User talk:Drrll

explaining my revert

Realize that this was done because the criticism was not of Totenberg but rather by Totenberg. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:49, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

OK. That makes sense. It seems that such a stinging criticism of someone she covers in her capacity as a legal affairs correspondent is notable enough to mention somewhere in her article, though.--Drrll (talk) 03:00, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps, but I'm not sure that this criticism is all that prominent in light of the entire topic. We could use a lot of expansion on her role in the Anita Hill/Clarence Thomas affair. If we could expand that section more it may be more appropriate in that regard. It really is an interesting criticism coming from the left, but just because something is interesting doesn't necessarily mean it deserves inclusion. ScienceApologist (talk) 03:05, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Jargon of the Rush Limbaugh Show

I added some comments on the closure of the AFD on User Talk:Bwilkins in agreement with you. patsw (talk) 23:44, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for speaking up on this. Should this go to a noticeboard?--Drrll (talk) 00:10, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Giving fair notice for Bwilkins to remedy this. patsw (talk) 01:55, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Please join the discussion on the merger in the Talk section of The Jargon of the Rush Limbaugh Show.--Drrll (talk) 02:16, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for putting this on DR. It seems every AFD I get into ends with a supervote. patsw (talk) 01:55, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

SPLC link

Convenience links should only be added when we're sure that they don't violate copyrights. The burden of proof is on your shoulders. I don't see any indication that the DTN website has permission to post the article.   Will Beback  talk  01:30, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

OK. I'll check with the website to see if they have the proper permission.--Drrll (talk) 01:45, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

When did the burden of proof shift to the Wikipedia editor? If Harper's has a copyright beef with http://www.discoverthenetworks.org, it would be up to Harper's to make its claim of copyright violation on the record. I looked for some public complaint of copyright violation against the site by anyone and did not find any. patsw (talk) 02:43, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I have framed the question generically at WT:Copyrights#The burden of proof is on the Wikipedia editor to prove this. patsw (talk) 03:08, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

The burden is always on the editor who wishes to add something.   Will Beback  talk  03:51, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

As Patsw pointed out on the Copyrights talk page, WP:COPYLINK would seem to suggest that article links can't be used "if you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright". As I said on your Talk page, it is very unlikely that a David Horowitz website ignores copyrights, so I definitely don't "know" that the link is a copyright violation.--Drrll (talk) 12:03, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand the basis for saying that the website is unlikely to host copyrighted material without permission.   Will Beback  talk  17:14, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

The website is under the direction of David Horowitz, who has a background in academia and as a major author. I know that we're not talking about Wikipedia, but I don't know of a good reason to not assume good faith on the part of the site.--Drrll (talk) 17:42, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Because the article text is not provided free of charge on the Harper's Magazine website, it is quite reasonable to conclude that the work is subject to copyright law, and the "free" version provided by David Horowitz is likely not OK to use here per our WP:COPYVIO policy. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:03, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I have seen other websites host articles that aren't available for free on the actual publication's website, and I'm not talking about user forums where there probably are copyright violations. Since it is a major website under tight editorial control I believe that the more likely situation is that they have procured permission.--Drrll (talk) 18:22, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

The idea that academics don't engage in copyright violations is, unfortunately, not consistent with reality. As for permission, I have often seen copied materials which have have notes which acknowledge the copyright holder and the grant of permission. Without something explicit like that it's impossible to tell.   Will Beback  talk  22:19, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Votevets=liberal

I found two bulletproof sources that label votevets.org as a liberal org. Let's hear someone argue that MSNBC is a conservative mouthpiece. LOL Niteshift36 (talk) 01:40, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Good work, especially with the MSNBC reference! I suspected as much after reading their Wikipedia article, but I didn't have any sources. I'm always curious about the ways people find sources. How did you find them?--Drrll (talk) 01:52, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

• Just lots of practice at using targeted Google searches. I put another half dozen reliable sources that called CREW "liberal", including CNN and CBS News. All of them are web accessible, so I think our protestor is out of gas on that angle.Niteshift36 (talk) 14:25, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll have to research the finer points of using targeted Google searches. Thanks.--Drrll (talk) 15:01, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

• Learn to use the (+), (-) and quotation marks. Those are the best tools for narrowing searches down. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:08, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I regularly use quotation marks, but I'll have to try using + & - .--Drrll (talk) 15:13, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

• Using the + makes it required as part of the return and the - excludes it. For example, if I search for +"sean hannity" +author, I will get back only returns that use both the name and the word author in it. If I search +"sean hannity" -"conservative jerk", it would return any entry using that name, but exclude any returns that use the phrase "conservative jerk". Niteshift36 (talk) 15:37, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

OK--that makes sense and should help a lot with my searches. If you ever need access to an article not available on the web, let me know and I'll email it to you. I have access to a lot of different library databases (but not all of them).--Drrll (talk) 16:20, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

BTW, if you have any interest in the Bill Moyers article or the Southern Poverty Law Center article, I could sure use some support there. Both articles are populated with editors who don't like anything unflattering added to the articles.--Drrll (talk) 02:09, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Please ignore my last request, as it looks to be not allowable, even though I did this openly instead of secretly.--Drrll (talk) 05:28, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Please see wp:CANVASS. You are not allowed to do this. ► RATEL ◄ 03:38, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

• Bullshit he can't ask someone if they know of any other sources. That's no violation of CANVASS. I didn't have an interest in the article, but that sort of response, chasing away anyone who has experience at finding references, creates an interest. That makes me think you have some sort of agenda, other than fact and that makes me very curious. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:25, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, as it happens, this thread is in violation of wp:CANVASS, as the OP is advising the user of a community discussion and the discussion as a whole is partisan, implying an intent of campaigning/votestacking. Additionally, we can do without the personal attacks and the decidedly un-Wikipedia-like language. --KentuckyFriedGunman (talk) 23:43, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

