User talk:JeremyMcCracken/Archive 4
← Archive 3 | Archive 4
|This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.|
- 1 Stub merging
- 2 Query about the possible return of a sock puppet
- 3 RfA thankspam
- 4 Standing Offer/Request
- 5 Third opinion
- 6 not sure how to fix it
- 7 You maybe interested in the Article Rescue Squadron
- 8 discussion about reliability of sources re: Burke Group
- 9 AfD nomination of Clark Whittington
- 10 Editor assistance
- 11 Concerning Message from the UK
- 12 4/1!
- 13 Central Europe
- 14 Son Of Ghoul article.
Is there any advantage to keeping articles that have been tagged for 3 years as stubs? They repeatedly explain the boot process, which is better left in the main MS DOS article. Aside from that, each article has about 1 line of content, which is also duplicated in the MS DOS article. My concern here is not saving the near-infinite storage resources of Wikipedia but instead putting things in context for the all to finite time available to a reader.
I'd like to see all of these properly merged into MS DOS:
- IBMBIO.COM and synonymous IO.SYS
- IBMDOS.COM and synonymous MSDOS.SYS
- DOS at least as far as it pertains to MS DOS descendants. Every disk operating system was called "DOS" - few of them were MS DOS.
Query about the possible return of a sock puppet
This is a preliminary inquiry. Is it possible to easily determine if the IP address for this user:
...matches the IP address for any of these:
I don't have any problems or violations to report at this time, just noted some similarities, and am exploring a possible conflict of interest related to the same article/company, The Burke Group.
If there's no easy way to check informally, i'm willing to just let it go for now.
- Follow-up: i'm not an expert on sock puppets. But after my initial, tentative inquiry, others have explored the issue a little more fully.
- There are IP addresses that match... but i'm not comfortable reading the edit history and coming to this conclusion myself. Do you have a little free time to check it out?
- Hi, thanks again for the prompt feedback.
- Take a look at this:
- Rgcroc appears to associate himself very closely with The Burke Group, even to the extent of knowing where David Burke goes drinking. That is followed by intimate knowledge of the company, which would most likely be possessed only by someone who works there.
- Then there is this entry, from Jbowersox, who declares "I am not the Burke Group."
- If Jbowersox is Rgcroc, then this denial is maybe cleverly worded so as to mislead?
- I have attempted to summarize the issues here:
- Thanks sincerely for the help.
- Jeremy, i believe that Oppo212/Rgcroc/Jbowersox etc. is back, with a new twist:
- Another Burke Group sock puppet, demonstrating the same old obsession with Levitt and Logan:
- Note the contribs:
|Thank you for your participation in my recent RfA, which failed with 90/38/3; whether you supported, opposed or remained neutral.
Thanks again for your participation. I am currently concentrating my efforts on the Wikification WikiProject. It's fun! Please visit the project and wikify a few articles to help clear the backlog. If you can recruit some more participants, then even better.
Given our past interactions on various topics I thought I would make the following offer.
If you ever have something you want me to offer an opinion on or that you feel I might personally be interested in anywhere on wikipedia, its talk pages, or within any of the official forums such as noticeboards, RfCs, RfAs, and the like, please contact me directly on my talk page and feel free to reference this standing request. I trust your judgment in deciding which topics might be of interest to me, and please keep me informed of any topics in general as well as items specifically involving you personally. --GoRight (talk) 00:53, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I see you're listed as a third opinion wikipedian and I'd like to have your opinion on a pretty conetnious article, the Dunmanway Massacre, which involved the deaths of aup to 14 people in April 1922 in Ireland. I don't want to colour your judgment before you read the piece with further comments, so I'll just say, that I favour this version  and another user favours this one . Debate is here Talk:Dunmanway Massacre. Not tremendously civil on either side I regret to say, but I feel certain users have not been engaging with the issues in good faith. Regards Jdorney (talk) 15:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
not sure how to fix it
I'm not sure if I fixed an edit you made correctly. I'm part of a non-profit board that created the www.internationalschoolofcolumbus.com website-- and I wrote it and have the board's permission to put it on wikipedia-- we want the content on wikipedia so new students and their families can find our new school. I submitted the copyright permission to the wikimedia websites, using the template provided by wikipedia and I tried to click "undo" to put the page up. Let me know if I've made mistakes. Thanks. -- algerco —Preceding unsigned comment added by Algerco (talk • contribs) 00:23, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
You maybe interested in the Article Rescue Squadron
|Hello, JeremyMcCracken. Based on the templates on your talk page, I would like you to consider joining the Article Rescue Squadron. Rescue Squadron members are focused on rescuing articles for deletion, that might otherwise be lost forever. I think you will find our project matches your vision of Wikipedia. Note:Keep in mind that Squadron members officially state they are not inclusionists. ~~~~|
discussion about reliability of sources re: Burke Group
AfD nomination of Clark Whittington
An article that you have been involved in editing, Clark Whittington, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clark Whittington. Thank you.
I'm reluctantly involved in an edit war with a new user (who may not be so new judging from their knowledge of WP policy terminology) about some particularly (to me; obviously) egregious lead material that I do not believe is supported by the source used. Over the past week the article has see-sawed between versions that include / exclude this material, but despite requests the other participant has not tried to support the material with a more appropriate (to my eyes) source. Anyway, before I try other avenues to resolve this problem I thought that I'd best calibrate my assessment of the source via a third party. Hence this request.
Essentially, the material added to the lead is a rather lionising assessment of the author Coupland that compares him to other more well-known luminaries. I've no in principle problem with this, but the current source appears to point to a guest lecture that Coupland himself gave at a university. Additionally, as the source is not accessible (there's no web link) I'm unable to check the lecture's content or even that it took place. For these reasons, I believe that the source is completely inappropriate as support for the material added.
Anyway, that's just my POV. I'd be grateful if you could find the time to have a look for me. You may need to use the article's history if, as currently, it's in the "exclude" phase of the edit war. Incidentally, please don't feel obliged to get involved in the edit war. The other editor is extremely persistent and liable to label you a vandal (they also appear to have swallowed a post-modern dictionary judging from their edit summaries).
Thanks in advance for any assistance that you can offer. Best regards, --PLUMBAGO 09:14, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
- Hi again. Just in case you haven't spotted it, I subsequently raised the issues with this article over at the Administrators' Noticeboard. Sorry for my impatience. Cheers, --PLUMBAGO 14:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Concerning Message from the UK
Check out Talk:The_Burke_Group#Message_from_the_UK, ostensibly a post by a union member, do the whois, then go to the domain name that it gives. Note the name. When will these people ever quit with the fraudulent efforts? Richard Myers (talk) 15:07, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
- Consider, by the nature of TBG's work, company officials travel the world and use clients' computers... Richard Myers (talk) 15:29, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Son Of Ghoul article.
Hi Jeremy. I read and re-read both your article on Son Of Ghoul as well as read and re-read the Dr. Goulfinger interview with Son Of Ghoul. I edited the article about a month ago changing Cowboy Bob to Jungle Bob. Cowboy Bob was a guy that tried to negotiate the deal that would send SoG to the CAT and was somewhat of a character on his Canton station. SoG made the deal himself after explaining to his future employers that Cowboy Bob didn't represent him or his interests. Jungle Bob is an animal handler that worked with Ron Sweed for a number of years. By chance, they (SoG and JB) found themselves working at a drive-in get-together a few years back and they became friends. Eventually, Sweed and Jungle Bob parted ways and JB worked on SoG's old game show "House of Fun and Games" and is a fixture on SoG's movie show at present time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 23:33, 31 May 2009 (UTC)