms). Please advise. In the interests of editorial harmony, I will wait till tomorrow evening to hear from you before making any further revisions to either article. C08040804 ( talk) 02:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
To a man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
/ Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
These subjects are related and should be linked. Thanks for your contributions and interest and help in expanding understanding of these subjects and maintaining a NPOV. Best regards, Rusty Dr. B. R. Lang ( talk) 23:42, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm a pretty sporadic contributor, so I won't try and fight you too hard on this, but I don't think you're making a very convincing case to rm the tax section. "Importance" and "Encyclopedic notability" are fairly vague, but I certainly think a Yahoo News article on the subject meets Wiki's criteria for notability. Frankly I'm concerned that NPOV is being compromised here. -- Kangaru99 ( talk) 16:23, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
He has been making other contributions, plus it appears he is creating another account. If he really feels that strongly about the NPOV then someone should be making some comments to what the problem is. Arzel ( talk) 17:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
---|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 24 | 9 June 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot ( talk) 06:50, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Are you sure your ID shouldn't be "Gangsta"? :) :) :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 11:01, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
i am kind of confused why i need to source something that is an obvious fact? based on your wiki page it appears you are a democrat. is it not obvious to you or anyone else for that matter that olberman is a liberal commentator? i assume you don't think of him as a straight down the line host? Willcoop ( talk) 20:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
I believe water is wet and the sky is blue, but try to find sources stating that. It's not a belief when it is obviously true. I was hoping the alleged "Liberal Bias" on Wikipedia was untrue, but you're sadly proving it true. Please don't do so. 72.66.3.14 ( talk) 08:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Where is the article saying that water is wet? You conveniently used a selective article to substantiate a point you wanted to make. My guess is that had you been able to find BOTH assertions substantiated by an article in Oxford University Press, then you would have used it. However, you were probably unable to find that water it wet; so, instead, you use the "sky is blue" opinion as a straw man. Doing a google search, I found no good source substantiating that "water is wet" (the UK Guardian is a conglomeration of opinions submitted by people who write in...hardly a source that wikipedia (or you) would accept). And I never made any supposition, I merely supported the supposition of the previous poster. The reason I did this is because no political commentator will EVER say they are a liberal or a conservative (note, I attack both sides). The reason they don't do this is because they realize that it will ruin any credibility they have as a commentator. K/O is clearly liberal, just as O'Rielly is clearly conservative, just as Colbert is clearly liberal. I don't need to convince you of anything, that's the unfortunate position that both sides are on here. You're never going to consider the position that sometimes things are so obvious that they ARE facts (note, I didn't say "opinions" I said "obvious"). Likewise, you'll never convince the other side that you don't have an agenda. It's just unfortunate and partisan; but the one issue that is more likely to be proven true is the former, that obvious things can be facts. After all, if water wasn't wet, why would you need a towel to dry yourself? 72.66.3.14 ( talk) 17:45, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Mtracy9 is seeking to have his block repealed. Although his initial request was declined, I was concerned by this response. If he does pursue this email list avenue, would we have an opportunity to state our case as to why we believe he is RPJ, how he has edit warred, and how immediately after the block he created two sockpuppets to avoid the ban before seeking unblock. I'd have no problem if another admin, after reviewing all the evidence reduced or repealed the block. But I would want an opportunity to state my case or at least review the process before it happens. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 17:07, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Guess who
may be back for the next presidential election (here's a hint:
).
Shem
(talk)
05:31, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi Gamaliel. We've discussed the problematic editic habits of Dan56 before. And, unfortunately, the user still continues to be a bit of a rogue when it comes to music related pages. Perhaps, if you have time, you could provide Mr 56 with some more advice as to how music articles should be edited. Thanks, cheers and take care. Anger22 ( Talk 2 22) 16:55, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Just tried a wp:quote clean but got reverted yet again. Articles shouldn't be written by pasting text word for word from external sources should they? Anger22 ( Talk 2 22) 22:13, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
He has been known to upload album covers as "self work" which isn't copyvio I know but still a blatant lie and one knowingly done too. I haven't checked his image uploads in a while but they are worth investigating due to his past history. I am at 3 strikes on the LL Cool J album article and quoting the quote essay about what makes for a bad article doesn't seem to make any difference. When an editor sees "fanboy page" as better than "encyclopedia page" then its hard to sway them toward quality no matter how many policies, guidelines or style essays are mentioned. Speaking of policy though, Dan56 has been blocked for 3RR in the past and now it looks like he has veered that line again without care. He has a tendency to blank any warnings he is ever given almost as quick as he receives them so any editor who stumble on to his regular haunts will never get any sort of pre-warning about dealing with him unless they review his talk page history. I know deleting is the same as acknowledgment but still I think for all the 3RR warnings and similar that Dan, or anyone has received, they should have to stick for 30 days before the user can blank them. Dan56 has violated WP:3RR countless times against countless editors, including you, to try and keep all his copy/paste quote content into the articles that he ignores WP:OWN on. Very troublesome edit habits. Anger22 ( Talk 2 22) 23:09, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Heh, 3RR reports are the most painful thing ever invented on Wikipedia. :-) I'd rather just pretend he didn't exist for a day or two and try and focus on the more productive WP:MUSICIAN/ WP:GUITAR project 'to-do' lists. He'll take a powder for a while. (we can hope) and trying to follow him is tough (since he also edits as an IP as well to skip around the 3RR policy) I appreciate your efforts and your advice. Wikipedia wasn't built in a day. All bad editing will eventually be replaced with quality some day. Maybe even by a reformed Dan56 eh? Who knows. Anger22 ( Talk 2 22) 23:29, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi Gamaliel - I wonder if I could seek a bit of advice from you concerning fair use of an image. This is in response to an ongoing discussion on the Al Gore talk page which you can read here about updating the infobox photo. You can read the entire discussion there, but essentially I am arguing that photos in infoboxes for former presidents and vps should be professional, official, portraits in order to maintain quality WP articles. Besides the free image currently in use in the article's infobox, there is another professional portrait online but it is WP:NONFREE. I find the rules concerning images and copyright a bit overwhelming, so I was wondering if you could take a look? Is there a way it can be used? Is permission needed?
Thanks, - Classicfilms ( talk) 15:58, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Please hangon - I will open a discussion on talk. I think the reference I cite is pretty clear. Thanks -- Justallofthem ( talk) 01:58, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
I quote from my recent e-mail:
I would like to report a flaw in the bot HelloAnnyong. Recently, I have been defending a user's post on a talk page. The bot in question appears to be reverting my edits without considerable discretion. As a talk page consists and exists primarily for the purpose of discussion and attaining a general consensus on an issue, I believe that the bot is either a) malfunctioning (acting on falsified coding), or obsolete (reverting edits of previously scrupulous origin, which have since its inception proven encyclopedic). I can cite reverts to the talk page for Fred Phelps (excuse my failure to link to said article). The talk page has served as an arena for discussion of encyclopedic inclusion or exclusion. And, until recently, the page was open to influential and academic interpretation. I conclude that the bot HelloAnnyong is overstepping the very guidelines that make Wikipedia free and inclusive.
As you will note, my edits do not constitute violation of any existing policy. Please acknowledge this before proceeding with any further incriminations.
Thank you, John
Please familiarize yourself with the policies at Wikipedia:Biographies of living people. They prohibit defamatory material from being posted anywhere on Wikipedia. The material you keep restoring is clearly defamatory, and thus prohibited. Please do not restore it again. Thank you. Gamaliel ( talk) 03:02, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
---|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 25 | 23 June 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 26 | 26 June 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot ( talk) 08:27, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
You're totally right about Real Clear Politics. I was reading some of the articles on that site when I said to myself "this seems pretty conservative." So I came to Wikipedia to see what it said and found your comments on the talk page. Right on! It's as fair and balanced as Fox News, or a baseball umpire who tries to keep the game tied. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KenFehling ( talk • contribs) 15:00, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
You might want to have a look at User talk:Swamilive and see if you think a reduction in block time is in order. - Nunh-huh 19:48, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
How this is vandlism, and these 1 and 2 are not?
Your own quote on my talk page regarding this.
"The crux of the issue is that you are pretty free with the word "vandalism". To another user, especially a new user, adding the word "right-wing" to the article of a Fox anchor is logical and not vandalism."
