User talk:Calicocat/archive2006

Talk archive #1

Journalism

Yeah, good idea :-) I'll mention it here and there :-) Anthere

Media bias

I agree about your comments on the results of the merge - this happened shortly after I began a major rewrite of the article. I got as far as the section, 'Liberal vs Conservative media bias' when the merge happened (take a look at the version previous to my edits, it was much worse). I paused because I'm not sure whether much of the dumped material should actually be moved to a separate article (media bias in the United States). I'm willing to work on the US stuff (although I'm not American) and have plenty of sources to add material from, such as Herman & Chomsky, Ben Bagdikian etc. Obviously, this is from a perspective that believes in a right-wing (as oppose to liberal or conservative) bias, but it provides factual assertions that can easily be addressed by research from the other side. Either way, the article needs major work because most of it is hopelessly US-centric. ThanksillWill 13:54, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Hello there. I'm going to create a separate article on Media bias in the United States (hopefully the first of a series - I might also start one on Media bias in the United Kingdom) and move most of the merged material there. I'm of the opinion that the main article should have more material about the history of media bias related to the rise of global mass media, and also the effects of the consolidation of media ownership on media bias. Hopefully this will lead into a series of decent, local sub-articles, and prevent the topic from descending into a Liberal vs. Conservative soapbox. Obviously, my own POV comes into play here, as I perceive accusations of "liberal media bias" as a fig-leaf for the attempt by conservative forces to assert greater control over society in the same way that accusations of Political correctness have been used. Still, if people can actually dig up some evidence for "liberal media bias" that isn't ranting from right-wing bloggers, I'd be very receptive to reading it.

Also, this is off-topic, but have you read "PR" by Stuart Ewen? It's an excellent study of the role of public relations in media bias. I'd recommend it to anybody that likes the propaganda model stuff and Ben Bagdikian. The section on the attck on Roosevelt's New Deal is fascinating.illWill 15:42, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Karl Rove talk archive

I hope you understand why I re-archived Talk:Karl Rove. It's nothing personal, I just don't think it's very nice to blank an entire talk page. Also, I used a simpler name for the archive, Talk:Karl Rove/Archive1 because that seems to be the standard naming scheme in use (although I could have used "01", as in the illustration on Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page). Oh, well. Basically, we just need to pick a naming scheme and delete the other version(s). Let me know if you'll agree to deleting Talk:Karl Rove/Archive 1 (July 05). - dcljr (talk) 21:59, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for cleaning up. Sorry if I seemed a bit short... - dcljr (talk) 00:55, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

By the way, I'm going to stop watching the Karl Rove article and talk page now. See ya elsewhere in WP... - dcljr (talk) 01:15, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

OMG, it looks like I bailed just in time... - dcljr (talk) 05:34, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Thank you

Your supportive little note really hit the spot. Once more, into the breach! :) -- RyanFreisling @ 19:37, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

RfC to-do

Hey there. Anywhere in particular on the RfQ where I should make my experience known? Thanks. -- RyanFreisling @ 03:59, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

VfD on Bush impeachment

Please don't refactor votes like that. It breaks up the discussion. We don't need votes grouped because Wikipedia is not a democracy. Besides, if an admin scrolls down the page and can't clearly see which side is "winning," then there is "no consensus" and the article is kept by default. Aerion//talk 14:42, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Templates

Hi, congratulations on learning templates. You're ahead of me. Maurreen (talk) 07:01, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

George Bush Move

Please don't make statements about policy not being followed unless you are sure it is not being followed. Stirling Newberry 03:38, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

[1] This is the diff at issue. Stirling Newberry 03:47, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Since you asked (sort of)...

