User talk:69.249.195.232

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions.

Currently, you are editing without a username. You can continue to do so as you are not required to log in to Wikipedia to read and write articles, however, logging in will result in a username being shown instead of your IP address (yours is 69.249.195.232). Logging in does not require any personal details. There are many other benefits for logging in to Wikipedia.

Please note these points:

The Wikipedia Tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, ask me on my Talk page – I will answer your questions as far as I can! Thank you again for contributing to Wikipedia.

from Wikipedian: ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 19:53, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] NPOV policy and citations

Hi. Thank you for using citations in your contributions. However, I recommend you read WP:NPOV for a better understanding of the relationship between opinions and citations in Wikipedia articles. Basically, if you present an opinion and then use citations to give evidence for it, that's considered original research. It's better to find someone else who expresses those opinions and cite the opinions themselves, rather than the evidence for them.

Thanks, and happy editing. --Allen 23:20, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Civil unions

You wrote in Bill O'Reilly (commentator) that "the overwhelming majority of Americans support civil unions as an alternative to marriage". To the best of my knowledge, this is incorrect. Polls by Gallup and The Boston Globe have both shown that Americans are evenly divided on the civil union issue. See [1]. Please make sure to consult reliable sources before making statements such as this one in articles. I would consider an overwhelming majority to be 70-80% or more. There are very few issues in American politics in which an overwhelming majority of people agree. Civil unions and gay marriage are not among these issues. Rhobite 21:43, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User talk:69.86.212.228

Wikipedia:No personal attacks. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:37, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mickey Z

Please stop removing content from Wikipedia; it is considered vandalism. If you want to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:15, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please Sign your work on User Pages

Especially when you find it necessary to try being intimidating. --Tbeatty 07:06, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Ditto. You sent me a message that made some vague reference to some edits on the South Park article and told me to act less psychopathic. You didn't sign your comment, I have no idea what edits you're referring to, and no idea what supposed psychopathic behaviour you're talking about. If you think your edits are so appropriate and intelligent, create an account instead of hiding behind an anonymous IP. And don't send messages of that tone to my Talk Page anymore, it's inappropriate and abusive. - Ugliness Man 11:21, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Stop leaving unsigned comments in my talk page. Stop ordering around registered users who are only trying to keep articles up to wikipedia standards. Stop inventing your own standards and expecting others to conform to your whims. This is not an order, this is a request, but if you don't stop acting like this, someone in a more authoritative position than me will take action. Name-calling and bullying don't make you superior. - Ugliness Man 11:28, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] be careful

One of your recent edit summaries accused me of "vandalizing" an article. FYI: Legitimate content disputes are not vandalism. I feel that your ES comment was inappropriate and wrong. Please stop. Merecat 19:13, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Warning

For your repeated adding of a deliberate misquote to the Protest Warrior article.

You have recently vandalized a Wikipedia article, and you are now being asked to stop this type of behavior. You're welcome to continue editing Wikipedia, so long as these edits are constructive. Please see Wikipedia's Blocking policy and what constitutes vandalism; such actions are not tolerated on Wikipedia, and are not taken lightly.

We hope that you will become a legitimate editor and create an account. Again, you are welcome here at Wikipedia, but remember not to vandalize or you will soon be blocked from editing.

If you feel you have received this message in error, it may be because you are using a shared IP address. Nevertheless, repeated vandalism from this address may cause you to be included in any future punishments such as temporary blocks or bans. To avoid confusion in the future, we invite you to create a user account of your own.

