User talk:ScottyBerg/Archives/2011/May
![]() | 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. |
Chinatown Theaters
Thank you very much for commenting on me adding the facts about past Chinatown theaters. Just to clarify, so the knickerbockervillage wouldn't be a good source to use since it is a blog? Can you clarify with me if I am to add info and have the references, which type of references are okay to use and not okay to use. So does this mean newspaper articles can't be used as well? I also added the info about the Sun Sing and Pagoda Theaters on East Broadway as well. Please let me know.
Thanks
nyc88 (talk) 17:30, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- No, I'm afraid we can't use blogs. But let's see what else we can come up with. There's quite a bit out there. Also, if you look at the Doyers Street article we have stuff on the old Chinatown theater that used to exist back in the early 1900s, including an image we can use. ScottyBerg (talk) 21:42, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Too many SPAs; take it elsewhere, please
|
---|
Baxter, I think you may be right in asserting that merlin's conclusion aren't as wrong as first thought. My cousin Carl, who happens to be an entertainment lawyer, agrees after pouring through a stack of his law manuals until finally locating the 120 year rule in fine print. The problem I have with easy, do-it-yourself resources like the Cornell Univ. website is that they resemble the quick-guide chart one usually finds in the back of a reference book, not much better than Wikipedia's description. As Merlin was quick to point out, the law isn't as simple as these guys would like it to be. If it were, I don't think Carl would be driving a jaguar and living in a 4 bed, 4 bath house on Long Island. I'll also be checking in with the local bar associations to see what they have to say about this. As to the image's status, how do we know whether or not it's fake? We don't, therefore the image's status always must be somewhat in question. How can we easily assume the authenticity of something purportedly to be 113-years old, when we can't even spot New York Times sports columnists faking presnet-day Olympic reports from office cubicles in Manhattan?BobTheWrecker (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:42, 8 May 2011 (UTC). |
Climategate lede -- your reversion
Your comment on talk seems pretty short to justify reverting a revision I put quite a bit of effort into -- could you please extend your comments there?
Re Second Climatgate mention: please note that the NYT editorial mentioned opens with "Perhaps now we can put the manufactured controversy known as Climategate behind us..." [1], so this use doesn't seem out of line. But an alternate wording is fine with me -- just not the one you put back!
Please also note that an editor there continues to insert global warming conspiracy opinion presented as fact, despite objections from at least 3 other editors. From WP:NPOV:
- Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources...
I read through your user-page stuff on climate change, and it seems pretty sensible -- but your revert seems out of line to me. I hope you reconsider. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 05:03, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks, Pete, but I'm afraid that I disagree strongly with your version. I didn't go into a great deal of detail as I feel that it has all been said already. As previously stated by Viriditas (an editor I have not always agreed with in the past), the presence of "conspiracy theories" is already discussed in the article. Use of Climategate at this stage is unwarranted given the outcome of the investigations and all that has happened. ScottyBerg (talk) 05:07, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- Scotty, thanks for your courteous reply. What I've seen for discussion so far has been much less convincing, to me anyway, and putting incendiary text such as "global warming conspiracy" into the lede requires impeccable sourcing, imo.
- If you spot any actual RS news articles re the conspiracy theory business, could you please post them? I find Viriditas's "wall of text" posts almost unreadable. TIA, Pete Tillman (talk) 14:14, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- I will, thanks. Perhaps the "conspiracy" language can be tweaked. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:16, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Gary Weiss
Thanks for backing me up on the abusive practices of our anonymous editor. Its a BLP, so he's completely off base. I'll try to keep an eye on it. --Christofurio (talk) 13:52, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Tnhank you
Hey.You"re welcome. Thanks for my apperication.--Damirgraffiti ☺Say Yo to Me!☺ 18:58, 18 May 2011 (UTC)