User talk:KeptSouth/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:KeptSouth. 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. |
| Archive 1 |
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot is a program that tries to help people find interesting, useful things to do in Wikipedia. It predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
You received these suggestions because we're trying a little test to see if SuggestBot is helpful for newer Wikipedia editors -- but normally it only makes suggestions for people who ask for them explicitly on the SuggestBot request page. We won't post suggestions on your talk page again unless you ask for them. SuggestBot was created by ForteTuba--please let him know if you like it, or if you don't, or you feel that it was a good or bad idea to make these suggestions to you as a newer Wikipedia user.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, by following links from them to other articles and by matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians to find things you might be interested in. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work, such as stub articles that need to be made longer, cleanup articles that need writing help, and so on. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping. -- SuggestBot (talk) 04:50, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Dispute resolution
During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. This is an attempt to familiarize you with some of the guidelines of editing and article improvement. - 4twenty42o (talk) 19:23, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
A very warm welcome to you!
Glad you decided to join our 300 + strong project. Looking forward to seeing you fix articles.
Hi, KeptSouth, welcome to the Article Rescue Squadron! We are a growing community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to identifying and rescuing articles that have been tagged for deletion. Every day hundreds of articles are deleted, many rightfully so. But many concern notable subjects and are poorly written, which can be fixed and should not be deleted. We try to help these articles quickly improve and address the concerns of why they are proposed for deletion. This covers a lot of ground and your help is appreciated!
If you have any questions, feel free to post a question on the talk page. And once again — Welcome! Ikip (talk) 03:05, 4 December 2009 (UTC) | |||||||
Beyond rescuing worthy articles, our project needs assistance in:
- Creating our next newsletter. Please message me if you are interested. Ikip (talk) 03:06, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
EEOC
Good work! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dave Golland (talk • contribs) 16:14, 2 December 2009
| ||||
Content
Hi
Hi. Just a friendly note --- where there is a dead link, as at the Daily News one, rather than delete it you may easily be able to find it w/a search (as I did) on the paper's site ... see also this. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:41, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Ok, thanks - usually I check dead links - I assumed this one was truly dead - that the article had been re-written b/c the headline was incorrect about the maximum charge being 20 years. It's better to never make assumptions though the NYDN article in my view is of dubious value.KeptSouth (talk) 23:05, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
- Houston Chronicle or Detroit News better? Clearly, some confusion. Anyway, he will likely be charged w/additional charges later, and that number will increase. (you can reply here if you have a reply ... I'll keep this watchlisted for a day or two).--Epeefleche (talk) 23:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
No, I have no particular issue with any of the major papers--the Houston Chronicle article is actually from the New York Times, by the way.
On a slightly different topic - what I don't like is the way the article on the terrorist seemed slanted in the direction of saying the U.S. government had not taken measures following the attack other than a few pat downs, and that the terrorist was going to be given relative light jail sentence.
As for the charges, maybe all the judge does at this point is apprise the defendant of the allegations - the counts, and additional legal charges can be added later. I am more than a little rusty on the federal rules of procedure, but I still can make a semi-educated guess, and I am usually right when I suspect that reporters are flat-out wrong on the law.KeptSouth (talk) 23:37, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
- Accused terrorist! Just kidding. I haven't spent much time on that article, but will at some point. I've put most of my effort (other than creating the infobox) on his background in the article on the attack. At some point, whatever of that doesn't seem relevant to the attack should be moved over, but IMHO it's early yet. Will keep your point in mind. But Holder is partially to blame -- he charged the fellow quickly, but not completely. As to the article, it may actually be that the judge mispoke -- some of them seem to refer to what he said. Anyway, not unusual for judges to have counts run concurrently rather than consecutively. In short, the best we can do is cite to our RSs, methinks.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:11, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, "accused", lol. And prospective jurors (that want to be on the jury) will lie if they are asked if they have already made up their minds on his guilt or innocence.
As to the charges being quick -- in the American system you can't put someone in jail without changing them rather quickly. I believe it was a preliminary hearing that was held in the hospital room, but I haven't seen this reported. The U.S. Attorney ED Michigan would be calling the shots on this, not Holder. More likely the reporter mis-heard or made some wrong assumptions on the potential sentence but who knows there could be a political slant going on. I think there could be as many as 300 counts in the formal indictment, one for each passenger as each is an attempted murder, plus a few more for whatever other laws were violated, such as bringing the explosives on board. I wonder whether the patriot act or some other statute allows for a death penalty for this crime? It is possible...and the fact that we haven't heard whether they will seek it could be because prosecutors often take a while to decide this. Remember Richard Reid shoe bomber pled and got a life sentence? Usually when a defendant pleads, it is because he is getting a reduced sentence. To make a long story short here, the "reliable source" that says 20 year prison term max, is simply wrong and the Wikipedia articles shouldn't say this.KeptSouth (talk) 05:10, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
- Yes. And yes. Unless it's my Mom.
- Yes, it was an arraignment in the hospital conference room. With Nidal Malik Hasan I believe they took more time (also charged him under military law, not federal law). I would have thought that Holder, as AG (and top US federal atty), would have the DOJ there to support him, and the U.S. Attorney ED Michigan is part of the DOJ ... so the pecking order suggested Holder would make the call, if he so chose. And if Holder isn't involved, why is he making statements? You disagree?
- There are even worse articles out there, which incorrectly say there was only one count against him, which per the complaint would appear to be wrong. Political slant? Hadn't thought about it. But if it is anything like what I've seen here (yeesh), I guess its likely. (if you were watching, you would have seen an editor or two in the early days insisting on repeatedly deleting info re al-awlaki, and his pic, and mention of Yemen "too many times"). But I'll go 40-40-20, on incompetence/political slant/judge speaking inarticulately. Interesting on the attempted murder; I guess that's right, and that where you don't have deaths and wounded (as in Fort Hood) you have to dig deeper (Fort Hood they haven't at this point, at least, charged him for those he shot at and missed... and won't need to, I expect). Death penalty -- don't recall for sure, but I think so. There is also a terrorism multiplier used in sentencing now if I recall correctly--that's why it will be important to charge as terrorism (AQ and the def are helping out there). Clearly one of the RSs is wrong, but we can't substitute our views (that no original research wp thing). I guess. Unless you can turn up a source saying the answer is 40, and those who say 20 were mistaken.
- If Military Order 1 is still in force (not overidden by PA), it looks as though this could have been punted to Defense for the death penalty for AQ terrorism.
- Here are the many death penalty provisions that were in what may be a [non-final draft].--Epeefleche (talk) 05:33, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
- Update - I'm not actually interested in speculating on death penalty provisions. But after reviewing FR Criminal Procedure, it is clear that attempted murder charges will be applied and that either prelim hearing or indictment by grand jury will happen - I will guess grand jury as that is what prosecuting US Atty is saying. Funny, how no one uncovered the Detroit News articles from 12-26 and 12-31 which laid this all out, and so many Wikipedians insisted that 20 years was max penalty. Slant much? —KeptSouth (talk) 20:34, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
- Well, I see that the DN article is quoted now in the main article (perhaps your doing?), so the point seems covered.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:25, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
- Update - I'm not actually interested in speculating on death penalty provisions. But after reviewing FR Criminal Procedure, it is clear that attempted murder charges will be applied and that either prelim hearing or indictment by grand jury will happen - I will guess grand jury as that is what prosecuting US Atty is saying. Funny, how no one uncovered the Detroit News articles from 12-26 and 12-31 which laid this all out, and so many Wikipedians insisted that 20 years was max penalty. Slant much? —KeptSouth (talk) 20:34, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi there, Thanks for not taking it personal, I just didn't want to get into a meaningless edit war. I'm glad that it was resolved quickly and with no blood lost. :) Cheers! --Hourick (talk) 21:25, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
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 (talk) 02:11, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Palin Cleanup
Just a quick note of appreciation for the yeoman's job you're doing in cleaning up the Sarah Palin article. Fcreid (talk) 12:35, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
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 (talk) 20:35, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
File:Rodham family portrait.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Rodham family portrait.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:57, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Good work on updating the article
With the new information about the charges and the trial. If a speedy trial occurs more updates will be needed soon. Hobartimus (talk) 16:39, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks KeptSouth (talk) 16:43, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
The graphics-free barnstar
- :)
Anyway, great work here.[1] - Wikidemon (talk) 17:05, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Time zone removal
I'm very confused by this edit. It doesn't matter how long ago the event happened; it still happened at 4:30am UTC+3. Now the userbox says the event occurred at 4:30am, but no one has any idea what time zone that's referring to because you removed it. -- tariqabjotu 15:29, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Good point - how about 4:30 am local time? KeptSouth (talk) 15:37, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
- No... you must misunderstand the point of the time zone field. It is always assumed that an event occurs at the local time for the location that it happens. But, we indicate the time zone a couple times, but especially in the infobox, so that people know what time zone that location is in. -- tariqabjotu 15:40, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
- I do think stating "local time" and a.m. are helpful to the reader and the UTC is clutter at this point. I could point you to other Wikipedia incident infoboxes which do not tell the UTC, but if you want to add UTC back, I won't object. KeptSouth (talk) 15:46, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Good call, but I'm wondering where you intended the {{hab}} to go?! (If it were me I'd collapse most of the talk page, but I suspect you may have intended a less brutal approach ;-) ) TFOWRidle vapourings 11:33, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
- ...and you're way ahead of me ;-) Apologies for the noise... TFOWRidle vapourings 11:34, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
- Good call on the dates. Reflinks snafu, it would appear.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:31, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
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 Nettrom (talk), 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 (talk) 13:03, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Zoabi refs
Sorry, cld have explained that better. The only thing was that at that stage it was only used once so it seemed superfluous. Your probably right about putting the actual refs at the end, makes it easier to read the edit screen. Misarxist (talk) 13:46, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Great, thanks for the response! I noticed there are a lot of refs in that article that don't look like RS, but will leave that for another day. -Regards KeptSouth (talk) 14:03, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Bearian (talk) 23:15, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
|
The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar | |
| For protecting David Weigel from vandalism and defamation by anonymous users and single-purpose-account vandals. Bearian (talk) 22:04, 30 June 2010 (UTC) |
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
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 Nettrom (talk), 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 (talk) 23:50, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
"Tear down that wall"
LOL Tvoz/talk 06:43, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
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 Nettrom (talk), 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 (talk) 00:51, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Rescue
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Armageddon theology WritersCramp (talk) 13:21, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Aafia Siddiqui
No worries. As long as a reliable citation can be produced for edits, no problem. But people have been adding uncited things as history shows. best wishes, Peaceblissharmony (talk) 10:54, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Well the sentencing is set for September 23 which is why I re-added your removal, as it is still to occur. Just to have last updated information on her case interested readers. It has indeed been delayed a lot but that is the last update we have. Peaceblissharmony (talk) 10:55, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
O'Donnell
I reverted your edits accidentally, then restored them. I just wanted to let you know I didn't think there was anything wrong; I just hit the wrong button. Coemgenus 12:34, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
- No problem, thanks for telling me. KeptSouth (talk) 19:00, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I don't think I removed a lot of text or information without explanation as you claimed in your edit summary. If you check the following diffs re the Christine O'Donnell article, you should see what I mean. I did remove the "tooshort" tag in error. Sorry about that. For the rest, I just consolidated some paragraphs and removed the empty spaces inside reference links, which is why the number of bytes decreased after my edit. And you know I added three important categories, quite belatedly and which should have already been added.