Arzel ( talk) 03:40, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
---|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 27 | 30 June 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot ( talk) 04:24, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Hey, haven't communicated with you in a long time. I need advice as to whether it is ever acceptable to summarize a primary source? I think it is if you don't draw an inference from it at all, but another editor disputes that and I don't want to dig in my heels on it and be wrong. Thanks! -- BenBurch ( talk) 05:14, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm glad that 4 years later the Rube Goldberg page has finally been restored to what I tried to restore it to way back then with your ridiculous Mike and Ike, Foolish Questions, Lala Palooza, The Weekly Meeting of the Tuesday Women's Club, Professor Lucifer Gorgonzola Butts, and other links all removed. Your "immediate to do list" must still be quite long given those never made the cut in this long timespan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Equilibrium ( talk • contribs) 16:39, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
I was off-wiki for the holiday weekend, so I appreciate your coming to my defense on the Talk:Fox News Channel page. The whole thing surprised me, because I thought my comment was quite unexceptional; on re-reading it, I saw nothing that I'd change or apologize for. Ramsquire has apologized on my talk page. Presumably we can concentrate on trying to improve the article. JamesMLane t c 20:12, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Some time ago, you participated in a deletion discussion concerning Allegations of Israeli apartheid. I thought you might like to know that the parent article, Allegations of apartheid, was recently nominated for deletion. Given that many of the issues that have been raised are essentially the same as those on the article on which you commented earlier, you may have a view on whether Allegations of apartheid should be kept or deleted. If you wish to contribute to the discussion, please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of apartheid (fifth nomination). -- ChrisO ( talk) 18:18, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
---|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 28 | 7 July 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot ( talk) 09:32, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Talk:Racism is waaaay too huge with over 115 talk threads. Would you be willing to help tag talk sections with {{ resolved}} and {{ stale}} as appropriate so we can start archiving old talk threads? Even a few at time will help! Thank you! Banjeboi 22:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi - one of the editors over at Talk:Barack Obama pointed out [2] that your user name is similar to the Gamaliel Foundtion, for whom Barack Obama worked as a consultant and instructor. I don't know if you would have any obligations to disclose this, or whether it would be a WP:COI even if you were, but because the concern has been raised you might want to clear up whether or not you have a stake in the issue. Thanks, Wikidemo ( talk) 19:06, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Just looking into an unblock request at User talk:68.75.172.216, which is unfortunately difficult since I have no idea why the block on 68.75.0.0/16 ( block range · block log ( global) · WHOIS (partial)) is in place. If you don't mind, could you/we/someone change the block reason to something which doesn't apparently accuse a large number of AT&T customers of harassment? From personal experience blocking ISPs and fielding unblock requests, a decent number of people will be offended after they (unfortunately) assume the block reason accuses them of doing such things. {{ anonblock}} might be another option, with a <!-- commented --> note if needed. – Luna Santin ( talk) 07:19, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
I understand the need to block 'abusers of the service' but putting a brick wall up for all AT&T users is extreme (to use a polite word) - can you not be more selective ? - you're being personally associated with some very offensive behavior right now.....there has to be some way to act as a censor without being draconian to all users in a subnet. – Paul ( talk) 23:37, 3 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by PaulRichm ( talk • contribs)
I don't know if you are aware, but WorkerBee74 has mentioned you on WP:AN/I (see subsection Article probation). -- Scjessey ( talk) 14:58, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
A
proposed deletion template has been added to the article
Mike and Ike (They Look Alike), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's
criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "
What Wikipedia is not" and
Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{
dated prod}}
notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on
its talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Man It's So Loud In Here ( talk) 17:38, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I'm wondering why you moved RW(author) to RW. When I typed Richard Wright into the search box on Wiki, I was looking for information about the Pink Floyd keyboard player, and in fact had never even heard of the american author of the same name. Why does the author merit having the main namespace? all the best Jcuk ( talk) 12:14, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
---|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 29 | 14 July 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
From the editor: Transparency | ||
WikiWorld: "Goregrind" | Dispatches: Interview with botmaster Rick Block | |
Features and admins | Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News | |
The Report on Lengthy Litigation |
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 30 | 21 July 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot ( talk) 06:24, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
You have been named as a party in a report seeking a hearing by the Arbitration Committee concerning events at Talk:Barack Obama and WP:ANI. I have posted the report at the Talk Page for WP:RFAR since the main page is semi-protected. Feel free to add your statement, and please transfert the report to the main RFAR page if you see fit to do so. Thanks. 74.94.99.17 ( talk) 18:51, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Why are you reverting Greer's page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.178.238.189 ( talk • contribs)
Check this out. At least they spelled my name right... yours was only mentioned en passant, and the spelling error was in the original comment by the flaming anon. Should you care, I'm getting flamed pretty hard by the same anon (appears to have at least 2 IP's)... not sure who it is, but it's obviously a bitter person (most likely someone who got busted for sock and/or troll violations). Anyway, hope all is well. / Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
* Jsn9333 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
It's Jsn9333. You should recognize him by his accusations, his POV-warriorism, as well as the geographical location of his IP's. I consider all of the following suspect:
This, of course, is a complete violation of the terms of his ANI sanctions. Not sure how to handle it... Suggestions? / Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:24, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
you know me already.
Do you think it is OK to say dont be a dick to a newbie? Bonobonobo ( talk) 22:46, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Do you think it would be OK to delete that portion of Talk:John Edwards#New NE charges: $15,000 / mo.; baby's name is Frances that repeats the newest allegations from the National Enquirer. Isn't this covered under:
Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion, from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space.
Let alone the balance of this are personal attacks directed at Tvoz. ∴ Therefore | cogito· sum 21:06, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
I know...I know...your job on Wikipedia is to PREVENT any unseemly news about a DEMOCRATIC presidential/vice presidential candidate being given the light of day.
But, why don't you focus on actually, you know, NOT censoring information and QUIT HARASSING editors just because they're conservatives. You can always claim plausbile deniability by saying you were just enforcing the rules. But all you're doing is gaming the system which is against Wik policies. Unless you're a liberal, I guess. lol 204.38.4.80 ( talk) 20:32, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Ok, it may have not been totally correct. But it was funny as hell, was it not? (Or have you not seen the movie?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.218.189.219 ( talk) 22:58, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Meetup/Tampa -- You're invited! Hires an editor ( talk) 14:43, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Explain why you reverted. Dapi89 ( talk) 20:53, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
You wrote
Please do not add copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder, as you did to
Anna Borkowska. For
legal reasons, we cannot accept
copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be
blocked from editing.
Gamaliel (
talk)
03:01, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
I would like permission to rewrite this article. I can do it without citing the Yad Vashem source, too. Please let me know if this can be arranged. Ecoleetage ( talk) 16:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Anna Borkowska. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. -- Poeticbent talk 17:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
A new article on the subject is now online: Anna Borkowska (Sister Bertranda). There is also Anna Borkowska (actress), so you may want to disambiguate the Annas. Problem solved? Ecoleetage ( talk) 18:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. I am glad to have this subject back online. Ecoleetage ( talk) 18:52, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Here. Justmeherenow ( ) 23:12, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Template:Nobel icon has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Utternutter ( talk) 21:41, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
I was mistaken, it wasn’t a notice board. It was Docku's agreement with Niteshift36 that the inclusion of the David Adkisson information was a violation of BLP. [3] That would mean that out of 5 or 6 editors who have weighed in on this, you are the only one who thinks it belongs in the article. Now you not only have policy working against you but the talk page consensus as well. Please consider this before you add the information again. CENSEI ( talk) 01:15, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
I am familiar with all the conduct you felt you needed to mention by name in this discussion. Considering that you were talking about me before I was even involved in this one, you can't blame it on including me just because I was there. And I have provided you with the link on the talk page. I re-phrased since you want to concentrate on semantics and take issue with the word "ruling". But the link and quote are the same. Niteshift36 ( talk) 02:09, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, there was, but that has been dealt with already. And you have commented on the discussion when you started making a semantics issue out of the word "ruling". Niteshift36 ( talk) 07:20, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
You have replaced movie reviews in an article which is about the book. (And, high-handedly, given no reason.) The reviews, as I explained, are not about the book, they are about the movie, and belong in that article, only. If there was a comic book "The Magus", a beer drinking song, would you also want to include reviews about them in the book article? 67.169.127.241 ( talk) 02:17, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
... per Wikidemo's request there. My redacting that question may make your answer look confusing, so you may want to remove it from that page as well. Wikidemo had a good point about focusing on edits and focusing on the subject on that page. I appreciate the response. Noroton ( talk) 04:41, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
I am new here. Apparently CommodoreSloat has been doing this for some time. I was not familiar with the 3R rules. I am not clear of any rules. What I am clear of is CommodoreSloat has an ideological bend that has motivated him to edit my text. I have offered only either new citations or information that clarifies what is evidently misleading. What may appear to have been covered is not really covered if you re-read my edits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JasonDeanBrock ( talk • contribs) 17:07, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Here (and also, if possible, here?) Justmeherenow ( ) 05:16, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
I would ask that you undo your last edit on Helen Thomas, as it put you over the revert limit. CENSEI ( talk) 15:16, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Would you please have a word with the user here [4]. My comment, highlighted at the bottom of the diff is in response to the offending post. I am reluctant to template myself, as this might provoke. This behavior should not be acceptable, IMHO; however, I would welcome an outside opinion. Die4Dixie ( talk) 02:32, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Sorry I haven't been sending this over the past few weeks. Ralbot ( talk) 06:04, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
---|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 31 | 28 July 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 32 | 9 August 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 33 | 11 August 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 34 | 18 August 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
From the editor: Help wanted | ||
WikiWorld: "Cashew" | Dispatches: Choosing Today's Featured Article | |
Features and admins | Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News | |
The Report on Lengthy Litigation |
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot ( talk) 06:04, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
I would be interested in your opinion about this "report" filed by Noroton. -- Scjessey ( talk) 21:47, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi,
May I ask why you reverted the Frank Marshall Davis edit after I made some minor edits to the Autobiography section? There are certain stylistic errors like [The Daily Telegraph]] (sic) which you undid.
