User talk:Stanley011

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

{{unblock}}

Why do you feel you should be unblocked? -- Tawker 04:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Because I violated no rules. Stanley011 06:46, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Unfortunately, content uploaded to Wikipedia must be available under the GFDL, with no restrictions, and images only free for use on Wikipedia alone are not permitted. It's therefore been deleted. Any questions, feel free to ask me on my talk page or email. All the best, Proto||type 17:54, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 Jay Black 2 Re: Prerna astrogirl 3 Penn 4 Alan Colmes 5 Paromita Chatterjee 6 Articles created 7 Howard Zinn 8 User Subpage 9 Re:Bencsmith 10 Falkland Islands 11 MMFA 12 Robert Federer 13 Totalitarian 14 David Nalbandian 15 Image Tagging for Image:2006-05-22-2200-49 edited.jpg 16 Tennis court specialists 17 MLK at Penn 18 Dona Barbara 19 Nassau County 20 User: Ros Power 21 Talk:Ann Coulter 22 Re: Deciding what are Personal Attacks 23 Wikipedia:Conservative_notice_board 24 Olby edit 25 Olby edit continued 26 Bill O'Reilly controversies 27 User notice: temporary 3RR block 27.1 Regarding reversions[1] made on June 17, 2006 (UTC) to Bill O'Reilly controversies 28 So Glick was wrong. 29 Personal Threats Accusations 30 Blocked for 24 hours 30.1 Regarding reversions[3] made on July 10, 2006 (UTC) to Bill O'Reilly controversies 31 Re: Controversy 32 My mistake 33 signature 34 Re Hillary 35 Hello 36 Vandalism 37 3RR violation 38 A point of grammar 39 Welcome! 40 Amy Goodman 41 Tennis 42 hi help please

[edit] Jay Black

That's definitely a different Jay Black. I'm going to revert your edits -- this Jay Black is in his thirties, tops. There's no way he was around in the '60s. Dylan 02:28, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Fine with me -- move Jay Black to Jay Black (comedian), and then change the redirect at Jay Black to your article on this other one.

By the way, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~). Dylan 12:45, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Prerna astrogirl

Hi, Stanley. Thanks for the message. Since that user is a newbie, I left him/her a message with a brief explanation and links to pertinent pages on the subject matter. If the activity continues, there will be grounds for a temporary block under our Blocking policy. But it is a common newbie mistake to upload those kinds of images, and sometimes it takes newcomers a little while to realize that "anyone can edit" is not the same as "do whatever you want". With a little luck, this new user will shape up. I'll keep an eye on it, and if it comes to that point, I'll block him/her (most likely "her", given the username..). Thanks, Redux 02:49, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

The last activity of this user has been on March 19 2006. If there is a repeated attempt then you can block him/her. Thanks!! --Nivus^(talk) 07:29, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Penn

If you'll read the footnotes at Penn, and the article on the Colonial colleges you'll see that we've put in a fair amount of work trying to be neutral on this.

Penn's status as "fourth oldest" is most definitely disputed; it's the subject of a long-running controversity between Penn boosters and Princeton boosters. (Not to mention Columbia). In case you're not aware, in the 1890s Penn decided to change its founding date from 1749 to 1740. It would be taking sides to say Penn is fourth oldest. The neutral statements are that a) Penn states its founding date to be 1740 and that b) accepting the universities' self-reported founding dates makes it fourth oldest.

"America's first university" is less disputed, but also less a matter of simple fact, because there's no clear, bright-line definition of "University" in the United States. Penn articulates one reasonable definition of "university" according to which they come out first. But Penn was, for example, not the first institution to award a Ph. D., and it was probably not the first institution in the United States to be officially "named" a university (I'm thinking here of the University of Henrico, ludicrous of course, but it at least shows arbitrary all such criteria are). First university in the United States isn't a very good article but does summarize a mass of factoids bearing on the silly question. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:59, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alan Colmes

Sorry about that. I was adding some badly-needed categories that article, and copied the list from Sean Hannity's page. The pro-life was a slip-up. I'll be more careful next time in added categories. - Hbdragon88 04:49, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Paromita Chatterjee

Writing eulogies is defintiely a no-no in encyclopaediae. That apart, I don't think you understand the mechanics of the Indian Press very well. If you notice the entries on that list (the list of Indian journalists), most of them are notable personalities. However, some aren't, although some they seem notable to you because of the kind of noise google generates. I say some of them on the list are not notable because they dont have opinion that can influence more than 3000 people.

Another example; the Varun Singh entry, this is completely devoid of anything that can substantiate the article and is also self created. Varun'sonline nickname is/was Phrozenf. Also note that I haven't touched articles on any of the really notable figues in the Indian Press. The list seems to have been abused by a bunch of publicity hounds. Save the wiki. I am considering putting up some of those articles for deletion again. Please reply. Best. Boxerglove 11:02, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Why did you tag this page for speedy deletion? The page obviously does not meet that criteria--a simple google search will show you that this woman is actually quite notable, even though you might never have heard of her. Let's try to improve valuable articles that haven't reached their potential, not purge them. Thanks and I look forward to reading your response. Stanley011 01:13, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I found this site on her: http://cnbc-tv18.moneycontrol.com/cnbctv18/anchors.php. She is a known TV personality and should remain on wikipedia. If you absolutely feel compelled to remove her, then you must go through the normal channels--that is, propose the article for deletion but NOT speedy deletion. You tagged the article as "nonsense" which is patently false. Let me give you an example of an article that was actually posted on wikipedia and appropriately given the speedy delete nonsense tag: Article title was "SESO":

"SESO is a school in southern San Lorenzo and was founded in 2367 A.D. by Tramafladores and was later conqured by vikings in 1332 B.C. This id ue to a temporal anomaly caused by the starship ENTERPRISE after several Tachyon Pulses intersected. Later The school was turned into a mutant training academy by Charles Xavier and It tried to take over the world with ICE-NINE while the Predators Laborously stated harvesting bodies. Then Batman and the JUSTICE LEAGUE appeared and shot the school with their orbital space gun/HQ. Later it was found by Mr. Arzola who turned it into an Academy for YUGIOh dorks and the fate of the world rested in his duel against the EVIL PTA-_-... But he Cheated! ANND HUMANITY WAS SAVED!!. LAter the school came to be inhabited by The HIVE. an evil omniescent being of tremendous evil proprtion who vowed to eat humanity through its ass. ARzola then grabbed his chainsaw/Minigun and stsrtded blowing them away ubtil he fell in a vat of acid. Then the power rangers appeared and morhed into their megazordS. SPD, Mystic Force, Time Fore, Lightspeed rescue, Original, and Ninja Strom all fused together to form the Ultimate doom death obliteration of Obliteration Titanititan hyper doom MZEGHAZOZRD of RoxorZZZ. The End. but then Chuck Norris came..... I didn't mean what I jus said above. What really happened was the magic fairy came down from the sky and just magically pooffed the building and the people. Night Elves, Orcs, Taurens, Forsakens, Gobblins, and Humans came to live in the new shelter that came out of nowhere. Now....Chuck Norris was there as the leader of all the groups. He crushd all who opposed him. Chuck Norris took down a Tauren with is mighty pinky. But then out of nowhere Saddam Hudsain appeared in the school. He slowly became a close companion of Chuck. As he did so, he planned his evi, very evil master plan. This plan was so evil that no mortal can comprehend its evilness. One night Saddam went into Chuck's bedroom and placed a pea under his bed matress. Chuck was unable to sl!eep all night and awoke tired and dillusional. Saddam persuaded Chuck to go acompany him to his bed room. Chuck Norris was never seen again. The only thing that was found in that room was some substance on the bed sheets. Ganondorf dorf dorf obtains all pieces of the triforce and enters the all powerfull electrical web. Through his hacking powers ganondorf pwns everyone in World of Warcraft. Pooned all mages and hunters. He stepped over the little noobs in town like butter on knife. Ganondorf then decides to enter the chatting rooms and alter the messages being sent bet. the chatting people. He became bored and went to annoy some unwary surfers. Sent 100 popups to the unprotected netsurfers until they crashed or sighned off. Not even this amused Ganondorf for long. Ganondorf went on n sumbled upon some classified codes. He had found some nuclear cruise missile launch codes. He pondered what he would do with them."

Now you tell me Boxerglove--does the article Paromita Chatterjee meet the "nonsense" criteria. I thought not, and don't add it again. Stanley011 00:03, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps my reading comprehension isn't up to par with yours, but I don't see how the entry is a "eulogy." My impression is that she is still alive and that the article is merely a biography. Is there something written "between the lines" that I'm not reading? Obviously the article needs to be cleaned up drastically (sources, grammar, etc.) but I fail to see your specific objections to it being on wikipedia at all, given that there are many articles on journalists/anchorpeople. Stanley011 19:19, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Boxerglove"

Looks like you got a pretty extreme example of nonsense there. The eulogy sounds just as extreme to me; just a gray shade. If adding a nonsense tag is what got you into this, suggest another category and flag it. I dont know anymore about the article than I already do. Resolve the issue. We cant have information like that it hanging in there. Funny thing is, this is exactly how the Wiki is going to go down, by becoming a birth register/craigslist of sorts. best. :) Boxerglove 16:03, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Articles created

Hi Stanley, is it true you created the Roger Federer article, or did you just contribute significantly to it? --Noelle De Guzman (talk) 05:50, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, my bad! It's Robert Federer. :) If only there were more significant material on him. As for the Fed-Nadal match, I didn't catch it, but it seems to me there's a sort of mental block for Federer there. --Noelle De Guzman (talk) 23:25, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Howard Zinn

Hi, I've responded to your question regarding my revision of your edits to this article on my talk page. Pinkville 17:08, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User Subpage

You may want to create a subpage for the Federer article if you want to keep you main user page clean. You can create a wikilink on your page to a page that does not exist, such as [[User:Stanley011/Federer]] which will look like this User:Stanley011/Federer. Clicking on the red link will bring up the edit new page box, paste in the article or write something there and save it and voila, a new subpage. Thatcher131 14:46, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Bencsmith

Hi Stanley. His edits in Michael Jackson were indeed inappropriate, but this user is a newbie (check out the short list of contribs), and this one seems to be the only misguided edit so far (of the very few he has to his name) . For a user that has been registered for less than 48 hours, we can still assume that it could have been a misplaced test, so it's probably better if we don't bite him just yet. About the user page problem, the history shows that the offensive part was added not by Bencsmith, but rather by an anon (diff), so again, for a user this new, and with a very short history, we can still assume good faith, and presume that it wasn't him working through a shock puppet. I've left him my standard welcome message, which contains links to our policies and the sandbox. If he continues to attack articles, then we can consider a block, but let's cross this bridge when we get to it. Redux 23:18, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Falkland Islands

Please do not change the lead sentence. It has taken a long time to get to the version we now have, and changes without prior discussion are not appreciated. If you change it again it may be construed as disruption and lead to your being blocked from editing Wikipedia. Just zis Guy you know? 20:37, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello JUSTZISGUYYOU,KNOW?!!!!! AS YOU CAN TELL, I AM IN LOVE WITH YOUR USER NAME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Anyway, I'm sorry about my edits to the Falkland Islands article--I just read the discussion page and realized the angst that went into just getting that one sentence, and now that I know the page's "history", I am a little more inclined to leave it as is. As you can probably tell from my user name, I have a bit of an interest in that region of the world, but somehow managed to escape coming across the article until now--from my personal experience, "Falkland" is far more common than Malvinas, but then again, I think that fact is evident in the title of the article itself! Once again, I am sorry for my silly edit and I look forward to getting to be friends with you on wikipedia! Enjoy the lovely spring day! Stanley011 20:50, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry too much, it's not the first time someone has waded in to try to help and ended up poking a hornet's nest :-) Just zis Guy you know? 21:24, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi, please discuss changes to articles on talk pages, rather than in the articles themselves. Thanks, RexNL 20:41, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

OK i misunderstood you, i hope everything is fine now. I know Coria has a good ranking, but I think that's because he is lucky, and the others, like Berqoc are too joung.
I deply regret I was so aggressive, but sometimes that happens to me. --Argentino (talk/cont.) 20:32, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MMFA

Please read our policy on original research and reliable sources. The addition of a single instance does not establish a pattern worthy of inclusion in the article. In order to establish this pattern we need a reliable source. Guettarda 02:19, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Please stop deleting the {{fact}} template from the article without providing a source for your edits. You really should should familiarise yourself with the policy links I provided. Guettarda 02:41, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm quite familiar with the policy and do not believe I am in violation of it in any way--I did not create those posts--they were sourced directly from the Media Matters website. I will, however, in the interests of appeasement, look for independent sources to confirm the obvious. In the meanwhile, please do not delete my edit. Stanley011 03:21, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I really don't think you do understand these policies. To begin with, how did you become aware of this? Was it something you concluded after looking at MMFA? Then it's OR. If not, you should be able to cite a source - either that source is a reliable source, or it isn't. If it is, then you should supply the source. If it isn't a reliable source, then it can't be used, and the statement doesn't belong in an encyclopaedia. Simple enough. Guettarda 04:32, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

By your standards, much more of the article needs to be sourced. For example, read the previous paragraph, especially the claim that they engage in "content analysis." Where did that come from? Why aren't you complaining that that statement isn't sourced? Seems to me you are being a little partial with your decision of what deserves a "source" tag and what doesn't. Consequently, I suggest you read up on NPOV. Stanley011 05:23, 2 May 2006 (UTC).

In your quest to see bias in others, you totally miss my point. While there are existing unsourced statements that are probably OR, this is a new insertion that appears very strongly to be OR. The fact that you don't seem to be able to supply even an unreliable source speaks volumes. Given your choice of language in the paragraph, you should be the last person to lecture people about NPOV. Guettarda 13:12, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Wow, I feel honoured--dignifying my rather banal observations and two minute google search as original research! Do you know where I can get it published? Seriously though, I'm going to re-insert my text without the line that "it appears to go against mmfa's mission statement" without first finding a source to support that. I'm also going to add a fact tag to the pov claims in the previous paragraph. Cheers! Stanley011 13:49, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

As I said before, you should actually read the policy links I posted. Your comment above shows that your earlier claim to have done so was untruthful. I see you have no interest in abiding by Wikipedia policy. Guettarda 14:31, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Stanley011, please discuss your changes to Media Matters for America on its talk page, talk:Media Matters for America. Thank you. -Will Beback 01:33, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Robert Federer

Hi. I made two minor changes to your subpage User:Stanley011/Robert Federer: I removed the AfD notice (this article is a draft of yours; as such, is not up for deletion) and turned the category into a link (most people think that userspace pages should not be included in categories as if they were regular articles). The result of the AfD discussion was to delete the curent version of Robert Federer; this does not preclude a recreation if more evidence about the notability of the subject is included. - Liberatore(T) 12:08, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. I will work on this in the next couple of weeks. Stanley011 00:45, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Totalitarian

Dear Stanley, you have reinserted "totalitarian" into the intro of the Adolf Hitler article. While I agree with you contentwise, please understand that there has been some discussions and edit wars on which word to use. While I opted for "totalitarian" as well, others objected to that word and wanted to insert the (IMHO non-descriptive) fascist instead. "authoritarian" was the lowest common denominator, a wording everyone could accept, though with uneasy feelings. If you cannot accept "authoritarian", please make your case on the talk page and don't just reinsert the T word. Thanks, Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 12:54, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I did make my case on the talk page. Perhaps you should read it before accusing me of editing without explanation. Thanks. Stanley011 13:42, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Dear Stanley, I was not accusing you of anything, just giving you an advise. The way things are going right now, your current practice will only lead to reverts again and again. Please understand that I agree with you contentwise. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 13:58, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

The fact that you agree with me content-wise is irrelevant--the fact is, you actually did accuse me of something--you accused me of editing without explaining my edits, which is patently false. Whoever changed my edit back to "authoritarian" edited without first discussing his or her change on the discussion page because my response has yet to be answered, as you will see if you actually check the discussion page. Stanley011 14:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] David Nalbandian

Read the fair use template on the page which makes the following claim to fair use:

This work is copyrighted and unlicensed. It does not fall into one of the blanket fair use categories listed at Wikipedia:Fair use#Images or Wikipedia:Fair use#Audio_clips. However, it is believed that the use of this work in the article "David Nalbandian":

• To illustrate the object in question
• Where no free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information
• On the English-language Wikipedia ([1]), hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation ([2]),

qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law. Any other uses of this image, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, may be copyright infringement. See Wikipedia:Fair use and Wikipedia:Copyrights.

That's a claim and rationale for fair use. That's the whole point of the templates. If you can source a better image, do so. Until you can, it's got a good fair use claim and rationale, and to my mind it's not in violation of copyright until deemed so in a court. You seem to be prepared to edit war on the issue rather than engage in debate. Fair play. Steve block Talk 13:11, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

You've reverted my edit. That's the definition of an edit war. If you wish to discuss the issue at hand, rather than debate the finer points of user conduct, you know where to contact me. Happy editing. Steve block Talk 16:06, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Also note the following:

If you believe an image that is tagged as fair use is definitely not fair use, you can add {{fair use disputed}} to it, and it will be eventually nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images or Wikipedia:Copyright problems. If you have reviewed a fair use image (whether it is tagged as {{fairusereview}} or not) and are quite confident that the image does qualify as Fair Use on the listed pages, add {{reviewedfairuse|pages=[[names of pages]]|user=~~~|date=~~~~~}} to the page. Do not review an image for fair use in an article if you either uploaded the image or made the decision to include it in the article where it is being used.

As to me dealing with the issue, I attempted to do so. Your actions make such further dealing with the issue somewhat impossible. I don't engage in reverting where I can help it, per WP:1RR. Steve block Talk 21:25, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image Tagging for Image:2006-05-22-2200-49 edited.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:2006-05-22-2200-49 edited.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 03:09, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tennis court specialists

Hi! Appreciate these articles. Will it be ok that you add some more examples of female players, instead of just listing down male players? Thanks!Joey80 08:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your taking notice of my articles. While I already have listed some female players, I will continue to list more. Thank you for your suggestion. Stanley011 21:53, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MLK at Penn

I had reworded what was previously there about his having attended classes at Penn. From there, I had assumed he had matriculated. Thanks for intervening. -- Usgnus 23:50, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dona Barbara

It is a pleasure to be able to help with Venezuela-related articles...if you need anything just leave a message in my talk page--Espazolano 04:29, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nassau County

Please respond at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nassau_County%2C_New_York#Seacliff --JimWae 20:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User: Ros Power

Naive question starts/ Hey you said ask here if I needed some help - I've just reverted some vandalism on User Ros Powers user page. Given the nature of this vandalism, I wondered if I should mention this rather appalling act and get the vandal banned somehow? /end naive question Swpmre 20:42, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this vandalism should be reported to an administrator, which I am not. Bigoted and repulsive personal insults, as this user left on the user page of user: Ros Power, is not tolerated on wikipedia and must be dealt with Stanley011 00:05, 9 June 2006 (UTC).

I left a nasty vandalism warning on his/her discussion page, but it should also be reported to an administrator. Stanley011 00:10, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Ann Coulter

please help me with this article, I'm new and im afraid if i try to edit it, the liberals guarding it will rip me to shreds----Fellow-edit 22:50, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Deciding what are Personal Attacks

You said: I'm the judge of what's a personal attack against me, not you, so get over it buddy.

The dictionary begs to differ. Calling someone a "moron" and a "coward" are certainly personal attacks. Has this helped? Kasreyn 02:29, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Conservative_notice_board

Hello, I noticed that you identify as a conservative Wikipedian. So I would like to invite you to post any conservative issues you might have over at the new project page, Wikipedia:Conservative_notice_board. Thanks. --Facto 06:35, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Olby edit

I would have to disagree because it makes the reader understand why the two anchors have a feud.--Bairdso66 21:28, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Olby edit continued

How come you don't think we should explain what the "worst person in the world" segment is?--Bairdso66 22:12, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Mainly because at this point, there really isn't a consensus as to what, exactly, the "worst person in the world" segment actually is--that's something that has to be discussed thoroughly before included in the article. Stanley011 00:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bill O'Reilly controversies

Thanks for the message, I appreciate it. I try to contribute positively as best a can. As far as this article goes, I understand where you are coming from. It can come accross as an attack page. However, he's a controversial guy and is going to endure criticims. I have been trying to put it in perspective by organizing the article better. The main O'Reilly article kept getting bloated and editors would cut it down only to be built back up again. A spinoff article had to be created. The best thing to do is weed out extraneous information and just bring up the main points and ultimately merged back into the main article. I think an article on a controversial issue or person should be portrayed to let the reader decide for themselves. MrMurph101 21:47, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello! In response to your question about why I removed the line about "Glick continuously interupting O'Reilly": Frankly, from the available transcripts, it seems like the conversation quickly broke down to the point where both participants simply wouldn't let each other talk. To me, it definitely seems like O'Reilly did most of the interrupting, but thats my admittedly POV interpretation. I think its best to conform to the way the O'Reilly/Franken dispute section has been recently edited...don't pass blame on either participant, simply present the basic facts and let the reader follow the provided links for more info/details. Not sure if you'll agree with me but thats why I made the change.Hal Raglan 19:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User notice: temporary 3RR block

[edit] So Glick was wrong.

That's beside the point. The point is, O'Reilly tried to pretend Glick was talking about George W. Bush, when Glick was in fact talking (mistakenly) about George H. W. Bush. If O'Reilly wanted to criticize Glick, he should have done so on the grounds of his factual error about H.W., and not on grounds of O'Reilly's mistake about who Glick was talking about. Kasreyn 18:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

You said:

I would be even more curious to see the exact quote in which O'Reilly said that Glick thought that W. was senior director of the CIA.

I've been wondering about that myself. Here is what our article on Glick currently says (2nd paragraph of "Post-show controversy":

O'Reilly has since stated on at least three occasions[2] that Glick remarked during the interview that George W. Bush orchestrated or had prior knowledge of the 9/11 attacks.

If this is incorrect (i.e. if O'Reilly didn't claim this) then we definitely need to fix the article. However, the quotes cited by MM in the linked article seem to be saying just what the article on Glick says. Cheers, Kasreyn 19:29, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad that you, too, care about the O'Reilly article being clear and POVless. Perhaps you can help me counter MrMurph101's overstepping his own efforts: He's reinstanted hyperbole, redundancy, poor grammar, and even POV by reverting very careful (and POV-less) edits that I made! :( Airumel 17:12, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Personal Threats Accusations

Stanley, I have been discussing your claims that I sent you threats in my edit summaries with a few wikipedia administrators. We'd like to know what is the basis of your claiming for all to see that I have sent you threats. Sysrpl 15:10, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Please do not label content disputes as vandalism. Thanks :). Project2501a 15:20, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I am discussing this topic in chat. Sysrpl 15:24, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I do not want to threaten anyone. If you feel I have sent you personal threats then go ahead and explain yourself rather than using the edit history comments for what might be considered slander. Sysrpl 15:44, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

See this talk section. Sysrpl 18:26, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked for 24 hours

Stanley, further activity of this nature will result in a abitration filed for your account's permanent suspension. Sysrpl 12:25, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Controversy

Hi. Are you referring to this edit? Redux 12:29, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Stanley, since you seem intent on carrying out your unwavering cycles of reverts without regards to anyone's statements, including Redux's request that we make an effort to stop the immediate reverts without discusion, I will leave you a message here.

Freshly back from suspension you are at it again, leaving only the comments "rv to last version by JChap due to pov insertions " in the edit history line.

I ask you to please stop insisting on presenting sources to the audience prefaced with negative information, the intention of which is to discredit or ridicule what that source is about to say. Please redress our points and stop making arguments that go in circles while endlessly making reverts leaving the same disingenuous comments. Pointing you back to what you said about not attempting to imply a Franken is lying, Franken formed a college research group to research every fact in preparing his case, what does saying the source "claims" to have researched the subject do other than imply he is lying? You also say you didn't create statements for the audience which labeled sources as "conspiracy theorists" and linking to blog website, but an examination of the edit history clearly shows he did. I find this all quite disingenuous and would appreciate it if you looked back through our comments and answered them honestly. Sysrpl 17:14, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My mistake

I see now you merely reverted to a version with incorrect capitalization. Kasreyn 09:03, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] signature

Hi Stanley, please sign talk pages with four tildes "~~~~" or at least some method that includes a time-stamp. It makes it easier for one to determine which comments are of current relevance and generally makes discussions easier to follow. Thanks, -MrFizyx 20:03, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

What happened to our agreement to contribute to dicussions when editing? You said "We are not justified in making that implication unless there is an accessible third party source that supports that implication." I found just that, a third party cource supporting that implication, then you went ahead and changed the article again without discussing. In addition you stated that the claim was made in the above supporting link, when what I gave was a new cited reference; i.e. a different document. You edited out the new link I posted, renegged on your prior statement, did not dicuss it, and in your edit you posted a broken link. Sysrpl 13:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I hadn't refreshed my browser in time to see your last edit prior to making the above entry. Sysrpl 13:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re Hillary

Hi Stanley. Indeed, the account has been used solely for unacceptable behavior. The user has been warned today (by an anon, which is not that common, but given the nature of this person's edits, not really unexpected) and has not returned to vandalize since. I will be keeping an eye on that account. If they return, and if the next edit is of a similar nature, I will block it accordingly. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. Redux 16:41, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I already did block the account permanently, which is why the user hasn't "returned". Sarge Baldy 17:32, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hello

Hello Stanley011, I'm Aeon Aktornado's advocate from the AMA. Looking back at your recent history on both the Tiger woods article and List of golfers shows that you have been acting in a manner that is inconstant with Wikipedia Policy. You are also getting close to Violating the 3RR rule again. Also your recent post on his talk page is boarder line uncivil. Please in the future choose your words with more care. Aktornado has sourced his work if you have any soruces that support your POV then please post them on my tlak page so we can settle this dispute. Thank you Æon ^{Insane Ward} 15:41, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Please as I requested post them on my talk page, and yes I do consider your comments boardline uncivility. Æon ^{Insane Ward} 15:46, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the dif's I will review them so I can advise him on how to go from here. Please Understand that my only issues with you on Civiliy were you last comments, I seriouly think that you are a civil editor in most cases and that that was an isolated event. I will get back to you and AKtornado in a bit. Æon ^{Insane Ward} 16:01, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you I have requested that Aktornado provide his so I can compare. This seems to be a simple content dispute and can be easily solved I think. Æon ^{Insane Ward} 16:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

Please stop vandalising Nuclear terrorism. Removing entire sections of the article is not acceptable. Thankyou. Damburger 15:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Inserting sources that violate WP:RS and falsely claiming that your statements are supported by the sources you provided, as numerous editors have already told you, does great damage to the integrity of wikipedia. Accordingly, my deletion of your comments is a good-faith attempt to improve the article, and is therefore not vandalism. Stanley011 16:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR violation

FYI, I have reported you for violating the 3RR on Golfers with most wins in men's major championships. I'd really like to settle this in a reasonable manner, but you've yet to address the concern on the talk page. Stating that your version is "more accurate" isn't sufficient to comply with WP:NPOV. Also, claiming that the sources I provided are all omitting the word "professional" doesn't seem very plausible. Aren't I Obscure? 20:05, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A point of grammar

I wish to argue your use of "consisted of" in the 9/11 article. I originally changed it from "consisted of" to "were," only to find that you changed it back. If my revision was grammatically incorrect, can you explain why, so I personally won't make the same mistake again. Thanks --Jay(Reply) 00:43, 12 September 2006 (UTC) [4]

Sure, for several reasons. First, it is ambiguous as to whether "9/11 attacks" is plural, referring to the "attacks" or is singular, referring to the unit "9/11 attacks." If we are to assume it's plural, which I do not, we must keep in mind that it is ungrammatical to equate plural subjects (9/11 attacks) with a singular object (a series). However, "9/11 attacks was" sounds too clunky and "consisted of" has the advantage of not excluding what some consider to be "part of the attacks"--that is, the planning phases, the actual hijackings themselves (prior to the conclusions), and other facets not captured by the remainder of the description. Stanley011 02:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. --Jay(Reply) 19:18, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome!

[edit] Amy Goodman

Hello, in re to your recent edit of the Goodman article, I would first like to say that I am all for compromising here. However, going from my edit here to your edit here seems to add redundancy. By saying she is a ‘voice of the disenfranchised left’ we have already indicated that she is a ‘left wing radio personality’, without having to further quote anybody. Also, we do not have to specify who the quote is from in the main article, as this can be seen in the ref section. I do appreciate your willingness to compromise, so please understand that this is just about trying to create a better article, and not a personal bias thing. Thank you. --Jackbirdsong 22:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tennis

Do you like tennis?Tennislover 00:04, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] hi help please

I just wanted to know how to have an article listed on google when searched on google. i know it's probably on a help page, but i can't seem to find it. Please could you direct me to it?