You might find things go easier if you copy (for pasting) from the main title area (next to the wikiGlobe) rather than out of the URL (in the location box of the browser). (I'm guessing that's what you're now doing.) For instance, that way you would get "Embargo (journalism)" instead of "Embargo_%28journalism%29". The text is bigger too, which makes it easier for me. -R. S. Shaw 08:01, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Categories

Someone has proposed Category:Journalism and a few related categories for deletion or merging. Maurreen (talk) 01:13, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Mirror Vax

After looking at the link you sent me, it seems that our friend is rather unrepentant, to say the least. Thanks for the compliment, BTW. I just get a little steamed when someone comes from nowhere and reams me out on what is literally a world stage and not offer any apologies. Would you be so kind as to keep me posted on this matter? - Lucky 6.9 05:40, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Mirror Vax attempt at manipulation

Mirror Vax wrote this:

What do you keep saying that I haven't provided detailed reasons for the tag when I have? And what's the big deal about the tag, anyway? It doesn't mean there's anything wrong with the article neccessarily, only that there is a dispute. Which there is. It's not something to get hot about, yet you respond like it's an attack on your mother's virtue. Mirror Vax 05:51, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

I find that kind of language to be a not too well covered insult by implication.

Note, this user, Mirror Vax, has proven himself to be uncivil and unreasonable. His "objections" to the article in question, Movement to impeach George W. Bush, have been discussed and dealth with and set aside. He is unresponsive to reasoned discussions and makes continual off color and out of place remarks as is seen in his laste sentence in this message. An anlysis of his contributions and his language on various talk pages and with other users supports that. He also introduces false and misleading comments into the edit summary. For example, he is the one being insistent about an NPOV tage on the above article. I took efforts to open sections specifically to discuss his objects, which he derided as "blank" sections. I placed a staw poll on the page regarding his objections and he put that down as well. He offers no substantive support for his contentions that the article lacks accuracy and neutrality, but only repeats that a dispute exists, but he will not give any specific objects. He complains about the article but makes no effort to correct any of the shortcomings he thinks exist in it. What he is doing is parroting back the valid criticisms of his editing and attempting to say that what he is doing, others are guilty of; the edit history will not demonstrate this to be so, his false edit summary comments notwithstanding. I feel it would be unproductive to respond to this user at this time, however, it may become necessary to investigate further the need for a possible RfC here. Calicocat 06:07, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

There you go again. I made multiple, concrete criticisms of the article. You ignored them, and continue to falsely assert that I gave no reason for the disputed tag. Nothing I did or said was unreasonable. Am I supposed to applaud when you create a blank section? How does creating a blank section advance the discussion? You are correct in one thing, which is that I didn't edit the article (other than the tag - which is not a big deal). I had very good reasons to confine my activities to the talk page: it's a controversial article with a lot of highly partisan editors (I am not saying you are one). Mirror Vax 06:35, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

See article talk. Calicocat 06:42, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Pre-RfC

Mirror_Vax's contributions

Media bias articles

Hi, thanks for the message. I've done a few little things to the articles, but not too much - I'm busy writing my dissertation (current section- 'Is systemic media bias reproduced on the Wikipedia?') at the moment, and decided to take a few days off from staring at my computer over the weekend. I dug out a paper I wrote on concentrated media ownership, and also some figures on media bias on the internet, so I'll try and work figures and author quotes from those in at some point. I'd like to work in more on the history of media bias and ownership (maybe using some stuff from the Public sphere, but historical studies aren't really my specialty - I write mostly about new media. I'll see what I can do though, once I've got a few thousand words done on this dissertation. Cheers. illWill 11:19, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Projects on media and journalism

Hey Calicocat. Thank you for the invitation, I appreciate it. Both projects sound very interesting. I'm within a couple of weeks of going back to school so I'm not going to have much time. What exactly needs to be done? Basically any kind of improving of the articles in question, and adding new articles as appropriate?