My rationale

I appreciate what you're saying but here's my rationale. I don't want too much about Hillary in the Criticism section, or anywhere else in the article for that matter, because it will look like we're picking on Hillary and draw complaints from the usual suspects who would prefer that nothing at all about Hillary's support for MMFA appear in the article. In addition, I think my entry is more relevant because it better helps to explain MMFA's loyalty to Hillary during the presidential campaign. If Hillary helped to "start and support" MMFA then it makes perfect sense that it would "aggressively" defend her. Regards. Badmintonhist (talk) 00:00, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I see your point and you're right about looking like we're trying to overdo Hillary Clinton. I just thought it was the only concrete example of partisanship by MMfA, as opposed to just statements about them being partisan.--Drrll (talk) 00:22, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Simply focus on the historical aspect of MMfA and how Clinton relates to them. Any attempt to link her to anything that the left think is nefarious will be fought tooth and nail. Arzel (talk) 05:21, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

That's true.--Drrll (talk) 08:38, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Can you imagine the reaction if any of us tried to block an equally relevant direct quote by Dick Cheney or anyone else on the political right? The usual suspects would be livid and they would be justified in being livid. Badmintonhist (talk) 18:23, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

That's exactly right. And imagine if we then tried to do a full page protection on the article in question to keep the quote out like Blaxthos has done. Do you understand what it is about so many on the left that they can't fess up to being lefties?--Drrll (talk) 18:31, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

To be fair, there are many Wikipedia editors whose personal political views are well to the left of center who, nonetheless, are very even-handed in their editing, just as there are those whose personal politics are to the right of center who are even-handed. It only takes some who are not to effectively screw things up. Badmintonhist (talk) 19:32, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Hey, Drrll, looky here, looky here!! [1]. And from one of the usual suspects favorite websites!! Badmintonhist (talk) 02:51, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

That's great! I'd love to see them twist themselves into pretzels arguing that this piece by a reporter is a problematic source for a non-BLP article, while references to Keith Olbermann's show from the exact same website is just fine for BLPs of conservatives!--Drrll (talk) 04:49, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Right. And not only is it a valid news source for the Hillary quote but the substance of Todd's article helps demonstrate that during the 2008 primary campaign Media Matters wasn't a generic pro-liberal media watchdog but rather a pro-Hillary media watchdog. Badmintonhist (talk) 06:12, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Bill Moyers

Please redact your comment [2] per WP:TALK and remember to, "Comment on content, not on the contributor" per WP:NPA. My suggestion is to remove the second sentence completely. --Ronz (talk) 18:19, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and removed it until you have time to respond. --Ronz (talk) 19:34, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I apologize for that comment about "BLP". I have been the target recently by such comments by an editor that I was trolling, that I was ignorant about policy, that I was wikilawyering, and that I was not operating in good faith. I lashed out at you regarding what I considered was your unwillingness to quote specific parts of the BLP policy or to suggest changes in proposed text to remedy what you see as BLP problems.--Drrll (talk) 20:23, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate the explanation and apology. It looks like the dispute is settled. Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 15:41, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

"Self Published"

Are you still confused regarding the definition of "published"? I count now 4 established, experienced editors who have rejected your claim. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 19:20, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello to you too. SaltyBoatr, who regards MMfA as a reliable source, agrees with me on this one. Why do you have a problem with the asking of the question? Let me take a wild guess. You are certain that MMfA, as a liberal media watchdog organization, is a reliable source, but you would never even entertain the possibility that the Media Research Center, as a conservative media watchdog organization, is a reliable source.--Drrll (talk) 20:03, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I disagree with Drrll on this one. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 20:21, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

You said on WP:RSN: "The MMfA is not unlike Freedom House, both organizations being self-declared partisan advocates and both being widely recognized as authorities in their purview and both being self published". Did you make a mistake in your wording or did you change your mind?--Drrll (talk) 20:26, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Where we disagree is that you think that "self published" is always disqualifying per WP:SOURCES. I observe that per community standards around here, major foundations and think tanks like Freedom House and MMfA (while technically each using their own publishing houses) are both considered to be allowable reliable sources. I disagree when you attempt to misinterpret WP:SOURCES narrowly in attempt to advance your POV agenda. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 20:36, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think that "self-published" is always disqualifying--as I said before, there is a small window in the policy per "largely not acceptable". If that window is large enough for MMfA to fit through, then it is large enough for the Media Research Center to fit through. It's reassuring to realize that besides us mere mortals, there are those on WP who can operate without any POV agenda.--Drrll (talk) 23:45, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually the community consensus is that they (MMfA and MRC/NB) are the same. Arzel (talk) 23:04, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Good luck in having someone like Blaxthos admit such a consensus that they should be treated at the same level.--Drrll (talk) 23:49, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Arzel is just making things up. Drrll, do you need for me to link the diffs where established editors reject your interpretation of "self published"? //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 16:50, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, when there was the widest participation on a MMfA RSN item due to an RfC ([3]), there were 16 votes to be consistent in the use of MMfA and the MRC and only 6 to not be consistent (and that was after a canvass by Gamaliel to sympathetic editors). On the RfC question of whether to exclude or include references to MMfA/MRC in BLPs, there were 7 votes to exclude and 5 votes to include. If you know of other places besides the most recent MMfA RSN item where "self-published" is described, sure, I'd like to see it.--Drrll (talk) 18:02, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I am speaking directly to your unique interpretation of "self published", which was roundly rejected at WP:RSN. Do you need diffs? //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:13, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

It's not my unique interpretation. Just in that discussion SaltyBoatr and Arzel also regarded MMfA as a self-published source. I'd like to see other discussions that go into detail about what is self-published and what is not.--Drrll (talk) 20:28, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

The newspaper The New York Times is published by The New York Times Company, therefore by Drrll's logic, the New York Times is "self published" and not considered a reliable source. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 20:42, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to backtrack from what you said previously about MMfA being self-published, because you wouldn't want to also be accused of being logically required to say that the NYT is self-published. As I said before, WP:V discusses "published sources" as such sources as news organizations, book publishers, and academia--none of which applies to MMfA--and then discusses "self-published" sources in contrast.--Drrll (talk) 22:46, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Drrll, you're just plain out wrong about what "self published" means. I can point to multiple uninvolved, well-established and respected admins and editors from WP:RSN who have directly rejected your concept of "self-published"; I've yet to see any uninvolved editor supporting your position. I will be reverting any edits you've made based on your misunderstandings of this concept, and additional edits using that rationale will be considered willful disruption. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 12:46, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Responding to Drrll: Yes, WP:V allows for "published sources" like "news organizations" to be exempt from the "self-published" category. The NYT is self-publisned and Wiki-consensus is that the NYT is exempt due to being a large news organization. Other "self-published" sources are exempt, like the Freedom House. I am guessing the threshold making an organization exempt is that they are 'big' and that they are regularly treated as expert reliable sources by the mainstream media for their purview of expertise. I mention the self published Freedom House research house because it widely viewed both as being politically biased and as being expert in their purview. I see the MMfA as being just like Freedom House, a 'big' political biased research house widely considered to be expert and reliable. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 15:26, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

