User talk:Kuzaar/03
Archived Talk Pages
Old discussions, etc. Can be found at 01 02.
Brownback (1)
In response to Getaway:
- In response to the earlier items (the NY sun article and the race of the commentor), it is important to remember that the text as it stands says that he characterizes a group as viewing the rhetoric as cynical, so the distinction is made, as he does not claim to be a part of that community. Also, as far as the NY sun article is concerned, I agree with your moving the cited section to the views. The only reason I readded the paragraph where it was is that at the end of the controversy section is where it was. I have no personal interest in making either of these people look any more or less controversial than the press/media/other reliable sources make them out to be. What I take issue with is erasing cited descriptions of incidents that these people were involved with, and which made it into news articles. Again, as on your talk page, I apologize if I seemed to be making you out as trollish. I am just a very careful person when it comes to making edits to the pages of popular public figures, and believe that all disputes should be fairly and representatively framed. --Kuzaar-T-C- 14:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
I find it confusing that you would consider that this magazine article [1]provides no evidence as whether its subject passes WP:BIO. Kappa 15:59, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- The criterion in question is if the subject has been the topic of multiple nontrivial works, which in turn leaves the question of if that article is nontrivial, and additionally if several works can be in turn found on the subject. I will agree that the Manila Bulletin is a notable source, however the question of magazine articles being nontrivial reliable sources is an issue more up for debate. Pending more evidence, I am still of the opinion that the subject of the article is not sufficiently notable according to the guidelines at BIO. --Kuzaar-T-C- 16:32, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Input
Could you please take a look at this and see if you can offer any useful advice? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 14:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Deetdeet's userpage
I understand the point, but I think "far"-right is not a neutral term, even if right-wing is. I generally don't think right-wing people like to be referred to as far-right. What do you think? Deet 23:02, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Kainaw's Remarks
Hey Kuzaar,
I'm glad to have you as a source of reflection for my posts on the RefDesk. I fully admit that, no matter how I try, I've broken the strict Wiki rules quite often in the past, and to a certain extent I still do, regrettably. It's really tough to follow some of the rules, yet I hope you understand that I try my best, and will continue to keep on trying to improve my behaviour more and more.
Yet, a certain member, Kainaw, clearly crossed the line. Not just a mere infraction of the guide to proper Wiki etiquette as I'm so guilty of making no matter how much I try (and I hope you'll agree, I'm doing a lot better than before!) but a rather severe, inhumane remark.
A certain questioner asked what was probably an inappropriate question. S/he was told it was innapropriate, and it was left at that. Everybody makes mistakes. (I should know, I make mistakes all the time!)
Yet a certain regular contributor, A certain "Kainaw", actually went so far as to wish that questioner DEATH. I asked Kainaw to perhaps clarify his or her position, but once again, S/he reiterated his/her desire that the errant questioner suffer DEATH.
No matter the questioner's mistake, this comment was waaaaay beyond what is acceptable. S/he seems to have actually taken my request to leave Wikipedia seriously, and looking at his/her userpage, s/he seems to have replaced it with my request for him or her to leave.
I feel fully comfortable with my conduct here. NO ONE ON WIKIPEDIA SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO WISH DEATH ON ANOTHER WIKIPEDIAN.
Yet I value your input Kuzaar, and I'd really like to hear your take on the whole thing, as, to be honest, the whole thing has been rather disturbing to me, and in the past, you've always been a good voice of reason in similar instances.