I know there was a reference, to wit, She would, however, allow a family to decide which life to save if a woman was going to die in childbirth.[1], which was deleted at some point, which you restored. However I was not the one who removed that. I don't know who did, but it wasn't me. Yours, Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 18:15, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
- @Rms125a@hotmail.com
- I meant no offense, I was just stating the facts from the edit summary and diff. I saw and still see 7 items removed by your edit, with no edit summary referring to them. Sorry, maybe you don't consider 7 changes to be a lot, but I did, which is why I made the remark. When I look at the diff between my edit and Flatterworld, it looks like Flatterworld added material. Then, the very next edit was yours. The diff between Flatterword's edit and yours shows this being removed:
- 1.{{tooshort}}
- 2. |children = none
- 3. She would, however, allow a family to decide which life to save if a woman was going to die in childbirth.<ref name="no tax">{{cite web|url=http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/09/17/christine-odonnell-no-tax-hikes-no-abortion-no-masturbation/|title=Christine O'Donnell: No Tax Hikes, No Abortion, No Masturbation Ban|author=Jill Lawrence|date= 2010-09-17|publisher=Politics Daily|accessdate=2010-09-17}}</ref>
- 4. On September 16, 2010, O'Donnell said she does not believe in regulating private sexual behavior, and if elected "it'll be the Constitution on which I base all of my decisions, not my personal beliefs."<ref name="no tax"/>
- 5.===Social security===
- O'Donnell would raise the age for receiving Social Security benefits.<ref name="no tax"/>
- 5.===Social security===
- 6.==Writings==
- *[http://catholicexchange.com/2003/12/18/93651/ The Women of Middle Earth], Christine O'Donnell, ''Catholic Exchange'', December 18, 2003
- 6.==Writings==
- 7. *[http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/alsorun.php?cid=N00028769&cycle=2006 Campaign contributions] at [[OpenSecrets.org]] (2006) *[http://www.opensecrets.org/races/summary.php?id=DES2&cycle=2010 Campaign contributions] at [[OpenSecrets.org]] (2010)</nowiki>
- I would like to add that certainly these removals could be accidental and in good faith. But the material was removed in your edit, according to the diff. Regarding what happened in more current edits done by other people, I think that's a completely different issue, and I have a hard enough time keeping track of my own edits! Best regards-KeptSouth (talk) 18:34, 17 September 2010 (UTC)item
- Here is another item that was removed:
- 8. On September 16, 2010, O'Donnell said she does not believe in regulating private sexual behavior, and if elected "it'll be the Constitution on which I base all of my decisions, not my personal beliefs."<ref name="no tax"/> --KeptSouth (talk) 18:59, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
::: Hi. Thanks you for assuming WP:AGF. I acknowledged #1 and acknowledge #2, which I thought were unimportant, and #7, which I thought was a redundant/duplicate link. Regarding, however, the very substantive edits -- #3, #4 and #5 -- I repeat, I did not remove those. I never saw any mention of her stance on Social Security, and I would never have removed the references to sexual regulation nor especially to abortion, which I consider an extremely important and topical issue. As far as #6, I am pretty sure I didn't remove it. Nonetheless, I stand by my assertion that unless I suffered a ministroke while keyboarding and deleted those, I am positive I did not remove #3 or #4 or #5. If you want to check further, more forensically, I am sure you are better at it than I, please feel free.
- P.S.: #8 is the same as #4. Yours, Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 19:10, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
- @Rms125a@hotmail.com -- Yes, 8 is the same as 4 - I am beginning to look at this screen cross-eyed which is why I thought there was #8. So there were 7 changes, not 8.
- At the time I made my restorations and remarks in the edit summaries, the only thing I could base them on were the diffs, and they showed, and still show, that the 7 changes were made by you. The only thing I can think of is that you were inadvertently working off a much earlier version of the page and that when you hit the save edit button, you did not see all the changes that your edit made since most of them were at the bottom of the page. Do you use WikEd? Sometimes it helps in catching an edit conflict of that type before it happens. -Regards- KeptSouth (talk) 19:34, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
- Hi. I rechecked the diffs. I don't know how I did delete the important edits I mentioned but I did and have to acknowledge it. It certainly was unintentional as the abortion, sexual regulation and Social Security issues are extremely important. I don't even remember seeing them. I strongly suspect the reason for this snafu is the crappy DSL Internet connection I have. Everything takes forever and the edits rarely take the first time with long articles. So I copy the section I am editing, get sent back to MetConnect or get an edit conflict and then I have to go back to the article and re-paste my last saved version. I pbly screwed up there. I think that is the sordid saga. Sorry. Yours, Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 19:46, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
- Hi, again. Yeah I was wondering if I was going to have to explain that edit summary. Well in line with the explanation above, my dial up service is so slow that the edit referring to vandalism was referring to the first edit by Blast your rage at 17:29, 17 September 2010. However by the time the edit went through at 17:35, 17 September 2010, Blast your rage made yet another edit, which I never examined and User:Antandrus already fixed them at 17:31, 17 September 2010. So by the time my edit re vandalism -- and if you look at Blast your rage's edits they were vandalistic -- appeared it was already moot. Interesting, no?! Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 15:23, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry to hear you have these problems. It seems that somehow your edit summaries don't match the edits you do. The DSL line must garble them...oh wait...you also have dial up? Well, that explains everything, lol. --Regards KeptSouth (talk) 15:37, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
- Hi, again. Yeah I was wondering if I was going to have to explain that edit summary. Well in line with the explanation above, my dial up service is so slow that the edit referring to vandalism was referring to the first edit by Blast your rage at 17:29, 17 September 2010. However by the time the edit went through at 17:35, 17 September 2010, Blast your rage made yet another edit, which I never examined and User:Antandrus already fixed them at 17:31, 17 September 2010. So by the time my edit re vandalism -- and if you look at Blast your rage's edits they were vandalistic -- appeared it was already moot. Interesting, no?! Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 15:23, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
- Actually when I use the Internet at the library, which I often do, there are no such problems (although there are other glitches like not being able to copy and paste URLs). I have dial up service. I may have used the term DSL in error. I am an over-the-hill, middle-aged computer Luddite after all. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 16:25, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Posting at ANI
I used one of your diffs in a post at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Battle of thebots: Reflinks vs. SmackBot. It's not really about you per se, but thought it would be better to err on the side of informing you. -Selket Talk 23:34, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for telling me. I enjoyed talking smack about that bot.KeptSouth (talk) 00:19, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi. I was editing the Široka Kula massacre article. The page has what is referred to as a "campaignbox", which I think needs work:
- more than half are red-links
- there are overlapping sites and themes; some are italicized, most not
- there is no editing or updating option
- What are "Jump-1" and "Jump-2"??
How can one go about trying to fix the "campaignbox"? Yours, Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 16:36, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry, but I've never edited a template box, and I'm unfamiliar with the topic.--Regards--KeptSouth (talk) 07:29, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Source
I may not have the time to work this in, but thought it might interest you. Feel free to use it yourself. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:26, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks, it's interesting. Will add it to the ELs. -Regards-KeptSouth (talk) 10:58, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Noting that court documents are court documents
Hi -- in general, while not a huge deal, I would believe it appropriate to assume that a reader knows that a document that, by its name, is a court document ... is a court document. Hence, to add the words "Court Document" after -- for example -- Sealed Complaint, U.S. v. Siddiqui, July 31, 2008 -- strikes me as completely redundant needless clutter. The sort of stuff we seek to avoid. Of course it is a court document -- it is a complaint in U.S. v. Siddiqui. The same holds with the indictment, the court's order, etc. The forensic evaluations are slightly different, but even there the term seems inappropriate as not sufficiently explanatory. But I am less concerned with those. I do think that it is very bad form to have the redundancies in the other areas, however. I also, similarly, think it is overkill needless clutter to indicate what source reprints/hosts the document--NEFA may like the advertising, but I don't think that's our purpose. And we are inconsistent in that regard as well, both within the article and vis-a-vis other such articles. Cheers.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:12, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
- You are apparently talking about this edit of yours that I reverted and corrected. I disagree that we can always "assume a reader knows that a document, by its name is a court document", we are writing for an international lay audience and have to assume that some readers have very little legal knowledge or familiarity with the US court system. I think the source should be designated and the type of document should be designated for this broad audience. However, I can clear up the repetition that you say is "not a huge deal", but then describe as "completely redundant needless clutter". Both of our views, and the interest of the readers can be accommodated with subheadings, which I will now add.