[edit] Santorum

The person who removed your two "thug" mentions from the Santorum article also ADDED a longer "thug" mention at another point in the article. In other words, the "thug" point is still in the article, just at a different spot. President Lethe 00:04, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fox News Channel

Please do not add nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Deville (Talk) 02:17, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Many apologies, I saw this edit and it looked like you had added all that gibberish in the article, however it was the previous IP which had added it, and you simply preserved it in the edit. -- Deville (Talk) 02:26, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bill O'Reilly (commentator)

Thank you for editing Wikipedia. Your edits have unfortunately been in violation of Wikipedia's neutrality policy, and have been reverted as such. You are entitled to your opinions, but edits to this encyclopedia must remain neutral. Please read up on this and other important policies and guidelines so that you can continue to contribute constructively to this encyclopedia. Thanks. HKTTalk 15:41, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for asking. "[W]idely hailed as a centrist within Democratic ranks" sets the Democrat party as the frame of reference for the sentence, when the only relevant point of view is O'Reilly's. Mentioning the Democrat party's POV here sets a contrast that contravenes Wikipedia's neutrality policy. Simply providing a link to Joseph Lieberman would be sufficient. Happy editing! HKTTalk 15:55, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
P.S. When editing talk pages, please sign your IP address/user name by entering ~~~~ after your comments. Thank you! HKTTalk 16:00, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Source request

Hi!

Is there any chance you have a source for

Fox News ran a short two minute segment on the controversy, detailing the fight between Richard Cohen and liberal bloggers. The piece was highly critical of Colbert, and included only media pundits who criticized his performance. The label applied to the video item on Fox News website read "Colbert bombs at media dinner".

Thanks! -- see Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Stephen_Colbert_at_the_2006_White_House_Correspondents'_Association_Dinner.

RN 18:32, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your edit to Kfir Alfia

Your recent edit to Kfir Alfia was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // Tawkerbot2 05:50, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I'm all part of it (Roger Ailes Article)

As part of the vast Right Wing Conspiracy and a dastardly conservative I was part of this white washing whoo hah ha!! Lets not kid ourselves here nothing Roger Ailes did was a criminal act or is not now public knowledge. Its called politics and both parities are guilty of the same things. I think conservatives have better things to do then cover up for Ailes on a Wikipedia article when such info is already available all over the net if however blown out of proportion for political gain. Ailes is not and never has been an elected official so in the grand political scheme trashing him won’t make a lot of difference. I don't think most Americans even remeber Willie Horton and I think the incident has been confined to the Valary Plane trash heap of History.--Ian 01:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't leave messages on my page to spew cliche Republican sarcastic quips. You're just a kid and you're an evangelical, i.e. a religious fanatic with little common sense. Find something better to do with your time. Try blaming gays and abortion for the problems in your life and leave the editing of articles to adults. --69.249.195.232 15:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Igilli"

Sure I’ll leave editing up to anonymous user adults who make childish comments. I was trying to be civil by interjecting some humor and I didn’t think you would stoop to criticizing my religious beliefs. If I wasn’t a Christian I wouldn’t have been as nice in the first place. I have to thank you though for proving exactly whats wrong with America’s left by leaving that response. Jesus Loves You --Ian 00:44, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] UCLA study

The remark is POV because it inaccurately reports the finding of the study. The UCLA researchers did not find that there were no conservative publications (or moderate publications, for that matter), but only liberal new pages in publications. Thus, the largely right opinion page is divorced ideologically from the left news pages. Likewise, the study notes that Drudge links to other journalists, who are generally on the left politically and lean left in their journalism. My removal was not vandalism for these reasons. Rkevins82 20:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ben Westlund

I noticed your edits to the article on Ben Westlund. These same points have been hashed out on the talk page. Please take a look at the comments and post additional comments before reverting so that people can discuss ideas. Davidpdx 05:50, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please Assume Good Faith

Your recent edit summary accused me of vandalising The Professors: The 101 Most Dangerous Academics in America. Even though I left an edit summary explaining why I deleted the material, I am more than happy to discuss the material on the talk page. Your accusation was a violation of WP:AGF and unnecessary. Lawyer2b 05:57, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Lifetime Television

You have recently vandalized the Wikipedia article Lifetime Television among others, and you are now being asked to stop this type of behavior. You're welcome to continue editing Wikipedia, so long as these edits are constructive. Please see Wikipedia's Blocking policy and what constitutes vandalism; such actions are not tolerated on Wikipedia, and are not taken lightly.

We hope that you will become a legitimate editor and create an account. Again, you are welcome here at Wikipedia, but remember not to vandalize or you will soon be blocked from editing.