All the best Kuzaar,
Loomis 02:36, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
- Just for the records and my ease of looking up this user's behavior, these two links: User:Kainaw Special:Contributions/Kainaw. --Kuzaar-T-C- 13:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Speaking to new editors
Please do not encourage editors to ignore policy and NPOV rules. In reminding users on their talk pages of the cornerstones of Wikipedia's policies, I am encouraging them to help make the project more encyclopedic. By encouraging them to ignore what I say, you imply that NPOV does not matter. This is not true; NPOV is not negotiable and is mandatory, particularly for articles about controversial subjects. If this was not your intention, please keep in mind that new editors commonly do not have a complete understanding of all of the cornerstone rules for editing at Wikipedia, and that while they should be encouraged to contribute, it is vitally important to maintain neutral point of view in the narrative voice of articles. --Kuzaar-T-C- 13:50, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. You specifically told a new editor to reframe from editing. I told that new editor to continue to edit. Your opinion on whether someone should edit or not DOES NOT MATTER. I will continue to encourage new editors to ignore your non-NPOV attempts to stop editors that have a different point of view than yours. Every time. I have seen your work and you do this every single new editor that does not agree with your POV. It is my right to point out to these editors that they can continue to edit with or without your personal blessings. Also, I believe strongly that when someone calls you on a point of of the rules, any point, you attempt to cloud and distort the issue, just like you have attempted to do here. I did NOT encourage the new editor not to follow the NPOV rules, I just pointed out, quite correctly I might add, that your, Kuzaar, personal opinion on whether they should participate in politically charged editing debates does not stop them from editing and I encourage the new editor to continue to edit with or without your blessings. I will do this again, eveny single time that I notice that you are encouraging new editors to stop editing, just because you do not agree with there POV. ----Getaway 14:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- That is categorically false. All I did was say that, for NPOV reasons, users should generally tend to stay away from articles in which they have a strong personal interest. For an example of the same logic, take a look at the guideline list of examples of bad article ideas, from which it takes only a step to understand the underlying reason that many of these are bad ideas for articles. Please note that I do not encourage new users not to edit; I ask that they follow the mandatory NPOV guidelines at Wikipedia and, in this case, inform them that they might consider (to avoid the temptation of making POV edits) editing away from articles that they might be tempted to insert commentary into. Similarly, note that if you go around after me, telling users that they can pretty much disregard everything I say, you are not only encouraging them to put themselves in an environment where they may be more tempted to make these edits, but you similarly imply that the rest of what I said (such as NPOV policy being important) does not matter. You're correct in that any one user's personal opinion on the matter is irrelevant. Where this logic fails, though, is where the user in question happens to be advocating to a user community-defined policy and suggestions, as I was.
- I have never attempted to cloud the rules in my personal interest- indeed, I am not interested in politics. I do, however, have an interest in keeping the project encyclopedic and making sure that no POV material is put into articles. For this reason, I get a lot of flak for reminding users about NPOV policy. Please remember to assume good faith of other users (as I do), and try your best to achieve the ultimate goal of the Wikipedia project. --Kuzaar-T-C- 14:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- No, you are NOT going to get away with it. You are not going to cloud the issues again with long-winded tirades off the topic to get people to forget what it is that we are talking about. No. No. No. I will remind you once again. You stated that: "Please do not encourage editors to ignore policy and NPOV rules." That is falsehood. You are not going to intimidate me. You have been following me around Wikipedia for at least two weeks, but I will not be intimidated. I did NOT encourage the new editor to ignore the Wikipedia rules. If I did then you show me, in the edit record, where this happened!!!! Seriously, do not start one of your long-winded lectures on how you are neutral, etc. and how you are just reminding people of the rules. Focus. Show me exactly where I encouraged that new editor to break the rules. You are not going to get away with a hit and run.--Getaway 14:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- I am not trying to get away with anything. In telling the user to disregard what I had to say about his editing, you were telling him that what I had to say on the subject didn't matter. This is not true when I am reminding him of community policy. I am not clouding the water here, I am laying the issue out in the simplest terms. If I say to a user "Keep NPOV in mind, and it may also be a good idea to edit away from what you have strong personal feelings about", and you say "Disregard everything that Kuzaar said and keep doing what you're doing", you have indirectly told him to ignore NPOV policy. That is what my issue is. --Kuzaar-T-C- 14:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- No. We will go over this one more time. You stated, it is right here on this page and in the edit log: "Please do not encourage editors to ignore policy and NPOV rules." You have NOT shown me where I encouraged the new editor to ignore Wikipedia rules. Where is this written down??? Please, do not jump around the subject. I just want to see in writing where I specifically stated to the new editor to violated Wikipedia rules. Please