User talk:67.98.154.35

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Excuse me, Dakota. I was just slipping in a reminder to FloNight to get back to an article Flo said he/she would at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:141.150.209.167 If that is vandalism, you people at Wikipedia are foolish and don't appreciate any outside help and are a third-rate place to get information. Neutrality I respect and want in journalism, smugness and being too picky like you people are is a big turn-off. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.98.154.35 (talk • contribs).

Please refrain from adding nonsense to Wikipedia, as you did to User:FloNight. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. - Dakota ~ ° 18:39, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Don't edit others' user pages

Please don't edit others's user pages. Comments for a user may be placed on her "talk page", accessible by clicking the "discussion" tab. Editing another's user page without her permission in this manner is considered vandalism. The next time you do so, you will be blocked from further editing. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask me. Thanks! — Knowledge Seeker দ 20:08, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry we didn't get out to a good start, although I disagree with your statement that I am terrible. I thought that my message to you was polite and clear, explaining 1) the inappropriate behavior, 2) a method to redirect to an appropriate one, and 3) what to do if you had further questions. I'm afraid I don't see what is so horrible about it. — Knowledge Seeker দ 23:03, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

4/12/06 I do not want to quarrel. I took offense to this line you said to me as if I was 10 years old, in combination with Dakota's tone above that: "The next time you do so, you will be blocked from further editing." The only reason I post now and before is to so that the Dana Reeve profile in question that I added verifiable and relevant stuff to over two weeks ago will be re-added in in appropiate Wikipedian format. Apparently some stuff I added was deemed trival by Crunch and was removed because it needs to be in a Trivia section within the profile not currently existing. FloNight said she will go through my submissions that I did with both IP's, after attending to other pages higher in priority, and re-add some of the stuff I submitted. When I saw no change in the Dana Reeve profile in a week, I tried to slip in a reminder to FloNight then got strongly rebuffed.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.98.154.35 (talk • contribs).

[edit] Welcome!

Welcome!

Hello, 67.98.154.35, 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:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! 

Also, thanks for your contributions to Michael Hayden, the section on Warrantless surveillance looks a lot better. Hope to see you around, GChriss 19:53, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nominating NSA warrantless surveillance controversy for deletion

Hello, I noticed you nominated this article for deletion. I tend to agree with you. I'm writing, however, to let you know that you didn't complete the process properly. Nominating an article for deletion is a three step process. You only completed the first step. After you place the AfD template on the article page, you must go back to the article and click on the red link (that says "this article's entry") in the AfD notice box that now appears there. It will take you to the AfD page and, as nominator, you must place this template: {{subst:afd2 | pg=PageName | text=Reason the page should be deleted}} ~~~~ replacing "pagename" with the name of the page you wish to delete and substiting the text with the reason you believe the article should be deleted. Next you must go to this link and notify everybody by placing this template {{subst:afd3 | pg=PageName}} at the bottom of the page, again replacing "PageName" with the name of the article. This will allow others to "vote" and discuss the issue and decide what to do. It sounds complicated at first but it is actually quite simple. Good Luck.

Hello again. Another editor has completed the AfD nominating process that you began. Here is the link to the "voting" page Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NSA warrantless surveillance controversy. Also, based on your nomination, most editors are likely to "vote" "keep", even it they agree, because it is customary to cite actual policy/guideline violations when nominating an article for deletion. You can find some of the criteria for deltion in the first paragraph here: Wikipedia:Deletion policy. They would include such things as Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:No original research, among others. Good Luck.--WilliamThweatt 16:52, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NSA warrantless surveillance controversy

Please do not change AfD pages. You are removing comments made by others. -Jcbarr 18:29, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. -Jcbarr 19:12, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comments in AfD

I'm sorry if you weren't aware of policies, but quite frankly you should have checked them before attempting to delete an article which you didn't like. Discussion pages are taken very seriously, and once something is posted, it stays. In addition, once the AfD is created, only an admin can close it. "Never mind" is not a valid closure. Fan1967 19:59, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Massive deleting

Considering the nature of the NSA article it might be better to first discuss when you want to delete massive parts of the article. Sincerely.Holland Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 08:41, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Well, well, it seems like you've been exposed

Apparently you've been up to no good for a while as evidence by this page. ;) John wesley 14:34, 18 May 2006 (UTC) I needn't keep reversing your mischief as others are onto you. ;) John wesley 14:34, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] It's not trust of Nixon, not Govt

YouparJohn wesley 15:00, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

We need just to make sure careless readers know who is being quoted, the article now makes sense because we know it is part of the controversy. One side says this the otter says not so. Take it back... This looks like what controversies are. At least two sides saying different things. John wesley 15:57, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I think you may have left a post on my talk page

If it was you please repost and sign it so that the talkpage show continuity. ;) thanks. Else disregrad this post. I removed the original posting until so that you can either indicate it was someone else or that it was you. I think it was because of the repaeting of my turn of phradse mischief making ;) John wesley 16:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC) Thank you. John wesley 16:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for re-post and signing. It now makes contnuit sense. John wesley 17:10, 18 May 2006 (UTC) I have chip about apparent bias. Labelling what DoJ sez is Fact is not biased but leaving the word Fact un-labeled is at least misleading. This is a part of a two-sided dispute. The two sides would disagree with what are facts. The opposition may put out its own fact sheet which would not make it any more fact than the DoJ's sheet. John wesley 17:10, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes there has been political grandstanding on the side contesting the Bush Admin's NSA program. If you can find a way to making them shorter without unbalancing it would greatly help because my BIGGEST problem now, is how huge the article is. It is too big. There at least two artciles: 1.) the media frenzy with the political posturing and Admin response and 2.) the narrow legal arguments. It is possible to be both constitutional yet illegal merely because Congress enacted a statue forbidding it. In that case, all we need is for Congress to update the FISA law to allow for emergency warrantkess surveilance with retroactive approval. John wesley 17:14, 18 May 2006 (UTC) I think George Washington law prof or Georgetown law prof Orrin Kerr has that opinion. John wesley 17:14, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] There is a heavy press angle

to the NSA story. The article is called NSA controversy so the article should be, I think, light on the legal issues and heavy on the controversy. There is a spot-light on what the press role should be as well as whether the President assumed too much power or whether such a program is effective. Since the article is itle controversy, it gives the article license to almost talk about itself. If you can work in, if it's not already there, some statement about attempts to label the reporting on the story as if it were a crime. this is related to the Administration's attempt to apply the 1917 Esponiage act against the AIPAC reps in an earlier case as well as implying the the NYT committed a crime merely by listening to reportedly calssified information. The law so far, case law, has never held media defendants liable. If this changes, it will be an innovation in law and big, big, REALLY big news. John wesley 19:57, 18 May 2006 (UTC) We should stay tuned. John wesley 19:57, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I think so, but that's very interesting about Wilson, I forgot about that. It's a good place to look for parallels to support admin efforst. John wesley 20:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC) You could ask someone else about setting up a pole about removing or merging the two sections into a Media/Poll section (and btw sharply reducing the material as it is getting too big). Hey, how about trimming some, then others will re-edit your work, and then trim some more. Then when it is say two sentences.... then merge the two into one section. John wesley 20:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC) Then it will become so small that it can be pruned ;) John wesley 20:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NSA add?

I didn't enter the article yet (fear of its bigness hence slow loading), but did you actuall "add" to its size? I hope you at least removed more bytes than added. :) John wesley 19:51, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../6/7/2E/User_talk%7E67.98.154.35.html"