The Freedom House sounds like quite an unusual organization, with scholarship that is widely accepted in and out of governments and largely by both the left and right (though both the left and right criticize certain aspects of it). I can see how you view MMfA as similar to Freedom House, but while they are both research organizations, MMfA seems far more partisan/ideological to me. I am open to the possibility that MMfA could be considered a reliable source, but so far I haven't seen anything in policy or on noticeboards that would decisively indicate that they are, despite the leaning of the most recent notice on RSN.--Drrll (talk) 15:57, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, I see that consensus at Wikipedia chooses to use of Freedom House as a reliable source (about 1,050 times) and similarly Media Matters for America is treated as a reliable source here at Wikipedia (about 869 times). In short, there is broad consensus among Wikipedia editors that both these politically biased "self published" sources can be used here as reliable sourcing. Yet, Drrll continues to argue contrary to this broad consensus. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 15:40, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the interesting stats on link occurrences on WP (I didn't realize that link: could be used in Google searches). If links are an indication of the acceptance of sources as reliable, then the Media Research Center / Newsbusters.org must be a very reliable source at 2671 links (searching on mrc.org, mediaresearch.org and newsbusters.org).--Drrll (talk) 16:10, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

So. Does that settle it with you? Do you now agree, with the standard caveats, that MMfA is generally considered a reliable source for use at Wikipedia? SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 17:13, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

No, I am just open to that possibility, pending clarification in policy or noticeboards. Being linked to very often may point to acceptance as a reliable source, but it doesn't demonstrate that decisively in my view. Also, I am not willing to accept them as a reliable source if the MRC is not accepted as a reliable source.--Drrll (talk) 17:37, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

No, it just shows you that there are many many many articles using MMfA as RS that should be cleaned up. Arzel (talk) 17:19, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

So, to you, "many, many, many" doesn't convey a sense of consensus. I disagree. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 17:43, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I would agree if MMfA's status as a reliable source becomes clearer. The most recent noticeboard item leans toward it being one, but the much wider discussed item (with an RfC) previously in RSN leans the other way. If proponents want to keep MMfA as a reliable source, they better get ready to accept MRC/Newsbusters references in BLPs and other articles.--Drrll (talk) 17:37, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

No sir -- We do not evaluate sources or articles based on their ideological foils. What you're threatening to do is disrupting Wikipedia to make an ideological point. Please review the RSN for threads on NewsBusters and MRC for their applicability as sources, and please stop trying to turn Wikipedia into a battlefield. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 12:14, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

For joining Niteshift in the recent ANI matter and thus helping to defuse the situation. I could say more but I think I'll try to avoid "being brought up on charges" so soon after the latest episode. Regards. Badmintonhist (talk) 06:45, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Anytime.--Drrll (talk) 09:58, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Media Matters Sources

If you already have the URLS for the online stuff and the publication information for Game Change (John Heilemann and Mark Halperin, Harper Collins, New York, 2010) that's about all I ought to help you with because, frankly, I'm as bad (and I don't mean good) as it gets with the rest. I always wait for the bots or for others to convert my bare urls. You might ask Blaxthos or PrBeacon for some help here. On second thought, maybe you should go to Rapier, Arzel, or Soxwon. Regards. Badmintonhist (talk) 18:25, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

P.S. Also look-up Ben Smith at Politico. I believe he's another who has at least mentioned the connection between Hillary and Media Matters.

I'll try to round up the URLs from the times you used them at Talk and in the article. I should be able to put together the references from the URLs. I'll also check for Ben Smith at Politico. Thanks.--Drrll (talk) 18:42, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

In case you haven't already found it at [4] Ben Smith describes Media Matters as "a Democratic-leaning group whose founders are close to the New York senator's presidential campaign" in preface to his noting that Media Matters had launched a 2,713 word attack on Gerth and Van Natta's Her Way. He also notes that Media Matters spokesman Karl Frisch had not responded to the inquiry of whether the attack on the book had been coordinated with Hillary's campaign. Badmintonhist (talk) 19:34, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. "Coordinated with Hillary's campaign"--oh, come on, MMfA would never even think of doing something like that.  :) So what that they used an official Clinton campaign mailing list for fundraising.--Drrll (talk) 19:53, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Here's another source, that notorious purveyor of right-wing memes, The New Republic. You'll have to read down the article a bit to get to the part where Michael Crowley brings up Brock and Media Matters. [5] Badmintonhist (talk) 17:20, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again. Yes, another right-wing source to add to the "thin" list of sources.--Drrll (talk) 17:26, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing that Blax basically wanted me out of the project prior to me stating that the project would be better off without him. Can you dig ol' Saltyboatr recommending that we try something different since the recent thread wasn't going anywhere? Of course, he did his damnedest to make sure it didn't go anywhere by immediately by-passing a direct response to my listing of sources and accusing me (with no evidence at all) of being fixated on Hillary Clinton. What you are experiencing here is, outside of Wikipedia and the offices of Media Matters, pretty abnormal behavior. In a room full of ordinary, self-respecting progressives – ones not beholden to either Media Matters or Hillary – none of them would try to explain away Hillary's words at the YearlyKos convention. That helps to explain why there are no neutral third party reliable sources that support Blaxthos's incredible explanation. Oh well, my venting here is a prelude to the discovery of yet another source, this one from The Hill, a respected, "insiders" Washington newspaper [6]. Toward the end of the article by Betsy Rothstein, it brings up the Hillary quote and also gives Media Matters's take on Hillary's relationship with their organization. That is good because, in theory at least, the Wikipedia article could include this to balance the notion that the quote is somehow misleading. Regards. Badmintonhist (talk) 04:37, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I had to note that when Blaxthos acted upset at what you said. Those opposed to any mention of Hillary Clinton at first objected to supposed weakness of the sources. Now that there are an abundance of sources, they shift to arguments like fixation on HC or that we are simplistically accepting HC's statement at face value (reminds me of liberal activist judges who argue that clear statements in the Constitution or laws really can't mean what they say). I'd like to see Blaxthos, SaltyBoatr, & Croc respond to the use of the quote like how you phrased it, along with an extensive explanation of the quote by Media Matters (from The Hill) and the full quote (in the MSNBC article) given in the source footnote.--Drrll (talk) 17:34, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