- You also say it is "overkill needless clutter to indicate what source reprints/hosts the document". I disagree. We are linking to copies of court documents, posted by an organization that has a definite point of view or agenda. I mainly agree with their agenda - but what guarantee is there that these documents are true and complete copies? There is none, and at the very least, the reader should know they are "reprints" and should be notified of the source before they click on the title and download a PDF of up to 100 pages. -Best regards-KeptSouth (talk)
- You distilled my thoughts accurately. I don't think it is a big deal -- I think that substantive matters are more important, big deal stuff. I at the same time do think it is overkill needless clutter. If the audience thinks that the word "indictment", followed by the court case name, is anything other than a court document, I would be surprised--and we can always inline for that ... but I expect reasonable people can differ. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:42, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
- Most, I believe 6 out of 8, of the docs that you removed the descriptions of were not obviously court documents, but when I created the subheadings that seemed to solve your problem. Glad I could help. KeptSouth (talk) 14:21, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
- I applaud you for an excellent and artful solution. You do excellent work (as I'm sure you know -- you don't need me to tell you).--Epeefleche (talk) 02:02, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
- Most, I believe 6 out of 8, of the docs that you removed the descriptions of were not obviously court documents, but when I created the subheadings that seemed to solve your problem. Glad I could help. KeptSouth (talk) 14:21, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
- You distilled my thoughts accurately. I don't think it is a big deal -- I think that substantive matters are more important, big deal stuff. I at the same time do think it is overkill needless clutter. If the audience thinks that the word "indictment", followed by the court case name, is anything other than a court document, I would be surprised--and we can always inline for that ... but I expect reasonable people can differ. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:42, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
File source problem with File:James O'Keefe lightened leaving courthouse.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:James O'Keefe lightened leaving courthouse.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.
If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 16:20, 2 October 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Acather96 (talk) 16:20, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
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 Nettrom (talk), 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 (talk) 15:50, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Rich Iott article
Please see Talk:Rich Iott . Flatterworld (talk) 00:54, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
- Ok, I responded, but I don't understand why this is a big deal, and not simply a moot point. KeptSouth (talk) 11:36, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the help. Bearian (talk) 00:10, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
DYK for Rich Iott
 | On 19 October 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Rich Iott, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
— Rlevse • Talk • 06:02, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Rich Iott, producer
I've a question about material you added to this article. Please see talk:Rich Iott#Executive producer. Will Beback talk 23:50, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Edit summaries
- Virginia Lamp Thomas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Regarding choice of edit summary, [2]
Instead of making long edit summaries directed at a single user - please, I request that you engage in discussion, at the article's talk page. Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 01:46, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- It seemed to me that the problem involved only a single user, who was making multiple inaccurate and awkward divisions in the article. It was my view that a quick edit and summary was the best way to proceed. I don't usually put names in edit summaries, obviously I should not have in this case. But let's not make a mountain out of a molehill. You make it sound like I have done this repeatedly, and that is untrue. Regards -KeptSouth (talk) 02:00, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you for acknowledging you should not have done this, much appreciated. ;) Again, stress in the future to please, instead, engage in discussion, at article talk pages. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 08:49, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- You miss the point. I acknowledged that I should not have used your name one of my edit summaries. I won't do that again since it seems to be hugely offensive to you. However, I stand by the corrections I made and the manner in which I attempted to make them. You were making multiple errors in creating and naming new sections. The titles should match the contents, per the MOS. This particular matter should not be a matter of dispute for the discussion page - or for my talk page. -Best regards- KeptSouth (talk) 10:26, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you for acknowledging you should not have done this, much appreciated. ;) Again, stress in the future to please, instead, engage in discussion, at article talk pages. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 08:49, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- It seemed to me that the problem involved only a single user, who was making multiple inaccurate and awkward divisions in the article. It was my view that a quick edit and summary was the best way to proceed. I don't usually put names in edit summaries, obviously I should not have in this case. But let's not make a mountain out of a molehill. You make it sound like I have done this repeatedly, and that is untrue. Regards -KeptSouth (talk) 02:00, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Query
You seem to have some research experience on articles relating to politics. Perhaps you would like to contribute to expanding and further referencing the article, Sharron Angle? -- Cirt (talk) 14:05, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Revert with no edit summary
[3] = this edit was a revert with zero edit summary. It removed my prior edit that had changed the wording to make it more NPOV, and instead reverted all of the wording back to a prior version - with zero explanation as to why. That is inappropriate editing. -- Cirt (talk) 14:07, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- Obviously there is was an edit conflict going on, and as an experienced editor, you must be aware of this. I had removed an incorrect source, per WP:Verify, and was about to add a source, when you removed material. Rather than make unfounded accusations and overblown assumptions, why don't you work on improving the article? KeptSouth (talk) 14:13, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- Especially on a WP:BLP page, and especially on a controversial topic, and especially one that is an ongoing recent current event, please use descriptive edit summaries in the future. Please also restore the wording you removed with no explanation. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 14:14, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- :I have reviewed the edit, it was not a revert as you charge. The edit consists of adding a reference to the end of a sentence, and correctly removing a [citation needed] tag as I provided the reference. During edit conflicts sometimes edit summaries disappear, perhaps you are unaware of this fact? In any case, you seem to be completely forgetting the principle of assuming good faith. Furthermore, my track record of providing detailed edit summaries on this article, makes your statement telling me "to use descriptive edit summaries in the future" a sound a bit bizarre, especially since you recently complained that my detailed edit summaries were too lengthy. In the next edit of the sequence you are complaining about, I did provided a summary though as I recall you were still edit conflicting with me. The "wording" that you are demanding that I restore consists of one word "asserted". Despite your rudeness and your false accusations, I will look again at the article and see if it fits somewhere. I would ask that you stay off my talk page in the future and make your comments on the article talk pages. It seems to me that you are trying to establish some sort of faux record that I have not followed Wiki policies. I'd rather not have this unpleasantness on my talk page, and perhaps if we agree to discuss the article(s) only on the talk page, you will feel constrained to tone down your personal attacks. KeptSouth (talk) 15:11, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- First, above, you addressed a user personally in an edit summary, myself [4]. Then, you remove my wording changes, this time with zero edit summary [5]. Then, you use a deceptive edit summary, with "clarify" [6], adding WP:UNDUE WEIGHT to a WP:BLP article when you know this was discussed in depth already with strong objections to expanding that section, in ongoing discussion on the talk page. So yes, there is a pattern here of inappropriate usage of edit summaries. -- Cirt (talk) 15:14, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
<--[outdent] Look, we already discussed the one edit summary where I used your name, and I said I should not have. You are clearly beating a dead horse with your accusations. I have explained that my lack of edit summary occurred during an edit conflict, and was not intentional. One word was removed, "assert" or "asserted". I have already said that I will review the material and see if it fits in. My subsequent edit summary "clarify" was not deceptive, and that is what I thought I was doing.
If you are so aware of the details of a talk page discussion of Virginia Thomas's phone call, then you are aware that the material that you removed, and that I was trying to restore, was sourced by the previously cited article. Thus there was no real need for you to remove the material as unsourced; you had to have known the previous cite was the likely source. In any event, you removed the material, and I had no objection to that because I could simply provide the cite, and restore the material. Then the edit conflicts occurred, and you chose to continue to make false and overblown accusations rather than a reasonable and quick accommodation. I too do not like having unsourced material in a BLP, and this entire incident began when I removed a cite which did not support the sentence it was appended to, per WP:Verify. We should be on the same side of this, I was checking the cite to be find the right one when this series of edit conflicts and your series of time-wasting and false-record-making accusations began. As I wrote on your talk page, please stay off mine. I am asking you to do this in the hope that confining your comments to the article talk page will help you to keep your unfounded personal attacks in check, so that we can cooperate to improve the article. KeptSouth (talk) 15:41, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
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 Nettrom (talk), 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 (talk) 00:35, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Miller v. Campbell AfD
|
Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly. |
Seriously. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 14:22, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks, I've never caught one like that.KeptSouth (talk) 14:41, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Nomination of The Cutting Edge News for deletion
A discussion has begun about whether the article The Cutting Edge News, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Cutting Edge News until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Guy (Help!) 23:33, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
FYI
Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Bristol Palin, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Talk:Sarah Palin/Article probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.
The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you. -- 184.59.23.225 (talk) 06:12, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
- A very odd message considering that I have been contributing to that article for a while.-KeptSouth (talk) 09:07, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Notice
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "User:Gods10rules, User:KeptSouth, User:Kelly, and User:Johnuniq".The discussion is about the topic Bristol Palin.Thank you. 184.59.23.225 (talk) 10:25, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Sock disclosure
If you review my user page, you'll find that it's, in fact, very clear regarding the name of my sockpuppet account. 184.59.23.225 (talk) 21:43, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Thank you!
Thank you for your support at my RfA last week. I'll do everything I can to live up to your expectations and if you ever need help from a janitor please feel free to drop me a line! PanydThe muffin is not subtle 22:25, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
potential for abuse
I saw you say you thought there was a potential for abuse in the end of life consultations. I wondered if you meant something other than fee-for-service incentivizing a physician to have a conversation that a patient may rather not discuss. Jesanj (talk) 20:19, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, of course there's potential for abuse. It's only logical. Part of balancing the article should be to put some of that viewpoint in. KeptSouth (talk) 23:23, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
- If the fee-for-service bit wasn't the only potential abuse you were thinking of, what else did you have in mind? Thanks. Jesanj (talk) 03:34, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
- Well, I was just making a general statement, with nothing particular in mind unless it's in the sources that are already part of the article. Checking these sources to verify content, and making the article more concise, is quite a bit of a project; more involved than I had anticipated. I might introduce other ideas based on other sources, once I've finished checking over the current content, but I don't have any formed ideas on what these will be, and won't until I actually do the additional research. -Regards-KeptSouth (talk) 06:19, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
- These stories[7][8] have influenced my interest in asking you this. Influential physicians identify problems (that others may term "abuse") with the status quo. Jesanj (talk) 17:39, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks, I will look at them later if they aren't already listed as refs in the article now. -Regards-KeptSouth (talk) 06:19, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you for your efforts on the article. Perhaps someone at Wikipedia:Peer review would be interested and could cut down the workload for you if we can get the unbalanced issues addressed. Jesanj (talk) 14:33, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
- I think Peer review would be premature. As per WP:Peer review, "it is intended for high-quality articles that have already undergone extensive work, often as a way of preparing a featured article candidate" Also, Kelly and I intend to add some balance to the article shortly. If by any chance that puts the article up to a high quality standard, then yes, I think it should go to peer review. Thanks for the suggestion though. -RegardsKeptSouth (talk) 15:56, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
- Gotcha. Here is part of a transcript to one of those stories. I highlight it because in your edit summary you said Annas was obscure/irrelevant. To me it is obvious that Annas was addressing the scenario identified by Martensen and Gawande.
- Dr. MARTENSEN: I think in talking with patients, it's important to say we have artificial means that can extend your mother's bodily functions - to somehow get into the conversation that this is artificial and it's about extending bodily functions the way kidney dialysis can extend kidney function, pacemakers can preserve heart function for a time, versus saying what is usually said, what has been said to me with my mom now - if you talk to a family and say, well, do you want us to continue with life support, do you want us to stop life support? - I think the way people hear that, and I think it's perfectly normal, is you are saying, do you want to let mom or dad die? Or - more darkly - okay, so you think its okay to kill them. Because that's how patients hear it.
- I think Peer review would be premature. As per WP:Peer review, "it is intended for high-quality articles that have already undergone extensive work, often as a way of preparing a featured article candidate" Also, Kelly and I intend to add some balance to the article shortly. If by any chance that puts the article up to a high quality standard, then yes, I think it should go to peer review. Thanks for the suggestion though. -RegardsKeptSouth (talk) 15:56, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you for your efforts on the article. Perhaps someone at Wikipedia:Peer review would be interested and could cut down the workload for you if we can get the unbalanced issues addressed. Jesanj (talk) 14:33, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks, I will look at them later if they aren't already listed as refs in the article now. -Regards-KeptSouth (talk) 06:19, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
- These stories[7][8] have influenced my interest in asking you this. Influential physicians identify problems (that others may term "abuse") with the status quo. Jesanj (talk) 17:39, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
- Well, I was just making a general statement, with nothing particular in mind unless it's in the sources that are already part of the article. Checking these sources to verify content, and making the article more concise, is quite a bit of a project; more involved than I had anticipated. I might introduce other ideas based on other sources, once I've finished checking over the current content, but I don't have any formed ideas on what these will be, and won't until I actually do the additional research. -Regards-KeptSouth (talk) 06:19, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
- If the fee-for-service bit wasn't the only potential abuse you were thinking of, what else did you have in mind? Thanks. Jesanj (talk) 03:34, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
- So this euphemistic language is, first of all, not appropriate to the machines, and secondly it's not appropriate to that span of existence that it's seeking to describe. These technologies extend organ function. That's what they do. And you know, what's happened now - and this where there's a definite monetary factor into it - in California there are 30-35, and growing, kind of chronic intensive care units, not built on hospital property, built separately. Medicare will pay for people on chronic ventilators. So these places which are kind of (unintelligible) concrete buildings by freeways house patients on these ventilators. And I think for some families this is fine, this is a kind of medical sanctuary, for others it's a living tomb. The point that troubles me the most is that there very seldom is a candid discussion with the family or the patient - if the patient is alert, usually is not - about this extended kind of space, twilight zone of existence.
- They continue because Medicare pays for them and there is an industry dedicated to expanding them. In a medical school - a major medical center I won't name, I was just there a couple of weeks ago - is entering into a contract to build one, put it's name on it. It's not built near the medical center because that violates Medicare rules and they're hoping in time to get a percentage of the revenue from the contract company that is building this facility. So what distresses me is at the level of policy we're not talking about this. Is this what the government should be doing routinely because unless you say no, no ventilator, it happens.
- GROSS: Does this figure at all into the kind of health reforms that President Obama is proposing or that you'd like to see him propose?
- Dr. MARTENSEN: It figures in a very indirect way. The proposals coming out of the administration, as I understand them, about effective care are to look at these kinds of issues. The push back from those who initially oppose the administration's health reform efforts are to say - to look at something like effective care: is this something that actually does what we say does and hope it does? And so you can look at effective care but you can never consider cost. So they want the cost issue removed from the effectiveness issue.
- But when you look at Medicare overall half the money that we spend in this country on Medicare is spent on patients in the last six months of their lives. And if we were providing some kind of wonderful existence, then one could make the case but as I have written about and as I certainly experienced, and I gathered you've experience and many others, these last six months are not, they're often agonizing and very unsatisfying for all concerned. So I think that's the Obama administration's approach.
- There are a lot of financial interests who don't want to have this propensity to treat and treat and treat - that's lucrative, subject to close examination though there's a kind of battle of lobbyists going on in Washington.
- And here is Gawande:
- In late 2004, executives at Aetna, the insurance company, started an experiment. They knew that only a small percentage of the terminally ill ever halted efforts at curative treatment and enrolled in hospice, and that, when they did, it was usually not until the very end. So Aetna decided to let a group of policyholders with a life expectancy of less than a year receive hospice services without forgoing other treatments. A patient like Sara Monopoli could continue to try chemotherapy and radiation, and go to the hospital when she wished—but also have a hospice team at home focussing on what she needed for the best possible life now and for that morning when she might wake up unable to breathe. A two-year study of this 'concurrent care' program found that enrolled patients were much more likely to use hospice: the figure leaped from twenty-six per cent to seventy per cent. That was no surprise, since they weren’t forced to give up anything. The surprising result was that they did give up things. They visited the emergency room almost half as often as the control patients did. Their use of hospitals and I.C.U.s dropped by more than two-thirds. Over-all costs fell by almost a quarter.
- Gawande also writes that
- Like many people, I had believed that hospice care hastens death, because patients forgo hospital treatments and are allowed high-dose narcotics to combat pain. But studies suggest otherwise. In one, researchers followed 4,493 Medicare patients with either terminal cancer or congestive heart failure. They found no difference in survival time between hospice and non-hospice patients with breast cancer, prostate cancer, and colon cancer. Curiously, hospice care seemed to extend survival for some patients; those with pancreatic cancer gained an average of three weeks, those with lung cancer gained six weeks, and those with congestive heart failure gained three months. The lesson seems almost Zen: you live longer only when you stop trying to live longer. When Cox was transferred to hospice care, her doctors thought that she wouldn’t live much longer than a few weeks. With the supportive hospice therapy she received, she had already lived for a year.
- I think I should also highlight this study which concluded "Among patients with metastatic non–small-cell lung cancer, early palliative care led to significant improvements in both quality of life and mood. As compared with patients receiving standard care, patients receiving early palliative care had less aggressive care at the end of life but longer survival".
- To me, the irony about the death panels myth is that it might hasten deaths by limiting the dissemination of alternative treatments to patients that show promise in extending lives, althought I haven't seen this in print as of yet. I will look though, as I think there are some suggestions in the media around the time the NEJM study was making the rounds. Jesanj (talk) 18:40, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
<--[Redent] Thanks for your comment, actually I didn't say anything about Annas, but I did say that a 1975 quote from from Ivan Illich in 1975 was obscure/irrelevant. I don't see how that quote that I removed bears on the statement that Sarah Palin made in 34 years later. Illich didn't used the death panel term, and the meaning of the quote, as it is reproduced in Annas' text is not clear.
Regarding the transcript above and the general topics discussed in it, one possibility might be for you to start an article on end-of-life choices as outlined by bioethicists or whoever, with a see also to the death panel article? -Best Regards-KeptSouth (talk) 22:53, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
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 Nettrom (talk), 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 (talk) 14:07, 17 December 2010 (UTC).