MB —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.252.20.65 ( talk) 08:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
You are correct in stating that I did not source my remark that Fox identifies the political leanings of it's commentators and guests, but I believe you are mistaken when you say this information is irrelevent. The previous sentance is speaking of perceived bias at Fox News, and it is important to note that unlike all other cable news channels (yes, I watch all of them) Fox actually gives you the personal background of the person speaking so you can take that information into account when they are giving an opinion. Hence their ability to state "We report, you decide." CNN often will have a guest on from an organization with an onocuous sounding name and not mention that this organization recieves all of it's funding from well-known liberal or conservative backers. I will search for a source to back up my assertions, but I don't believe that they are at all "irrelevent". FSF-Rapier ( talk) 19:17, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Opps ! never thought of that! I'll get right on it. -- BLP-vio-remover ( talk) 23:23, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Hello,
I just needed help with keeping the pages in regards to Bethany Joy Galeotti's music up. I've decided to make pages concerning her albums and music and have assured that the proper templates were utilized in doing so. I'm not sure if I should make a couple of the pages stubs but I'm just confused as to why these pages have been nominated for speedy deletion. If you could assist me in improving these pages that would be wonderful!
-Thank you HushSound —Preceding unsigned comment added by HushSound ( talk • contribs) 02:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi there, I saw your warning on user 152.97.217.92's talk page, and just wanted to ask you what happens next in the warning process? I've sometimes seen vandalism, and then seen the "final warning" on the vandal's page, but don't know what to do next, if anything. Thanks! Eeblet ( talk) 00:00, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
See my talk for his latest IP. -- BenBurch ( talk) 14:46, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Is this in response to this? Some might see this as petty and small. CENSEI ( talk) 15:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Please note that I have created an RfC to discuss the matter of whether, how, and where we should use and cover the designation "terrorist" describe the Weathermen and their former leaders. It is located here: Talk:Weatherman (organization)/Terrorism RfC. The intent is to decide as a content matter (and not as a behavioral issue regarding the editors involved) how to deal with this question. I am notifying you because you appear to have participated in or commented about this issue before. Feel free to participate. Thank you. Wikidemon ( talk) 20:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
I did a bit of expansion on an article, all fully and well sourced, and look at the reponse I get from Piotrus. Seems a bit, uh, excessive? Boodlesthecat Meow? 23:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
So is "Gamaliel" too close to "Guettarda"? Or are polysyllabic usernames starting with "G" the same to some people? [5] Hmmmm... Guettarda ( talk) 06:10, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
---|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 35 | 25 August 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 36 | 8 September 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot ( talk) 21:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
You recently undid my edit (found below) of the Soledad O'Brien article, assumably in good faith.
I agree with you that, as you say, "everything on factcheck doesn't deserve a subsection in an encyclopedia article", but this information is relevant to the article since O'Brien is the host of a investigative documentary program and should therefore be expected to have a firm foundation for any claims made while in that role, especially when it comes to negative assertions about the records of prominent political figures. In this case she passed something on to her viewers as fact that was in reality a false rumor being spread online as part of a smear campaign, much like the false claims that have been circulating online about Dem. Pres. candidate Obama.
If you don't think such verifiable lack of professionalism should be included in a Wikipedia article, that's fine with me, but it's my view that it should be. Sarnalios ( talk) 22:26, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for sorting that mess out for me. Whoever it was continues to send me "hate" mail from the IP 165.24.246.245, but I just delete it. -- Scjessey ( talk) 19:53, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
Thank you for your participation at my RfA, which passed with a count of (166/43/7). I appreciate your comments and in my actions as an administrator I will endeavor to act in ways that earn your full confidence, even though I don't have it now. Cirt ( talk) 01:35, 16 September 2008 (UTC) |
Hi, the IP you just reverted keeps on adding the same info. Just thought I will bring it to your attention. Docku Hi 14:06, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading
Image:Timehenryford.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a
claim of fair use. However, it is currently
orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed.
You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see
our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "
my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on
criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you.
BJBot (
talk)
05:02, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
[racial slurs and vandalism deleted]
![]() |
---|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 37 | 15 September 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot ( talk) 05:30, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
This is a message sent to a number of editors, and following WP:CANVASS requirements: Please take another look at Talk:Weatherman (organization)/Terrorism RfC and consider new information added near the top of the article and several new proposals at the bottom. If you haven't looked at the RfC in some time, you may find reason in the new information and new proposals to rethink the matter. -- Noroton ( talk) 02:28, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the compliment! I've no real interest in the subject, and was just fleshing out a red link I stumbled across, but it didn't take long to google a few things (and I wasn't in the slightest offended by your NPOV tag!) Plenty more info out there if anyone ever cared to expand it, but I shall return to my usual haunts (milhist, & refdesk)... :) Gwinva ( talk) 21:52, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
I invite you to discuss the Lithwick review of "Men in Black" on the discussion page, as I'm not looking to engage in an edit war. Keep in mind there is a direct link to Lithwick's review in the "Other websites" section, meaning your inclusion is redundant (either that, or renders the link at the bottom of the page redundant).
I feel your attempt to maintain fairness by giving a positive review might come across as disingenuous. You provide a two-word quote (and a source that cannot be directly viewed) in support, and provide two more lengthy and detailed criticisms against. Not to mention, I still feel opinions about Levin's book have little to do with Levin himself, which is what the page in question is about.
At minimum, I hope you address the redundancy of duplicate citations of Lithwick's interview and decide which, if either, should remain. Thanks. Ynot4tony2 ( talk) 01:32, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading
Image:Pnjlogo.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a
claim of fair use. However, it is currently
orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed.
You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see
our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot ( talk) 06:26, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi! Thank you for noting the sudden vandalism of the formerly stable Prescott Bush article. I think a number of the vandals/ drive-by editors are connected with my presence in Talk:Sarah Palin, including the IPs, "Wayfinder", a "Davey Collect" blocked account, and possible Writegeist who placed a comment on Talk: Prescott Bush without making any edits in the article, but which referred quite specifically to my presence in Sarah Palin. It appears that trying to be absolutely NPOV makes one a game target. Thank you very much! Collect ( talk) 11:26, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
RE: your edit here. Yes, journalists use anonymous sources. No, they don't use it "all the time", and try to avoid it at all costs. Anonymous sources for information (especially for something as contentious and liable to mistakes as an exact quotation in this case), rarely ever rise to meet WP:RS. I'd urge to reconsider your edit. Budding Journalist 14:47, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Hello, I tried to edit a page and realized that my IP was blocked. However, I was able to register and edit the page. But I am interested in knowing why my IP was blocked in the first place. The reason given was personal attack/harassment. Since I don't remember doing that, I would like my memory to be refreshed. Thanks! ( Neutronstar2007 ( talk) 02:41, 25 October 2008 (UTC))
Hi there. When you add a 3rr template to a user’s page please remember to substitute it. If wish to reply please use my talk page and if you need help feel free to talk to me there or you may find Wikipedia:SUB helpful. ·Add§hore· Talk/ Cont 15:59, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Damn, I had the firefox tabs opened I didn't see your remark. I have blocked Franciscod for a week (that's often what I do for obvious sockpuppetry) way after your message. What do you think? Either way is good with me :). -- lucasbfr talk 19:41, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
You closed the discussion and they ignored you and promptly reposted. Can something be done about this? Tvoz/ talk 19:56, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi - could you get me a copy of this article from Lexis/Nexis - Philadelphia Inquirer, February 24, 1989, p.5A, "Iran: West to blame Islam for forthcoming terrorism". Need it for verification of a quote in Cat Stevens' comments about Salman Rushdie. Some night last night, eh? Thanks Tvoz/ talk 04:01, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
I have been using Wikipedia for two years now and would not being greeted with a patronizing "Welcome to Wikipedia" message every time an admin or editor disagrees with me. Show some respect, please. Syntacticus ( talk) 06:21, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Template:Sollog has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Terraxos ( talk) 02:54, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for posting the Moon Impact Probe news. Just wanted to check if you award me a souvenir like this for my collection as per this. -- GPPande talk! 14:09, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Because the Signpost hasn't been sent in a while, to save space, I've condensed all seven issues that were not sent into this archive. Only the three issues from November are below.
![]() |
---|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 42 | 8 November 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 43 | 10 November 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 44 | 17 November 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot ( talk) 10:53, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Please see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Helen Jones-Kelley. Steve Dufour ( talk) 15:07, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi Gamaliel, I just wanted to let you know that I put Template:RS500, which you started, up for deletion based on the comments on its talk page. Here's a link to the deletion discussion: Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:RS500. Cheers! — Pie4all88 T C 10:16, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
I really don't know how you can have such a liberal bias and still claim to be a credible source. I put in a section on the Newsweek article claiming that Newsweek had credible claims against it, saying that it had a liberal bias, and it was removed. The article on Fox News has an entire section on it devoted to its percieved conservative bias, and I thought that it would be fair if other, liberal news outlets were called out on their political bias. Please get back to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CaptainNicodemus ( talk • contribs) 20:02, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
I have gone back and edited my section on Newsweek's political bias, and I have made it comparable to the Fox News article section on Fox News' percieved conservative bias. I am sure you will approve of that, as the editor in chief of Newsweek himself admitted in his last editorial that many people consider Newsweek to have a liberal bias. I can get the link to that editorial if you want. And, in the face of wanting to be a credible source of information, I am sure you encourage equality in information, as all fans of the scientific method do. Let me know what you think. CaptainNicodemus ( talk) 20:20, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
[blah blah blah] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.75.172.103 ( talk) 13:45, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Alleyoop.jpg. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.
Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI ( talk) 17:10, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
As a new wiki contributor, I want to thank you for educating me regarding some of the ethics of the community. Your comments were clear, concise and valuable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Avatar001 ( talk • contribs) 14:52, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Three issues have been published since the last deliver: November 24, December 1, and January 3.
![]() |
---|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 45 | 24 November 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 46 | 1 December 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
ArbCom elections: Elections open | Wikipedia in the news |
WikiProject Report: WikiProject Solar System | Features and admins |
The Report on Lengthy Litigation |
| ||
Volume 5, Issue 1 | 3 January 2009 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.-- ragesoss ( talk) 21:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
I am writing to you here in good faith to discuss the edit war on the BLP "Donald Luskin." Consistently, your edits have been in a direction to either diminish or discredit Mr. Luskin, by removing facts that make him look good and by adding facts that make him look bad. Mr. Luskin is a well-known conservative, and the large picture of Barack Obama on your Talk page makes it clear where you stand. It is shameful that you would use your privileges at Wiki to carry out a political agenda.
The recent edit war concerns the extensive citation of Mr. Luskin's quotation about the ecnonomy from a September Washington Post article. Mr. Luskin is correctly quoted, and the other facts are in order. However, that does not make inclusion of the material fair or reasonable. To create a section called "Predictions," and then to include just a single prediction, is deceptive on the face of it. Also, you are relying entirely on the source's framing of the prediction, without any regard to the context in which the prediction was made. The source, and you by uncritically quoting him, have pulled a single sentence out of a 1500-word article, designed to make Mr. Luskin appear flatly wrong, when in fact the article was not even primarily concerned with predictions at all, but rather with the way predictions are used for political purposes. Further, the way the section is written, undue evidence is given to the apparent pedigree of the source, as though his position at Yale is supposed to make it irrefutable that this judgment upon Mr. Luskin cannnot possibly be questioned.
The reality is that like all economists, Mr. Luskin has made many predictions, some right, some wrong. There are various sources on the web that such things, and Mr. Luskin scores well above average as a predictor -- and it's a very tough thing to get right. For instance, see: http://www.cxoadvisory.com/gurus/. So for this section to spend so much time focusing on one source's version of a particular prediction is a fairly obvious attempt to isolate a single, out of context item that can be spuriously called "factual" for what can only be the purpose of harming Mr. Luskin.
I am not a Wiki power user. I can't spend all day messing around with this like apparently you can. I have to tell you I find this whole process shockingly unfair and mean-spirited, and disappointingly alien to the spirit that would seem to inform the Wiki endeavor in general. It is unfair that you get to make your edits at will, and wheh I make counter-edits, you lock the page or ban me, or demand that I justify myself. You apparently never need to justify yourself or worry about anyone intervening beyond your control. That kind of asymmetry is wrong.
I am attempting through this message to reach out to you on this issue. If I cannot get your agreement to eliminate that section and stop abusing your authority to discredit Mr. Luskin, and to prevent others from balancing what you do, then I will have to escalate this issue to higher levels as necessary and appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.237.110 ( talk) 14:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
In regards to the Barack the Magic Negro song, it should not be inserted into Michael Steele according to the wiki guidelines. If you look it up, hundred of Republican and Democrats made comments, but it doesn't merit a mention in their article, because its irrelevant to everyone but the guy that made the song. Rockyobody ( talk) 18:35, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
I've protected this page for a week to encourage discussion before further changes are made. I'll be monitoring there to ensure things don't get too unwound. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:15, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
---|
| ||
Volume 5, Issue 2 | 10 January 2009 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.-- ragesoss ( talk) 20:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC) §hepBot ( Disable) 19:23, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
I've heard Sean Hannity criticize right-wing people and organizations but I would never write in the lead of his article that he simply criticizes politicians in general. Except for a few passing references to left-wing extremism over the years, all of Olbermann's attacks on political figures and rival commentators have come from the left (including his attacks on Hillary Clinton, by the way). The copy as I left it reads better and is more in line with the sources that are cited in this section. Badmintonhist ( talk) 17:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
---|
| ||
Volume 5, Issue 3 | 17 January 2009 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.-- ragesoss ( talk) 21:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Delievered by SoxBot II ( talk) at 23:35, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi! I've been trying to improve the lead of The New York Times by summarizing one of the article's sections. You removed my summary on the grounds of it being both "inappropriate and inaccurate". Could you elaborate on that?
BTW: Originally my attention was caught by a discussion on a fellow editors talk page. -- Goodraise ( talk) 02:48, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
---|
| ||
Volume 5, Issue 4 | 24 January 2009 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.-- ragesoss ( talk) 03:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Delivered at 04:06, 25 January 2009 (UTC) by §hepBot ( Disable)
I am inviting you to comment, in your capacity as a librarian, at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Alphabetization and collation. -- Wavelength ( talk) 16:07, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
I see that you've already had an earlier phase of this problem turn up on your talk page in the "Magic Negro" heading above. However, there's been a new development here on the Michael S. Steele article you commented on earlier this month. Not only is the racial context being erased, but now, the erasures are disguised as "m" (minor) edits. I don't know what to do next to prevent what seems to be well-meant but has the same effect as vandalism. I am not an administrator. Help! — LisaSmall T/ C 01:25, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
---|
| ||
Volume 5, Issue 5 | 31 January 2009 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.-- ragesoss ( talk) 20:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Delievered by SoxBot II ( talk) at 21:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Listen I put sixty hours into that article ok? Itw as amess when I got there. Horwitz is an ass but you can't prove he's an ass if he's not quoted. Just leave the article alone unless you want these right wing idiots to win or you really, really know Robeson. Thanks Catherine Huebscher
![]() |
---|
| ||
Volume 5, Issue 6 | 8 February 2009 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.-- ragesoss ( talk) 15:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Delivered by §hepBot ( Disable) at 21:57, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Delivered by §hepBot ( Disable) at 06:42, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi There..This is Living Things Management contacting You to request that you stop altering the Living Things wikipedia, we have posted an official Bio on the band signed off by the band and their publicist Bryn Bridenthal. Thank You .Best Regards.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Healer313 ( talk • contribs) 04:01, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
The problem is you are posing the wrong information..so kindly can u please refraim, from posting the wrong information and i will have someone work on cleaning it up to fit wiki guidlines...best reagrds..healer 313 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Healer313 ( talk • contribs) 16:11, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi There.. yes i understand about the changes...What we are aiming to create is an accurate informative posting and right now and in the past it has not been accurate or informative.. How can we now working with you get the accurate information posted? let me know..best regards
Hi There.. yes i understand about the changes...What we are aiming to create is an accurate informative posting and right now and in the past it has not been accurate or informative.. How can we now working with you get the accurate information posted? let me know..best regards
Hi there..can we begin a dialogue on how to improve Living Things wikipedia page and make it more accurate..please write back soon..thank u
This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 8, which includes these articles:
The kinks are still being worked out in a new design for these Signpost deliveries, and we apologize for the plain format for this week.
Delivered by §hepBot ( Disable) at 01:35, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 9, which includes these articles:
Delievered by SoxBot II ( talk) at 08:10, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I believe you created the page for New Yorker cartoonist Roz Chast. I think I'm going to do one for Hilton Als, a writer, also at the New Yorker. Do you have any advice? This my first wikipedia attempt. I can read the FAQ section for technical stuff too, but if there are any notes you can give, I appreciate it.
Thank you, David
Hello, welcome to my talk page. To leave a new message, click here. Please try to keep it relatively organized by signing your posts, posting new topics on the bottom of the page, making relevant headings about your topic and using subheadings, not new headings, for replies. I will almost always reply on this page to messages. I reserve the right to make minor changes of formatting (headings, bolding, etc.) but not content in order to preserve the readablilty of this page. I will delete without comment rude and/or insulting comments, trolling, threats, comments from people with a history of insults and incivility, and comments posted to the top of this page. Also, I'm much more informal than this disclaimer implies. Thank you. Rock on.
Archives: 3-8/04 | 9-11/04 | 11/04-2/05 | 2-4/05 | 5-7/05 | 8-10/05 | 11/05-2/06 | 3-7/06 | 8/06-1/07 | 2/07-12/07 | 1/08-5/08
Some people will do anything to avoid answering a question, eh? I gather that's one of the few reasons for editing a talk page that way. I'm glad you stepped in before I saw it. :-) -- Doug Weller ( talk) 17:39, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
At the deletion discussion for Featherproof books, you endorsed the nominator's demonstrably false accusation that the publisher was a "vanity press." I am curious as to why a responsible person would do such a thing. The Enchantress Of Florence ( talk) 18:13, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I see you created the article Lincoln Kennedy coincidences. In case you hadn't noticed, there is another article, Lincoln Kennedy coincidences urban legend, which contains much of the same information, so perhaps a merge is in order. Just wanted to let you know. Zagalejo ^^^ 18:31, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Would appreciate your input/thoughts at the Reliable sources Noticeboard. Cirt ( talk) 23:25, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry for my stupid messages, which I wrote for you. Very sorry, because this messages were as you wrote "trolling", so I think that my block was OK. Very sorry Alden or talk with Alden 18:41, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I appreciate you jumping in, but is it your contention that my 3RR report was "bogus"? I stand behind it. / Blaxthos ( t / c ) 14:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I thought you should be made aware of this. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 16:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Are you aware of this complaint by User:Arnold1 [1]? Doug Weller ( talk) 02:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
So you have problems with such language, but when Boody accused others of antisemtitism and trolling, that was perfectly acceptable and did not merit a single word of criticism? Could you be so kind and explain the difference to me? PS. I don't endorse Poeticbent style there and I support your warning there, I just wonder why you have warned him and not Boody.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:39, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
---|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 23 | 2 June 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot ( talk) 07:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
You left the following message on my talk page.