show me. I'm not going to be intimidated with a bunch of talk off the topic. I just want to see the specific wording where I encouraged the new editor to violate Wikipedia policy as you claim. Where is it??? --Getaway 14:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- I am not trying to get away with anything. In telling the user to disregard what I had to say about his editing, you were telling him that what I had to say on the subject didn't matter. This is not true when I am reminding him of community policy. I am not clouding the water here, I am laying the issue out in the simplest terms. If I say to a user "Keep NPOV in mind, and it may also be a good idea to edit away from what you have strong personal feelings about", and you say "Disregard everything that Kuzaar said and keep doing what you're doing", you have indirectly told him to ignore NPOV policy. That is what my issue is. --Kuzaar-T-C- 14:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- No, you are NOT going to get away with it. You are not going to cloud the issues again with long-winded tirades off the topic to get people to forget what it is that we are talking about. No. No. No. I will remind you once again. You stated that: "Please do not encourage editors to ignore policy and NPOV rules." That is falsehood. You are not going to intimidate me. You have been following me around Wikipedia for at least two weeks, but I will not be intimidated. I did NOT encourage the new editor to ignore the Wikipedia rules. If I did then you show me, in the edit record, where this happened!!!! Seriously, do not start one of your long-winded lectures on how you are neutral, etc. and how you are just reminding people of the rules. Focus. Show me exactly where I encouraged that new editor to break the rules. You are not going to get away with a hit and run.--Getaway 14:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. You specifically told a new editor to reframe from editing. I told that new editor to continue to edit. Your opinion on whether someone should edit or not DOES NOT MATTER. I will continue to encourage new editors to ignore your non-NPOV attempts to stop editors that have a different point of view than yours. Every time. I have seen your work and you do this every single new editor that does not agree with your POV. It is my right to point out to these editors that they can continue to edit with or without your personal blessings. Also, I believe strongly that when someone calls you on a point of of the rules, any point, you attempt to cloud and distort the issue, just like you have attempted to do here. I did NOT encourage the new editor not to follow the NPOV rules, I just pointed out, quite correctly I might add, that your, Kuzaar, personal opinion on whether they should participate in politically charged editing debates does not stop them from editing and I encourage the new editor to continue to edit with or without your blessings. I will do this again, eveny single time that I notice that you are encouraging new editors to stop editing, just because you do not agree with there POV. ----Getaway 14:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- You did not explicitly say "ignore NPOV". However, you encouraged the editor to disregard my comments on the subject when I was attempting to represent policy and community consensus, which is my problem. --Kuzaar-T-C- 15:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- I, in turn, should have more specific in my comments. If I had to do it over again, I would have told her to generally follow your comments, but completely ignore your suggestion that she refrain from editing controversial subjects. See? Wasn't that easy? --Getaway 15:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- Even so, it is vitally important to NPOV that the editing user understands the policies outlined at the respective pages. The critical divide between characterizing a debate and re-enacting the same debate is an intellectually advanced one, and as I said before, it is oftentimes better that users unfamiliar with many of the ideas at WP:NPOV to not run the risk of adding commentary to an article which may go entirely unnoticed by editors than to go editing and create (whether intentionally or not) a fault in the neutral tone of the article which may go uncorrected. --Kuzaar-T-C- 15:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- There. You have the last word. --Getaway 15:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- I'm curious as to what you mean. I believe in doing the courtesy to all editors of responding to comments left on my userpage; it's out of politeness, not a need to have the last word. --Kuzaar-T-C- 15:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- Well, if we have to go there. I believe that this whole long discussion could have been shorter and much more to the point if you have given ME the benefit of "good faith" from the beginning. Instead of jumping to a conclusion that I was encouraging the new editor to violate the NPOV rules (and other rules) you could have had a discussion with me where we talked about what I meant with last night's comment that I left on the new editor's talk page. I never encouraged her to violated any rules and you should have not jumped to that conclusion and that conclusion jumping should not have happened if you had offered me the courtesy of "good faith." Also, I'm not the one who is following you around. You are following me around. I don't see that as courtesy. --Getaway 15:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- I understand how you feel, and I apologize if my actions have seemed like I am following you around, and I similarly apologize if I did not assume good faith as much as I should have. Like I said, I spend a lot of time patrolling controversial articles because of their tendency to be the target of POV edits. Incidentally, users that edit a lot there (such as yourself) can sometimes misconstrue my efforts to keep the articles up to standard as me following them around. Nevertheless, this is something that is nearly always bound to happen when editing controversial subject's articles, so I end up playing the role of the editor