User talk:Jackbirdsong
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
|
[edit] Hannity
I would have no problem working with you on the article. I was thinking of putting in the Code Pink part since we do have a good reference for it. I was going to put in the television section that hannity has had clashes with various groups as host of the show and list some of them. The questions I had were mainly, should controversies on a BLP be personal or on his shows? Are there any personal controversies? What are reliable sources? So, I asked. --PTR 00:29, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
- Could you check the Shiavo video to see if it's still a valid link. I think someone said it wasn't. Also, what was the controversy and who was critical?--PTR 03:30, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
- Do you think the Al Franken article has done a good job for his controversy section as far as NPOV goes? If so, we can use it as a model for this one. --PTR 16:01, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
-
- The problem with the controversial thing is "who decides it's controversial?" It might be controversial to one person and not another. I think that's why on the Al Franken page they say, the ADL complained etc. I have to go away for business for a while. I leave it in your capable hands.--PTR 01:07, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
-
- Sorry for the messy above message which makes little sense. I was in a hurry and not thinking. I'll be out of town for about a week or so and will be on wikibreak. I think the Hannity article needs to be well balanced with good and bad. I just haven't found any reliable sources for the criticisms in the original article. Kuzaar traced the lying Louima item back to an opinion piece. Maybe there are different controversies out there with good sources? Good luck. --PTR 12:07, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Eisenhower
Sorry if I was wrong. I could have sworn he created the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. I'll look it up. Doctors without suspenders 15:28, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Okay
Thanks for coming to me, the edits by the IP seems to be out of line. But what makes you think that it is a sockpuppet of the Docters without suspenders? The content he/she seems suspicious however. Here is a first thing you can do. Watch the edits of the IP very carfully, if it keeps editing with a POV put this on the talk page Template:Comment3 and then if it puts its POV again put Template:Comment4. IF this IP does this again come to me, I am not an administrator but I can request a block for this IP. Another alternative (most likly a more difficult one to request) is asking an admin to protect the semi-protect the page. Come to me if you have anymore questions, Keep me up to date on this issue. Sorry however if I am slow at responding to your messages--Seadog.M.S 01:12, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] WikiProject New Orleans
Hello, I noticed you edited a New Orleans related article, or you are from or currently living in New Orleans. If you wish you can join the new Wikipedia:WikiProject New Orleans. — Staroftheshow86 21:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Amy Goodman
I respectfully disagree with you that the Publishers Weekly quoted is not needed. The LA Times quote is a portrayal of one aspect of Goodman's actions--that is, she is the radio representative, as it were, for the allegedly "disenfranchised left." The Publishers Weekly quote, on the other hand, is a portrayal of Goodman in general. Both quotes, I believe, complement each other very well--they are not redundant because each emphasizes something different about Goodman--the first, her actions vis a vis a certain specified group, and the second her actions in general and so should both remain--not merely in the interest of compromise, but because they both complement each other well in their description of Goodman. Stanley011 03:06, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Anthony speech
Hi! You might wish to add the text to Wikisource. It's better served over there if it isn't there already. :) - Lucky 6.9 01:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Al Franken
Just wanted to compliment you on your work with Al Franken! I'm glad it went well with the regular editors there :-) --plange 07:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Your issues with other editors at the Sean Hannity article
Hello- I noticed on your recent posting to the talk page at the Sean Hannity article that you have encountered some editors there that exhibit some problems endemic to some editors at Wikipedia. I agree with your assessment, that even good-faith edits are reverted even when they clearly should not be- this is why I stopped editing there, because with that kind of environment, the chances of achieving anything at all are next to none. I would be interested in any ideas that could help improve the environment there and encourage editors to find an acceptable solution. If you have any ideas or comments, feel free to leave them on my talk page. --Kuzaar-T-C- 14:13, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] American Library Association
Jack-- I thought I would point your attention back to the ALA page. LegitimateAndEvenCompelling has re-added the controversy section. What we have on the page is a real absence of neutral third parties to decide whether the controversy section belongs. LegitimateAndEvenCompelling, formerly known as Safelibraries, has a history of inserting non-notable criticism of the ALA and related organizations on Wikipedia-- we did an user conduct RFC on him recently. Meanwhile, the other two users on the page have direct ties to the ALA, so they're hesistant to act. I, on the other hand, did the user conduct RFC on him and have relatively long history with him. Would you look the situation over, listen to what he has to say, and decide whether you still feel the controversy section is unwarranted? Our instincts was the the controversy is non-notable, but we're a little too close to the situation to make that call. --Alecmconroy 20:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks so much for helping out on that page. Excellent job-- this is what makes Wikipedia wonderful. --Alecmconroy 02:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Madeline Lee
You blanked the above page, as it was an improper redirect. in future could you please take it through one of the deletion processes (WP:CSD, WP:prod,WP:AfD) Cheers, Davidprior 14:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- Same comment for article Madeline Pierce Davidprior 14:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
-
- Now that I know the procedure, will do. Cheers.--Jackbirdsong 02:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Apology
I would like to apologize for my comments on the talk page for Clinton's pardons. What I did was inappropriate and inefficacious. I do want to point out, however, my edits were not malicious in intent. I ask that you assume good faith in Wikipedia's contributors, and especially take notice in the annotations of the editor and then discuss those, rather than to simply assume malicious intent of the editor. Again, though, I am sorry for my earlier replies. ~ UBeR 03:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Susan B. Anthony
Thanks for changing the ref., that makes all the difference. Please understand that my gripe was simply with the quote not being in sync with the reference. Grika Ⓣ 14:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Galloway
I would say an RfC is the best way to go about this one. I could put my bit in, but this user doesn't seem to be willing to compromise or cooperate. He has been pushing his opinions on this article for quite some time, and has received advice and criticism from several users, but it doesn't seem to have had an effect. – Riana talk 07:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- Should I include you as an involved party in mediation? --Shamir1 21:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