I do not know which specific editorial change that you are referring to...—Preceding unsigned comment added by C08040804 ( talk • contribs)
Greetings,
I just checked the Flora-bama article and saw that it was up for deletion and that you had suggested it be deleted. While I agree that it does not have any references, it is a very notable bar. By far, I can easily say that it is one of the most renown bars of the Gulf South. I added the link to the bar.
Regards,
Joshua Melder —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.177.34.33 ( talk) 00:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, you restored a citation, but it is a citation to the Nation, a publication that does not have a neutral point of view and has a record of hostility to Judicial Watch. What you did was restore the introductory sentence of this article offering the Nation's description of Judicial Watch. If I changed the introductory sentence of the ACLU article to offer the National Review's description of the ACLU and then cited to a National Review article, you'd be all over me for non-neutral point of view. Your claim of a copyright problem, which you do not describe (there is no problem) is also a non-starter. Rather than have a continual battle, why don't we agree to put the introductory paragraph of Judicial Watch on the same playing field as the ACLU--that is, just as the intro paragraph of the ACLU describes the ACLU in accordance with the ACLU's web page, so to the Judicial Watch's introductory paragraph should describe Judicial Watch in accordance with the Judicial Watch's webpage. As for the positions, I will leave them as is and then put in a separate section afterwards explaining criticisms of the ACLU's positions (the same could be done for Judicial Watch--a section on Judicial Watch's positions, followed by criticisms). Please advise. In the interests of editorial harmony, I will wait till tomorrow evening to hear from you before making any further revisions to either article. C08040804 ( talk) 02:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
To a man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
/ Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
These subjects are related and should be linked. Thanks for your contributions and interest and help in expanding understanding of these subjects and maintaining a NPOV. Best regards, Rusty Dr. B. R. Lang ( talk) 23:42, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm a pretty sporadic contributor, so I won't try and fight you too hard on this, but I don't think you're making a very convincing case to rm the tax section. "Importance" and "Encyclopedic notability" are fairly vague, but I certainly think a Yahoo News article on the subject meets Wiki's criteria for notability. Frankly I'm concerned that NPOV is being compromised here. -- Kangaru99 ( talk) 16:23, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
He has been making other contributions, plus it appears he is creating another account. If he really feels that strongly about the NPOV then someone should be making some comments to what the problem is. Arzel ( talk) 17:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
---|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 24 | 9 June 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot ( talk) 06:50, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Are you sure your ID shouldn't be "Gangsta"? :) :) :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 11:01, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
i am kind of confused why i need to source something that is an obvious fact? based on your wiki page it appears you are a democrat. is it not obvious to you or anyone else for that matter that olberman is a liberal commentator? i assume you don't think of him as a straight down the line host? Willcoop ( talk) 20:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
I believe water is wet and the sky is blue, but try to find sources stating that. It's not a belief when it is obviously true. I was hoping the alleged "Liberal Bias" on Wikipedia was untrue, but you're sadly proving it true. Please don't do so. 72.66.3.14 ( talk) 08:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Where is the article saying that water is wet? You conveniently used a selective article to substantiate a point you wanted to make. My guess is that had you been able to find BOTH assertions substantiated by an article in Oxford University Press, then you would have used it. However, you were probably unable to find that water it wet; so, instead, you use the "sky is blue" opinion as a straw man. Doing a google search, I found no good source substantiating that "water is wet" (the UK Guardian is a conglomeration of opinions submitted by people who write in...hardly a source that wikipedia (or you) would accept). And I never made any supposition, I merely supported the supposition of the previous poster. The reason I did this is because no political commentator will EVER say they are a liberal or a conservative (note, I attack both sides). The reason they don't do this is because they realize that it will ruin any credibility they have as a commentator. K/O is clearly liberal, just as O'Rielly is clearly conservative, just as Colbert is clearly liberal. I don't need to convince you of anything, that's the unfortunate position that both sides are on here. You're never going to consider the position that sometimes things are so obvious that they ARE facts (note, I didn't say "opinions" I said "obvious"). Likewise, you'll never convince the other side that you don't have an agenda. It's just unfortunate and partisan; but the one issue that is more likely to be proven true is the former, that obvious things can be facts. After all, if water wasn't wet, why would you need a towel to dry yourself? 72.66.3.14 ( talk) 17:45, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Mtracy9 is seeking to have his block repealed. Although his initial request was declined, I was concerned by this response. If he does pursue this email list avenue, would we have an opportunity to state our case as to why we believe he is RPJ, how he has edit warred, and how immediately after the block he created two sockpuppets to avoid the ban before seeking unblock. I'd have no problem if another admin, after reviewing all the evidence reduced or repealed the block. But I would want an opportunity to state my case or at least review the process before it happens. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 17:07, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Guess who
may be back for the next presidential election (here's a hint:
).
Shem
(talk)
05:31, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi Gamaliel. We've discussed the problematic editic habits of Dan56 before. And, unfortunately, the user still continues to be a bit of a rogue when it comes to music related pages. Perhaps, if you have time, you could provide Mr 56 with some more advice as to how music articles should be edited. Thanks, cheers and take care. Anger22 ( Talk 2 22) 16:55, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Just tried a wp:quote clean but got reverted yet again. Articles shouldn't be written by pasting text word for word from external sources should they? Anger22 ( Talk 2 22) 22:13, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
He has been known to upload album covers as "self work" which isn't copyvio I know but still a blatant lie and one knowingly done too. I haven't checked his image uploads in a while but they are worth investigating due to his past history. I am at 3 strikes on the LL Cool J album article and quoting the quote essay about what makes for a bad article doesn't seem to make any difference. When an editor sees "fanboy page" as better than "encyclopedia page" then its hard to sway them toward quality no matter how many policies, guidelines or style essays are mentioned. Speaking of policy though, Dan56 has been blocked for 3RR in the past and now it looks like he has veered that line again without care. He has a tendency to blank any warnings he is ever given almost as quick as he receives them so any editor who stumble on to his regular haunts will never get any sort of pre-warning about dealing with him unless they review his talk page history. I know deleting is the same as acknowledgment but still I think for all the 3RR warnings and similar that Dan, or anyone has received, they should have to stick for 30 days before the user can blank them. Dan56 has violated WP:3RR countless times against countless editors, including you, to try and keep all his copy/paste quote content into the articles that he ignores WP:OWN on. Very troublesome edit habits. Anger22 ( Talk 2 22) 23:09, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Heh, 3RR reports are the most painful thing ever invented on Wikipedia. :-) I'd rather just pretend he didn't exist for a day or two and try and focus on the more productive WP:MUSICIAN/ WP:GUITAR project 'to-do' lists. He'll take a powder for a while. (we can hope) and trying to follow him is tough (since he also edits as an IP as well to skip around the 3RR policy) I appreciate your efforts and your advice. Wikipedia wasn't built in a day. All bad editing will eventually be replaced with quality some day. Maybe even by a reformed Dan56 eh? Who knows. Anger22 ( Talk 2 22) 23:29, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi Gamaliel - I wonder if I could seek a bit of advice from you concerning fair use of an image. This is in response to an ongoing discussion on the Al Gore talk page which you can read here about updating the infobox photo. You can read the entire discussion there, but essentially I am arguing that photos in infoboxes for former presidents and vps should be professional, official, portraits in order to maintain quality WP articles. Besides the free image currently in use in the article's infobox, there is another professional portrait online but it is WP:NONFREE. I find the rules concerning images and copyright a bit overwhelming, so I was wondering if you could take a look? Is there a way it can be used? Is permission needed?
Thanks, - Classicfilms ( talk) 15:58, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Please hangon - I will open a discussion on talk. I think the reference I cite is pretty clear. Thanks -- Justallofthem ( talk) 01:58, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
I quote from my recent e-mail:
I would like to report a flaw in the bot HelloAnnyong. Recently, I have been defending a user's post on a talk page. The bot in question appears to be reverting my edits without considerable discretion. As a talk page consists and exists primarily for the purpose of discussion and attaining a general consensus on an issue, I believe that the bot is either a) malfunctioning (acting on falsified coding), or obsolete (reverting edits of previously scrupulous origin, which have since its inception proven encyclopedic). I can cite reverts to the talk page for Fred Phelps (excuse my failure to link to said article). The talk page has served as an arena for discussion of encyclopedic inclusion or exclusion. And, until recently, the page was open to influential and academic interpretation. I conclude that the bot HelloAnnyong is overstepping the very guidelines that make Wikipedia free and inclusive.
As you will note, my edits do not constitute violation of any existing policy. Please acknowledge this before proceeding with any further incriminations.