that disagrees with everyone. Naturally, as you might imagine, this makes for a pretty stressful experience at Wikipedia and I am often inclined to read more into users that disagree with my interpretation of policy than is sometimes there. No hard feelings, though, it's something that happens a lot in the world of political (and religious, too, and ethnic and nationalistic) subjects in Wikipedia. Cheers, --Kuzaar-T-C- 15:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- Well, if we have to go there. I believe that this whole long discussion could have been shorter and much more to the point if you have given ME the benefit of "good faith" from the beginning. Instead of jumping to a conclusion that I was encouraging the new editor to violate the NPOV rules (and other rules) you could have had a discussion with me where we talked about what I meant with last night's comment that I left on the new editor's talk page. I never encouraged her to violated any rules and you should have not jumped to that conclusion and that conclusion jumping should not have happened if you had offered me the courtesy of "good faith." Also, I'm not the one who is following you around. You are following me around. I don't see that as courtesy. --Getaway 15:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- I'm curious as to what you mean. I believe in doing the courtesy to all editors of responding to comments left on my userpage; it's out of politeness, not a need to have the last word. --Kuzaar-T-C- 15:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- There. You have the last word. --Getaway 15:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- Even so, it is vitally important to NPOV that the editing user understands the policies outlined at the respective pages. The critical divide between characterizing a debate and re-enacting the same debate is an intellectually advanced one, and as I said before, it is oftentimes better that users unfamiliar with many of the ideas at WP:NPOV to not run the risk of adding commentary to an article which may go entirely unnoticed by editors than to go editing and create (whether intentionally or not) a fault in the neutral tone of the article which may go uncorrected. --Kuzaar-T-C- 15:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- I, in turn, should have more specific in my comments. If I had to do it over again, I would have told her to generally follow your comments, but completely ignore your suggestion that she refrain from editing controversial subjects. See? Wasn't that easy? --Getaway 15:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Impersonator
I had nothing to do with the other account. It is now redirecting to my page. Stirling Newberry 05:06, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
I've taken out the redirects. Is there a page that this can be listed to be blocked as abuse? Stirling Newberry 05:14, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Do we know the IP address? I rather suspect it is Ray Lopez, who is currently involved in vandalising my talk page. He wants various personal attacks and so on to show up on google. He does it both from home, and from the navy base where, I assume, he works. Stirling Newberry 14:27, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
He tends to use IP addresses (check the history list at my discussion page for typical examples. It is the same service provider and the same navy base he's used for two years now.) Ah the life and times of the not entirely not notable enough. Stirling Newberry 14:34, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. Stirling Newberry 14:48, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Hyles Anderson Doctorate
Maybe I missed something, but does Hyles Anderson even offer a doctor of divinity?[2] How can an unaccredited school offer a doctorate for a program they don't have? C56C 21:46, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
- This part of an ongoing issue. See; Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Vivaldi. Arbusto 07:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Your help needed at Protest Warrior
Hello,
Could you weigh in on these WP issues on the Protest Warrior article? I'm not confident that they're interpeting WP correctly.
Feel free to comment on my assertion that user Lawyer2b did not divulge his membership in Protest Warrior when accused of being a member or supporter either, and if my actions were improper.
Thanks!
NBGPWS 07:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
A RfA thank you from en:User:Xyrael
I'd like to thank you Kuzaar for either supporting, opposing, commenting, nominating, reading, editing, promoting and/or anything else that you may have done for my successful request for adminship (I've broken the one thousand sysop barrier!); I'm thanking you for getting involved, and for this I am very grateful. I hope to be able to serve Wikipedia more effectively with my new tools and that we can continue to build our free encyclopedia, for knowledge is power, but only wisdom is liberty. Please do feel free to get in touch if you feel you can improve me in any way; I will be glad to listen to all comments. Again, thanks 8) —Xyrael / 12:04, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Brownback (2)
I noticed that you have placed a tag that states "dubious" on the Brownback page. However, you have NOT, in any way, engaged in a discussion on what exactly was dubious or why. You have not provided any evidence, discussion or analysis at all other than to tell me to go to the talk page. But you have provided ZERO discussion on the talk page. Now, I believe that this is known as a drive-by tag. That is not the way the system works. If you have concerns about some statement then you need to discuss them on the talk page. You have not done that. I am giving you the benefit of doubt (good faith) that you merely overlooked this most basic of Wikipedian ideas. I look forward to a detailed discussion on why you marked the article because I have not been able to find anything in the article or on the talk page outlining your concerns so far. Look forward to participating in the discussion, otherwise, I will be removing your mark. Good Day!--Getaway 03:14, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