If you feel you have received this message in error, it may be because you are using a shared IP address. Nevertheless, repeated vandalism from this address may cause you to be included in any future sanctions such as temporary blocks or bans. To avoid confusion in the future, we invite you to create a user account of your own.--Tbeatty 23:56, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I did not vandalize that page. That doesn't make any sense. It must be because this is a shared address. I don't have a history of vandalizing pages, and even if you claim that I do, that is a disagreement with my edits. I don't do textbook "vandalism", meaning I don't erase the entire page and put up a picture of a monkey. Most of my contributions regard politics or the media. I don't go around inserting, "HURR BEAT YOUR WIFE CHANNEL" into articles. --69.249.195.232 00:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

THis IP address did vandalize the article. You can look at the contributions for this IP and see the Lifetime Television edit. It wasn't a blanking vandalism, rather an inapporpriate comment. If this is a shared IP, I'd suggest you create an account and then the accusations won't be falsely tied to your edits. --Tbeatty 00:06, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your edit to Mike Adams (criminology professor)

Your recent edit to Mike Adams (criminology professor) (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // AntiVandalBot 01:17, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RealClearPolitics

Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Find a verifiable source that classifies the articles posted in RCP as slanted towards conservatives and it can stay.--RWR8189 07:57, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Roger Ailes

I want to state that I had nothing to do with the deletion of the information on Willie Horton in the Roger Ailes article and that you falsely accused me of doing so. Please, contact one of the other late editors to see if they modified it. Chris (Talk) (Contribs) 16:54, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Roger Ailes / Willie Horton

Hi 69.249.195.232

I removed the Willie Horton reference from the Roger Ailes biography, because it's not true. I'll continue to do so.

Yes, I know Al Franken and some others, including the 2004 "article" you saw at www.earthisland.com have said that he did but it's not true and you won't find any creidible source that says Ailes produced that ad. If you do, please let me know and I'll call them for an official retraction.

The Bush-Quayle campaign produced a "revolving door" spot about Mass. prison furloughs that made no mention of Willie Horton. Yes, the spot was produced by Larry McCarthy, who had worked for Ailes in the relatively small field of political media production. Yes, people in the Bush campaign talked about Willie Horton, as did many newspapers and primary candidate Al Gore. No, Roger Ailes did not produce that ad.

The Wikipedia article on Willie Horton spells thins out pretty clearly (as of this writing), as does Salon magazine: http://dir.salon.com/story/politics/feature/2000/08/25/horton/index.html

All best.

[edit] Michele Bachmann

You have made an edit to Michele Bachmann that could be regarded as defamatory. Please do not restore this material to the article or its talk page. If you restore this material to the article or its talk page once more, you will be blocked for disruption. See Blocking policy: Biographies of living people. --Aguerriero (talk) 22:38, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

  • I didn't contribute the material; however, I think you're way off base here, Aguerriero. You clearly don't understand defamation (I'm an attorney -- I do). The contributor sourced the material from two mainstream sites. You also marked his/her contributions as "vandalism," which it was not. I think this needs to be reviewed by a neutral third party as you clearly seem to have some vested interest in this subject and are making POV removals. You seem to be subjecting material to some sort of personal litmus test to which you expect others to adhere. Very anti-Wiki behavior, IMHO. FWIW, I had no idea who Michele Bachmann was until I happened on this page as 69.249.195.232 had contributed something of interest on another page. You're not editing, Aguerriero, you're censoring, and you're using defamation as an irrelevant excuse. I'm also posting this on the Michele Bachmann discussion page.207.69.139.11 05:10, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your message to me

You stated, "You left a message on my personal wikipedia page that was directed at someone else. You might want to send it directly to him. Or were you just letting me in on the conversation?"

Greetings, 69.249.195.232. No, I deliberately left a copy/version on your page, too, as I felt Aguerriero's actions were flat-out wrong. I started a discussion about this on the Talk:Michele Bachmann, which is probably the best place to continue. Cheers, 207.69.139.11 05:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../6/9/2E/User_talk%7E69.249.195.232.html"