Thank you, John
Please familiarize yourself with the policies at Wikipedia:Biographies of living people. They prohibit defamatory material from being posted anywhere on Wikipedia. The material you keep restoring is clearly defamatory, and thus prohibited. Please do not restore it again. Thank you. Gamaliel ( talk) 03:02, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
---|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 25 | 23 June 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 26 | 26 June 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot ( talk) 08:27, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
You're totally right about Real Clear Politics. I was reading some of the articles on that site when I said to myself "this seems pretty conservative." So I came to Wikipedia to see what it said and found your comments on the talk page. Right on! It's as fair and balanced as Fox News, or a baseball umpire who tries to keep the game tied. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KenFehling ( talk • contribs) 15:00, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
You might want to have a look at User talk:Swamilive and see if you think a reduction in block time is in order. - Nunh-huh 19:48, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
How this is vandlism, and these 1 and 2 are not?
Your own quote on my talk page regarding this.
"The crux of the issue is that you are pretty free with the word "vandalism". To another user, especially a new user, adding the word "right-wing" to the article of a Fox anchor is logical and not vandalism."
Arzel ( talk) 03:40, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
---|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 27 | 30 June 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot ( talk) 04:24, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Hey, haven't communicated with you in a long time. I need advice as to whether it is ever acceptable to summarize a primary source? I think it is if you don't draw an inference from it at all, but another editor disputes that and I don't want to dig in my heels on it and be wrong. Thanks! -- BenBurch ( talk) 05:14, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm glad that 4 years later the Rube Goldberg page has finally been restored to what I tried to restore it to way back then with your ridiculous Mike and Ike, Foolish Questions, Lala Palooza, The Weekly Meeting of the Tuesday Women's Club, Professor Lucifer Gorgonzola Butts, and other links all removed. Your "immediate to do list" must still be quite long given those never made the cut in this long timespan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Equilibrium ( talk • contribs) 16:39, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
I was off-wiki for the holiday weekend, so I appreciate your coming to my defense on the Talk:Fox News Channel page. The whole thing surprised me, because I thought my comment was quite unexceptional; on re-reading it, I saw nothing that I'd change or apologize for. Ramsquire has apologized on my talk page. Presumably we can concentrate on trying to improve the article. JamesMLane t c 20:12, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Some time ago, you participated in a deletion discussion concerning Allegations of Israeli apartheid. I thought you might like to know that the parent article, Allegations of apartheid, was recently nominated for deletion. Given that many of the issues that have been raised are essentially the same as those on the article on which you commented earlier, you may have a view on whether Allegations of apartheid should be kept or deleted. If you wish to contribute to the discussion, please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of apartheid (fifth nomination). -- ChrisO ( talk) 18:18, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
---|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 28 | 7 July 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot ( talk) 09:32, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Talk:Racism is waaaay too huge with over 115 talk threads. Would you be willing to help tag talk sections with {{ resolved}} and {{ stale}} as appropriate so we can start archiving old talk threads? Even a few at time will help! Thank you! Banjeboi 22:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi - one of the editors over at Talk:Barack Obama pointed out [2] that your user name is similar to the Gamaliel Foundtion, for whom Barack Obama worked as a consultant and instructor. I don't know if you would have any obligations to disclose this, or whether it would be a WP:COI even if you were, but because the concern has been raised you might want to clear up whether or not you have a stake in the issue. Thanks, Wikidemo ( talk) 19:06, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Just looking into an unblock request at User talk:68.75.172.216, which is unfortunately difficult since I have no idea why the block on 68.75.0.0/16 ( block range · block log ( global) · WHOIS (partial)) is in place. If you don't mind, could you/we/someone change the block reason to something which doesn't apparently accuse a large number of AT&T customers of harassment? From personal experience blocking ISPs and fielding unblock requests, a decent number of people will be offended after they (unfortunately) assume the block reason accuses them of doing such things. {{ anonblock}} might be another option, with a <!-- commented --> note if needed. – Luna Santin ( talk) 07:19, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
I understand the need to block 'abusers of the service' but putting a brick wall up for all AT&T users is extreme (to use a polite word) - can you not be more selective ? - you're being personally associated with some very offensive behavior right now.....there has to be some way to act as a censor without being draconian to all users in a subnet. – Paul ( talk) 23:37, 3 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by PaulRichm ( talk • contribs)
I don't know if you are aware, but WorkerBee74 has mentioned you on WP:AN/I (see subsection Article probation). -- Scjessey ( talk) 14:58, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
A
proposed deletion template has been added to the article
Mike and Ike (They Look Alike), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's
criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "
What Wikipedia is not" and
Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{
dated prod}}
notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on
its talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Man It's So Loud In Here ( talk) 17:38, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I'm wondering why you moved RW(author) to RW. When I typed Richard Wright into the search box on Wiki, I was looking for information about the Pink Floyd keyboard player, and in fact had never even heard of the american author of the same name. Why does the author merit having the main namespace? all the best Jcuk ( talk) 12:14, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
---|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 29 | 14 July 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
From the editor: Transparency | ||
WikiWorld: "Goregrind" | Dispatches: Interview with botmaster Rick Block | |
Features and admins | Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News | |
The Report on Lengthy Litigation |
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 30 | 21 July 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot ( talk) 06:24, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
You have been named as a party in a report seeking a hearing by the Arbitration Committee concerning events at Talk:Barack Obama and WP:ANI. I have posted the report at the Talk Page for WP:RFAR since the main page is semi-protected. Feel free to add your statement, and please transfert the report to the main RFAR page if you see fit to do so. Thanks. 74.94.99.17 ( talk) 18:51, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Why are you reverting Greer's page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.178.238.189 ( talk • contribs)
Check this out. At least they spelled my name right... yours was only mentioned en passant, and the spelling error was in the original comment by the flaming anon. Should you care, I'm getting flamed pretty hard by the same anon (appears to have at least 2 IP's)... not sure who it is, but it's obviously a bitter person (most likely someone who got busted for sock and/or troll violations). Anyway, hope all is well. / Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
* Jsn9333 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
It's Jsn9333. You should recognize him by his accusations, his POV-warriorism, as well as the geographical location of his IP's. I consider all of the following suspect:
This, of course, is a complete violation of the terms of his ANI sanctions. Not sure how to handle it... Suggestions? / Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:24, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
you know me already.
Do you think it is OK to say dont be a dick to a newbie? Bonobonobo ( talk) 22:46, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Do you think it would be OK to delete that portion of Talk:John Edwards#New NE charges: $15,000 / mo.; baby's name is Frances that repeats the newest allegations from the National Enquirer. Isn't this covered under:
Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion, from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space.
Let alone the balance of this are personal attacks directed at Tvoz. ∴ Therefore | cogito· sum 21:06, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
I know...I know...your job on Wikipedia is to PREVENT any unseemly news about a DEMOCRATIC presidential/vice presidential candidate being given the light of day.
But, why don't you focus on actually, you know, NOT censoring information and QUIT HARASSING editors just because they're conservatives. You can always claim plausbile deniability by saying you were just enforcing the rules. But all you're doing is gaming the system which is against Wik policies. Unless you're a liberal, I guess. lol 204.38.4.80 ( talk) 20:32, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Ok, it may have not been totally correct. But it was funny as hell, was it not? (Or have you not seen the movie?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.218.189.219 ( talk) 22:58, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Meetup/Tampa -- You're invited! Hires an editor ( talk) 14:43, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Explain why you reverted. Dapi89 ( talk) 20:53, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
You wrote
Please do not add copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder, as you did to
Anna Borkowska. For
legal reasons, we cannot accept
copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be
blocked from editing.
Gamaliel (
talk)
03:01, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
I would like permission to rewrite this article. I can do it without citing the Yad Vashem source, too. Please let me know if this can be arranged. Ecoleetage ( talk) 16:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Anna Borkowska. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. -- Poeticbent talk 17:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
A new article on the subject is now online: Anna Borkowska (Sister Bertranda). There is also Anna Borkowska (actress), so you may want to disambiguate the Annas. Problem solved? Ecoleetage ( talk) 18:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. I am glad to have this subject back online. Ecoleetage ( talk) 18:52, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Here. Justmeherenow ( ) 23:12, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Template:Nobel icon has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Utternutter ( talk) 21:41, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
I was mistaken, it wasn’t a notice board. It was Docku's agreement with Niteshift36 that the inclusion of the David Adkisson information was a violation of BLP. [3] That would mean that out of 5 or 6 editors who have weighed in on this, you are the only one who thinks it belongs in the article. Now you not only have policy working against you but the talk page consensus as well. Please consider this before you add the information again. CENSEI ( talk) 01:15, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
I am familiar with all the conduct you felt you needed to mention by name in this discussion. Considering that you were talking about me before I was even involved in this one, you can't blame it on including me just because I was there. And I have provided you with the link on the talk page. I re-phrased since you want to concentrate on semantics and take issue with the word "ruling". But the link and quote are the same. Niteshift36 ( talk) 02:09, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, there was, but that has been dealt with already. And you have commented on the discussion when you started making a semantics issue out of the word "ruling". Niteshift36 ( talk) 07:20, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
You have replaced movie reviews in an article which is about the book. (And, high-handedly, given no reason.) The reviews, as I explained, are not about the book, they are about the movie, and belong in that article, only. If there was a comic book "The Magus", a beer drinking song, would you also want to include reviews about them in the book article? 67.169.127.241 ( talk) 02:17, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
... per Wikidemo's request there. My redacting that question may make your answer look confusing, so you may want to remove it from that page as well. Wikidemo had a good point about focusing on edits and focusing on the subject on that page. I appreciate the response. Noroton ( talk) 04:41, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
I am new here. Apparently CommodoreSloat has been doing this for some time. I was not familiar with the 3R rules. I am not clear of any rules. What I am clear of is CommodoreSloat has an ideological bend that has motivated him to edit my text. I have offered only either new citations or information that clarifies what is evidently misleading. What may appear to have been covered is not really covered if you re-read my edits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JasonDeanBrock ( talk • contribs) 17:07, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Here (and also, if possible, here?) Justmeherenow ( ) 05:16, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
I would ask that you undo your last edit on Helen Thomas, as it put you over the revert limit. CENSEI ( talk) 15:16, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Would you please have a word with the user here [4]. My comment, highlighted at the bottom of the diff is in response to the offending post. I am reluctant to template myself, as this might provoke. This behavior should not be acceptable, IMHO; however, I would welcome an outside opinion. Die4Dixie ( talk) 02:32, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Sorry I haven't been sending this over the past few weeks. Ralbot ( talk) 06:04, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
---|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 31 | 28 July 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 32 | 9 August 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 33 | 11 August 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 34 | 18 August 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
From the editor: Help wanted | ||
WikiWorld: "Cashew" | Dispatches: Choosing Today's Featured Article | |
Features and admins | Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News | |
The Report on Lengthy Litigation |
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot ( talk) 06:04, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
I would be interested in your opinion about this "report" filed by Noroton. -- Scjessey ( talk) 21:47, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi,
May I ask why you reverted the Frank Marshall Davis edit after I made some minor edits to the Autobiography section? There are certain stylistic errors like [The Daily Telegraph]] (sic) which you undid.