- I tagged the dubious assertion per the comments the editor who objected to it on the talk page, and because the source provided is not a reliable source per WP:RS. You have failed to meaningfully engage the originally objecting editor or address his concerns on the talk page, so the tag should stay there until a reliable source is provided or it is rephrased to conform with NPOV. Cheers, --Kuzaar-T-C- 15:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Brownback (3)
This article needs to be checked for its neutrality by a senior Wikipedia administrator. StudierMalMarburg 13:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- Could you list some of the issues that you think are under dispute? -- Fuzheado | Talk 20:54, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
- Primarily the insistence of some editors to assert that Brownback's support of "Snowflake Children" is a universally accepted tenant. The term "snowflake children" itself is a highly charged term used by a very specific group of people: i.e., the Christian Right. As long as one editor continues to delete all references to who does and does not accept this term, then the article is not neutral. StudierMalMarburg 14:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
- The term is used by hundreds and hundreds of people. There is a Wikipedian article on the term. The rules of Wikipedia does not allow one Wikipedian to decide that the term must removed from this article just because that Wikipedian does not agree with the term and does not want to see the term in the article. That is non NPOV. That is called jamming one's point of view on the article.--Getaway 15:22, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
- It's not a matter of agreeing or disagreeing with the term. It's a matter of being honest about the fact that only the Christian Right uses this term. In your own words, deleting references to this fact is non NPOV and "is called jamming one's point of view on the article." StudierMalMarburg 16:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
- The term is used by hundreds and hundreds of people. There is a Wikipedian article on the term. The rules of Wikipedia does not allow one Wikipedian to decide that the term must removed from this article just because that Wikipedian does not agree with the term and does not want to see the term in the article. That is non NPOV. That is called jamming one's point of view on the article.--Getaway 15:22, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
- Primarily the insistence of some editors to assert that Brownback's support of "Snowflake Children" is a universally accepted tenant. The term "snowflake children" itself is a highly charged term used by a very specific group of people: i.e., the Christian Right. As long as one editor continues to delete all references to who does and does not accept this term, then the article is not neutral. StudierMalMarburg 14:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
- I have tagged the above-discussed assertion's source as dubious for the reasons provided by editor StudierMalMarburg. Additionally, a reliable source for the assertion must be found if the sweeping statement it implies is to be asserted by the article. Getaway has contacted me on my talk page and informed me that he thought this was a "drive-by tagging", when in reality I was merely doing what SMM would have done, had he been a little more experienced with the source template tags Wikipedia provides. --Kuzaar-T-C-
- Unfortunately, you are not supposed to comment on me personally, but the article itself. Your comments above (highlighted in black) about me are not welcome or acceptable. Please refrain from personal attacks and stick to the article. Now, as to the article. Neither you or Marburg has given a reason to censor valid, sourced information from the Wikipedia article. Please provide your reasons and don't comment on me and engage in personal attacks. Please review the appropriate policy that you have blantantly violated: Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Kuzaar this is you first warning.--Getaway 01:12, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
- I have done nothing wrong here; I brought to public attention it was you who made me aware of the issue at the Brownback page. This is entirely within the civility and the NPA guidelines, both of which I am intimately acquainted with. It is not appropriate to cite policy incorrectly at users you disagree with: I am not going to warn you, but please be aware of the distinction in the future. --Kuzaar-T-C- 04:36, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
- What is not appropriate is when you make a comment on what you believe that my experience level is. That is a personal attack and I pointed that out to you. I have a right to point that out to you. It is not up to you to stop me. Don't engage in personal attacks. Focus your attention on the article and explain why you believe that the term "snowflake children" should be censored from the Brownback article, the proposition that you and Marburg are pushing forward--which, of course, is a violation of NPOV.--Getaway 13:55, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
- You misread my statement; I was saying that Marburg was an inexperienced editor and I was making the change he would have made if he had known more about policy. I am not suggesting the term "snowflake children" be censored, but attributed to a specific source, to preserve NPOV. It is a violation on NPOV not to insist that terms be attributed specifically, unlike what you suggest, but rather preserving the most basic tenets of NPOV. I am always very careful about POV in articles, so please do not mistake my efforts at preserving NPOV for anything they are not, or incorrectly accuse me of policy violation when I have done no such thing. --Kuzaar-T-C- 14:18, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
