User talk:Flatterworld: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 20:38, 5 September 2008

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!

Mohammed Shabir

I've just read your Mohammed Shabir article - a top class first edit. I'm guessing you've spent a while editing not logged in. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 17:55, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, an impressive start! --HailFire 10:37, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some of this article's references mention "realism" as a key part of Shabir's likely approach to problem solving. In this context, I wanted to bring your attention to this section of the Barack Obama article where some related ideas are discussed and references noted. --HailFire 11:07, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tancredo's external links

		The Editor's Barnstar
		Your reorganization of the external links into clean categories on the Tom Tancredo page is greatly appreciated! CodeCarpenter 18:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice cleanup of the Bobby Jindal article.

It looks sharp, Kudos!. DanielZimmerman 06:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recent link changes.

Hi, I see your name coming up in the spamfeeds since you change a lot of external links. It looks to me like you are doing good edits, but could you please provide an edit summary, otherwise someone else might revert all your edits. Thanks! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Insight's political axe-grinding (beyond mere bias) as investigative reporting

I agree with your edits and your rationale for these edits (in the Insight magazine article).

The link to the NY Times article are essential, so that readers can see the truth beyond this story. And the links are to keep wikipedia with verifiable documentation, otherwise, reference-less articles are no better than Insight's sourceless accusations. Dogru144 13:19, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gretchen Carlson

Hey Flatterworld, could you help with Gretchen Carlson. TanningLamp has removed the controversies section now three times and I have reverted twice. I don't wish to go to 3RR, so perhaps you wouldn't mind helping out a bit? Thanks, Arjunasbow 18:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Barack Obama media controversy

Shucks.

You beat me to it, I had Sylvia Larsen on my to-do list. :P Cheers, faithless (^speak) 03:34, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DEFAULTSORT

WikiProject Biography newsletter

A new newsletter has been released; Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Outreach/Newsletter/Issue 006

reported him

I've reported User:Hurmata to an admin notice page for all the trouble they have been doing in Bill Ayers article. Keep up the good work! QuirkyAndSuch (talk)

Bill Ayers election controversy

You appear to be involved in an edit war at Bill Ayers election controversy. Please slow down on the reverts and use the talk page and dispute resolution pathway instead of repeatedly reverting. Edit-warring may result in the page being protected or in blocks for participants. MastCell ^Talk 19:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly, no good deed goes unpunished. People refuse to discuss material on the Talk page (and ignore what's already been discussed), change the article to reflect their POV, and I'm the one that's at fault for reverting that and requesting they post on the Talk page? I don't think so. I checked who MastCell 'warned' and who he/she didn't, and it's completely risible. But if MastCell prefers that articles get trashed, I suppose he/she has his/her reasons for helping destroy Wikipedia's reputation. Obviously he/she couldn't be bothered to actually follow what's been going on. Flatterworld (talk) 03:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you're angry. My intention wasn't to "punish" you, so I'm sorry that's how you perceived it. MastCell ^Talk 19:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tip

I don't know how I missed the talk page for the Bill Ayers controversy article. I certainly meant to put the notice there.

I also saw your !vote over at the Talk:Obama page, and you're obviously irritated about the Ayers coverage. I get just that mad sometimes about other things. About a week ago, when I first got interested in this topic, I started reading about Ayers in various sources, at first just to back up points I wanted to make on the Obama talk page. I found that there are nuances to Ayers that should be reflected in how we're covering him, and I found that there's some misinformation out there, some of which puts him in a better light, some in a worse light.

Your comment says that people who want information on him in the Obama article have no good-faith reason for that position. But you don't really have a basis to believe that unless you can either get inside our heads or demonstrate our bad reasons by showing what we've said and done. If you think you can do that, you should do it on the Talk Obama page. If you can't, then it's just adding drama that will make an eventual consensus that much more difficult, and it's going to poison the well for future discussions. You may want to think about that because at some point you may want to work with some of these people to reach a consensus elsewhere.

It seems to me that if a candidate for president associates himself with various people -- that is, works with them so closely that he may well be influenced by them on some level -- who are outrageously controversial, it says something about him that is worth considering. Even if his campaign goes out and solicits support from someone controversial and accepts that support, it's worth considering for what it says about that individual: which is why I think the Rev. Hagee should be mentioned in the John McCain article (I was just arguing for that on the talk page there yesterday). If the Hagee stuff is noteworthy on the McCain page, the Ayers and Wright stuff is certainly noteworthy on the Obama page. Even if it's ultimately a load of crap, it's worth noting on the page that a major controversy in a campaign existed and that readers can find out more by going to the Wikipedia article on the subject.

