User talk:Doug rosenberg

Welcome!
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:

Please respect others' copyrights; do not copy and paste the contents from webpages directly.
Please use a neutral point of view when editing articles; this is possibly the most important Wikipedia policy.
If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
Do not add unreasonable contents into any articles, such as: copyrighted text, advertisement messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject. Adding such unreasonable information or otherwise editing articles maliciously is considered vandalism, and will result in your account being blocked.

The Wikipedia Tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. Again, welcome!--Konstable 09:27, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Karel[edit]

There are all kinds of people from all walks of life who read Wikipedia - including children. I saw no need for the actual expletives to be included - an adult can figure it out, a child doing research on talk-radio doesn't need to. Plenty of people would be offended by seeing the actual quotes - that's why I took them out.

Jim Webb[edit]

Let's have a discussion on the Talk:Jim Webb page about what you want to add to the article before you post it again, and there is an ongoing revert war. I think you'll find it's not the subject matter as much as things like neutral wording and proper sourcing that are the issue.

And by the way: please follows Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages and read Help:Edit summary about why others would appreciate it if you would use the edit summary box.

Thanks. John Broughton | Talk 20:52, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I think we're making progress. I just posted at Talk:Jim Webb; I hope that's helpful. Let me summarize by saying that if there is an article by the Washington Post about something, then almost definitely there should be something in the wikipedia article(s) related to what was printed; the issue is to get the wording right. John Broughton | Talk 21:10, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that at least one George Allen controversy was in fact in the campaign article, with a brief summary in the article on him and a wikilink to the campaign article. I suspect that the reason this was not done for more controversies is because a lot of editors think that he has a continuing pattern of racial, um, insensitivity, and that related things belong in the same article.

But the real answer to your question of Why don't you apply your same diligence to the George Allen page to clean it up? is that it's not my job to right all wrongs. I suggest you post your basic question on the talk page for the George Allen article - "Why aren't X, Y, and Z controversies in the campaign article, like A is?" - and see what people say. John Broughton | Talk 20:41, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]