- What is not appropriate is when you make a comment on what you believe that my experience level is. That is a personal attack and I pointed that out to you. I have a right to point that out to you. It is not up to you to stop me. Don't engage in personal attacks. Focus your attention on the article and explain why you believe that the term "snowflake children" should be censored from the Brownback article, the proposition that you and Marburg are pushing forward--which, of course, is a violation of NPOV.--Getaway 13:55, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
- I have done nothing wrong here; I brought to public attention it was you who made me aware of the issue at the Brownback page. This is entirely within the civility and the NPA guidelines, both of which I am intimately acquainted with. It is not appropriate to cite policy incorrectly at users you disagree with: I am not going to warn you, but please be aware of the distinction in the future. --Kuzaar-T-C- 04:36, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, you are not supposed to comment on me personally, but the article itself. Your comments above (highlighted in black) about me are not welcome or acceptable. Please refrain from personal attacks and stick to the article. Now, as to the article. Neither you or Marburg has given a reason to censor valid, sourced information from the Wikipedia article. Please provide your reasons and don't comment on me and engage in personal attacks. Please review the appropriate policy that you have blantantly violated: Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Kuzaar this is you first warning.--Getaway 01:12, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
- I responded on the Brownback talk page.--Getaway 14:51, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
internet slangs
thanks for stopping by my talkpage although i cant exactly comprehend its point =D can you repost again? pardon but english is my second language †Bloodpack† argh! 14:29, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
- thanks i re-read it again, i understand it now, but the U2 (stands for you too) is a very common internet slang, why is it removed? †Bloodpack† argh! 14:32, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
- thanks again for stopping by ;) †Bloodpack† argh! 14:58, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Why did you delete NLOLBQTOS it is used all over counterstrike and other gaming communities
Depersonalization External Links
Kuzaar, you have always been extremely helpful to us, and so I hope you are able to help out with this as well.
In both the subject "depersonalization" and "depersonalization disorder" someone is continually tampering with external links and putting themselves first even if that was not the original order of links, and moving things around. I believe it's for advertising purposes, but don't know what to do, as I only see an IP address.
The tag next to their IP says "site owner continually tampering with article, next time it will be reported."
There are even times our site and one other has been deleted from these topics, and we've had to put it back in as it is completely relevant to the article and the topic.
Grrrr.
Thanx — Preceding unsigned comment added by SleepingSiena (talk • contribs)
thanks!
i really appreciate your vigilance to the List of Internet Slang article, keep up the good work! Bloodpack 13:50, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Sean Hannity
I like the edit. My only problem with the way it was is the sentence begins "According to Hannity" so it should reflect his thinking. I don't think really think the code pink part should be in there in a paragraph on a different criticism. --PTR 15:22, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
- I'm fine with the edit as is. Thanks for the offer of help. I'll take you up on it if I need to, however; I'm mostly involved in copy editing. I like things to read cleanly and be correctly cited and that's what I'm experienced in. --PTR 15:59, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Sean Hannity - Redux
You said to ask if I had questions :)
On the page there are several quotes Hannity has been criticized for but I can't find any citations for him saying the quotes. I'm not saying he didn't say them but shouldn't a BLP have cites for him saying the quotes? --PTR 16:19, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for the warnings. I'm not interested in getting into edit wars. I noticed you put some citations on the page. My point actually was not citations for the criticisms but citations for him actually making the statements. I couldn't find any transcripts or any other reference except FAIR and Media Matters that quotes what Hannity said and they only paraphrase with no link to a transcript. I think if you put in an article that he was criticised for saying it; you should also put a link to what he said. --PTR 18:19, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
- Then it is okay in a BLP to say someone was criticized for saying something but not actually show that they said it? Again, I believe Hannity did say everything the article covers after researching him and his show. (I don't watch/listen to his shows, I came into the article because of the clean up tag.) You can see from my edits that I leave the controversial stuff alone, but I've read WP:BLP and it does say if the source has an agenda to push then it is better to rely on a third source.
- Second, the paragraph:
- During the Terri Schiavo controversy, two of Schiavo's nurses appeared on Hannity and Colmes to argue that Schiavo was not brain dead. Talk show host and actor Harry Shearer obtained a video tape[2] where Hannity can be heard coaching the nurses on how to respond to Alan Colmes's questions. He told them to respond "I'm just here to tell you what I saw", no matter what Colmes asked. After the segment, Hannity can be heard saying "We got the points out...But you did great, both of you"[3].
- Implies criticism but doesn't say who criticized what, just that someone obtained a vieo tape. It leaves the reader with the impression that something here is not right but what? The way he works with Colmes?
- I've taken this to your talk page because you offered to help but I'm taking up all your time and space; you'll have to archive soon :). Any further discussion, I'll put on the talk page.--PTR 18:54, 13 October 2006 (UTC)