![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I'm putting together a story on the challenges involved in keeping ideologically charged Wikipedia pages up, open and unlocked. I'm really interested in tracking down people that monitor such pages. Examples include: George W. Bush's page, the page on the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, the page on The Armenian Genocide and pages on creationism and evolution. I see that you’ve worked on the Bush page a lot. I was wondering if you might be willing to talk to me about the challenges of keeping pages like this up and unlocked. If you have any thoughts on tracking down the right person to talk to for a story like this, please shoot them my way. I hope to get in contact with you. You can email me here: matt.phillips@wsj.com
Thanks much, Matt
I have warned EnglishEftermamn on his talk page about violating WP:3RR and urged an admin ( Gamaliel) to take another look at what's going on. This is really getting annoying. I will be offline until tomorrow but if he reverts again, you can report him here at the 3RR noticeboard.-- WilliamThweatt 05:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for rewording/wikifying my sentence. Also, I think something should be said about his privacy related legislations in the domestic policy or related section, as it is not only criticism, but actual policy of administration. They made many laws since 911 as response to terrorism, but actually limiting our rights. Lakinekaki 23:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Sorry about that. I was surprised to see the "edit" hyperlink on a talk page and just wanted to verify that I could actually edit others' comments. It was my intention to immediately revert the change, which I did. I meant no harm whatsoever. I really don't see why anyone should be allowed to edit talk pages--maybe you could fill me in. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.130.27.84 ( talk) 20:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC).
I thought you did a great job rewording the Hurricane Katrina reference in George W. Bush and added some excellent citation. I'll find a barnstar for you if this rock-solid-ness continues. :) -- Iriseyes 02:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Well you could report it at WP:SSP however, his sockpuppetry seems minor at the moment and I would advise not to. What you can do is place the following tag on his page: {{sockpuppet|Hellohoe}} . The tag indicates that the user's contributions lead them to be suspected of sockpuppetry. If you have any other questions regarding the matter feel free to ask. ¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 21:54, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
I rambled on a bit longer than I anticipated so I went ahead and responded on my talk page rather than the article's talk page. The basic summary: While WP:RS is merely a guideline and has exceptions, it seems the source in question is just too biased. The author lacks the neutrality and objectivity to qualify as a reliable source, IMO. The full rambling is on my talk page, but I wanted to make sure you saw a response. Thanks, AuburnPilot talk 23:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Dear Mbc362,
Thank you for applying for VandalProof! (VP). As you may know, VP is a very powerful program, and in fact the just released 1.3 version has even more power. Because of this we must uphold strict protocols before approving a new applicant. Regretfully, I have chosen to decline your application at this time. The reason for this is that you have 244 mainspace edits please come back in a month. Please note it is nothing personal by any means, and we certainly welcome you to apply again soon. Thank you for your interest in VandalProof. Betacommand ( talk • contribs • Bot) 15:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Catching and going back to change your own "to" to a "too"? Now you're just mocking my poor spelling and grammar, aren't you. Just kidding, thanks much for your great input on that Global Warming section and discussion.- JLSWiki 18:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Mbc362! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. Betacommand ( talk • contribs • Bot) 18:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Actually, if you watched The Colbert Report, you would know that that wasn't in fact vandalism, but truth. Said fact was featured on the show itself.
Reference: http://www.gay.com/content/slideshow/?coll=2516&order=5&navpath=/channels/entertainment/
Please check what you're saying before you jump down someone's throat for "vandalism." Thanks.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.156.220.39 ( talk • contribs)
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 23:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your points about citations. I was not aware that YouTube recordings did not constitute a valid source. The source that you deleted from the McCain page was a clip of McCain himself speaking. What precisely is the problem with that? There is nothing in WP:RS about not using YouTube videos. In fact, this particular clip is a Primary_source, which WP:RS states is allowable. It is a primary source because it gives direct evidence of exactly what McCain said -- that is, it shows him speaking
As regards the "mavrick" comment, why is it ok to have the article state that some people call McCain a mavrick but not that other people say that he has been flip-flopping? Is that because "maverick" is positive term? 129.133.90.64 23:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for contributing to the Michael Savage page. However, the "fluff" that you removed was part of a NPOV edit to seperatea statement about him carrying a gun and arguing with his friends. The two have nothing in common, that is to say that the gun was not part of the arguments and therefore belongs in a different sentence. This is covered in the talk page for this article. If you would like to further discuss, let's move to that forum. Again, thanks for your contributions to wikipedia! - Eisenmond 15:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Hey I just noticed the message you left on this guy's talk page- dont worry about offending him. His edit history shows nothing but vandalism and there were a bunch of previous warnings on his talk page. I've blocked him for now, but don't be afraid to be a little tougher with vandals- I'm sure nobody will fault you. All the best! -- Scimitar parley 05:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
yo man please don't vandal, me because im actually putting one of the most wanted topics on Wikipedia. I'm just new to editing, but don't worry.
o sry man, cauz i was adding stuff, but the problem, was many times it didn't come out 2 the way i wanted it to, so PLEASE delete that annoying speedy deletion thing. I'll ix it all somehow.
ok, dude or dudette i will just give 1 Big FInalization, sry man or woman.
yo u know how i can upload a file to a wikipedia page???
Evidently you sent me a message saying I vandalized the zombie page. I am confused as to how this happened, as I never edited that page and was not(at the time of recieving the message) actually even logged in.
