User talk:Coz 11

Welcome!

Hello Coz 11, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! — Dunc|☺ 20:38, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Tent City 4 and Tent City

First off, thanks for working to maintain WP:NPOV in both of these articles. ;) I know you've put a lot of work into these articles and that there has been a lot of changes to the articles since Cyclopedic joined the editting, but that's just the way that wikipedia works. At this point I think you're doing a fairly good job of fact and source checking Cyclopedic. However, there are a few areas of improvement:

• If Cyclopedic makes a change (especially the removal of something you've inserted), don't just revert what he's put it, but also add a source that supports your wording.
• In relation to the above suggestion, start citing your updates. Without citations it doesn't matter how well researched your updates are, they are still susceptible to being removed. If every sentence in the article ends up being cited, so be it. Just means the article is that much closer to being a good article or featured article.
• Assume good faith. Cyclopedic is still a new editor and is going to make mistakes on WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and WP:Verifiability. Just because he's a proponent for TC4 doesn't mean he's intentionally inserting POV or removing the opponents POV.

Now, having offered up the suggestions, I'll just repeat, keep up the good work. I'm just not knowledgeable on the subject yet to do much more than source check and clear out anything but the more blatant POV. So I appreciate the work you're doing.--Bobblehead 23:51, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		message Citicat 23:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your ongoing work in vandal reeducation and impediment Citicat 23:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

FieldTurf

I couldn't help notice that you've been adding a lot of content back to the FieldTurf article that some people (including me) had thought sounded like it came straight from a press release. I'm sure you were just trying to undo Tygast411's potentially COI edits, but we should make sure that we don't end up with something worse. Out of an abundance of caution, can you verify that you have no conflict of interest on this article either? If not, do you agree that the PR tone of the article is bad, and would you want to collaborate cleaning it up? I think we (meaning the community not just the two of us) should have a discussion on the talk page about what content should and shouldn't be included for NPOV. --Selket ^Talk 22:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I was trying to undo the wholesale deletions from the PR firm representative. I don't have any COI with the company, just someone who has experience as a user of turfs of all kinds. In this article, like many others I participate in, I contacted the company to get the facts straight. While I am good at getting the information I am not the best editor in the world so I tend to shove information into an article and let the "pros" do the wordsmithing part.  ;-) I have no problem with helping make any article better, just don't like seeing massive content deletions from articles because someone is trying to supress information. --Coz 22:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to supress information. I was neutralizing the content per the request of the Advert box that was placed on the page before I even started making corrections. Perhaps instead of "shoving" inaccurate, unverifiable, and bias information onto the page and expecting someone else to correct it, you should start a thread on the talk pages where those who know the truth and those with neutral agendas can decide if it should be viewable to the masses. Many of the reverts you made to the FieldTurf article were changes that Selket had made, not me. Such as the removal of:

FieldTurf is a major synthetic turf competitor, contributing to the replacement of what was once the most popular artificial turf, AstroTurf.

Just to reiterate, I'm not trying to suppress any factual information, I'd just like for it to abide by WP three content policies.

1.Neutral

2.Verifiable

3.Not Original Research--

It's in poor taste to delete someone's reply from your Talk Pages. Ben 23:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Tent City 4 article move

Just as an FYI, I had the Tent City 4 article moved to Tent City 4 as Tent City 4 (King County, Washington) was just a needless disambiguation. ;) --Bobblehead 09:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Image:Sos&s_logo.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Sos&s_logo.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media 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. BigrTex 22:31, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

TC4 and warrant/sex offender checks

From what I've read in the Redmond minutes and subsequent news articles, the reason for refusing the local PD warrant and sex offender checks was that King County Sheriffs already do that, but that's neither here nor there. As far as KC not doing the warrant and sex offender checks, the downside of how Wikipedia works is that you'll need to find a source that says they do not run the credit check to counter the source that says they do run the credit check. Unfortunately your analysis of the King County records falls under original research and is not something that can be used to support that they do not perform warrant and background checks. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 05:37, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not denying at all what you're saying, I'm just saying you'll need to get a source saying they are not getting them done to counter the one that they are getting them done. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 17:35, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: Your edit summaries

Please refrain from using edit summaries for the purpose of attacking the honor and integrity of individuals, as you did on Clayton I. Bennett's talk page. Chicken Wing 03:16, 23 October 2007 (UTC)