Death panels
I was hoping to have some time this weekend to work on Death panels but meatspace demands intruded - I hope to get back to it, but I did pull some references together in my sandbox if you are going to be working on the article. Help yourself if any of them are of use. All the best - Kelly hi! 07:24, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
- BTW, most of those of are from the right of center politically, I was looking for balance in the article. Kelly hi! 07:29, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
- As I am sure you will see, I replied to your comments in the move section. Thanks for the link to Help:Using_talk_pages#Indentation. Happy Holidays to you too. Jesanj (talk) 17:26, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
- No, you cannot be sure, so thanks for the notice telling me that you responded.-RegardsKeptSouth (talk) 08:10, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
- You're welcome. Here do you think it is best to separate out and ask for the citation for "bills"? Perhaps you didn't see that WaPo said "After sporadic bipartisan attempts in recent years to add consultation payments to Medicare". That's why I had the previous wording. Thanks. Jesanj (talk) 13:54, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
- No, you cannot be sure, so thanks for the notice telling me that you responded.-RegardsKeptSouth (talk) 08:10, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
- As I am sure you will see, I replied to your comments in the move section. Thanks for the link to Help:Using_talk_pages#Indentation. Happy Holidays to you too. Jesanj (talk) 17:26, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
- I made this edit. Jesanj (talk) 14:19, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
- And FYI here is a random diff I think is important on the talk page that concerns renaming. Jesanj (talk) 15:50, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
- Well there were bills introduced, they were not just attempts as your edit summary says. I don't believe in immediately removing or revising something that has a cite needed tag, (as you just did) when I suspect there is information out there in support, and I believe that is consistent with WP guidelines/policy, and behaving this way - looking for a cite needed or giving time for others to do so - leads to article improvement. As there were numerous very similar in nature bills introduced in both the House and Senate between 2005-2009, I will correct the language again, but this time include a few cites. -Regards-KeptSouth (talk) 17:09, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
- My edit summary was just emphasizing what was in the source. I see what you're saying though. I thought you might have been thinking something different. I'll change it back. I was thinking if you can immediately address a tag that's the best. Jesanj (talk) 21:27, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
- Well there were bills introduced, they were not just attempts as your edit summary says. I don't believe in immediately removing or revising something that has a cite needed tag, (as you just did) when I suspect there is information out there in support, and I believe that is consistent with WP guidelines/policy, and behaving this way - looking for a cite needed or giving time for others to do so - leads to article improvement. As there were numerous very similar in nature bills introduced in both the House and Senate between 2005-2009, I will correct the language again, but this time include a few cites. -Regards-KeptSouth (talk) 17:09, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
- And FYI here is a random diff I think is important on the talk page that concerns renaming. Jesanj (talk) 15:50, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Interesting
I see you've created Blood libel (U.S. political term). I think that is interesting. Maybe it will work. It's kind of odd, no? Does Sarah Palin get to define words now? And it's not even like we're editing wiktionary. An encyclopedia article. Interesting. Jesanj (talk) 21:21, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- It wasn't odd to think this would or should be an article: see, Sarah Palin grabs spotlight with ‘blood libel’ video response, quote "“blood libel” — dominated the national political conversation."
- And it was certainly a reasonable assumption that this new definition of blood libel, (which had been previewed by several prominent conservatives much like the death panel term), should be a separate article, and would be supported by members of the Wikipedia community just like the "Death panel" article. In fact, I was somewhat surprised contributors to that article were opposed to the blood libel one.-Regards-KeptSouth (talk) 11:12, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- Maybe in a year or so it will be an article. I think it was over a year after Palin said 'death panel' that it became an article. I only was confident it would stand after I saw journal publications regarding the term/controversy. Thanks (again?) for the tips you left on my talk page, they were/are much appreciated. Jesanj (talk) 03:48, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Notability requires only significant coverage in reliable sources -- the sources need not be academic or quasi-academic journals.
- In the case of the "death panel" article, I truly doubt whether any academic journal gives the term any credence or any significant coverage other than to debunk it or to discuss the rather amazing and deleterious effects of the use of the term. Of course, the MSM and even Fox already provided a huge amount of significant coverage to the "death panels" term beginning in August 2009. -Regards- KeptSouth (talk) 11:41, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Nomination of Blood libel (U.S. political term) for deletion
The article Blood libel (U.S. political term) is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blood libel (U.S. political term) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Kelly hi! 21:24, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
File:Ray LaHood Secretary of Transportation.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Ray LaHood Secretary of Transportation.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:00, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
I just fixed a citation needed there and I remembered a while ago you said you'd look around for some sources about the bipartisan support for reimbursing the end-of-life discussions. If you find them that would be appreciated. =) Thanks. Jesanj (talk) 13:10, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- Hi, as you know I have not contributed to that article for a while. I meant to add a cite for the fact that several Republicans had supported Medicare reimbursement for end-of-life counseling sessions or whatever-you-want-to-call-them, but did not because I stopped contributing to the article. You appear to have done extensive research on the death panel issue including the history of the proposals and disputes, so I am sure you must have come across this information, and/or could find it rather easily.-Regards-KeptSouth (talk) 11:30, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- Also, if you have any suggestions for the article's improvement they would be appreciated too. Thanks. Jesanj (talk) 20:54, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, since you asked, my suggestion for now would be for you to make a GF attempt to look for a cite.-Regards-KeptSouth (talk) 11:30, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Added template for SuggestBot
Hi,
Thanks for being one of SuggestBot's users! I hope you have found the bot's suggestions useful.
We are in the process of switching from our previous list-based signup process to using templates and userboxes, and I have therefore added the appropriate template to your user talk page. You should receive the first set of suggestions within a day, and since we'll be automating SuggestBot you will from then on continue to receive them regularly at the desired frequency.
We now also have a userbox that you can use to let others know you're using SuggestBot, and if you don't want to clutter your user talk page the bot can post to a sub-page in your userspace. More information about the userbox and usage of the template is available on User:SuggestBot/Getting Recommendations Regularly.
If there are any questions, please don't hesitate to get in touch with me on my user talk page. Thanks again, Nettrom (talk) 23:48, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
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. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 15:53, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Scott Walker
Hi. on the page for Scott walker (politician) it says "and remove all rights from some groups, such as " I've gone through all the sources listed and none of them say he will remove ALL rights from those groups. It does say he will remove all Collective bargaining rights from those groups. please edit this page to say "and remove all collective bargaining rights from some groups, such as " it's a slight change, just adding two words but it is more accurate this way. Thanks for your time and have a great day! :) --ShadowTale (talk) 20:11, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for the heads up on another inaccuracy in the article. You are correct, and I don't know why someone added that phrasing about removing all rights -- point of view pushing, I suppose. It appears to have been somewhat corrected, already, though the whole section on the controversy and brouhaha is still poorly stated, imo. -Regards-KeptSouth (talk) 12:51, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Scott Walker article
Let me just state that you did a whole lot of work on the article today that improved it tremendously. Best Regards,--Corbridge (talk) 18:48, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks KeptSouth (talk) 22:30, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
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. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:35, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Herseth Sandlin
KeptSouth, you stated that Stephanie Herseth Sandlin's new firm describes itself as a law firm and in some places it does. But in other places the lawyers who run it make it very clear they are a law and lobbying firm. They have to by law. Attorneys cannot split fees with non-attorneys. They have non-attorneys that all they do is lobby. I provided all of the definitive support for these facts on the talk page of Herseth Sandlin. So before you state unequivocally that I was "incorrect" please do a better job of checking your facts first.--Corbridge (talk) 15:30, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you for your note. OFW (law) is a law firm. Some of their lawyers lobby, some do not. You stated unequivocally that it is a lobbying firm, and you were incorrect. I have not read your latest post re. this on the Herseth Sandlin talk page, but as long as you do not intend to keep asserting HS is a lobbyist now, (which is incorrect and which is tantamount to saying she is violating the law, and which is a clear violation WP:BLP policy), and as long as you don't keep insisting that the firm is a "lobbying firm", there should be no further reason to continue this discussion or to talk about irrelevant issues such as secretaries and other non-attorneys at OFW (law). I do believe that I provided sufficient support for all the statements I made on the talk pages, and on the article page itself. I have recently added quote marks to a quote you added to the article as well as attribution, but I do not intend to edit further there for a while, unless of course, I see more violations of BLP policy. - Regards - KeptSouth (talk) 21:34, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
- Sounds like you were proven wrong on that talk page and you do not want to face it. Fair enough. I will be reviewing your editing for mischaracterizations of newspaper articles such as the changes to did to the SHS article, which I had to correct.--Corbridge (talk) 00:31, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
- The following edit summary was left by you on the SHS article: "adding quotes marks to text copied by another editor word-for-word from the source, likely a GF violation of WP:PLAGFORM guideline, also addiing attribution to the text)" I just want to point out that I put this information back in because you removed it earlier, when I first put it in. In that version I did edit it. Why you removed it is notable information for the reader to know that SHS has been criticized by Common Cause and The Sunlight Foundation because when she was in Congress she was married to lobbyist--clearly raising conflict of issues. I put the info back in because it is notable and you should not have removed it.--Corbridge (talk) 00:36, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
- The edit was not what you claim. I actually added and summarized info on the objections to her husband's career and activities,[9] accurately and fairly in my view, being mindful of the fact that the article is a BLP, and that HS should not simply be accused in her WP bio of having clear conflict of interest issues. Nor should the text set "up a faux cause effect relationship between watchdog group criticism and her loss," as I stated in the edit summary where I made the changes. I also summarized the basis of the criticism by the watchdog groups, which I believed was necessary in order to comply with BLP policy. [10].