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I'm putting together a story on the challenges involved in keeping ideologically charged Wikipedia pages up, open and unlocked. I'm really interested in tracking down people that monitor such pages. Examples include: George W. Bush's page, the page on the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, the page on The Armenian Genocide and pages on creationism and evolution. I see that you’ve worked on the Bush page a lot. I was wondering if you might be willing to talk to me about the challenges of keeping pages like this up and unlocked. If you have any thoughts on tracking down the right person to talk to for a story like this, please shoot them my way. I hope to get in contact with you. You can email me here: matt.phillips@wsj.com
Thanks much, Matt
I have warned EnglishEftermamn on his talk page about violating WP:3RR and urged an admin ( Gamaliel) to take another look at what's going on. This is really getting annoying. I will be offline until tomorrow but if he reverts again, you can report him here at the 3RR noticeboard.-- WilliamThweatt 05:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for rewording/wikifying my sentence. Also, I think something should be said about his privacy related legislations in the domestic policy or related section, as it is not only criticism, but actual policy of administration. They made many laws since 911 as response to terrorism, but actually limiting our rights. Lakinekaki 23:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Sorry about that. I was surprised to see the "edit" hyperlink on a talk page and just wanted to verify that I could actually edit others' comments. It was my intention to immediately revert the change, which I did. I meant no harm whatsoever. I really don't see why anyone should be allowed to edit talk pages--maybe you could fill me in. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.130.27.84 ( talk) 20:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC).
I thought you did a great job rewording the Hurricane Katrina reference in George W. Bush and added some excellent citation. I'll find a barnstar for you if this rock-solid-ness continues. :) -- Iriseyes 02:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Well you could report it at WP:SSP however, his sockpuppetry seems minor at the moment and I would advise not to. What you can do is place the following tag on his page: {{sockpuppet|Hellohoe}} . The tag indicates that the user's contributions lead them to be suspected of sockpuppetry. If you have any other questions regarding the matter feel free to ask. ¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 21:54, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
I rambled on a bit longer than I anticipated so I went ahead and responded on my talk page rather than the article's talk page. The basic summary: While WP:RS is merely a guideline and has exceptions, it seems the source in question is just too biased. The author lacks the neutrality and objectivity to qualify as a reliable source, IMO. The full rambling is on my talk page, but I wanted to make sure you saw a response. Thanks, AuburnPilot talk 23:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Dear Mbc362,
Thank you for applying for VandalProof! (VP). As you may know, VP is a very powerful program, and in fact the just released 1.3 version has even more power. Because of this we must uphold strict protocols before approving a new applicant. Regretfully, I have chosen to decline your application at this time. The reason for this is that you have 244 mainspace edits please come back in a month. Please note it is nothing personal by any means, and we certainly welcome you to apply again soon. Thank you for your interest in VandalProof. Betacommand ( talk • contribs • Bot) 15:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Catching and going back to change your own "to" to a "too"? Now you're just mocking my poor spelling and grammar, aren't you. Just kidding, thanks much for your great input on that Global Warming section and discussion.- JLSWiki 18:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Mbc362! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. Betacommand ( talk • contribs • Bot) 18:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Actually, if you watched The Colbert Report, you would know that that wasn't in fact vandalism, but truth. Said fact was featured on the show itself.
Reference: http://www.gay.com/content/slideshow/?coll=2516&order=5&navpath=/channels/entertainment/
Please check what you're saying before you jump down someone's throat for "vandalism." Thanks.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.156.220.39 ( talk • contribs)
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 23:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your points about citations. I was not aware that YouTube recordings did not constitute a valid source. The source that you deleted from the McCain page was a clip of McCain himself speaking. What precisely is the problem with that? There is nothing in WP:RS about not using YouTube videos. In fact, this particular clip is a Primary_source, which WP:RS states is allowable. It is a primary source because it gives direct evidence of exactly what McCain said -- that is, it shows him speaking
As regards the "mavrick" comment, why is it ok to have the article state that some people call McCain a mavrick but not that other people say that he has been flip-flopping? Is that because "maverick" is positive term? 129.133.90.64 23:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for contributing to the Michael Savage page. However, the "fluff" that you removed was part of a NPOV edit to seperatea statement about him carrying a gun and arguing with his friends. The two have nothing in common, that is to say that the gun was not part of the arguments and therefore belongs in a different sentence. This is covered in the talk page for this article. If you would like to further discuss, let's move to that forum. Again, thanks for your contributions to wikipedia! - Eisenmond 15:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Hey I just noticed the message you left on this guy's talk page- dont worry about offending him. His edit history shows nothing but vandalism and there were a bunch of previous warnings on his talk page. I've blocked him for now, but don't be afraid to be a little tougher with vandals- I'm sure nobody will fault you. All the best! -- Scimitar parley 05:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
yo man please don't vandal, me because im actually putting one of the most wanted topics on Wikipedia. I'm just new to editing, but don't worry.
o sry man, cauz i was adding stuff, but the problem, was many times it didn't come out 2 the way i wanted it to, so PLEASE delete that annoying speedy deletion thing. I'll ix it all somehow.
ok, dude or dudette i will just give 1 Big FInalization, sry man or woman.
yo u know how i can upload a file to a wikipedia page???
Evidently you sent me a message saying I vandalized the zombie page. I am confused as to how this happened, as I never edited that page and was not(at the time of recieving the message) actually even logged in.