User talk:User At Work: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 23:33, 31 May 2006

Wikipedia isn't what you think it is, either. It's not in your hands to decide anymore. Michael Slavitch 20:38, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quailtard

Thanks for the redirect. Good solution. Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 21:19, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Michael.slavitch

Just a heads-up, but trust me, this guy is simply trying to screw with your head as part of a WP:POINT campaign.

The whole Quailtard article was, quite literally, a joke: it started on a private virtual community, was carried out by one guy, and now this User:Michael.slavitch is simply chipping in. Ignore what he says.

--Calton | Talk 03:16, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abramoff, etc

Welcome aboard. If you're into following the Abramoff story (and I'm guessing you are, given that you've added to the template), and you have a bit of time, may I suggest you might want to create an entry for Ed Buckham. May I suggest you go to http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Ed_Buckham, grab that code, and then modify. That's how I created entries for Tony Rudy and Neil Volz -- you might want to check them out to see what kinds of changes I made (including adding the GNU licence stuff at the bottom). Sholom 17:31, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Internet Gambling Prohibition Act

Hey, thanks for the message. I reverted that yesterday around the time when we hit the 1,000,000th article, so the vandalism was kind of intense at the time. I'm sorry I reverted it, but at first glance, it appeared to be a)out of the format typically required for Wikipedia articles and b}unreferenced. If you can find a reference for the material you put on and if you can add it in proper WP format, I think it will be perfectly good. JHMM13 (T | C) 18:18, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Help on the timeline

Sure, I'll be happy to help on the Jack Abramoff timeline -- sounds like fun. John Broughton 22:41, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abramoff

Image:Abramoff SIAC 20040929 2.jpg is public domain and already in the article
Image:Time Cover Abramoff.jpg is not public domain but there is a very thorough fair use rationale for its inclusion.

Sorry if I've caused you any stress or problem by deleting the image. Mark83 21:31, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neil Volz

Hey there. I removed the Sourcewatch reference because, except for the list of sources, I'm not sure that Neil Volz and Sourcewatch's Neil Volz look anything alike anymore. (In fact, we might want to use some of Sourcewatch to beef up the Wp article, but as it stands now, I don't see a lot of justification for including the licence. No that it matters a whole lot to me, I just want to be accurate. Thoughts? -- Sholom 17:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tom DeLay peer review

You may be interested to know that I have submitted Tom DeLay for peer review, in the interest of eventually nominating it for Featured Article status. Please leave your comments and suggestions at Wikipedia:Peer review/Tom DeLay. Thanks, NatusRoma | Talk 21:01, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scooter Libby

Please elaborate on why you decided to revert my edit to the Scooter Libby article, which you describe as "strange, unsourced editorialising." I disagree. It's in no way strange, I see no instance where a source would be required (unless you mean my comment about his insistance on White House staffers calling him Scooter, which I am citing from personal experience and as such I concede that it may be unwarrented) and also I disagree that it is editorialising. If anything, it's bringing the article back to a neutral standpoint from where it is at this point. The idea that Libby encouraged the use of his nickname in order to appear less threatening cannot be disproved merely by the shaky at best "fact" (which I've heard cited only by Libby himself) that he has carried the name since early childhood. The fact that many different versions of the story of where he picked up this name exist only lends weight to the idea that it was self concieved for his own shady motives, and even if it is decided by the community as a whole that adding the fact that the widely adopted standpoint that this name was of Libby's own inception exists is not encyclopedic, then it should certainly not be dismissed entirely. This kind of think is clearly POV. I'm going to go and edit it again now, to a version which offers more of a compromised position between the two. Please let me know if you disagree with it.--84.9.45.60 23:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 35: / Line 35: @@
 == [[Tom DeLay]] peer review ==
 You may be interested to know that I have submitted [[Tom DeLay]] for peer review, in the interest of eventually nominating it for Featured Article status. Please leave your comments and suggestions at [[Wikipedia:Peer review/Tom DeLay]]. Thanks, [[User:NatusRoma|NatusRoma]] | [[User talk:NatusRoma|Talk]] 21:01, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
+== Scooter Libby ==
+Please elaborate on why you decided to revert my edit to the Scooter Libby article, which you describe as "strange, unsourced editorialising." I disagree. It's in no way strange, I see no instance where a source would be required (unless you mean my comment about his insistance on White House staffers calling him Scooter, which I am citing from personal experience and as such I concede that it may be unwarrented) and also I disagree that it is editorialising. If anything, it's bringing the article back to a neutral standpoint from where it is at this point. The idea that Libby encouraged the use of his nickname in order to appear less threatening cannot be disproved merely by the shaky at best "fact" (which I've heard cited only by Libby himself) that he has carried the name since early childhood. The fact that many different versions of the story of where he picked up this name exist only lends weight to the idea that it was self concieved for his own shady motives, and even if it is decided by the community as a whole that adding the fact that the widely adopted standpoint that this name was of Libby's own inception exists is not encyclopedic, then it should certainly not be dismissed entirely. This kind of think is clearly POV. I'm going to go and edit it again now, to a version which offers more of a compromised position between the two. Please let me know if you disagree with it.--[[User:84.9.45.60|84.9.45.60]] 23:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)