When I suggested that we try another way, I meant it. Seeing you two engage in us versus them conspiracy talk here, I think, serves to push the parties in negotiation farther apart. What we need more of is consensus building, some finding of common ground. We don't need the polarization that comes from your name calling other editors as progressives followed by 'eye roll gestures', as if this is some battlefield. I actually am open to find some compromise, if we can tone down the partisan mongering, that might be easier. For instance, if we could look at the option of viewing MMfA in the greater context of the Netroots movement. I think I could agree to a common ground with you two is that the August 4th 2007 DailyKoz presidential debate (and the netroots splinter group speeches given by the candidates, including both Obama and Clinton, one of which you fixate upon) might have some tangential relevance to the MMfA article. These two candidates were both cognizant of MMfA's role in the Netroots movement and the they each were courting the Netroots movement in their speeches that day, Hillary's just after being booed. Where I lose your support is the appearance of agenda you two have to give a Hillary badge smear to MMfA. That agenda is just too apparent reading the conservative blogs and you two seem to be trying to mimic those blogs. This is an encyclopedia after all. Let's take a big picture look at this and come to some agreement, OK? SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 18:02, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I will accept your offer to try another way at face value. I am interested in seeing what you would suggest in wording the material--including the part about the greater context of the Netroots movement. If we can agree to wording, that would eliminate the possibility that the material is being presented as a smear. If you know that Obama also said something about MMfA, then obviously that may have relevance for inclusion as well as the Hillary Clinton material. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.--Drrll (talk) 18:57, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Do you know what I am referring to when I mention the Netroots movement? I noticed this viewpoint when reading the 2008 book _Bloggers on the Bus_, while doing research this weekend. The 'big picture' issue is that in the last 5 years politics have been influenced by the blogosphere/netroots movement. The MMfA is part of this netroots movement. It is this Netroots movement that Hillary Clinton is courting in her 8/4/07 speech. Boehlert, in his book, very briefly describes how Obama and Clinton had different attitudes about their political association with the Netroots movement. I am thinking that the MMfA role of Netroots in modern politics is a giant "big picture" topic presently missing from the MMfA article. There is potentially a place of common ground that might merit a mention of the role Netroots played in the 2008 election cycle, and making a distinction between how Obama and Clinton viewed their relationship to Netroots. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 19:40, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I have to admit that I didn't have much of an understanding of Netroots. I looked over the WP article on it (which mentioned MMfA prominently) so I understand what it is now. A section/paragraph about MMfA and Netroots would definitely make sense. I see that you and Badmintonhist are discussing it now at Media Matters Talk. Please put up your suggestion for what should be included. Thanks.--Drrll (talk) 20:26, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

NYT

Drrll, your comments on the Fox News page seem to be reasonable and well-thought. On the NYT page I've added a sentence following what has been said under Fox News page but certain editors wish to keep the NYT lead bias. Perhaps you can intervene in order to help keep wikipedia more fair. DeltoidNoob (talk) 21:51, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliments, but I can't help you since it would violate WP:CANVAS.--Drrll (talk) 00:22, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

COI at Talk:Bill_Moyers

I've removed your request for personal information of another editor [7], rather than asking if you'd do so first. I don't think it's appropriate to request personal information, especially on an article talk page. See WP:PRIVACY.

I agree with your starting a discussion at WP:COIN on the matter. --Ronz (talk) 19:37, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to ask for personal information--I was trying to get the editor to disclose their professional relationship with Bill Moyers, but I can see how that could be construed that way, since one could determine exactly who that person is. I agree with you removing it and I'll remove similar information on the WP:COIN noticeboard.--Drrll (talk) 19:43, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! My rule of thumb is not to ask editors about such details, but to let them disclose what they want. --Ronz (talk) 19:55, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

It is important that we follow the policy about WP:Privacy, which takes precedence over WP:COI and is vital for Wikipedia to be a safe place to edit. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 20:03, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Point taken. I see that WP:COI gives precedence to privacy over conflict of interest.--Drrll (talk) 20:08, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Media Matters for America mediation

A request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to Media Matters for America was recently filed. As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. The process of mediation is entirely voluntary and focuses exclusively on the content issues over which there is disagreement. Please review the request page and the guide to mediation requests and then indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you would agree to participate. Discussion relating to the mediation should request to the talk page.

Thank you, AGK 13:57, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I'm not even sure I filed the mediation request properly since I'd never done it before and am terribly clumsy with anything new on a computer. As for your mention of trying an RfC if all parties don't agree to this I would say no, we're really way beyond that point since what's been going on heretofore has amounted (de facto) to a series of RfC's. I think that the next step would be a request for arbitration. Regards. Badmintonhist (talk) 14:26, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

It looks like the mediation request went through fine. OK, we'll try arbitration next if mediation request isn't agreed to.--Drrll (talk) 14:43, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Drrll. Just checking back with you. An editor with sound judgment told me that requesting arbitration is definitely NOT the way to go as the next step (see Ramsquire's comments on my talk page). Technically, you were right; an RfC is supposed to be the next step, but I have taken part in a few of those and they are often not really any different than ordinary talk page arguments. Sometimes some of the parties might feel somewhat more disposed toward working out a compromise, but that's about it. I guess we'll just have to see how things go here. Do you notice that editors who are basically on "our side" of this dispute seem more eager to take part in the mediation than Blax, Croc, et al? That should tell you something. Badmintonhist (talk) 16:20, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. I guess we have no choice but to use an RfC if the mediation fails. At least it should bring in some outsiders to the discussion, so there's a better chance of a consensus. Yeah, I noticed that Blaxthos and Yilloslime provisionally agreed instead of just agreeing, but I thought that they might just oppose or not vote at all. We'll have to see how Croc responds (I think there's only one other editor who hasn't voted yet, but I can't remember who it is).--Drrll (talk) 16:35, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Greetings, Drrll. You may have to carry the ball on the mediation since I am leaving on a two week (budget) tour of Spain, Portugal, and Morocco on June 5. Before I go I will present my view of the issue at the mediation talk page. Try to keep cool and stay objective (advice I don't always follow), the facts are on our side. Regards. Badmintonhist (talk) 17:32, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. Enjoy your trip! Are you sure you don't want to keep up with WP on your trip? :)

I may when convenient but I only use an old desk top computer. . . would not know how to use anything more portable even if I had one. And as I say, this is a budget tour so I'm not necessarily expecting internet access at the kinds of places where we'll be staying. We'll see. As for Blaxthos, Croc, and Yilloslime, don't be surprised if they have a remarkable revival of interest and energy for the topic once things get underway. I've seen the feigning-fatigue routine before. Good luck. Badmintonhist (talk) 21:06, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Request for mediation accepted

The request for mediation concerning Media Matters for America, to which you were are a party, has been accepted. Please watchlist the case page (which is where the mediation will take place). For guidance on accepted cases, refer to this resource. A mediator should be assigned to this dispute within two weeks. If you have any queries, please contact a Committee member or the mediation mailing list.

For the Mediation Committee, AGK 14:50, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Message delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.

Thanks . . .

for your efforts on the whole "Media Matters and Hillary Clinton" debate. You revived the issue and helped get certain folks to budge which, believe me, is not easy. Regards. Badmintonhist (talk) 15:20, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. Thanks should go to you for placing this in mediation. After you left, Salty and Yilloslime objected to the consensus. I can live with the proposed text, though I prefer that information about funding MMfA be included as well.--Drrll (talk) 01:12, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Drrll. Why don't we see if we can wrap things up at the Media Matters mediation? If you can present reliable sources for the three suggested sentences and my recommended placement is approved maybe we can finally put this thing to bed. Regards. Badmintonhist (talk) 17:58, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll work on that tonight since my notes are at home. I've noticed that some editors on the other side have avoided chiming in about the added Podesta material. I hope they're not trying to hold up a final consensus. Drrll (talk) 18:25, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

COI in Arbcom

I think it might be helpful to look through recent Arbcom decisions related to WP:COI, such as in Wikipedia:ARBTM#Final_decision and Wikipedia:ARBSCI#Final_decision. My perspective is that a COI is a compounding issue rather than a problem in itself. --Ronz (talk) 20:02, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the links. I noticed that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ARBSCI#Final_decision said: "Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines strongly discourage editors contributing "in order to promote their own interests."" PATdiane's edits were designed to promote her own interests--Bill Moyers--in denigrating an opponent of Moyers. Furthermore, the COI guidelines direct COI editors to not make edits of such controversial material. The COIN appears to be toothless. Drrll (talk) 12:51, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Relative to the enforcement of outright vandalism, COIN is fairly toothless as is WP:WQA.

The best solution I've found is to not the coi problems at COIN while focusing on content problems on article talk pages. --Ronz (talk) 17:27, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Al Gore

Your comparison of Al Gore with Clarence Thomas is not helpful. In general, arguments of the type Wikipedia:Other stuff exists don't carry much weight. That's life here in Wikipedia. Victor Victoria (talk) 17:57, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

You're right about WP:Other stuff exists. I was just trying to point out that those arguing against inclusion of material about Gore really don't hold to that standard of unsubstantiated allegations in BLPs when it comes to their political opponents. Thus, their argument is specious. Drrll (talk) 18:20, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Assume Good Faith. Victor Victoria (talk) 18:49, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

The purpose of the talk pages

Remember that the purpose of the talk pages is to discuss how to improve the articles, not to vent your frustrations. I don't see how making disparaging remarks about Al Gore, they way you did on his article's talk page, is in any way in line with the purpose of the talk page to improve the article. You may not like him, but you can't allow that to influence your editing. Remember that one of the fundamental rules of Wikipedia is to write articles from a Neutral Point of View. Victor Victoria (talk) 09:12, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

The only reason I said that was the comment by KeptSouth about Dick Cheney: "if Dick Cheney had a massage, he'd die" (you should have noted that KeptSouth's comments were inappropriate as well). Nonetheless, I shouldn't have said it. Drrll (talk) 11:57, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Pointing out to him that his comment was inappropriate would have been a better response. Victor Victoria (talk) 13:54, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Supreme Court article

Regarding your comment on THF's page about the final paragraph in the Judicial leanings section of the Supreme Court of the United States. Note that in fact the paragraph cites Tom Goldstein arguing that the usual ideological perceptions of the Court are amiss; he does not argue that Scalia and Thomas are "activist", rather, he points out that if one defines "activist" as being more prone to invalidate acts of Congress, not defer to the political branches, and be willing to overrule precedent, then using that definition it turns out that the two most "activist" justices in the past term were Scalia and Thomas. He is not arguing that Scalia and Thomas are activist judges, but rather that the common perceptions of the justices and the Court (which he terms "caricatures") are inaccurate. I do recommend that you take a look at the cited article; it is a pretty interesting commentary. Disclaimer: I'm not a legal professional either. And it seems that your call for support has been heeded. Magidin (talk) 21:43, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note and for the recommendation of the Tom Goldstein article. The article is well-reasoned and balanced. My problem was with the following: "the critique that the liberal justices are "activist"...also lacks merit:", followed by the in contrast comparisons with Justice Scalia and Thomas. Unlike previous sentences that made plain that it was the opinion of Goldstein, that sentence was constructed as if it was fact--that that critique was in and of itself lacking merit, but that in contrast, Scalia and Thomas met the definition of true activists. I notified THF because I knew that he was a lawyer interested in such issues. I see that you have reworded the sentence in a way that has improved it. BTW, I don't follow the Supreme Court article closely, but when I do, I notice that your edits are carefully considered and measured. Drrll (talk) 02:05, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough; I thought that it was clear the entire paragraph was simply reporting Goldstein's points, but if this was not clear then it certainly needs to be crystal clear in that respect. Certainly, it seems that avoiding the word "activist" is best in any case, given how charged the term has become in political (as opposed to legal) discourse. And thanks for the kind words. Magidin (talk) 02:13, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Journo list

Hey dude there is a thread at the WP:BLPN. regards. Off2riorob (talk) 22:11, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up! Drrll (talk) 22:23, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

