User talk:64.132.163.178

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia! 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 gives you many benefits, including:

We hope that you choose to become a Wikipedian and create an account. Feel free to ask me any questions you may have on my talk page. By the way, make sure to sign your posts and comments with four tildes (~~~~), which will let others know who left it. Sasquatch t|c 22:58, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Hello

Just so you know...that page is by no means yours. If you want any kind of claim to a talk page, make an account. Anonymous editors are welcome and helpful, but their user pages are not theirs. Chuck(contrib) 16:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Neither WP:UP or WP:ANON make any exceptions for anonymous users' userpages. So I'm unsure where the official policy/consensus on this issue can be found. --64.132.163.178 16:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm going to look at those pages, but if I don't get back to you, don't think I'm ignoring you. There's a good chance I have to evacuate because of flooding in the Northeast US, so I'll get back to you when I get a chance. Later, Chuck(contrib) 17:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for experimenting with the page Babyfit on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Rklawton 23:03, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Condi Rice article

Hello. Before making potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Otherwise, people might consider your edits to be vandalism. Thank you. --BballJones 12:13, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I do not feel that trying to get rid of material that is conducive to non-neutral POV, or getting rid of material inserted in an attempt to add commentary or analysis (read as original research) should necessarily be something that merits discussion unless both parties insist that they are correct. --64.132.163.178 12:40, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
I reviewed those edits of that other editor and they were legitimate, appropriate edits. --BballJones 22:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
I reviewed the edits of that editor and they were making an undue attempt to insert commentary into the article. With that in mind, please review Wikipedia's policy on Neutral Point of View. --64.132.163.178 13:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Randy Moss

No, the job of sourcing falls upon the content provider, expecially with the newer policies on biographies of living people. Remember to add a citation to any contoversial comments made about living people. Thanks for adding a source, however. It does indeed add to the quality of the article. youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 12:13, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Not really. The only duty that Wikipedians have when they come across unsourced information in a biography of a living person that is possibly inflamatory is to remove it on sight and then give a proper explanation in the edit summary. This allowed you to identify the issues with the edit and add the proper sources. Placing a "needs citation" tag is no longer good enough in the eyes of the powers that be. As far as doing the sourcework for other editors, I really don't have the time to do the work for other people (too many real world responsibilities to do much more than copyediting, checking for unsourced claims, and vandal-whacking). Even if a source is simple to find via Google, it still is the technical and prciniple responsibility of the content-adder in the first place to add said source to the article (which begs the question of why the source wasn't added in the first place?). To make sure that this situation doesn't occur again, make sure to always source any potentially-controversial comments, as most experienced editors will likely remove the content until sourced. In a perfect world, we would all have time to verify the comments of every other editor, but we simply cannot spend all of our wikitime doing the gruntwork for others. That being said, you are one of the better anon. editors around here and I would hate to see you get sidetracked on these sorts of debates too much, so 1) don't take offense to the actions of others and 2)cite the sources that you use for similar comments. Cheers and keep up the good works. Also, do not hesitate to ask if you need a set of fresh eyes to look at any articles in which you have a particular interest. youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 14:30, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Long story short: don't rely on anyone but yourself (or your underlings) to get the work done that you want to get done :) youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 14:50, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

One more thing: if you have the time at some point, would you mind taking a look at Huntington, West Virginia? Its an article that a couple of people have been working on and we could always use another set of disinterested, intelligent eyes looking at it. Cheers. youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 15:02, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd be happy to. I'll have a glance at it when I get back from lunch. --64.132.163.178 17:10, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Notability of schools

If you can find the Wikipedia policy that states all schools are notable, please let me know. As far as I know there is no such thing. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 19:16, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../6/4/2E/User_talk%7E64.132.163.178.html"