You can argue that:

Character doesn't matter in a presidential candidate
- Even if that last point isn't true, associations don't matter
  - Even if that last point isn't true, loose associations don't matter, and that's all the Ayers association is
    - Even if that last point isn't true, this loose association shouldn't matter

At each step of the way above, I think it's clear that sincere people can believe the opposite. I think it's also clear that there's no obvious reason out there that makes it ridiculous for sincere people to believe the opposite. You've actually got to make a case for any of the points in the steps above before questioning the sincerity of people who believe the opposite. That's why you should remove your non-WP:AGF comments, because you'd never convince people who you've already insulted, and we'll never get to consensus without trying to convince people to either accept a certain point or agree that it isn't important enough to argue about.

Rather than call you names and question your sincerity, I'm assuming you can be reasoned with, and I'm assuming you're sincere. Please treat me the same way. And again, thanks for the tip. Noroton (talk) 18:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll put your talk page on my watchlist and we can discuss this here if you'd prefer. You wrote:

Re your comments on my Talk page: Plenty of perfectly sincere people believe in libel in various articles, but I am not one of them. If you would check the history of the above article, you would see I believe in the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. I work on Wikipedia, NOT Conservapedia or anything else along those lines. Consensus is one thing, negotiating to agree that 2 +2 = 9 is absurd. Flatterworld (talk) 21:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When it's as clear as simple arithmetic, you can argue based on simple logic, when people reject logic, you can point it out without even saying anything about their motives, and if you can't ultimately come to agreement, bring in new editors, as I did, and don't bother getting mad about it. When I get the time, I'll be looking at both Ayers articles, and I hope to add information that can be justified reasonably and that consensus can be formed around (I hope). I don't want POV articles. I don't want to get into what other people have done in the past. There are going to be a lot of absurd opinions in any article related to politics. Goes with the territory. Calls for enormous patience. And it's a kind of torture. And then, sometimes, you find the other guy is even right. And that hurts a lot, but much less if you keep civil even when goaded. (Not that I always do.) Noroton (talk) 21:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have already spent way too many hours refuting what a few Wikipedians threw into various articles in a few seconds. Do you really want all the responsible adults here to quit in disgust while you try to gently reason with people who have made it clear they only want to post propaganda? Would you like our readers to start calling us Propapedia? These people can't get their tripe to stay in one article, so they shove it in another. They want BOMB-THROWING UNREPENTANT TERRORIST in every article they can find the least excuse to put it in. I know they aren't honest researchers, as they're not interested in touching any of the other Weather articles - just ones involving Bill Ayers. It's impossible to have a rational discussion with them when they've done nothing but cherry-pick a few ooh! ooh! (and I include the NYT 'interview' in this) articles on the internet. If they would read the footnoted sources in full, all of Ayers's blog, read some of his books (not just the one about Weather), study the Woods website, read the Chicago Trib since at least the mid 1960's, be familiar with Chicago local politics and all the people involved (including Daley and those involved in school reform), be familiar with Illinois state politics...then perhaps we might agree on what is truth and what is libel. They might also then understand why Daley and the Trib immediately jumped to Ayers's support. So...want to give me odds on that? You have people arguing to get some sort of consensus on the facts when they have made little or no effort to learn the facts. You might as well retitle the article 'Propaganda from the anti-Obama Brigade' and at least be honest about it. We have a separate article which was intended to cover the Ayers and Obama media kerfluffle in depth, just to avoid these wild 'short descriptions' in every article connected with Obama. I would like it to include as much as possible, as it's an article with a narrow scope. Wikidemo has decided to ignore the fact-spin used by Clinton during the debate. I don't care if it's there or not, but if it is the misstatements have to be refuted or we're misleading our readers. btw - the Rezko verdict came in today. Any guesses how many experts you have in Wikipedia on that topic? Flatterworld (talk) 21:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have already spent way too many hours refuting what a few Wikipedians threw into various articles in a few seconds. Once you've removed the comment and told them in your edit summary to justify it, that should make them go to the talk page and do the work of justifying it, and that should slow them down. Yes, it does take an enormous amount of time to move forward, as we see on the Obama talk page. That's Wikipedia for you. When you look at the enormous number of page views that articles like "Barack Obama" receive ([http://stats.grok.se/en/200805/Barack%20Obama 21,000 hits on a slow day), it helps (at least it helps me) not to get too depressed about it, but I don't normally go to pages like this because I can't do this kind of slow debating all the time. We let anybody edit Wikipedia, and this is the inevitable result. Noroton (talk) 22:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right. Then I get idiotic warnings such as that above (MastCell) - but he/she doesn't warn the people causing the problem in the first place. Brilliant. If people won't edit in good faith, and there's no decent recourse, Wikipedia will go straight down the tubes. It won't be the first project that started out well and then crashed and burned. Think about it. Lots of people getting their entire impression of Wikipedia because the first page they went to was propaganda. They won't trust Wikipedia for anything. And they'll tell their friends. Who will tell their friends. Etc. Perhaps their friends will be thus encouraged to 'join in the game' and contribute to the trashing. Just like house parties advertised on My Space. And your solution is to just stay away?! These are exactly the pages (and their related pages) that need the most attention to make sure they don't become garbage. I have been through endless iterations of this silly game of someone creating a page on a topic, I spend hours on it to correct errors and add the facts, it's then deleted (with no backup because Wikipedia "wasn't set up that way" - as if that's an excuse years after its founding!) and then the original trash material shows up elsewhere and whole rigamarole starts again. How many times exactly does someone have to do this before someone catches on? Flatterworld (talk) 23:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you tell me who, in your opinion, is causing the problem? I'm generally willing to deal with disruptive editors. I share your belief that as a high-profile page, a biography of a living person, and a featured article, maintaining the quality of this article is a worthwhile goal. I understand the need to vent frustration; when you're done, let me know what you perceive the problem to be, in terms as specific and calm as you can manage, and I'll look at it. Deal? MastCell ^Talk 00:07, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Follow WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA

I'm sorry that I responded to your incivility in the past with sharp responses. I'm not going to do that in the future. Instead, I'm going to ask you to please stop making snarky, uncivil remarks and personal attacks. They make it more difficult for me to edit productively and I won't tolerate them on an ongoing basis. Instead, I'll ask other editors and administrators to handle the problem. You may find the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Tendentious editing by User:Andyvphil informative about just how disruptive the lack of civility at Talk:Barack Obama has been hurting the encyclopedia, and incivility among the same editors on other pages is related to it. So it would be a good idea if we all resolve to discuss issues on a cooler, more civil basis. I'm informing MastCell about this on his talk page and linking to this note. Please remove your personal attack here, and I've explained why it's unfair here. Thank you. Noroton (talk) 18:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I keep this to remind me why the National Inquirer, Fox News and the rest are still in business - there are actually people this clueless, yet full of self-righteous indignation that anyone would question their work. So they trash Wikipedia articles, blame everyone else, and expect through insults to drive away the responsible adults. Pathetic.

GA thanks

Thanks for your early work on this one:

This user helped promote Jesse Jackson, Jr. to good article status.

--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:59, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Arizona 8th District U.S. House race

No objection from me. My involvement was mainly uncategorized page cleanup. • Gene93k (talk) 17:04, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adding map links to House election articles

I notice you have been adding external links to maps of the Congressional districts. These maps have all been uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons or Wikipedia, so it is not necessary to link to their locations on the external National Atlas server. Wherever possible, please use the maps on our website. Thanks. --Tom (talk - email) 14:12, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The images are the same size as those taken from the National Atlas. You don't have to thumbnail them; rather, they can be formatted as such: (map). External links are too unreliable, so we should avoid them if we have the data already hosted here. --Tom (talk - email) 14:19, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That looks much better. Thanks. --Tom (talk - email) 16:53, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inviting your comment

Here (and also, if possible, here?) $\sim$ Justmeherenow ( ) 05:15, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"United States House of Representatives elections in FOO, 2008"

I appreciate the work you did with the "United States House of Representatives elections in FOO, 2008" articles. However, I suggest some changes across all the articles. See, for example, the work I just did on United States House of Representatives elections in Massachusetts, 2008.—Markles 13:06, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on Weathermen, Ayers, Dohrm, Obama, and "terrorism"

Please note that I have created an RfC to discuss the matter of whether, how, and where we should use and cover the designation "terrorist" describe the Weathermen and their former leaders. It is located here: Talk:Weatherman (organization)/Terrorism RfC. The intent is to decide as a content matter (and not as a behavioral issue regarding the editors involved) how to deal with this question. I am notifying you because you appear to have participated in or commented about this issue before. Feel free to participate. Thank you. Wikidemon (talk) 20:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 116: / Line 116: @@
 I appreciate the work you did with the "United States House of Representatives elections in FOO, 2008" articles.  However, I suggest some changes across all the articles.  See, for example, the work I just did on [[United States House of Representatives elections in Massachusetts, 2008]].—[[User talk:Markles|Markles]] 13:06, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
+== RfC on Weathermen, Ayers, Dohrm, Obama, and "terrorism" ==
+Please note that I have created an [[WP:RfC|RfC]] to discuss the matter of whether, how, and where we should use and cover the designation "terrorist" describe the Weathermen and their former leaders.  It is located here: [[Talk:Weatherman (organization)/Terrorism RfC]].  The intent is to decide as a content matter (and not as a behavioral issue regarding the editors involved) how to deal with this question.  I am notifying you because you appear to have participated in or commented about this issue before.  Feel free to participate.  Thank you.  [[User:Wikidemon|Wikidemon]] ([[User talk:Wikidemon|talk]]) 20:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)