Ward Churchill

Hi Calicocat: I see that you left the page around the time that I came in. I fear that arbitration aginst User:Keetoowah is unlikely to calm things down since User:WizUp (formerly/also User:172.191.154.17 has just been created and is editing articles in which Keetowah has had an interest using a similar tone. Sigh… —Theo (Talk) 11:33, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Gold Star Families for Peace

The article had been created with "inverted commas", which is incorrect naming for an article on Wikipedia, so I moved it to its current location. Also according to the manual of style the stub notice should go at the bottom, not the top. -- Francs2000 | Talk 08:53, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

I put the words inverted commas in inverted commas. I suppose Americans call them speech marks or something. -- Francs2000 | Talk 09:00, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the heads up on MirrorVax. I'm afraid I'm under deadline on writing right now, but I will do what I can. Stirling Newberry 22:30, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Preparing for reconciliation

I want the BD RfC resolved, or at least put in the past. I'm asking him to answer the RfC. I respect your reasons and intentions for bringing the RfC and the usefulness of RfCs to WP culture. This user did have it coming. However, this particular RfC is very dependent on characterizations of comments, rather than hardcore facts (which do exist) for its weight. Characterizations are often very POV in and of themselves, and accurate ones usually include points valid to each side. Many false accusations of "vandalism" were thrown around at one point; this certainly could not have given the user any confidence in the credibility of the "team" involved. Also, this isn't, in the grand scheme of things, the biggest deal in the world. To help those involved to prepare for this reconciliation (I am sending this identical message to the three original signatories), I am asking them to:

• Go over your own edit history with respect to the user, in detail, with the same scrupulousness with which you have examined his. View it as an adversary might. This requires time and work.

1. Identify anything, directed at the user or referring to him, that has been a violation of WP policy, or could be construed as such, including the possible inadvertant deletion of a user's text on a talk page by someone that, technically, was a violation of vandalism policy, and later reverted by an admin. Because RfCs involve behavior before and after they are brought, do not limit your review to pre-RfC history.
2. Identify all comments you have made that could be misconstrued as an "attack" -- based, of course, on the same standards which the other user is being held to. Recognize how unforgiving edit histories are.
3. Then, apologize to the user in advance for any and all of these things which you have done, even if his sins are greater than your own. This is known in Wikiquette as admitting one's mistakes.

• Give the user some credit -- to his face -- for identifying the bias in the Rove article (the NPOV tag I added has never been seriously questioned, has it?), and for the reasonableness, if not the certainty, of a newbie making conclusions, however silly, of a liberal "cabal" or clique at WP (indicated by comments such as "Sticking together on Rove").
• Let the user know you're not perfect, and will happily accept an apology from him as well.
• If the user chooses not to give the answer he is being asked to give, be prepared to move on.

You can never pile too much love onto an adversary. It's called "heaping coals on their head." I'm asking this user to swallow his pride and admit his errors. Let's all be prepared to do the same. This may require us helping him to find ways to save face. We all screw up from time to time. We all require grace. If I've made any errors, let me know as well.

If it only took one sin to be damned to hell, we'd all be damned to hell. Once we were there, would there by any point in arguing about who's sins were worse? Hardly.

paul klenk 10:17, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Wow this is very long. All he has to do is participate in the process.Calicocat 13:30, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I apologize for the length. To summarize: All you have to do is apologize for any infractions of our own and help BD find a way to save face. (Much better -- you're right, it was too long.) paul klenk 13:34, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I do not know who this person is. While I now see they have certified the RFC, I do not believe this certification is valid. I believe they should be a cosigner. BD doesn't get to save face. He gets to stop making personal attacks. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:46, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Paul, I'm sure you have good intensions, but it's up to BD to save his own face. He'll do that best by hearing what this is about, namly, his RfC and then he can respond and get on with it. Maybe he needs to take a wikibreak, as well. Further discussion on his RfC should take place on that page, please. Thanks. Calicocat 03:21, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind reply. Sorry this response is going to be long:

My effort was not directed at helping BD, but at helping you. Your RfC, well-meaning and (sometimes) valid as it is, is seriously flawed. It is poorly sourced, hard to slog through, and based on tons of out-of-context quotes that are often mischaracterized as "attacks". Look at the threads -- people throw out the word attack right and left, completely misapplying the term. You've managed to make an observation about BD -- he is annoying, colorful, sometimes out of line. Sorry, not enough for an RfC.