- The following edit summary was left by you on the SHS article: "adding quotes marks to text copied by another editor word-for-word from the source, likely a GF violation of WP:PLAGFORM guideline, also addiing attribution to the text)" I just want to point out that I put this information back in because you removed it earlier, when I first put it in. In that version I did edit it. Why you removed it is notable information for the reader to know that SHS has been criticized by Common Cause and The Sunlight Foundation because when she was in Congress she was married to lobbyist--clearly raising conflict of issues. I put the info back in because it is notable and you should not have removed it.--Corbridge (talk) 00:36, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
- Sounds like you were proven wrong on that talk page and you do not want to face it. Fair enough. I will be reviewing your editing for mischaracterizations of newspaper articles such as the changes to did to the SHS article, which I had to correct.--Corbridge (talk) 00:31, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
- The prior text was not removed when you "first put it in", but was removed several days after you added it, and it was not removed, but was refactored. [11]. You then restored language you had put in the article earlier, with the edit summary "fixed the wording to exactly accrurate to what Roll Call stated."[12]. I later noticed that this was in fact a word-for-word quote, and added quotes with in text attribution with the edit summary calling this a GF - good faith - mistake [13]. But most importantly, the text you wanted still appears in the HS article. I left it there after you restored it. There is really nothing for you to complain about. At the same time, as I now notice, an important point was removed by you. - Regards -KeptSouth (talk) 07:25, 6 March 2011 (UTC)KeptSouth (talk) 13:53, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Comments from the SHS talk page, apparently must be written here to be seen
- That is incorrect - OFW (Law) describes itself as a law firm. "The Nation’s Premier FDA and USDA Law Firm, Serving Clients Before Federal Agencies, Courts, and Congress" - Regards KeptSouth (talk) 07:50, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, KeptSouth you are the one who is incorrect. They describe themselves as a law and a lobbying firm. In the press release issued to announced Herseth Sandlin's joining the firm they use phrase "Founded in 1979, OFW Law is a law and policy advocacy firm that has become a leader in agriculture and FDA regulated matters. . ." You can review there own words here. One of the reasons that they have to, by law, describe themselves that way is that they have non-lawyers working for them as lobbyists. A dead on example is the former Secretary of Agriculture under Ronald Reagan John R. Block, who they specifically refer to in the press release announcing Herseth Sandlin. The attorney professional responsibility codes for all 50 states does not allow non-attorneys to split fees with attorneys. Please check your facts before you make an incorrect statement as you did above.--Corbridge (talk) 15:22, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
- My response to you above covered this entirely. Discussion of the codes of professional responsibility, and fee-sharing is irrelevant to the issue of whether Herseth should be described as a "lobbist" working for a "lobbying firm". Since you seem to feel I must respond over there, I did, though I believe that further discussion is beating a dead horse. - Regards - KeptSouth (talk) 07:43, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
- You are right. It is a dead issue; however, your claim that OFW is only a law firm and it refers to itself as only a law firm is still incorrect. Also, the fact that you stated that I was incorrect for referring to as OFW refers to itself as a law and lobbying firm was incorrect. The main point being that you stated that I was incorrect when in fact you were incorrect. No amount of talking will change and fact.--Corbridge (talk) 17:46, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
- That is incorrect - OFW (Law) describes itself as a law firm. "The Nation’s Premier FDA and USDA Law Firm, Serving Clients Before Federal Agencies, Courts, and Congress" - Regards KeptSouth (talk) 07:50, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
The main point is that you added unsourced and miscontrued text to a BLP in a way that clearly violated policy by implying that a living person was engaged in activity that was illegal. You argued against plain facts several times on the talk pages, and in your edits. I was the third editor to confront you on the issue of the BLP violations and it took a number of edits and quite some time for me to unwind, step by step, the errors and false characterizations that had been mainly placed by you in the Stephanie Herseth Sandlin bio. My edit summaries and the diffs show what really was done. You repeatedly insist that no one should point out your factual errors, and that pure nonsense. - Regards -KeptSouth (talk) 22:57, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
- But you are wrong. I called you on it and now you are making things up. The law is a lobbying firm and you stated otherwise and you are wrong.--Corbridge (talk) 00:04, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
I am not too good with computers. I don't know how to add sources. I am sending you a source, please add it for me thanks
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/28/peter-king-taps-controver_n_828998.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.204.180.50 (talk) 20:38, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
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. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 08:43, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Scott Walker (Politician) Page
On the Scott Walker page it claims "Walker has not negotiated with unions or the Democratic legislators" this is an old theory and has been dis-proven with actual emails released showing that he has been negotiating with the Democratic legislators. The old sources making these claims are 20+ days older than this newer sources that I have linked below. Can you edit this page and make the necessary correct? It is horribly spreading misinformation.
http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/03/08/wisconsin.budget.emails/index.html?eref=mrss_igoogle_cnn http://www.topix.com/forum/us/TT8JV13OLTR3T8UMF http://www.topix.com/forum/us/TT8JV13OLTR3T8UMF
^all March 9th when the story broke.
Thanks much for your time. And if I were allowed to edit the page myself I would do so fairly. I have years of experience editing wiki's on Wikia.com --ShadowTale (talk) 06:47, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
- Hi, I did look at a few articles just now, and this is my preliminary take on the situation.
- It seems to me Walker did not negotiate before introducing the bill, and that in fact, the unions and legislators were surprised by all of the provisions in the budget fix bill that pertained to them. Then from Feb 11, and until about a week ago, Walker said publicly that he would not bargain on any of this, because essentially the state was broke and he needed both the financial and collective bargaining parts of the budget fix bill to be passed right away. Therefore it is not wholly incorrect to say he did not negotiate, because we can only go by what he was saying in press conferences and in interviews. At some time between Feb 11, when he announced the bill, and Mar 8 when the emails were given to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Walker did negotiate, but the sources you have given are not clear on when this happened, and I have not found anything that details who said what to whom and when. This makes it difficult to write something accurate that actually does not make it sound like Walker was lying to the public. And of course, such an insinuation, even if unintended, is not what we want to add to the article.
- I will look for more sources later today, and at the very least, I think I will be able to come up with a way to describe Walker's actions and statements more fairly. After all, where there's a will, there's a way. Just wondering though, why you don't try your hand at editing the article? KeptSouth (talk) 08:42, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
RE: Walter Cronkite
re: per your comment you said the edit created category page "United Press International reporters" but what i added back was the UT alumni bit which was sourced on his page. I agree with UPI as a red link, but the UT alumni should be there.Lihaas (talk) 16:37, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
- cool ';) Just pointoing out. Nice civil debate (and rare too here ;))Lihaas (talk) 20:52, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
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. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 10:31, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Comment from user Samdacruel
While editing please leave a summary.Sam 03:31, 2 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samdacruel (talk • contribs)
- Yes, I saw from your reversion that you were not satisfied with the simple ce (for copy edit), that appeared in just one of my usually lengthy edit summaries, and that [you reverted my edit. I believe I simply hit the send button too soon.
- It appeared to me that your only objection was that you did not see a more lengthy ES, so I restored my material with an explanation. I suppose we all have different ways of doing things, but when I look at a change that does not have an ES or that has just a short one such as "ce", I also look to see whether the edit is justifiable, whether it is an improvement— before even thinking about doing a revert. -Regards KeptSouth (talk) 03:40, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
RfC/U Corbridge
Hi KeptSouth. Wanted to let you know I mentioned you in a WP:RFC/USER regarding user Corbridge. You're obviously welcome to weigh in, but mostly wanted to give you a heads up. Arbor8 (talk) 17:44, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
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. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 10:13, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Corbridge RfC/U
FYI, I responded to your concerns on the project talk page here. Arbor8 (talk) 18:37, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for the notice - I responded over there.--RegardsKeptSouth (talk) 19:43, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
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. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 10:22, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Thanks. Jesanj (talk) 21:32, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Talk:Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories
Please reconsider your attempted reversion and edit summary here.[14] There is nothing improper about deleting talk page comments per WP:FORUM, something that has been absolutely necessary in managing Obama-related pages. If you have an abstract objection to that I suggest you hang around a little longer, review the history, etc., rather than assuming that editors are doing anything improper. The decision to remove the entire paragraph may have been an overreaction, and incorrect (I'm on the fence on both of those), but certainly not improper. And also best to deal with that in a more measured way than reverting removals with an accusatory edit summary (an accusation that would tend to raise tensions without resolving anything). In so doing you're coming down on the side of encouraging a potentially tendentious new account rather than working with either side on keeping a calm editing environment. But for a brief introductory comment ("I would like to thank the sensible person for removing this slander") there is nothing in their edit[15] designed to improve the article, but rather a fairly aggressive complaint about a political matter. If you look at the history of this new account, it will be a challenge at best to guide them to improving articles rather than just debating. Thanks, - Wikidemon (talk) 07:32, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
- Talk page comments of another user had been summarily removed without an adequate ES. I restored the material [16]. My edit summary states "manually restoring comments removed w/out explanation in violation of WP:TPO - a basic rule against editing or deleting the comments of other editors w/out their permission". My edit summary was not accusatory, I simply stated the rule, which was not followed by the person who removed the comment. I fully explained my actions in a neutral way in my ES, referring to WP rules and calling no one out - so I find it very curious that you have come on to my talk page to accuse me of "raising tensions". If anyone wants to avoid tensions and misunderstandings, then they should provide an adequate explanation at the time they remove another person's talk page remarks why they are doing it.
- To easily remedy the situation, you could have simply re-removed the material with an edit summary explanation of why you believed such material should not be on the talk page - that is what someone else did shortly after you posted your accusations against me here. However, you chose instead to come on my talk page and make unfounded accusations against me. Perhaps you are trying to establish some sort of faux record - one indication this is your intent is that you also claim here that you are asking me to cease attempting to remove the material; but I already had done this before you composed your note. Thus, you can later falsely claim I persisted in bad behavior. Another indication you may be trying to falsely frame my edit is your baseless and unnecessary claim that I was "encouraging a ....tendentious new account". Simply because you have made these unfounded accusations, they can later be used against me. I would like to make it clear now that all I did was restore talk page comments that had been deleted without adequate reasons given. The general rule is that such deletions are not done; and if they are done, certainly reasons should be stated in an ES. Rather than simply removing the material while proving an ES explanation, you chose to make overblown and false accusations on my talk page.-Regards- KeptSouth (talk) 22:42, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
The article Where's the Birth Certificate? has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- This does not appear to be a notable book (see WP:NBOOK); it is a future publication. A passing mention in Daily Mail is not enough to show notability; the publisher is a primary source and splcenter.org is a blog, and does not appear to be a reliable source.
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Chzz ► 11:02, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{user:chzz/tb}} template. File:Ico specie.png
Chzz ► 12:21, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- Please see 2 further replies, under User talk:Chzz#Failure to complete AfD for Where's the Birth Certificate? and User talk:Chzz#Follow up discussion on Corsi book. Thanks, Chzz ► 08:16, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Copying from other articles
Would you please read Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia - basically it's ok but you should link to the original article in the edit summary. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 15:21, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
- The guideline Copying within Wikipedia deals with copying text from another user that is "sufficiently creative to be copyrightable". It says "supplementary attribution must be provided by either a link back to the source page... or a linked edit summary at the destination page—that is, the page into which the material is copied."