It looks nice

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mrdthree/sandbox Mrdthree (talk) 17:02, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

It does look nice. Thanks for going through the trouble of doing that. Obviously some of the outline points couldn't survive unless there was actually material to go along with them. I am curious how you got the page over to your sandbox. Did you do an edit on the article and then copy and paste everything or is there a way on Wikipedia to copy files? Drrll (talk) 18:07, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Just plain old cut and paste. I think its a good way to organize existing material. Mrdthree (talk) 23:31, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

RfC on Media Matters for America at WP:RS

Hello there, Drrll. There was a recent discussion at WP:ANI regarding the systematic removal of Media Matters for America as a reliable source. I've started an RfC regarding MMfA, Media Research Center, Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting, Newsbusters etc. at Wikipedia: Identifying reliable sources. Some of us believe that these hyperpartisan sources should never be used as factual sources at Wikipedia, due to their tendency to selective edit facts. Please participate in this important discussion, concerning one of Wikipedia's most fundamental editing policies, on the Reliable Sources Talk page here. Skoal. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 13:38, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Katie Couric

Thanks for helping out in the revert madness... although now the article has been fully protected (interestingly enough, in a very convenient timing). It would be really helpful if you weighed in here – thank you very much in advance. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 00:43, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

That discussion was what made me aware of the situation in the Couric article. I have added some comments there, along with having found additional sources such as Politico. Drrll (talk) 01:30, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Hey man, could use some support now – although I wouldn't blame you if you didn't, seeing me blocked and all... Hearfourmewesique (talk) 13:51, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

What kind of support do you need? If you're talking about reverting the Palin comments in the Katie Couric article, I would be willing to do so only if we can pick up additional support. I feel that Couric's comments offer a glimpse into her dismissiveness toward several groups she covers as a journalist and should be in the article, but we just don't have enough people on our side now to make it stick. Even Off2riorob is against it, and I certainly don't see him as a Kouric fan or apologist. I'll keep an eye on the discussion of it at Talk:Katie Couric and add my take if helpful. Drrll (talk) 15:54, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I guess you're right; anyway, thanks again for your earlier support. I'm kind of having a problem here, trying to insert a paragraph about Michael Moore's recent support of the Ground Zero mosque (about which he announced on Sep. 11), but it's being dismissed as a "recentism" or "why this and not other causes he supports/let's wait until the section is broad enough". If you feel I'm right, you are more than welcome to weigh in on that. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 03:11, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Dear Drr11--Thank you for the heads up about the talk page. On our wiki we do allow a group to make an edit to their page--which of course can be changed or disputed by others--as long as they self-identify, but I will be sure to follow the suggested protocol for Wikipedia in the future. Lisa —Preceding unsigned comment added by LisaFromSourceWatch (talk • contribs) 01:34, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. Thanks for using the Talk page for CMD's article for getting changes made. Drrll (talk) 11:37, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

RfC: Partisan sources

I have proposed an edit for the mainspace of an important Wikipedia policy, the Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources policy. Essentially, I believe that some sources are so partisan that using them as "reliable sources" invites more problems than they're really worth. You've previously participated in the RfC on this subject, or another related discussion indicating that you are interested in this important policy area. Please indicate here whether you support or oppose the proposed edit. The original discussion is here. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 13:25, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Dagen McDowell Bill Sammon Future of American Democracy Foundation Eric Shawn Molly Line Roberts Court Deb Callahan Stuart Varney Mark Critz Crooks and Liars Ellis Henican Cheryl Casone The Enemy Within (Michael Savage) Claudia Cowan The Public Interest Jennifer Griffin United States Senate election in Utah, 2010 Amy Kellogg Anita Vogel

Cleanup Conservative Political Action Conference Dick Morris Tea Party movement Merge Alternative media (U.S. political right) Michelle Obama American Clean Energy and Security Act Add Sources Mike Emanuel John P. Hart Glenn Beck Wikify New Citizenship Project Lakeland High School (Lakeland, Florida) Jonathan Edwards (musician) Expand Donald Rumsfeld Marshall Wittmann Columbus, Georgia

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) 12:23, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Temp

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/17/tea-partying-like-its-1860/

http://www.newsweek.com/2008/09/03/having-a-riot-in-st-paul.print.html

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0310-02.htm

The Washington Post, January 13, 1998, Country Music Radio Sings A Lonesome Tune, BYLINE: Marc Fisher: ""Democracy Now," which airs weekdays at 9 a.m., is a talk radio rarity -- a genuine voice of the left on a medium that tilts heavily toward the right"

Jeffrey Toobin

This is Jeffrey Toobin. You seem to be adding offensive and abusive information to my personal life entry. Please stop. You have also made other changes to my entry, and I have no complaints with those. But please stop reverting to the previous entry on my personal life. Thanks, Jeff Toobin —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bookie87 (talk • contribs) 21:37, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I am not the one who originally added the material--I was simply restoring sourced material which was deleted without an explanation. Please use edit summaries, and preferably the Talk section of your article, to state your objection to the material. Your objection needs to be based in Wikipedia policy--not simply on the basis that you don't like the material. If your arguments against inclusion of this material is persuasive, then I and others will not object to keeping it out. Please also familiarize yourself with WP:COI for information on conflict of interest in editing Wikipedia articles. If you want to edit your own article, especially concerning controversial matters, you need to bring up your desired changes to the article on Talk:Jeffrey Toobin rather than making the changes yourself. By the way, I didn't see this message before I posted a warning to you. Drrll (talk) 22:11, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I understand very little about how wikipedia works and have no desire to censor discussion of politics or related matters. I'm not sure I understand what you're suggesting I do, but I'll try. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bookie87 (talk • contribs) 22:35, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Let me know if I can be of assistance in submitting your request to Talk:Jeffrey Toobin. Drrll (talk) 22:58, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Never mind, I see that you've already done so. Drrll (talk) 23:05, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

AHill/V&CThomas

You may act again faster than I can explain here. (Act with the help of Twinkle? I must say I've only begun to understand what the TWs attached to your edits meant.) Maybe I should have run the new contribution by you before posting again an amended update here. But I did take your first critique to heart and then did feel again that the new post (again, as I had the previous one, but I learn) was appropriate. The personal/professional line is a tough one, and the issue certainly deserves attention, here among other places I'd argue. Here, it's part of Clarence Thomas' personal life, I hope we maybe can agree.