No future arbitrators with a reputation for fairness, looking for the "beef," will judge BigDaddy's comments out of context, nor should they. But they should not be asked dig for the context themselves, when you could have done that work in your RfC. I was hoping to put in some time to help you bring it above its sub-marginal state. I don't even see a well-laid-out attempt to resolve the dispute, point by point, so I can examine it in summary form. I'm not saying there isn't one, just that you're asking the arbitrators to, again, slog through links looking for it, or just "take your word for it" that it's there. Giving people lots of "warnings" about (sometimes) phoney "attacks" is not a serious attempt at dispute resolution. It's something else.

The greatet mistake any wise judge could make in this affair is to blame one side. Both sides are in error. BigDaddy has made his mistakes; your mistakes are thin-skinnedness, stidency, overreaction to colorful rhetoric, and an overblown indignation that someone hasn't responded to an RfC.

If you ever do have a stronger case you need presented, one that is fair, you have a standing offer of help from me.

Sorry this is so long. I will understand if you don't read it. paul klenk ^talk 02:22, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Request for a link

I'm trying to analyze User:BigDaddy777's behavior in context, based on the RfC. This is very hard, because the RfC quotes him out of context; I can't fairly analyze a quote that way. Working through the threads to do post mortems is extremely time consuming.

Would you please send me one or two links to a discussion of some length, representing BDs worst behavior? It should include more than just one or two isolated remarks.

Please leave it at my talk page under User talk:Paul Klenk#BG777 Worst-Of Threads, trying not duplicate a thread submitted someone else. I will continue to sort through the RfC, but one or two links would be a great help. Thanks.

paul klenk ^talk 07:41, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Paul, I can't give this any more attention until the party in question responds. My time is limited and I don't want to get more deeply involved with this issue, so, I won't be answering this. Thanks for understanding. Calicocat 01:20, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Regarding Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/BigDaddy777

Since you endorsed the original RfC [2], I thought you might be interested to know that since the dispute resolution process has stalled due to BigDaddy's refusal to respond to this RfC, some are now questioning whether an RfAr should be filed.[3] Your comments on this new issue would be appreciated. 69.121.133.154 05:15, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration Requested

Per community consensus, Arbitration has been requested against BigDaddy777. Please add any details or comments you feel are appropriate. Mr. Tibbs 03:55, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Category: LGBT rights opposition

You forgot to sign your last vote on Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 September 29. -Seth Mahoney 22:49, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Air America-Gloria Wise Loan Controversy Page

Hi there, I've noticed that you have contributed to the Air America Radio article and have been a faithful follower of NPOV. Now the Air America-Gloria Wise loan controversy page is also currently being hacked with POV edits from anti-AAR/anti-Franken contributors. Would you be able to weigh into the discussion to help ward off these people?--Pmagnay 13:38, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

You know, I just have no interest in getting into some petty footnote about a hyped up non-story. If the AAR Hate Squad wants to go have a feeding frenzy over the so called "loan controvery," let them. Maybe I'll have a look at that page, but, honestly, I don't see the pont in getting into it that pig pen. Calicocat 04:30, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Plame

Hey Calico. I remember that you were the main coordinator on cleaning up the Plame Affair article and wanted to drop you a note that it seems likely to be getting busy again soon. Stop by if you have time. --CBDunkerson 19:37, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I was getting a little fed up with all the POV pushing and petty political hacking of the page, and I also got very busy... anyway, since no real hard news had come out, I kind of took a little vacation from it. I'll keep an eye on it, but I'm sure it will take a few months or even years before the article will achieve a more objective treatment.