- The guideline does not apply to anything I did. I did not copy creative copyrightable material written by another user. I did not copy anything written by another user. I simply transferred a newspaper quote from one Wikipedia article to another where it fit better.
- Even if the guideline did apply, the section titled Where attribution is not needed clearly provides an exception, stating: "Quotes from external sources do not need to be attributed to the original Wikipedia contributor, although any text surrounding them would be, and the original source must still be cited." As these diffs [17] [18] clearly show, there was no surrounding text transferred, therefore there was no need to attribute anything to another user, and no requirement that I link to an original an edit summary. I fully complied with WP policies regarding attribution, and cited the quote to the original source, The Guardian newspaper.
- Thank you for providing the link to the guideline; it never hurts to review these. But I do suggest you also give it another look before mistakenly accusing others of violating it.-Regards-KeptSouth (talk) 21:30, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
-
- I think you've taken this too seriously but I do apologise, I was working from your edit summary alone. What you did was obviously ok. But you'd be surprised how many editors don't know about this. Dougweller (talk) 04:59, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
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. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 10:58, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
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. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 10:06, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
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. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:12, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Craig Huey
Thank you for your work on starting the Craig Huey page and making it a neutral, well-sourced article. One editor, user:Lars.elkhorn has been editing the article in a personally invested tone with peacock terms and information that was not known before, such as his birthdate. I'm going to keep an eye on the page since he is a candidate in an upcoming election and ask for your help as well. Thank you.--A Second Man in Motion (talk) 05:16, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for the note - I haven't looked at the article yet, but for starters, I certainly don't see why his exact dob should be used. KeptSouth (talk) 09:00, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
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. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 09:29, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
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. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 18:48, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
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. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 23:25, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
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. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 00:28, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Update
"To put it another way, the deletion of my discussion here, which of course, you have every right to do, proves that the best course of action is to confine remarks and debate very strictly to article content on the article's pages. Just wanted to make this clear."
- It was clear. Have I done otherwise? Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 21:15, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- P.S. - I deleted the entire Scott Walker-related thread on my talk page as it no longer serves any positive purpose. Just giving you the heads up directly. Yours,Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 21:15, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- My proposal was that we not discuss matters on each other's talk pages. Apparently you do not fully agree, as you have started this discussion here.
- The deletion I was referring to was when you removed an entire remark I had posted on your talk page within two or three minutes, without responding. I was trying to resolve an issue you had raised about good faith editing.[19]. Here is the remark that I posted on your talk page:
- It appears we have crossed paths several times before on politically-tinged bios. I recall one exchange which began roughly with my saying you had made 7 changes basically removing material from the Christine O'Donnell article without giving reasons or even basic notice of your multiple changes in your edit summaries. After looking this incident up, I see you denied making the changes, but later, after a bit of fuss and banter, you acknowledged you had made them, saying you did not realize you had made the changes because of a "crappy DSL connection". You then make massive strikes-outs on my talk page of your own comments which I believe were meant as a type of good faith retraction,[20], and in your next comment, blamed your lack of knowledge about the 7 changes you had made on a slow dialup connection. In other interactions, which I don't care to detail here, I had briefly posted "in use" tags at the top of articles, but coincidentally, you suddenly decided to edit the articles, not seeing the "in use" tag, and resulting in edit conflicts, loss of some of my new material, and much time expended by me to piece together what had been deleted or partially deleted in the edit conflicts. That is the history of our little interactions—perhaps it is not so strange, and perhaps some motivations are beginning to speak for themselves, but I will reserve judgment for now. Perhaps you just don't read over your comments for consistency or perhaps your willful dialup modem and/or crappy DSL are playing havoc with your edits and your ability to read earlier posts again.--Regards--KeptSouth (talk) 14:14, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
- Again, no response is now needed or desired. You have made clear your intent, and I have made it clear that I prefer that discussion between you and me should be strictly confined to the articles' talk pages. That may eliminate your apparent tendency to strikeout and remove material, and possibly result in productive content discussions.--Regards--KeptSouth (talk) 09:41, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
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. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 23:33, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
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. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 02:21, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Turner
Pleas do not replace that non free picture - its in violation of our guidelines - I personally do not care what date any election is and neither do our guidelines. Off2riorob (talk) 18:33, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
- Unnecessary remark - you have absolutely no reason to think I would revert; particularly without discussion. Will discuss further on your page - I do not see anywhere in the guidelines where it says a pic that is pending deletion must be removed from the article. KeptSouth (talk) 19:52, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks
for putting in so much work fixing up Kristi Noem. It was a MESS. Arbor8 (talk) 17:19, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you.KeptSouth (talk) 09:37, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
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. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 00:22, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
|
Please accept this invite to join the Conservatism WikiProject, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to conservatism broadly construed. – Lionel (talk) 08:02, 13 September 2011 (UTC) |
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.
We have added information about the quality of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low 
to High 
.
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. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 02:04, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.
We have added information about the quality of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High .
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. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 01:37, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.
We have added information about the quality of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High .
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. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 03:49, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Joshua Goldberg
Hello Keptsouth as you made several important edits to the Joshua Goldberg page I thought that I should make you aware that it has been nominated for deletion and you might want to offer your thought in the keep/delete/merge debate -all the best Masterknighted (talk) 02:00, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.
We have added information about the quality of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High .
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. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 08:55, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.
We have added information about the quality of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High .
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. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 15:24, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Citing the draft
[21] In his reply, he raised no objection. I interpret that as permission granted. Jesanj (talk) 21:38, 4 December 2011 (UTC) [discussion to be continued and copied onto article talk page Talk:Death panel --KeptSouth (talk) 15:11, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
- I'm stepping away from the computer now, FYI, but I thought you'd want to self-revert this: [22]. Jesanj (talk) 21:46, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for notifying me that your edit conflict resulted in the removal of information that both you and I were trying to add or change. This was a very strange result-- I've never seen an edit conflict like that before --where both parties changes were either not accepted or were reverted. [23] However, I noticed it right away and made sure the changes we both intended were done, though it took a couple of tries.[24] [25]. Perhaps there was a problem with the servers or something.
- FYI, I will be moving the discussion on "citing the draft" to the article talk page because I have some concerns about copyright issues that are better addressed there, I believe, because it is an article content issue.--Regards KeptSouth (talk) 15:09, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.
We have added information about the quality of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High .
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. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 15:39, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.
We have added information about the quality of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High .
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. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 15:49, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.
We have added information about the quality of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High .
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. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 15:38, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
2011 Tucson shooting
 | This user helped promote 2011 Tucson shooting to good article status. |
SilkTork ✔Tea time 16:20, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.
We have added information about the quality of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High .
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. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 06:36, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.
We have added information about the quality of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High .
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. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 14:41, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.
We have added information about the quality of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High .
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. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 15:19, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Template:TOCMonths3 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:06, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.
We have added information about the quality of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High .
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. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 14:15, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.
We have added information about the quality of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High .
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. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:25, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.
We have added information about the quality of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High .
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. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 13:46, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.
We have added information about the quality of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High .
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. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:12, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.
We have added information about the quality of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High .
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. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:05, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Hey! - ur contribs 2 WP...
hv bn noticed @ Yahoo News: LINK (in a bar graph showing the monikers of the users with the most edits during the U.S. Pres. Primaries so far to the Wiki blp pertaining to a Republican party candidate).--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 10:22, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Jack Paar
I don't know how to edit Wiki pages, but I see you worked on the Jack Paar bio, and there is a mistake. It lists MY BROTHER WAS AN ONLY CHILD as one of Paar's books.
Wrong Jack. This book was actually the first book by Jack Douglas, who was a frequent guest on Paar's show. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.212.150.12 (talk) 03:39, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Jack Paar II
I just dug out my copy of MY BROTHER WAS AN ONLY CHILD. Paar wrote the Forward (two pages). Douglas wrote the book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.212.150.12 (talk) 03:43, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.
We have added information about the quality of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High .
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. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:48, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Paul Ryan GA
Hello KeptSouth! I noticed you are active at Ryan and was wondering if you would like to stick a Good Article Green Plus on top of your userpage? I know it will be tough--but rewarding nonetheless. Sign up here – Sir Lionel, EG(talk) 08:12, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Todd Akin
I have removed the statements in the lede that Akin apologized and that he clarified his comments, the latter of which I believe you added. I tried to make my concerns clear at Talk:Todd Akin#Apology/clarification of comment; in a nutshell, this content just needs to be stated and cited in the article text before being included in the lede. Theoldsparkle (talk) 13:47, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
- This is the third or fourth comment you have made to the same effect about one edit that I made. As you admitted in your edit summary where you removed the statement, he did, in fact, apologize.[26]. I should also say here that you seemed to be accusing me "preemptively" of edit warring on the articles' talk page, and that accusation is totally unfounded.[27] KeptSouth (talk) 11:36, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.
We have added information about the quality of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High .
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. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:20, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.
We have added information about the quality of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High .