MB —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.252.20.65 ( talk) 08:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
You are correct in stating that I did not source my remark that Fox identifies the political leanings of it's commentators and guests, but I believe you are mistaken when you say this information is irrelevent. The previous sentance is speaking of perceived bias at Fox News, and it is important to note that unlike all other cable news channels (yes, I watch all of them) Fox actually gives you the personal background of the person speaking so you can take that information into account when they are giving an opinion. Hence their ability to state "We report, you decide." CNN often will have a guest on from an organization with an onocuous sounding name and not mention that this organization recieves all of it's funding from well-known liberal or conservative backers. I will search for a source to back up my assertions, but I don't believe that they are at all "irrelevent". FSF-Rapier ( talk) 19:17, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Opps ! never thought of that! I'll get right on it. -- BLP-vio-remover ( talk) 23:23, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Hello,
I just needed help with keeping the pages in regards to Bethany Joy Galeotti's music up. I've decided to make pages concerning her albums and music and have assured that the proper templates were utilized in doing so. I'm not sure if I should make a couple of the pages stubs but I'm just confused as to why these pages have been nominated for speedy deletion. If you could assist me in improving these pages that would be wonderful!
-Thank you HushSound —Preceding unsigned comment added by HushSound ( talk • contribs) 02:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi there, I saw your warning on user 152.97.217.92's talk page, and just wanted to ask you what happens next in the warning process? I've sometimes seen vandalism, and then seen the "final warning" on the vandal's page, but don't know what to do next, if anything. Thanks! Eeblet ( talk) 00:00, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
See my talk for his latest IP. -- BenBurch ( talk) 14:46, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Is this in response to this? Some might see this as petty and small. CENSEI ( talk) 15:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Please note that I have created an RfC to discuss the matter of whether, how, and where we should use and cover the designation "terrorist" describe the Weathermen and their former leaders. It is located here: Talk:Weatherman (organization)/Terrorism RfC. The intent is to decide as a content matter (and not as a behavioral issue regarding the editors involved) how to deal with this question. I am notifying you because you appear to have participated in or commented about this issue before. Feel free to participate. Thank you. Wikidemon ( talk) 20:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
I did a bit of expansion on an article, all fully and well sourced, and look at the reponse I get from Piotrus. Seems a bit, uh, excessive? Boodlesthecat Meow? 23:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
So is "Gamaliel" too close to "Guettarda"? Or are polysyllabic usernames starting with "G" the same to some people? [5] Hmmmm... Guettarda ( talk) 06:10, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
---|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 35 | 25 August 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 36 | 8 September 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot ( talk) 21:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
You recently undid my edit (found below) of the Soledad O'Brien article, assumably in good faith.
I agree with you that, as you say, "everything on factcheck doesn't deserve a subsection in an encyclopedia article", but this information is relevant to the article since O'Brien is the host of a investigative documentary program and should therefore be expected to have a firm foundation for any claims made while in that role, especially when it comes to negative assertions about the records of prominent political figures. In this case she passed something on to her viewers as fact that was in reality a false rumor being spread online as part of a smear campaign, much like the false claims that have been circulating online about Dem. Pres. candidate Obama.
If you don't think such verifiable lack of professionalism should be included in a Wikipedia article, that's fine with me, but it's my view that it should be. Sarnalios ( talk) 22:26, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for sorting that mess out for me. Whoever it was continues to send me "hate" mail from the IP 165.24.246.245, but I just delete it. -- Scjessey ( talk) 19:53, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
Thank you for your participation at my RfA, which passed with a count of (166/43/7). I appreciate your comments and in my actions as an administrator I will endeavor to act in ways that earn your full confidence, even though I don't have it now. Cirt ( talk) 01:35, 16 September 2008 (UTC) |
Hi, the IP you just reverted keeps on adding the same info. Just thought I will bring it to your attention. Docku Hi 14:06, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading
Image:Timehenryford.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a
claim of fair use. However, it is currently
orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed.
You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see
our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "
my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on
criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you.
BJBot (
talk)
05:02, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
[racial slurs and vandalism deleted]
![]() |
---|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 37 | 15 September 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot ( talk) 05:30, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
This is a message sent to a number of editors, and following WP:CANVASS requirements: Please take another look at Talk:Weatherman (organization)/Terrorism RfC and consider new information added near the top of the article and several new proposals at the bottom. If you haven't looked at the RfC in some time, you may find reason in the new information and new proposals to rethink the matter. -- Noroton ( talk) 02:28, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the compliment! I've no real interest in the subject, and was just fleshing out a red link I stumbled across, but it didn't take long to google a few things (and I wasn't in the slightest offended by your NPOV tag!) Plenty more info out there if anyone ever cared to expand it, but I shall return to my usual haunts (milhist, & refdesk)... :) Gwinva ( talk) 21:52, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
I invite you to discuss the Lithwick review of "Men in Black" on the discussion page, as I'm not looking to engage in an edit war. Keep in mind there is a direct link to Lithwick's review in the "Other websites" section, meaning your inclusion is redundant (either that, or renders the link at the bottom of the page redundant).
I feel your attempt to maintain fairness by giving a positive review might come across as disingenuous. You provide a two-word quote (and a source that cannot be directly viewed) in support, and provide two more lengthy and detailed criticisms against. Not to mention, I still feel opinions about Levin's book have little to do with Levin himself, which is what the page in question is about.
At minimum, I hope you address the redundancy of duplicate citations of Lithwick's interview and decide which, if either, should remain. Thanks. Ynot4tony2 ( talk) 01:32, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading
Image:Pnjlogo.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a
claim of fair use. However, it is currently
orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed.
You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see
our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot ( talk) 06:26, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi! Thank you for noting the sudden vandalism of the formerly stable Prescott Bush article. I think a number of the vandals/ drive-by editors are connected with my presence in Talk:Sarah Palin, including the IPs, "Wayfinder", a "Davey Collect" blocked account, and possible Writegeist who placed a comment on Talk: Prescott Bush without making any edits in the article, but which referred quite specifically to my presence in Sarah Palin. It appears that trying to be absolutely NPOV makes one a game target. Thank you very much! Collect ( talk) 11:26, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
RE: your edit here. Yes, journalists use anonymous sources. No, they don't use it "all the time", and try to avoid it at all costs. Anonymous sources for information (especially for something as contentious and liable to mistakes as an exact quotation in this case), rarely ever rise to meet WP:RS. I'd urge to reconsider your edit. Budding Journalist 14:47, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Hello, I tried to edit a page and realized that my IP was blocked. However, I was able to register and edit the page. But I am interested in knowing why my IP was blocked in the first place. The reason given was personal attack/harassment. Since I don't remember doing that, I would like my memory to be refreshed. Thanks! ( Neutronstar2007 ( talk) 02:41, 25 October 2008 (UTC))
Hi there. When you add a 3rr template to a user’s page please remember to substitute it. If wish to reply please use my talk page and if you need help feel free to talk to me there or you may find Wikipedia:SUB helpful. ·Add§hore· Talk/ Cont 15:59, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Damn, I had the firefox tabs opened I didn't see your remark. I have blocked Franciscod for a week (that's often what I do for obvious sockpuppetry) way after your message. What do you think? Either way is good with me :). -- lucasbfr talk 19:41, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
You closed the discussion and they ignored you and promptly reposted. Can something be done about this? Tvoz/ talk 19:56, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi - could you get me a copy of this article from Lexis/Nexis - Philadelphia Inquirer, February 24, 1989, p.5A, "Iran: West to blame Islam for forthcoming terrorism". Need it for verification of a quote in Cat Stevens' comments about Salman Rushdie. Some night last night, eh? Thanks Tvoz/ talk 04:01, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
I have been using Wikipedia for two years now and would not being greeted with a patronizing "Welcome to Wikipedia" message every time an admin or editor disagrees with me. Show some respect, please. Syntacticus ( talk) 06:21, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Template:Sollog has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Terraxos ( talk) 02:54, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for posting the Moon Impact Probe news. Just wanted to check if you award me a souvenir like this for my collection as per this. -- GPPande talk! 14:09, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Because the Signpost hasn't been sent in a while, to save space, I've condensed all seven issues that were not sent into this archive. Only the three issues from November are below.
