User talk:F.F.McGurk

Voting, but with no Talk page?

Hello F.F.McGurk, and welcome to Wikipedia! Did something happen to your Talk page? You seem way too sophisticated to have no talk page. Not that I object, I just have a watch set on the AfD page of the Quackery list, and I was surprised to see the red link. Presumably you are the reincarnation of a previously famous editor, and you are fully informed on the requirements of WP:SOCK, and there is no need to be alarmed. EdJohnston 21:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to also chime in on: [1]. New article, same POV soapbox. Levine2112 21:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CAIR Press Release

The CAIR press release is Original Research because it is the self published opinion of the group itself. No different than if I did some research and "published" my findings. Cair is widely accused of being a biased organization and its leadership has been found to have had links to terrorist groups, and OR refers to material that has not been published by a reliable source. Also, you are adding a lot of ^{[citation needed]} tags to some pretty innocuous things. On a lot of articles. Why? Caper13 00:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The encyclopedia needs to be cleaned up, so that all things are sourced and verifiable. Also, OR refers to our own synthesis of data, not third parties. F.F.McGurk 00:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but not every statement and item needs to be sourced, otherwise the article will be nothing but citations. Also, please don't be too quick in removing information once you add a fact tag. A lot of good information could be removed from articles. About CAIR...there is the issue about them being a reliable source, and hence not a valid citation for the item in question. Caper13 01:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing (in Coulter article and in general)

I must second Caper13 on this. We need not source every last sentence. We need not source what is well known, obvious and uncontroversial. We need not source self-sourcing statements. We need not source that the sky is blue. If you insist on sources for such, you should do that work yourself, rather than removing material. In any case, you ought be less hasty in removing material as "unsourced", (unless if falls under BLP considerations). Throwing in a "fact" tag and then deleting material if no one has acted on it after a few days is not exactly a collegial practice, even for material about which you might have some reasonable doubts.
-- Lonewolf BC 19:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

remove this comment

It's just not that useful and the talk page of that article is already too busy for it to be useful. No offense intended. The book has been in the media multiple times now. Not that many editors though usually come by. --64.230.127.30 02:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All over the media all of a sudden

Also this is all over the media in the past hour or two. Traffic/editors here will spike... F.F.McGurk 02:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

sure thing. F.F.McGurk 02:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hugo Chavez

Please join me on the Hugo Chavez talk page so we can resolve your aggressive objection to a sourced item I placed there. I'd like to resolve it without being wiki-shot. Thanks. NYDCSP 23:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Invited to comment on MfD

Hi, thought you might like to know about the MfD located here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Pseudoscience/List_of_articles_related_to_scientific_skepticism

This article has been renamed and is being considered for deletion again. Steth 00:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It depends

I think his notability is far from established, but if he really is notable, then if this was one sentence out of a several screen long bio, it could be fine. But the reality is, he is not particlarly famous, and this one event stands out.--Jimbo Wales 00:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Wikileaks logo wl1hires.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Wikileaks logo wl1hires.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid (draft)" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid (draft). The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 3#Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid (draft) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 16:28, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]