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. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:49, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Re: Innocence of Muslims
- restoring sourced material - also see poster - it was shown once - putative best modifies film
Just because something is "sourced" doesn't mean we add it to an encyclopedia article. You may want to read up on policy. Just the other day we had sourced material telling us the film was made by an Israeli with funding from Jewish donors. Today we know that isn't true. Further, the person(s) who have claimed that the film was shown to 10 people are not reliable in any way, and at least one person said that he went to the film and found that it was cancelled and never actually played to any audience. So, your claims remain unverified. The fact that journalist Jeffrey Goldberg has called your source unreliable is also a huge red flag. Viriditas (talk) 12:18, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
- There are more sources that it was shown one time -- I will look for them and add. KeptSouth (talk) 12:26, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
- Look all you want, but Steve Klein is the only named source and he's totally unreliable. Even if we could add it, we would not state it as a fact as you did, nor would we add it to the lead section. Viriditas (talk) 12:32, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
- Named sources are not required. LA Times is a reliable and local source for information on movie premiers and screenings. Within the article you can see there are 3 sources the author checked- promoter Klein, a person familiar with the screening, a person affiliated with the theater. There is also the movie ad poster. That's 4. In addition the wording in the lead indicates it is "supposedly a film", "reportedly shown" once. That is accurate. Regarding your argument that what is known about the matter has changed -- that is true -- but the early report the filmmaker was Israeli was debunked within 1 day. It is now nearly a week since this controversy began and the reports have stabilized.KeptSouth (talk) 12:59, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
- Actually, there isn't a single aspect of this story that has stabilized—not one. Further, we are not relying on a source within a source for reliability. We are relying on an unreliable source reported as fact in a Wikipedia article because the LA Times reported what Klein said. In other words, we may report that Klein thinks 10 people may have attended the so-called screening, but we may not report it as fact like you did. Huge difference. And, we know that Klein is widely considered an unreliable source, so even reporting it in the lead is undue weight, let alone anywhere in the article. The fact of the matter is, we don't rely on Klein and other "unnamed" sources for support. We rely on the best and most accurate sources we have. And so far, none of them know for certain if the film was ever shown or how many people attended. Your claim that you chose to go with Klein because the LA Times is reliable isn't how we evaluate a source and basically misses the entire point. I really don't think you will find anyone who will support relying on Steve Klein for facts about this film, and citing him as an authority in the lead isn't best practice. Viriditas (talk) 13:31, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
- As I said and described above, there are 2 other sources in that article. I am also adding another source, with additional facts, from another reporter. KeptSouth (talk) 13:43, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
- Can you name a single person who has seen this film? Just one? Don't you think it is a bit odd that you can't? Why, if the trailer was released on YouTube, wasn't the entire film released on YouTube? Do you know how many amateur films are uploaded to YouTube every day? Viriditas (talk) 13:50, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
- I have posted reliable sources in support of one showing. Also I have added proper qualifiers. If you want to continue this conversation, please move or copy this entire section to the TALK page of the article. --Regards --KeptSouth (talk) 13:55, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
- I don't want to continue this conversation. I want you to acknowledge that there isn't a single person on the face of this planet who claims to have seen this "film". Viriditas (talk) 14:01, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
- I have posted reliable sources in support of one showing. Also I have added proper qualifiers. If you want to continue this conversation, please move or copy this entire section to the TALK page of the article. --Regards --KeptSouth (talk) 13:55, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
- Can you name a single person who has seen this film? Just one? Don't you think it is a bit odd that you can't? Why, if the trailer was released on YouTube, wasn't the entire film released on YouTube? Do you know how many amateur films are uploaded to YouTube every day? Viriditas (talk) 13:50, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
- Named sources are not required. LA Times is a reliable and local source for information on movie premiers and screenings. Within the article you can see there are 3 sources the author checked- promoter Klein, a person familiar with the screening, a person affiliated with the theater. There is also the movie ad poster. That's 4. In addition the wording in the lead indicates it is "supposedly a film", "reportedly shown" once. That is accurate. Regarding your argument that what is known about the matter has changed -- that is true -- but the early report the filmmaker was Israeli was debunked within 1 day. It is now nearly a week since this controversy began and the reports have stabilized.KeptSouth (talk) 12:59, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
- Look all you want, but Steve Klein is the only named source and he's totally unreliable. Even if we could add it, we would not state it as a fact as you did, nor would we add it to the lead section. Viriditas (talk) 12:32, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
You have a very strange definition of "unsupported"
How is "Twenty-three years ago, Booker Prize-winning writer Salman Rushdie was forced into hiding when his novel, The Satanic Verses, provoked fervent protests, death threats, and a fatwa from Ayatollah Khomeini of Iran. Now the author is telling the story of his life underground in a new memoir called Joseph Anton " being "unsupporting" of him hiding from death threats and a fatwa from Ayatollah Khomeini? --Niemti (talk) 21:49, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
- You are out of bounds. 1. Placing an accusatory and false assertion on my talk page. 2. Reverting many edits without any comment. I explained that edit fully. The text said "Salman Rushdie, still in hiding due to death threats and an assassination order fatwa from Ayatollah Khomeini for his novel The Satanic Verses." That implies he was in hiding since 1989 which is not true, and is not in the passage you quote. Please take further content disputes to the article talk page. Thank you. --KeptSouth (talk) 21:58, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
- I don't know much about Rushdie and I just used only what the "supporting" material (the reference) actually said, of him going hiding and his "life in hiding", and why did he do this - and you could easily rephrase it, instead of removing it altogether (while still leaving now gramatically incorrect "," mark there). Also, I think "you are out of bounds" by "placing an accusatory and false assertion" on your talk page, accusing me of me "placing an accusatory and false assertion", which I didn't. Also, please take further content disputes to the article talk page, instead of unilaterally removing any content supported by the references. Thank you. --Niemti (talk) 08:07, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
- Obviously, you are a very contentious person regarding the anti-Islam film article. You continue to complain about a factually correct edit I made two days earlier. I simply removed a false statement --it is not true that Rushdie has been in hiding since 1988. That was what the Wikipedia article said at the time--and the reference given did not even support that statement. Therefore, I removed it at 21:44, 17 September 2012 with an edit summary explaining "(→Content and commentary: ce - to conform to the sources - rem unsupported assertion about Rushdie being in hiding since 1989)" You then incorrectly re-added the unsupported and factually incorrect statement [28] leaving no edit summary showing that is what you did. Within minutes, another user saw your incorrect revert and removed the material again [29]. This matter was settled on September 17, and as I asked you then, I would like you to stay off my talk page with your unjustified insults and accusations. If you wish to have a content dispute, please leave a tag here referencing the article talk page, and we can discuss article content there. KeptSouth (talk) 18:23, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
- I don't know much about Rushdie and I just used only what the "supporting" material (the reference) actually said, of him going hiding and his "life in hiding", and why did he do this - and you could easily rephrase it, instead of removing it altogether (while still leaving now gramatically incorrect "," mark there). Also, I think "you are out of bounds" by "placing an accusatory and false assertion" on your talk page, accusing me of me "placing an accusatory and false assertion", which I didn't. Also, please take further content disputes to the article talk page, instead of unilaterally removing any content supported by the references. Thank you. --Niemti (talk) 08:07, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.
We have added information about the quality of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High .
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. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:18, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
References
I see that you have rearranged the citations at Jesse Jackson as well as done some editing. Can you please return the citation detail to the first use rather than all at the end. I have never seen the all at the end format.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:00, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Great work on Nakoula Basseley Nakoula
My apologies for jumping on your initial edits. 24 hours later, and the article now has a much better lead, biography, etc. PeterWesco (talk) 16:14, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
|
The Original Barnstar | |
| Great work on Nakoula Basseley Nakoula PeterWesco (talk) 16:14, 25 September 2012 (UTC) |
Terry Jones (pastor)
I see you are doing a major update of this article. I just cleaned-up some citations, added a new section about the emerging story about his provocative film called "Mohammed Nabi al-Muslimin", or "Mohammed, Prophet of the Muslims" which is so offensive to Egyptians that they have rioted and burned the US flag at the US Embassy in Cairo. At the same time I grouped the previous two controversies (burning the Qur'an and standing for US President) along with this under the new heading "Controversies" ... I hope that fits with your other edits to this article. Also, I have applied the Wikipedia pro-forma citation templates in various places, that makes it easier to follow. I hope this helps.
Enquire (talk) 21:37, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.
We have added information about the quality of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High .
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. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:52, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.
We have added information about the quality of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High .
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. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:16, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.
We have added information about the quality of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High .
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. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:08, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.
We have added information about the quality of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High .
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. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 13:32, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.
We have added information about the quality of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High .
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. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 13:55, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.
We have added information about the quality of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High .
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. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 13:37, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.
We have added information about the quality of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High .
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. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 13:12, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.
We have added information about the quality of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High .
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. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 13:28, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.
We have added information about the quality of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High .
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. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 13:22, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.
We have added information about the quality of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High .
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. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 13:38, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
Thank you.
Great job on the copy edit to the addition I made last night to the lede of the Paul Ryan article. I should have run the text through MS Office or word to check my awful spelling and grammer but it was late and I felt a tad rushed. Thanks again!
tiller54 mis-informed or dis-informationist? nyc mayoral race 2013...censorship question.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.2.60.204 (talk) 17:24, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:08, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Possible removal of AWB access due to inactivity
Hello! There is currently a request for approval of a bot to manage the AutoWikiBrowser CheckPage by removing inactive users, among other tasks. You are being contacted because you may qualify as an inactive user of AWB. First, if you have any input on the proposed bot task, please feel free to comment at the BRFA. Should the bot task be approved, your access to AWB may be uncontroversially removed if you do not resume editing within a week's time. This is purely for routine maintenance of the CheckPage, and is not indicative of wrongdoing on your part. You will be able regain access at any time by simply requesting it at WP:PERM/AWB. Thank you! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:36, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
File:Ralph Reed in Scotland August 2002.jpg listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Ralph Reed in Scotland August 2002.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Jon Kolbert (talk) 08:20, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
The file File:UPI logo.png has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Unused logo with no article used.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.
Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Willy1018 (talk) 09:48, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
- ^ Jill Lawrence (2010-09-17). "Christine O'Donnell: No Tax Hikes, No Abortion, No Masturbation Ban". Politics Daily. Retrieved 2010-09-17.