User talk:Brendan19

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Brendan19, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  Can't sleep, clown will eat me 10:34, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Jimmy Carter

I'm just curious why you felt the need to change so much of this article from American to British standard spelling (program to programme, favorite to favourite). Seems like an odd thing to do on a U.S. President's page =P. --Moralis 01:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

it was a mistake. in trying to make a small change i somehow reverted the page back to what it was a month or so ago. im trying to undo what i did. thanks. Brendan19 01:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ha

Thanks for the spelling correction... I am an idiot. --Rtrev 03:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rush Limbaugh

Your recent addition to this article includes a comparison of Limbaugh to "other drug offenders", a direct inference that Limbaugh is guilty of a criminal act. Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not add unreferenced negative biographical information concerning living persons to Wikipedia articles. Thank you. --Allen3 talk 14:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

hey allen, he agreed to a plea deal for a drug offense. thanks- Brendan19 06:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

oh allen, by the way... my stuff had plenty of reputable sources, so what were you talking about? Brendan19 08:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

While there are plenty of reputable sources that the deal occurred, all of them that I have read show that Limbaugh entered a "not guilty" plea and that no trial is scheduled to try him on the single filed charge. The reasons for Limbaugh and the District Attorney's office agreeing to the settlement have also not been revealed. As a result the assumption that Limbaugh is guilty of a drug offense is original research and ignores other possibilities that conform with the known facts. One such possibility is that Limbaugh decided the settlement was less expensive than continuing to defend his constitutional rights from a three year investigation (compare $30,000 to $35,000 in fines and fees to $500+/hour for high power lawyers) and that the other details of the settlement allowed both sides to end the ordeal with a minimal loss of face. At this time there is no way for Wikipedia to determine which possibility is closer to the truth and until reliable sources become available to clarify the situation the article needs to avoid taking a position supporting any of these possibilities. --Allen3 talk 13:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

i would like to point out that my "inference that limbaugh is guilty of a criminal act" made it onto the limbaugh page after considerable debate amongst many. limbaughs quote about how drug offenders should go to jail has already been removed and it should be interesting to see if limbaugh fanatics can water it down any more than it is now... 'Limbaugh has, throughout the years, condemned illegal drug use on his radio broadcast and has stated that those convicted of drug crimes should be sent to jail.[48]' the last sentence started out as... 'This deal is in contrast to what Limbaugh thought other drug offenders' punishments should be, "Drug use, some might say, is destroying this country. And we have laws against selling drugs, pushing drugs, using drugs, importing drugs. ... And so if people are violating the law by doing drugs, they ought to be accused and they ought to be convicted and they ought to be sent up," Limbaugh said on his short-lived television show on Oct. 5, 1995. [1] [2]' lets see where it goes from here. Brendan19 13:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality tag on Limbaugh article

Would you please list the specific concerns you have with neutrality in the article on the talk page so the can be discussed and addressed? The neutrality tag is not intended to permanently tag articles on controversial subjects, so you need to provide your rationale for the tag. Thanks, —Doug Bell talk 06:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


gee, doug... that list would take a long time and i bet most of the items on my list would be countered by allen or caper or someone. as long as this page is constantly edited by some to glorify a man who doesnt always deserve such glorification i will question the neutrality of the article. thanks Brendan19 07:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

That's fine if you question it, but without elaborating on the talk page the tag will have to go. It's not for you to personally tag articles you take issue with, it's for identifying and cleaning up articles that have specific, identifiable problems. —Doug Bell talk 07:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

doug, i hadnt been on wikipedia in a while and i was actually shocked to see the neutrality tag removed from limbaugh's page. i could find no reason for its removal, so i put it back. take a look- it was removed in early january (8 maybe?). Brendan19 07:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Nevertheless, the specific concerns need to be listed and discussed on the talk page. I don't know the history of the tag on the article, but if it was placed there without an accompaning discussion, or if the issues to be discussed did not have consensus of a problem with neutrality, then the tag should have been removed. As I said, it's not for the purpose of people registering their personal views on the article. Especially since people using it in that way usually have their own point of view they are trying to promote. —Doug Bell talk 07:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

not knowing the history of the tag should be reason enough to leave it alone... that being said, i think there will always be questions of neutrality about certain articles on wikipedia. it is one of the reasons people are not always trusting of information found here on wikipedia. placing a tag of questionable neutrality on such articles could alert people to be wary of info found there. plenty of people know not to always trust what they read, but there are also many out there willing to believe plenty. wikipedia is used more and more by internet saavy kids who may not be aware of what absolute crap can be found when looking for the real deal. look into it if you like, but the tag was removed 8 jan 2007 for no identifiable reason. that's why i put it back. thanks Brendan19 07:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't actually matter whether the tag was there and removed or never there—that's not the issue. As I said above, if it was there without identification of the NPOV issues, then it was there inappropriately and should have been removed. Whether you are placing or replacing the tag, the same criteria hold. Thanks, —Doug Bell talk 07:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

youre missing my point. neutrality is questioned in that article on a weekly basis. if you want identification of the issues i would suggest you watch the edits being made. you should identify plenty of npov issues in no time. im sure my changing of "prescription drug addiction" to "drug addiction" will bring about calls of bias and who knows what else. its a page that will inherently have neutrality issues. if you want to remove the tag- go for it. i just dont think it will serve wikipedia users best interests. i would also argue that if the same criteria hold for placing or replacing the tag they should hold for removing it. when removed it should be clear that it was done because the issues surrounding its placement have been resolved. do you really think this article is not experiencing the same npov issues that prompted the tag? thanks Brendan19 07:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you read the instructions at Template:Neutrality and the discussion on the talk page if you want to understand the criteria for placing and removing the tag. Also, just prior to seeing your last post here, I removed the tag and also reverted the section heading change. Why is removing the word "Prescription" from the heading improving the neutrality of the article? Prescription drug abuse is a legitimate distinction from drug abuse (it is has common usage), and it is accurate, so your change would seem to be intended to create a less favorable impression, which is clearly not moving towards a more neutral article. —Doug Bell talk 08:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

i see your point on the prescription thing. i also understand the procedure for placing and removing the tag. as i mentioned before i think the article should be noted to have neutrality issues. you never answered my questions above. dont worry about it. i wasted enough time on this as it is. goodnight Brendan19 08:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)