Jump to content

User talk:144.92.84.206

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 144.92.84.206 (talk) at 16:18, 9 October 2008. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome

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

Here are some other hints and tips:

  • I would recommend that you get a username. You don't have to log in to read or edit articles on Wikipedia, but creating an account is quick, free and non-intrusive, requires no personal information, and there are many benefits of having a username. (If you edit without a username, your IP address is used to identify you instead.)
  • When using talk pages, please sign your name at the end of your messages by typing four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically produce your username (or IP address) and the date.

If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or type {{helpme}} on this talk page and a user will help you as soon as possible. I will answer your questions as far as I can. Again, welcome, and I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian.

RE: Recent C-SPAN bailout sketch censored

First off, I said I hadn't seen it in a "mainstream" news source which just means I may not have tried hard enough to find one (I honestly don't care that much, just thought this whole thing was interesting). Second, I didn't hear about it, I saw the original airing, then watched it again when it was on the NBC site, then noticed that it was pulled without explanation (and also noticed that every time someone left a comment about it, the comments were deleted but that's a whole 'nother can of tuna), and then watched it when it was reposted and compared it to the clips other people put up and saw that I was right, they censored themselves. And third, just because I don't readily have a "mainstream" source doesn't mean it didn't happen. I get the lawyer mentality Wiki fosters and the reasoning behind it, but it's annoying when you can know something first hand but not have the irrefutable academic journal documentation to satisfy everyone that it's not just a figment of the imagination. OH and here's the LA Times take on this: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/showtracker/2008/10/nbc-yanks-then.html144.92.84.206 (talk) 12:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let me suggest that you read WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL before personalizing this issue. As for the "lawyering mentality", Wikipedia does not require "academic journal documentation", just a reliable source. And the reason Wikipedia is not satisfied if your only evidence is that you "know something first hand" is that any of us (myself included) can know lots of things first hand that might not have a shred of truth. I could claim that I "know first hand" that the moon is made of cheese, but that doesn't make it true. If I submitted an article to Encyclopædia Britannica and only offer as evidence that "I know it first hand", what do you think the odds are that they will publish it? And finally, you might want to register a username instead of editing anonymously. It's easy, fast, and free. Ward3001 (talk) 15:18, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]