User talk:Stoked
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"the guy might be a horrible broadcaster [most likely the worse ever]" That's your problem, you're biased. If you don't like Joe Buck that's fine, but wikipedia is supposed to be written from a neutral perspective. So if you keep adding NPOV garbage, I'm going to keep reverting it. Here's my suggestion, go start a "Joe Buck Sucks" blog somewhere. That way you can bash him without interference.--BoyoJonesJr 15:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Whatever, I'm not going to fight with you. By the way, I happen to think Joe Buck is the best NFL announcer out there, and I may be from Canada but I watch every NFL game that airs and an avid viewer of NFL network, there are TV's in Canada. --BoyoJonesJr 20:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Hello Stoked, and welcome to Wikipedia.
I'm not Rick Jelliffe, and not a Microsoft shill. I take the view that criticism of both ODF and OOXML is good and healthy, and criticism of ODF will help to improve the standard. I won't revert your edit. I was in the process of updating criticism of OOXML, trying to decide what to use from the Groklaw article. ODF is by no means perfect, and the view I have is that the better it can be made, the more likely it is to succeed - and valid criticism wirll help that process.
I hope you contribute to other articles in Wikipedia before long, and get to enjoy being here. All the best WLDtalk|edits 17:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Ted Stevens
Hi Stoked,
I've modified your edits to the Ted Stevens page: [1] [2]. More recent articles on the subject all seem to assert that Wikipedia would not be affected by the proposed limits. For example: [3] [4]. Do you know something I don't? Thanks, Canderson7 (talk) 04:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
- The actual bill (available here) does not attempt to specify which sites would be affected. Rather it offers several criteria for consideration by the Commission: (i) is offered by a commercial entity; (ii) permits registered users to create an on-line profile that includes detailed personal information; (iii) permits registered users to create an on-line journal and share such a journal with other users; (iv) elicits highly-personalized information from users; and (v) enables communication among users. Although there is some gray area, Wikipedia is not a commercial entity so it seems certain the bill would not apply (iv also doesn't apply to Wikipedia). Applicable sites would not be "banned." Access by minors without parental permission would be restricted except in such cases as a teacher is supervising educational use. I've gotten all this directly from the text of the bill itself, but we don't have to worry about original research because my interpretation is supported by several sources ([5] [6]). I think at this point we should be content with the article as is and wait for further developments. Thanks. Canderson7 (talk) 17:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