Anyway, thanks for your attention. Swliv (talk) 15:14, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

The portion you recently added about Thomas handling cases that might conflict with donations to Liberty Central is probably worth including in the Clarence Thomas article (I wouldn't include that in the Personal life section, but a section dealing with his professional life). It would be best if you brought up the issue in Talk:Clarence Thomas. As far as the Virginia Thomas call to Anita Hill, I don't see how that it noteworthy enough to include in the Clarence Thomas article. As I said, it does belong in the Anita Hill and Virginia Thomas articles and it is currently in both of them. Regarding Twinkle, it's a helpful tool that you might want to think about adding to your account. Drrll (talk) 16:51, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

"Appears regularly"

I have to take exception to your editing. You're going through articles saying that people appear "regularly" on a radio show, adding a citation to transcripts showing single appearances. "Regularly" means "with constant frequency or pattern". Further, even if you changed the text to say that the person appeared once on the show, what is the notability of that? Why is it significant that these people have appeared on a radio show, and if it is significant, why hasn't any secondary source reported on it?   Will Beback  talk  19:59, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

The individuals I have added "regularly" to are individuals who have appeared multiple times (at least 3 times) on Democracy Now. I can add additional references that indicate that (some I didn't add "regularly" to). Do you think I should use alternate wording for "regularly"? I have added references to people who are deemed non-ideological who appear on DN. As far as I know, DN is considered a reliable source, thus my using them as the source. I don't know if additional sources have reported on these appearances. Drrll (talk) 20:30, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

If the appearances aren't notable, as indicated by coverage in secondary sources, then we shouldn't be adding it. There are lots of political talk shows. Many people appear on them. Most of those appearances are of little significance.

The same principle applies to campaign contributions. Digging through primary sources to find campaign contributions that haven't been reported in secondary sources is inappropriate.

It's hard to avoid noticing that these edits have a partisan aspect. Please remember that Wikipedia is not a soapbox for advocacy. WP:SOAPBOX. Editors have been blocked and banned for using Wikipedia to advocate for a cause. Please don't.   Will Beback  talk  21:10, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

If DN is a reliable source and it is considered a news source, I don't see why using it is a problem, especially if I adjust wording. There are a lot of political talk shows. My point is that appearing on one that is so ideologically-slanted as DN is noteworthy, especially for journalists. This is a show that welcomes the likes of Hugo Chavez and the Cuban national assembly Speaker. The same would apply if a journalist appeared on a right-slanted talk show. Don't you agree that a journalist appearing on Rush Limbaugh's or Mark Levin's show would be noteworthy?

I see your point about going through primary sources to find campaign contributions that haven't been reported otherwise.

My view of Wikipedia editors and partisanship is that everyone carries with them biases in their editing, seeing different things as important to articles. I agree that violating WP policies to promote a POV is not proper. What I believe matters is that what ends up going into articles is neutral and meets the other policies. I have seen plenty of other editors advocate the other side in their editing of politically-oriented articles (e.g. adding unflattering things to BLPs of conservatives and removing unflattering things in BLPs of liberals), admins included, and I don't have a problem with it unless it violates policy. Drrll (talk) 01:57, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

The same source can be primary in some respects and secondary or tertiary in others. For example, a scientific paper could have an intro which includes a rehash of encyclopedia-type content (tertiary), a review of previous literature (secondary), and a table of figures created by the author from original research (primary). The categorization also depends on how we're using it. A secondary source becomes a primary source if it's the subject of the article. The TV Guide is a primary source for television programming. The DN's list of guests seems similar. With BLPs we need to be especially carefully.

Another issue is that with one of the links I checked it went to a reply of a previously aired interview, so some of the numbers may be inflated. And you can't say "regularly" unless there's a secondary source that says so, or you have enough links that you can engage in minor original research by showing "regular" visits. You can say "appeared three times", and then provide three links, or a link to a list of three visits.

I have to say that I think bare partisanship on Wikipedia is unhelpful and approaches POV pushing. You seem to be admitting that you're making these edits to promote a POV. That's not the best spirit to bring to encyclopedia editing.   Will Beback  talk  12:22, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the helpful analysis about sources. I know that I'll look back on it later on for guidance about sources. As far as I know, there is no list of guests on the DN website. The sources I referenced from the site are classified as "stories" by the site.

I didn't see that one of the links was a replay of an interview. I'll fix that. I'll also fix the use of "regularly."

I try not to be baldly partisan in my editing and I suspect that if I end up erring that way, others will properly counter it. I add what I think will be useful for the reader to know. I know that others may disagree with that and see other things they believe are useful for the reader to know. I am glad that there are checks and balances within WP. Drrll (talk) 13:58, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Message from Bluebadger1

You just section blanked and deleted huge references and work I contributed to the Sean Hannity Page.

You deleted the info without discussion on talk page.

Yet when discussing Jeffrey Toobin you said uggested using the talk page to discuss the issues. "I am not the one who originally added the material--I was simply restoring sourced material which was deleted without an explanation. Please use edit summaries, and preferably the Talk section of your article, to state your objection to the material. Your objection needs to be based in Wikipedia policy--not simply on the basis that you don't like the material. If your arguments against inclusion of this material is persuasive, then I and others will not object to keeping it out. "

SHouldn't this apply to my edits and work on the article.

Seems a bit hypocritical and biased. Please describe the issues you have with the references, information, and sections I included, and why you think it is OK in the case of Toobin to "simply restoring sourced material which was deleted without an explanation" but it is not OK when I do it?

Meets WP:V and WP Well Known guidelines. Bluebadger1 (talk) 20:17, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I did discuss it first on the Talk page, but as Soxwon said, if you are challenged about contentious material added to a BLP, it is your burden to demonstrate why the material deserves inclusion.

The sources in the waterboarding section got mangled when you added it back, so that only the static footnote numbers ended up in that section.

The MediaMatters references by themselves are not adequate for use in a BLP. The Huffington Post reference may be OK, but it needs to be debated. The charitynavigator site is a primary source and should be referenced by a secondary source.

