User talk:Boscobiscotti
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Please take note of the fact that you are ineligable for voting on VfD issues until you have a reasonable number of edits to articles on your contributions list. Joining just to vote on VfD is not allowed. Your votes are therefore invalid. Reene (リニ) 03:07, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)
Your contributions list logs each and every single edit you ever make on your account. Right now the only things on that list are edits made to the VfD articles and to my talk page. You cannot vote. Period. That is not up for discussion or debate. It doesn't matter if you contributed anonymously in the past, as you need an account to vote and the account must have a few valid edits. Reene (リニ) 03:43, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)
It's true that you technically can't vote: in the eyes of most experienced Wikipedians, this is plain fact, and that does include the admins that count up such votes. The purpose of my comments here and on the pages in question were to make it easier for the admin that will be counting the votes and to clarify why your vote will likely not be counted. I believe it's important to both sides to have an untainted vote, especially considering the fiasco with the last VfD concerning the main article (long story, won't explain here). You shouldn't take this personally as it isn't intended as such. I did get a trifle upset when you said I "deleted" your comments though, as such actions are deeply frowned upon, but I realize this was a misunderstanding now. Peace and Wikilove to you, and welcome to Wikipedia by the way :) Reene✎ 11:56, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Welcome (again)
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. I see Reene has greeted you already, but I thought I'd give you some proper help with Wikipedia since you made a comment on the pump about getting educated on it. Here are some helpful links:
If you'd like to get even more involved in Wikipedia, such as voting on featured articles or collaboration of the week and much more, you can always visit the community portal. Again, welcome! Johnleemk | Talk 13:56, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Thanks for Al Gore edits
Thanks for your recent edits to Al Gore. I had already corrected a similar mischaracterization of that speech later in the article, and hadn't noticed it was repeated in that other section. --Allen 18:49, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] note to self
Check out Wikipedia:Notability (films). You also could ask for help at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films. Calliopejen1 06:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Verifiability and responsible editing
I recommend that you review the Wikipedia policy on verifiability, particularly the burden of evidence. You are currently restoring content to the Project for the New American Century without reliable and verifiable references. Jimmy Wales has spoken on this matter personally, which you can read yourself at the link I provided. I'm not going to get in an edit war with you, but I will take it to the next level, because the edits you're restoring are completely irresponsible. Regards, MoodyGroove 05:14, 7 May 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove replied on your talk page --Boscobiscotti 05:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- The second paragraph of the lead seems reasonable, but I don't understand why you insist on replacing unsourced content that contains weasel words, particularly since I've made verifiability an issue. Yes, I removed a lot of content, but not as brutishly as you make it sound. I carefully read each item, and placed them in separate bullet points, with explanations for each. If something was referenced, I weighed the reliability of the reference, whether or not it corresponded with the claim that was made (look at the "smoking gun" reference for example), and whether or not the way it was strug together constituted original research. The Controversy section is extremely problematic. I just don't understand why you're defending it in its current form. MoodyGroove 05:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove
- Brutish? love that word. I suspect no pixels were killed in your edit, and no brutality involved :) However, it is indeed a massive edit. (perhaps heroic, not brutish, who knows?, I dont.) but large, as in: you removed the *entire* controversy section, including references. bingo - wipeout. no controversy. I suggest we work together to improve that section. I am sure we come from differing viewpoints, and together we can fashion a fair representation of the controversy.--Boscobiscotti 05:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- Fair enough, Boscobiscotti. I apologize for bristling. I don't know where you live but it's almost 0200 here on the east coast of the U.S. I need to get some shut eye, but I'll stop back tomorrow and see how it's coming along. Regards, MoodyGroove 05:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove
- well I do have a day job. I have started with the first section and tried to remove some POV, and source claims. perhaps you will want to tweak that. as time permits, I will attempt to move through, read and address your comments as time permits in the next couple days.. lets improve and remove specific weaselish words, phrases,etc. --Boscobiscotti 06:05, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- Fair enough, Boscobiscotti. I apologize for bristling. I don't know where you live but it's almost 0200 here on the east coast of the U.S. I need to get some shut eye, but I'll stop back tomorrow and see how it's coming along. Regards, MoodyGroove 05:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove
- Brutish? love that word. I suspect no pixels were killed in your edit, and no brutality involved :) However, it is indeed a massive edit. (perhaps heroic, not brutish, who knows?, I dont.) but large, as in: you removed the *entire* controversy section, including references. bingo - wipeout. no controversy. I suggest we work together to improve that section. I am sure we come from differing viewpoints, and together we can fashion a fair representation of the controversy.--Boscobiscotti 05:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- It's an improvement. Keep in mind that some comments have multiple problems. For example, "Some have argued the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in March of 2003 was the first step in furthering these plans.[citation needed]" Problem 1: "Some have argued" is a weasel phrase. Problem 2: No citation. Problem 3: Hence it is original research. It's not a matter of cleaning up a comment like this, so much as removing it from the article pending a reliable source being added that explicitly makes this connection. Here's another example. "The report has been the subject of much analysis and criticism." A comment like this needs multiple citations. MoodyGroove 14:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove
- This is one of the most irresponsible parts of the article: "One of the core missions outlined in the 2000 report Rebuilding America's Defenses is "fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars;"[1] No problem so far. "After the September 11, 2001 attacks, the United States invaded Afghanistan because Osama bin Laden had taken refuge there and the administration held him responsible for the September 11, 2001 attacks. In March 2003, the United States invaded Iraq citing multiple grounds. 2003 invasion of Iraq" This is absolutely unacceptable and has been removed as original research because it implies a connection between the report and the war. You get the idea. I started there, and I won't go any further until you've had a chance to substantiate the two items I just removed. MoodyGroove 14:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove
- I suggest this discussion should be moved to the article talk page - as it is pertinent historical info about how and why changes were made.--Boscobiscotti 17:08, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- I think you've done a lot to improve the article, and I give you credit for that. I have nominated this article to be checked for neutrality and conformity with biographies of living persons by a third party who has not been involved in our content dispute. Best, MoodyGroove 20:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove
