User talk:William Graham
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Welcome to my talk page. Please sign and date your entries by inserting -- ~~~~ at the end.
Start a new talk topic.
Talk archives
[edit] Bernie Sanders Edits
William, please research and cite specifc concerns with "weasal words" and citations' validity before removing them from the article. Further incidents will result in reporting to Administrators and possible blocking from Wikipedia.Straightinfo 16:46, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
As you are aware, reverts of simple vandalism are not counted for 3RR rule. Straightinfo 16:49, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- As we've discussed, straightinfo, this isn't vandalism, it is a content dispute. The concerns with the citations etc are being discussed on talk. --He:ah? 17:45, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Comment from 64.223.121.83
William, do not edit my talk--Further, in a piece written for TPM Cafe.com --64.223.121.83 (talk • contribs)
[edit] Keith Olbermann
What do you propose we do regarding Rcox's edits to the Keith Olbermann articles? --D-Day My fan mail. Click to view my evil userboxes 22:54, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 01:50, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Re:RCox
I pretty miuch figured out who RCox was the minute I saw his username. OlbermannWatch is a nasty place. One time I had the nerve to disagree with one of their posts and said so, and I still bear the scars! ;) I guess we have no choice but let OlbermannWatch solve their own problems. If RCox keeps up his incivility, there's always Rfc, and if necessary, ArbCom. --D-Day(Wouldn't you like to be a pepper too?) 20:28, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
- Oh yes, if he brings up a blog I had against him last year, it is true yes. Perhaps my choice of words wasn't the wisest, but what OlbermannWatch had to say made me furious, and I felt like I needed to respond. Hopefully, he won't bring that up again, but something tells me he will. Hopefully, it won't become a huge deal. --D-Day(Wouldn't you like to be a pepper too?) 14:56, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] reverting vandalism
[edit] Vandal tags
Thank you for reverting vandalism on Wikipedia!
Be sure to put warning tags on the vandal's user talk page (such as {{subst:test}}, {{subst:test2}}, {{subst:test3}}, {{subst:test4}}). Add each of these tags on the vandal's talk page, in sequential order, after each instance of vandalism. Adding warnings to the talk page assists administrators in determining whether or not the user should be blocked. If the user continues to vandalize pages after you add the {{subst:test4}} tag, request administrator assistance at Request for Intervention. Again, thank you for helping to make Wikipedia better.
[edit] Edit summary
When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labelled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this:
The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.
When you leave the edit summary blank, some of your edits could be mistaken for vandalism and may be reverted, so please always briefly summarize your edits, especially when you are making subtle but important changes, like changing dates or numbers. Thank you.
Especially when putting a {{db-band}} tag on a page.[1]. And Don't forget to notify the page creator User:Apescum. Personally I am a M:Inclusionism--E-Bod 23:02, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
- Ps i sugest you use Template:Nn-warn to tell the creator of articles that their article will be deleted--E-Bod 00:47, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Misspelled name
I don't think Rabinic means what you think it does. Thanks for coming out though. RabinicLawyer 23:16, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] "Determined" to be unhelpful
I extensively documented my findings. Nobody else did. They just deleted.
I believe Italic textthatItalic text qualifies as vandalism.
Thank you!
Mike Church
aka pensive —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Peter S. Levine Huckiss (talk • contribs) 14:29, 27 April 2006.
- I am going to look into this issue but didn't i just warn William Graham to use an edit summary. Don't revert withough explaining becose it's taking me longer to evaluate the siduation.--E-Bod 22:29, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
- I think Template:Behave is a more appropriat friendly warning template. Anyway i don't see how using a Clear Vandalism warning is aroporiat Remember WP:Bite--E-Bod 23:10, 27 April 2006 (UTC).
- After a new user adds such a long edit a revert is harsh. You can see in thier edit they used an extra "[" for ouside links and he/she hasn't figued out how to make Italic text properly. If they like to joke let them know about uncyclopedia and if you don't know about it i can rest my case.--E-Bod 23:19, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
- I think Template:Behave is a more appropriat friendly warning template. Anyway i don't see how using a Clear Vandalism warning is aroporiat Remember WP:Bite--E-Bod 23:10, 27 April 2006 (UTC).
[edit] list of newspapers in the US
Thank you for reverting that. the_ed17(talk) Use these! 17:34, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Can you revert the Ancient Greek article?????? And can I revert things even if I am not an admin? the_ed17(talk) Use these! 19:49, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Copyvio tag
Hi. You recently tagged Staghorn coral for speedy deletion as a copyvio of this site [2]. I believe that site is in the public domain and as such it may be copied here. I think it is best to analyze this case with more detail before deleting it. I have added a hang on for this purpose. Joelito (talk) 17:59, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Keith Olbermann Links
As I've said on the discussion page, I absolutely agree with you that NO such fan forums should be listed at Wiki. However, I think it grossly unfair that if one is going to be mentioned, that the rest should be excluded. Thus, I came up with a compromise: posting the remaining sites that were being left out of inclusion. As I said, I do not see anythign special or unique about any of them. They all look like your average message board/fan forum to me. And no where else on any of the pages of news personalities or news networks could I find similar links. I did go to Cabal on this, I was overruled and told that since there couldn't possibly be that many sites for such an obscure personality, that Ko.org should remain. I then contacted someone else at Wiki, who told me that they agreed with me--it should be all or none. So that was my split decision: if one was going to be here, then all should be. I've labeled them as fan forums and put them under the external links.
William, were you aware that the list was the result of days of discussion resulting in a consensus, at long last? CuteGargoyle 01:12, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
- Since you decided to move the discussion over to my talk page, I've responded to you there. CuteGargoyle 05:33, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
- This has now been arbitrated at the highest levels of Wikipedia and the decision is to let the link to KeithOlbermann.org stand, William. Please refer to the talk page of Keith Olbermann's article and stop deleted the link, which I will now put back --DoctorMike 11:20, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Actually the cabal is a non-binding decision and two more Wiki users chimed in, whose opinions are as valid as the Cabal's about this and they agreed it should be removed. If there had been a mediation or arbitration decision, those would be on the discussion page for the Keith Olbermann page and its not so this is simply not true. I also believe there's been some confusion about the difference between www.olbermann.org and www.keitholbermann.org. They are not the same site. One is rich in content and does not have a message board but links to all the others. www.keitholbermann.org is a message board site owned by Dr.Mike that he believes should be listed over all the others. As I explained yesterday, it is not the most visited site, it's not the site with the most posts or members, and it is not the oldest site. By any measure, if one message board is going to be included over all the others, in the interest of fairness, it should be the largest and that is the one at Democratic Underground. I've got no dog in this fight, I don't post at any of those sites, I had to go to Google to even find them all, but I wanted to double-check some of the claims being made by DoctorMike and I found some real whoppers in doing so. He first said that his was the only message board. It's not, jsut as prior posters have said. He then claimed it was the most popular. It's not. He then said that all the other moderators of all the other boards had agreed his site and only his site should be listed. I don't see any evidence to back up that claim either. He also said he treated all registerd users with respect. His posts to me prove otherwise on the Keith Olbermann discussion page. I understand his passion about his site because its his site. But a wiki page should not be about reason but fact. It should be to present any one who comes to Wiki with the best possible reference guide to a subject. Inclusion of www.olbermann.org which is rich in research on Keith Olbermann fits that definition. A link to a message board site (www.keitholbermann.org) that isn't even the most popular of the Olbermann message boards does not fit that definition. JeffBerg
Waffle Iron, this is just what I was worried would happen. Because you decided to edit without regard to the very precarious compromise which took days and even weeks to reach, we've got this mess on our hands. You still have not reinserted the list of links on the KO page, which is a change which is most likely to satisfy all parties who are willing to compromise at all. CuteGargoyle 16:12, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Explanation
When listing something as violating NPOV [3], please discuss what the issue is on the talk page. Please do not just place the POV tag and then leave. Thanks. --Mark Neelstin (Dark Mark) 03:30, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
- Well, I wasn't the person who removed it, but if you were writing it up, I apologise. --Mark Neelstin (Dark Mark) 03:34, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
- I didn't realise there were so many edits to a relatively obscure figure at this hour. Oh well... no hard feelings. --Mark Neelstin (Dark Mark) 03:39, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Semicolon syntax was proper
Re: Your edit (diff)
The original code was proper, and the recommended way here. "Proper headings" are to be used only if you want them to appear in the TOC. Too much unnecessary subheadings lead to cluttered, page-long TOCs.
