User talk:70.191.174.29

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

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 edit articles; however, logging in will result in a username being shown instead of your IP address (yours is 70.191.174.29). Logging in does not require any personal details, and there are many other benefits for logging in.

When you edit pages:

  • Please respect others' copyrights; do not copy and paste the contents from webpages directly.
  • Please use a neutral point of view when editing articles; this is possibly the most important Wikipedia policy.
  • If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
  • Do not add unreasonable contents into any articles, such as copyrighted text, advertisement messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject. Adding such content or editing articles maliciously is considered vandalism.

The Wikipedia Tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. For now, if you are stuck, you can click the edit this page tab above, type {{helpme}} in the edit box, and then click Save Page; an experienced Wikipedian will be around shortly to answer any questions you may have. Also feel free to ask a question on my Talk page. I will answer your questions as far as I can! Thank you again for contributing to Wikipedia.   JEK   12:58, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

You reverted vandalism back into the article. I took it out and you put it back in. be more careful--Acebrock 20:36, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

First, messages need to be signed to be on here. Second, the page in question is a humor page. It is hypocritical to say my humor can stay, but if someone singes me, it can't. 70.191.174.29 20:47, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Sigh* Just because it's a humor page doesn't mean you can vandalize it. Also, if you keep this up I'm going to report you to an admin who will most likely block you.--Acebrock 20:51, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

No, it’s an edit war that you’re participating in. Saying that accuracy doesn’t matter goes against Wikipedia principles, and the edit in question makes fun of that. 70.191.174.29 20:57, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

just because that page makes fun of edit wars doesn't mean that accuracy doesn't matter. It's talking about edit wars about stupid little matters. Don't think that that article proves anything about wikipedia except that tempers can and does flare up on the tiniest things. that doesn't happen with most articles. You call it an edit war and I call it removing vandalism from a dedicated vandal. An edit war it is not, since you're in the minority and apparently most Wikipedians think it is just right the way it was before someone made tose edits to the nancy reagan section. All further comments should be put on my Talk page--Acebrock 21:08, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Read the talk page of the WP:LAME article before you claim I'm the only one who thinks there is a problem with the Nancy Reagan section. These issues came up in March. It simply appears to me you only like humor when you (or the people you agree with) are not the butt of the joke. Whilst I am not editing that page, so as to avoid a violation of the 3RR rule, that edit had a very good point, albeit humorous. Accuracy DOES matter. 70.191.174.29 21:14, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Making jokes about edit wars is fine. Making a comment of "Who cares" is not. 70.191.174.29 21:16, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

FYI, the offending edits on both sides have been removed. SighSighSigh 21:44, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Homelessness article

You may have a valid point about the Homelessness article (I have no opinion one way or the other); however, adding half a dozen maintenance tags to the article amounts to disruption. Pick one tag and stick to it, or no-one will take your complaint seriously. --Sam Blanning(talk) 01:21, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Point understood, but I don't know what else to do as all of the templates I've put on seem to be getting some criticism of the article but not the other. But I'll try to get a tag that is the most all encompassing shortly. 70.191.174.29 01:24, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed on general principles, but not as applicable to this article. There is a documented concern that homeless people are being treated as criminals, per se, due simply to their homelessness. There was a reference for it. Also, it is a documented fact that the homeless clinics are usually overburdened. Look, the article is now out of control, and I am going to roll it back to a sensible point where it was before all these changes happened, so it can be sensibly discussed and modified. Professionals in the field have read the article, contributed to it, and have found it to be a credible article on the topic. Anyway, let's all sort it out together, starting from a stable base. Thanks and Best Regards. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 15:19, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Bob, there's a difference in saying homelessness may be treated as a criminal offense (I don't think I raised issue with that statement), versus saying that putting homeless people gives them a criminal record. Well, that's true, but putting housed people in jail also gives them a criminal record. One sentence I removed earlier was that there were government cuts to shelter projects. What is your source to that comment (not you but whomever put it there)? Furthermore, there is no single one government entity.
Politically, I agree with the tone of the article, but that's doesn't mean it doesn't sounbd like a soapbox. (Again, it may sound like a soapbox on both sides, but either way the writing on some sections is not worthy of an encyclopedia.) 70.191.174.29 22:48, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi "70.191.174.29" ! Thanks for your kind explanation. I see your points. We'll, as a community have to track down the citations if they exist easily. I try to cite everything I write, within reason. (Like with Gibbon and his classic "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" where the footnotes seem to outweigh the main text in the unexpurgated version -- but it's still brilliant --- one tries to avoid over-citations). BTW, as for one entity, there really isn't, as you metioned. But here in the USA, the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act created the ICH -- Interagency Council for the Homeless [1] in the government. As far as the article, we shall all work together to make it better. Thanks again. Keep in touch on my talk page User talk:Wikiklrsc. Bests. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 15:18, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../7/0/2E/User_talk%7E70.191.174.29.html"