Plame Affair

Hello Calicocat, I’m going to be bold and start a new entry dealing with the Plame CIA Grand Jury Leak Investigation aspect of the Plame Affair. Very bare bones. After I finish, we can decide if they should merge or stay separate. Plame Affair is not current and some of the information is strong POV. A new entry is the easiest way for me to sort out the grand jury timeline, update the witnesses list, etc. I wanted to let you know what I’m doing because you did a wonderful job on this entry in the past.--FloNight 21:08, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for mentioning your intentions to get the article up to date and more neutral. Frankly, while the investigation moves along, little new, hard information was available and yes, there were some POVists working the short term spin doctoring circuit. It's making me think of adopting a decade old rule, meaning that I'll not edit an article for which the subject is less than 10 years in the past. Anyway, I'll have a look at your edits, your idea sounds good and there were some good editors working on the article, maybe your new work will get them woking on the entry again. Calicocat 01:28, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

CIA leak grand jury investigation

Hello, Thank you for your comments about CIA leak grand jury investigation. Guess what? Some one nominated it for deletion. Since I put in over 20 hours researching and verifying the information about the attorneys, judges, courts, and the law, I was shocked and very disappointed. I would appreciate any support that you can give the article. I'm fighting to keep it. I started a half a dozen new article (mostly about government officals and attorneys) and expanded some stubs based on their connection to this article. If this article gets deleted they will need to be linked somewhere else.--FloNight 02:34, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Page deletion

I page which is part of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Anti-war (of which you are listed as a member) is up for deletion. It is The Left and Opposition to War, you can see its entry at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Left and Opposition to War. It would be helpfull if you could add your opinion.--JK the unwise 12:57, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia Anti-war project, push to get a featured article b4 Xmass

February 15, 2003 anti-war protest, an article which is part of the WikiProject Anti-war of which you are listed as a member, has been recently rated A-class by the Version 1.0 Editorial team (see here) This means that it is considered to be of good quality. The Anti-war project has yet to achieve a featured article but with a little pushing I feel we could get this article up to FA standards. To this end I have put the article up for peer review, if you could help make this a brilliant article that would be much appreciated. Please give your comments at Wikipedia:Peer review/February 15, 2003 anti-war protest/archive2 or on the article's talk page. Fingers crossed for a FA before Xmass.--JK the unwise 13:04, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikiproject anti-war, Article improvement drive

February 15, 2003 anti-war protest an article from the WikiProject Anti-war, which you are listed as a member of, has been nominated for the Article Improvement Drive (by me ).

It is an article about a day of much importance both to the history of the anti-war movement and to general discussion of the Iraq war. With a little work from experienced editors it could gain FA status. If you would like to see it improved please vote for it at Make "February 15, 2003 anti-war protest" the subject of an Article Improvement Drive--JK the unwise 13:20, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

RfC opened for Mr j galt

An RfC has been opened here against User:Mr j galt (talk • contribs). If you are familar with his editing and would like to add your input, please feel free to do so, whatever your POV. Thanks! -- User:RyanFreisling @ 00:47, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Calendar

	July
Su	Mo	Tu	We	Th	Fr	Sa
	01	02	03	04	05	06
07	08	09	10	11	12	13
14	15	16	17	18	19	20
21	22	23	24	25	26	27
28	29	30	31
2024

Hi there, I just caught your comment at Template talk:Calendar and see you've pretty much got the idea on your talk page. But if you want one that automatically updates, you might want to try adding {{{{CURRENTMONTHNAME}}Calendar{{CURRENTYEAR}}}} to your userpage instead! Hope this helped — CuaHL^e 23:36, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I did this for you as you're on a wikibreak. Hope you don't mind — CuaHL^e 23:39, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I made Template:Current_month_calendar for you. Look in the upper-right corner of this section for a sample. Cheers. --Uncle Ed 01:23, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the help and information on the calendar functions. Nice work...I learned something, too. :-)

Template:Anti-war topics up for deletion

Template:Anti-war topics is up for deletion. Please weigh in on the discussion. Thanks! SchuminWeb (Talk) 09:29, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for keeping me posted on this matter. I voted "Keep" for it. Calicocat 08:41, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Novak.robert.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Novak.robert.jpg. Wikipedia gets hundreds of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 05:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)