As far as what I said about the Jeffrey Toobin material, I was speaking to the subject of the article, and in those cases, there is a conflict of interest concern, so they are limited in how they can make changes to their own articles. Drrll (talk) 21:15, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

November 2010

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Manohla Dargis. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful, then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. Post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Please consider other steps in the dispute resolution process past bold, revert, discuss, and keep in mind that all content must be justified. Please also remember that this article concerns a living person. - 2/0 (cont.) 05:06, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

As you no doubt saw, I have made numerous attempts to engage HankNancy in discussion on the article Talk page and my reverts have been over a long period of time. Nevertheless, if s/he reverts again, I'll take it to BLPN. Drrll (talk) 09:17, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

List of Keith Olbermann's special comments

Thanks for your note. However a list of random phrases used on a radio show is somewhat different from a complete list of episodes. That said, I'm not sure why we have that list at all. I've never actually watched the show, so perhaps I don't understand the relative importance of this material. But offhand, I'd say that it might be a good candidate for AFD.   Will Beback  talk  08:12, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

It seems the standard for notability should be the same for both articles. I may submit the article for deletion if you don't first. Drrll (talk) 09:24, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Go for it. I've got my hands full.   Will Beback  talk  09:48, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I tried to, but there the article had already come up for discussion about deletion. Is there a recourse? Drrll (talk) 10:36, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I've removed your incorrect transclusion of the article's AfD from 2008 in the current day's list. Please follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#How to list pages for deletion, being careful to follow the variant instructions that account for a previous nomination. Powers ^T 13:29, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I clicked on the 'Add a new entry' link at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/ and it ended up pulling up the old AfD instead of creating a new one. Thanks for the link to the instructions. Drrll (talk) 16:23, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Do not attempt to assert ownership using WP:COI

Your attempt to push new editors off of the Sojourners article using WP:COI is highly inappropriate. COI does not apply unless you can point to specific, consistent issues with their additions. You do not use WP:COI to try and force new editors off of a page because they know too much. It's ownership behavior and tendentious. I have informed them that there is no reason they should follow your request. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 18:34, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not attempting to "assert ownership" or to "push new editors off" the article. Please don't overlook real potential conflict of interest issues just because you may agree with their favorable edits to the article. Please see my fuller response at Talk:Sojourners. Drrll (talk) 00:30, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

And please don't assume I'm doing this for disingenuous reasons. I have consistently opposed using WP:COI as a policy in content disputes for some time now. You were using WP:COI to attempt to put new editors on the defensive without addressing the content of their edits at all. I see from your talk page and previous situations that this is not the first time you've attempted to gain the upper hand in a content dispute with WP:COI. That is not the purpose of the guideline. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 17:54, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

Just stopping by to say hello, happy holidays, and keep up the good work! Badmintonhist (talk) 03:03, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

That's funny, I was just getting ready to leave you a message on your talk page thanking you for your insightful comments about the Pulitzer. There were 3 editors against it, 1 on the fence, and just 1 for it until you came along and convinced the fence-sitter. The same happy holidays to you! Drrll (talk) 03:11, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment. Badmintonhist (talk) 04:06, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Not so sure that the Washington Post description of the SPLC as "controversial" should go into the article because the author, Edsall doesn't really do his job and connect that description to anything specific about the organization. If he had said "controversial because of its large endowment and aggressive fundraising techniques" or something like that it would be different. Badmintonhist (talk) 00:18, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I see your point on the use of "controversial." I was really more interested in seeing "liberal" included than "controversial." I don't think that "liberal" needs to be qualified by an explanation like "controversial" does. I do think it's correct to say that the Washington Post referred to them as "liberal," rather than just Edsall, since editors approved its use. Maybe if additional material is added to the main body, this could be included in the lead. Drrll (talk) 00:20, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Never actually noticed whether the Wikipedia article had described the SPLC as "liberal" or not. Since I know that it is, I kind of assumed that readers would know. Also, from what I can glean, being "liberal" is the least controversial thing about the organization. Notice that some of its severest critics are also liberal, and in the case of Cockburn (what a name, even if it's pronounced Coburn!), leftist. Just for my own edification, I would like to get a hold of the Harper's article entitled The Church of Morris Dees. The Center seems to be a real cash cow for Dees which is not to say that it didn't do some good things early-on.

Getting back to the Wiki article, with substantial effort it has been improved recently, though that opening sentence is still baaad. Badmintonhist (talk) 15:32, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, believe it or not, the WP article doesn't describe the SPLC as "liberal," "left-leaning" or the like. Although it seems "liberal" intuitively and by its self-admitted focus on the "right," could be easily classified as such, the casual reader of the WP article would not know that--they would get the impression that it is non-idealogical. The "liberal" characterization of the SPLC by the Post (and/or others) really should go in the lead at some point.

Yes, I have noticed that it does have its critics on the left. Besides Cockburn, the author of The Church of Morris Dees, Ken Silverstein, is a liberal. That article is available at http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/Articles/The%20Church%20of%20Morris%20Dees.html . He has also written additional articles on the SPLC. Another good source is http://niemanwatchdog.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=about.Panel%20Discussion:%20Nonprofit%20Organizations%20May%2099 . Among other relevant criticisms of the SPLC at that source, you'll see that the SPLC has been accused of not being fair to black employees:

There was a problem with black employees at what was the nation’s richest civil rights organization; there were no blacks in the top management positions. Twelve out of the 13 black current and former employees we contacted cited racism at the center, which was a shocker to me. As of 1995, the center had hired only two black attorneys in its entire history.

That Nieman source quotes the then-editor of The Montgomery Advertiser who put out many critical articles on the SPLC in 1994 and 1995. Those MA articles could provide material to add needed balance to the SPLC WP article. So far I've been unsuccessful in finding the articles online, at Lexis-Nexis, at the MA website, and at WP:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request (it does appear that some other newspapers picked up some of those articles).

The WP article has improved a lot recently, but more material from such sources above could improve it even more. The opening sentence definitely needs to be fixed. Drrll (talk) 17:12, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Drrll. I just read the Harper's/Silverstein piece. Thanks for showing me where it was on-line. Remarkable, isn't it? The folks who dislike and distrust Dees the most are liberals. Yet we have a coterie of editors in Wikipedia who behave just like a bunch of Dees acolytes when it comes to his bio or the SPLC article. Badmintonhist (talk) 21:33, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello again, Drrll. Are you having fun with all this? I sure am! Badmintonhist (talk) 07:48, 30 December 2010 (UTC)