![]() |
---|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 42 | 8 November 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 43 | 10 November 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 44 | 17 November 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot ( talk) 10:53, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Please see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Helen Jones-Kelley. Steve Dufour ( talk) 15:07, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi Gamaliel, I just wanted to let you know that I put Template:RS500, which you started, up for deletion based on the comments on its talk page. Here's a link to the deletion discussion: Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:RS500. Cheers! — Pie4all88 T C 10:16, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
I really don't know how you can have such a liberal bias and still claim to be a credible source. I put in a section on the Newsweek article claiming that Newsweek had credible claims against it, saying that it had a liberal bias, and it was removed. The article on Fox News has an entire section on it devoted to its percieved conservative bias, and I thought that it would be fair if other, liberal news outlets were called out on their political bias. Please get back to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CaptainNicodemus ( talk • contribs) 20:02, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
I have gone back and edited my section on Newsweek's political bias, and I have made it comparable to the Fox News article section on Fox News' percieved conservative bias. I am sure you will approve of that, as the editor in chief of Newsweek himself admitted in his last editorial that many people consider Newsweek to have a liberal bias. I can get the link to that editorial if you want. And, in the face of wanting to be a credible source of information, I am sure you encourage equality in information, as all fans of the scientific method do. Let me know what you think. CaptainNicodemus ( talk) 20:20, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
[blah blah blah] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.75.172.103 ( talk) 13:45, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Alleyoop.jpg. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.
Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI ( talk) 17:10, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
As a new wiki contributor, I want to thank you for educating me regarding some of the ethics of the community. Your comments were clear, concise and valuable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Avatar001 ( talk • contribs) 14:52, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Three issues have been published since the last deliver: November 24, December 1, and January 3.
![]() |
---|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 45 | 24 November 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 46 | 1 December 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
ArbCom elections: Elections open | Wikipedia in the news |
WikiProject Report: WikiProject Solar System | Features and admins |
The Report on Lengthy Litigation |
| ||
Volume 5, Issue 1 | 3 January 2009 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.-- ragesoss ( talk) 21:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
I am writing to you here in good faith to discuss the edit war on the BLP "Donald Luskin." Consistently, your edits have been in a direction to either diminish or discredit Mr. Luskin, by removing facts that make him look good and by adding facts that make him look bad. Mr. Luskin is a well-known conservative, and the large picture of Barack Obama on your Talk page makes it clear where you stand. It is shameful that you would use your privileges at Wiki to carry out a political agenda.
The recent edit war concerns the extensive citation of Mr. Luskin's quotation about the ecnonomy from a September Washington Post article. Mr. Luskin is correctly quoted, and the other facts are in order. However, that does not make inclusion of the material fair or reasonable. To create a section called "Predictions," and then to include just a single prediction, is deceptive on the face of it. Also, you are relying entirely on the source's framing of the prediction, without any regard to the context in which the prediction was made. The source, and you by uncritically quoting him, have pulled a single sentence out of a 1500-word article, designed to make Mr. Luskin appear flatly wrong, when in fact the article was not even primarily concerned with predictions at all, but rather with the way predictions are used for political purposes. Further, the way the section is written, undue evidence is given to the apparent pedigree of the source, as though his position at Yale is supposed to make it irrefutable that this judgment upon Mr. Luskin cannnot possibly be questioned.
The reality is that like all economists, Mr. Luskin has made many predictions, some right, some wrong. There are various sources on the web that such things, and Mr. Luskin scores well above average as a predictor -- and it's a very tough thing to get right. For instance, see: http://www.cxoadvisory.com/gurus/. So for this section to spend so much time focusing on one source's version of a particular prediction is a fairly obvious attempt to isolate a single, out of context item that can be spuriously called "factual" for what can only be the purpose of harming Mr. Luskin.
I am not a Wiki power user. I can't spend all day messing around with this like apparently you can. I have to tell you I find this whole process shockingly unfair and mean-spirited, and disappointingly alien to the spirit that would seem to inform the Wiki endeavor in general. It is unfair that you get to make your edits at will, and wheh I make counter-edits, you lock the page or ban me, or demand that I justify myself. You apparently never need to justify yourself or worry about anyone intervening beyond your control. That kind of asymmetry is wrong.
I am attempting through this message to reach out to you on this issue. If I cannot get your agreement to eliminate that section and stop abusing your authority to discredit Mr. Luskin, and to prevent others from balancing what you do, then I will have to escalate this issue to higher levels as necessary and appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.237.110 ( talk) 14:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
In regards to the Barack the Magic Negro song, it should not be inserted into Michael Steele according to the wiki guidelines. If you look it up, hundred of Republican and Democrats made comments, but it doesn't merit a mention in their article, because its irrelevant to everyone but the guy that made the song. Rockyobody ( talk) 18:35, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
I've protected this page for a week to encourage discussion before further changes are made. I'll be monitoring there to ensure things don't get too unwound. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:15, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
---|
| ||
Volume 5, Issue 2 | 10 January 2009 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.-- ragesoss ( talk) 20:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC) §hepBot ( Disable) 19:23, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
I've heard Sean Hannity criticize right-wing people and organizations but I would never write in the lead of his article that he simply criticizes politicians in general. Except for a few passing references to left-wing extremism over the years, all of Olbermann's attacks on political figures and rival commentators have come from the left (including his attacks on Hillary Clinton, by the way). The copy as I left it reads better and is more in line with the sources that are cited in this section. Badmintonhist ( talk) 17:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
---|
| ||
Volume 5, Issue 3 | 17 January 2009 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.-- ragesoss ( talk) 21:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Delievered by SoxBot II ( talk) at 23:35, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi! I've been trying to improve the lead of The New York Times by summarizing one of the article's sections. You removed my summary on the grounds of it being both "inappropriate and inaccurate". Could you elaborate on that?
BTW: Originally my attention was caught by a discussion on a fellow editors talk page. -- Goodraise ( talk) 02:48, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
---|
| ||
Volume 5, Issue 4 | 24 January 2009 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.-- ragesoss ( talk) 03:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Delivered at 04:06, 25 January 2009 (UTC) by §hepBot ( Disable)
I am inviting you to comment, in your capacity as a librarian, at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Alphabetization and collation. -- Wavelength ( talk) 16:07, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
I see that you've already had an earlier phase of this problem turn up on your talk page in the "Magic Negro" heading above. However, there's been a new development here on the Michael S. Steele article you commented on earlier this month. Not only is the racial context being erased, but now, the erasures are disguised as "m" (minor) edits. I don't know what to do next to prevent what seems to be well-meant but has the same effect as vandalism. I am not an administrator. Help! — LisaSmall T/ C 01:25, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
---|
| ||
Volume 5, Issue 5 | 31 January 2009 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.-- ragesoss ( talk) 20:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Delievered by SoxBot II ( talk) at 21:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Listen I put sixty hours into that article ok? Itw as amess when I got there. Horwitz is an ass but you can't prove he's an ass if he's not quoted. Just leave the article alone unless you want these right wing idiots to win or you really, really know Robeson. Thanks Catherine Huebscher
![]() |
---|
| ||
Volume 5, Issue 6 | 8 February 2009 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.-- ragesoss ( talk) 15:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Delivered by §hepBot ( Disable) at 21:57, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Delivered by §hepBot ( Disable) at 06:42, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi There..This is Living Things Management contacting You to request that you stop altering the Living Things wikipedia, we have posted an official Bio on the band signed off by the band and their publicist Bryn Bridenthal. Thank You .Best Regards.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Healer313 ( talk • contribs) 04:01, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
The problem is you are posing the wrong information..so kindly can u please refraim, from posting the wrong information and i will have someone work on cleaning it up to fit wiki guidlines...best reagrds..healer 313 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Healer313 ( talk • contribs) 16:11, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi There.. yes i understand about the changes...What we are aiming to create is an accurate informative posting and right now and in the past it has not been accurate or informative.. How can we now working with you get the accurate information posted? let me know..best regards
Hi There.. yes i understand about the changes...What we are aiming to create is an accurate informative posting and right now and in the past it has not been accurate or informative.. How can we now working with you get the accurate information posted? let me know..best regards
Hi there..can we begin a dialogue on how to improve Living Things wikipedia page and make it more accurate..please write back soon..thank u
This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 8, which includes these articles:
The kinks are still being worked out in a new design for these Signpost deliveries, and we apologize for the plain format for this week.
Delivered by §hepBot ( Disable) at 01:35, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 9, which includes these articles:
Delievered by SoxBot II ( talk) at 08:10, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I believe you created the page for New Yorker cartoonist Roz Chast. I think I'm going to do one for Hilton Als, a writer, also at the New Yorker. Do you have any advice? This my first wikipedia attempt. I can read the FAQ section for technical stuff too, but if there are any notes you can give, I appreciate it.
Thank you, David