The semicolon syntax is used to make a non-sectional heading that won't appear in the TOC, because it isn't navigationnally useful. We usually don't need to have the detail of the External links section described in the TOC. Specifically, please also see Wikipedia:External_links#External_links_section.
-- 62.147.36.103 00:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Joycelyn Elders quotes
OK, that wasn't evident in the wording. They appeared to be extraneous quotes by the comedians themselves. However, there's another problem, your "verification" by watching the show qulifies as Original Research. Technically, we need a third-party source to cite quotes.--WilliamThweatt 01:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
- Only if you can prove that it was indeed said, whether it be on CNN or ComedyCentral, otherwise all we have is your word--and that is not how an encyclopaedia is compiled. I quote from the Wikipedia:No original research policy: "...it is essential that any primary-source material, as well as any generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation of information or data, has been published by a reputable third-party publication (that is, not self-published) that is available to readers either from a website (other than Wikipedia) or through a public library." You have to be able to point to a written transcript (published by somebody other than yourself) of what was said.--WilliamThweatt 01:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
- That's all I was asking for. Very thorough and commendable work.--WilliamThweatt 02:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Tyler Drumheller
William,
Please discontinue your reverting of my edits to the Tyler Drumheller page. Mr. Drumheller is making he said/he said claims against the administration and his political donations go straight to his credibility. The link to open secrets dot org is relevant to the article so that readers can correct for a possible bias.
--Bagginator 07:58, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Daily Show logo
Nice grab. Definitely looks better than the screen cap. Cheers, JDoorjam Talk 04:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Template:Infobox Television
Please don't randomly cut fields from infoboxes, as you did with this edit. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 05:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
- Ah. Thanks for explaining it. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 18:49, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Employee of the Month (2006 film)
I've put back the film infobox as I couldn't see what was copyvio about that part of the article. I do agree with you concerning the rest. (Pally01 21:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC))
[edit] Comment from anon
William-If you only knew what you think you know. Thanks for your advice. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.217.139.62 (talk • contribs) .
[edit] McCain-Lieberman Party
Hello. I am new to the Wikipedia world, but I was anxious to get started with the McCain-Lieberman Party concept. It is a term used now by many political junkies and political scientists, but in a casual way. I know from conversation and blogging that it is frequently discussed. The exact nature or definition of the subject is often vague to people who are not regular political junkies, that's why I think it's important to not delete this article. I know from the Sitemeter records on my old blog that after Lieberman lost and Brooks wrote this column, many people googled the phrase. However, they were met with countless blog entries that are vague and not neutral.
This isn't a phrase that is simply secluded to David Brooks. After he used it multiple times on television and in speeches, it became part of the political science colloquial conversation. For instance, I had the good fortune of having lunch with Mr. Brooks, Clarence Paige, and a few political scientists at the University of Illinois and during that conversation the phrase was used multiple times.
The article is not meant as a prediction or a "crystal ball." Rather it is simply to define a term that is becoming more frequently used. Simply google it as proof.
This topic would be a very important contribution to Wiki. Please reconsider your nomination for deletion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Onemanbandbjm (talk • contribs) .
[edit] Farrell's campaign
is one of the top house races in the country, and if the Hartford Courant thinks the Lieberman campaign is getting in her way it is more relevant than one talk show host offering one opinion about Lieberman. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.107.245.70 (talk • contribs) .
[edit] WP: 3RR
I know you are not talking to me... -- Renice 18:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Plame affair
Hey William, have you researched anything on this topic? The article is too long. You simply are simply reverting; are you sure you can deny any changes on your own authority? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.156.87.5 (talk • contribs) .
[edit] What do you have against the name Charles
Are you upset at Richard Charles Kyanka or something? --TIB (talk) 19:28, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] TFN
thank you for taking care of the TFN article. if you're able to lock it for vandalism, that would be much appreciated.03:05, 27 October 2006 (UTC) oct 26, 2006
[edit] What do you have against our troops?
Oh, you self-identify as a "goon". That makes it allright to spew your hatred I guess. Morningmusic 21:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
gb2gbs Ggnext 20:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
