User talk:67.160.229.147

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Sorry, I did not see it earlier!

Gentlemen, I was unaware of this thread until today, sorry, I was not ignoring it.

I occasioanally listen to Mr. Savage, and I wholeheartedly agree with some of his ideas and opinions, but I really despise his style: he definitely inerrupts his callers midsentence most of the time, he quite regularly hungs up on them and swears at them. His screaming feasts are also a common occurence. That is, he certainly quite often does everything I mentioned in my edits. This is why I believe that Mr. Savage's Wikipedia article is missing some vital information and needs to be amended to describe his phenomenon in a more balanced way.

So, there seem to be two issues:

- my comments are not neutral enough -

As you must have undoubtfully guessed, English is not my mother tongue, but I can find someone highly qualified to edit my submission for neutrality.

- I need to prove my assertions -

This is a bit more complicated - how can I prove it - do you want me to submit the statistics of how many callers he interrupted and hung up on during a show? Do I have to provide audiofiles of his irrelevant musings, or screaming feasts, or Jewish accent imitation sessions? This remains a grey area and I would highly apprecieate your guidance on this.


Again, I am sorry for violating Wikipedia rules, I was unaware of it. I love your resource, my children use it all the time and consider it a highest authority.

First of all, thank you for responding and your willingness to open a dialogue. I listen to Savage as well, a few times a week. I used to listen everyday when I was commuting but, although I agree with him on most issues, like you I sometimes grow weary of his spontaneous rants and interuption of callers who seem to be making valid points.
Now, to answer your questions, my best suggestion is for you to thoroughly read and understand WP:NPOV and especially WP:NOR which explains Wikipedia's policy concerning what we call "Original Research". I'll summarize it briefly for you. Wikipedia strives to be an encyclopedia, and as such all information presented in the articles must be collected from either primary sources or secondary sources. Wikipedia is not a research journal, a place for essays or observations, a random collection of facts, or a forum to present "new" information. So, what this means, in essence, is that if you wish to include in the article, for example that "Dr. Savage's style includes screaming at his callers, irrelevant musings and stereotypical imitations of Jewish accents", you have to find a reliable source that documents this and include a reference to the source in your edit.
As for you question about statistics, it would be fine to include statistics on how many callers he interupts per show, BUT you would have to find a reliable source that documents and records this statistic so you could cite the origin of the statistics. If you listened and counted for yourself, that would be considered Original Research and would not be acceptable.
Hope this helps. If you have any questions or need any further clarification after reading WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. Feel free to ask me or anybody else here. Also, it is customary to "sign" you comments on talk pages by typing four tildes like this ~~~~ (there is a short cut button third from the left in the tool bar right above the editing window).--WilliamThweatt 16:39, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I see. Well, it is going to be difficult to find a "reliable source" to support my point, but at least I now have a better understanding of how Wikipedia works :-)

Thank you for your explanations, Vadim B. --67.160.229.147 03:21, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Your edits to Michael Savage (commentator)

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you.

[edit] NPOV and OR

Hi. Regarding your edits at Michael Savage, you ought to look up WP:NPOV and WP:NOR, two mandatory Wikipedia policies which explain why your recent edits are unacceptable. In particular, note that all additions to a Wikipedia article must be reliably sourced and must be written from a neutral point of view. If you need any further explanation or assistance, just leave me a message and I'll be glad to help. Kasreyn 10:20, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello, I urge you to read and understand the policies that Kasreyn mentions above. Your continued edits to Michael Savage are becoming disruptive and are contrary to both the goals and spirit of Wikipedia. Constructive edits are always welcomed and encouraged. If you don't understand the policies regarding WP:NPOV and WP:NOR, there are plenty of editors who are willing to help. Also, you may discuss the material you wish to include on Talk:Michael Savage (commentator). Discussion on the talk pages is often helpful in resolving POV and OR wording. I also recommend that you read WP:3RR as you have already violated this policy and could be subject to a temporary block in editing privledges. I have not reported you yet, preferring to work things out diplomaticly, but I will have no other choice if you continue to be disruptive.--WilliamThweatt 04:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I see a couple people have tried to reason with you. It's not that Savage isn't a prick, but this is an encyclopedia and articles have to be written with a neutral point of view. Please keep this in mind when you contribute to Wikipedia articles. I hope you will become a regular contributor, and if you do, you must keep our rules and policies in mind. Gamaliel 15:02, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I hate Michael Savage as much as the next guy, but you're just wasting people's time--Savage fans and non-fans alike--with this edit war. Please knock it off. Nareek 17:58, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] July 1

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's NPOV policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Furthermore, reinserting the same commentary multiple times may cause you to violate the three-revert rule, which can lead to a block. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 05:57, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

He just did it again -- not sure what the policy is now. CalebNoble 08:58, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User notice: temporary 3RR block

[edit] Regarding reversions[1] made on July 1, 2006 (UTC) to Michael Savage (commentator)

 You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.
The duration of the block is 8 hours. William M. Connolley 10:41, 1 July 2006 (UTC)