User talk:DaleEastman
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Bolton
Hey. Sorry, but I replaced the qualifiers again. There is only one source that claims Bolton's been nominated by Per Ahlmark. (Both citations on Wikipedia are derived from the same source.) Nominations are secret, but often leaked out to the media. If Bolton has been nominated, I expect the story to get picked up by a few organizations. Until then, I think it should stay as is. I argued as much in the talk page of the article. --Ampersand 07:32, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] AfD nomination of National Socialism: A Left Wing Movement
National Socialism: A Left Wing Movement, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that National Socialism: A Left Wing Movement satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National Socialism: A Left Wing Movement and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of National Socialism: A Left Wing Movement during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Mendors 00:51, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Nonexistant cat
Re: Operation Tailwind. Major Media Scandals does not exist as a category. I see it is also applied to a couple of other articles. Perhaps the existing category "Journalistic hoaxes" is more appropriate? - Crockspot 16:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Don't think so. A hoax does not convey the "life of its own" character that say, the Operation Tailwind story did. That story killed a CNN program and caused the firings of several CNN employees. Additionally, Dateline NBC's rigged GM trucks has no story of its own. The reader cannot be properly pointed to the story within the article on Dateline NBC. The program was not a "hoax", the story was. Cheers. --DaleEastman 16:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
- I see that the category now exists, so nevermind. I should point out that it violates the manual of style though. Usually the first word is capitalized and the rest aren't, unless they are proper names, so it is likely to come up for an afd to be changed to "Major media scandals". Reading your description, it might make more sense to call it "Mainstream media scandals", because the current name could be confusing whether it means "major media" or "major scandals". I'm not inclined to mess with it, but a lot of editors would be. Let me know if it does come up for AfD. I will support a name change, but not a deletion. - Crockspot 21:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- What's up - I see you're adding this category again, which is miss-capitalized and is redundant with Category:Journalistic hoaxes. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 16:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
-
How many times do I need to explain the same thing? "Dateline NBC" isn't a hoax, however, they involved themselves in a Major media scandal. I'll be happy to comply with what I believe are errant rules for titles, but I won't accept the claim a TV show is a hoax. --DaleEastman 21:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- Please stop adding a deleted category. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- If you think the existing category's name is insufficiently broad then I suggest you request that it be renamed. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:10, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- The category was deleted: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 August 28. Please don't use it until the deletion has been overturned. You can make a request for undeletion at WP:DRV. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 16:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
-
[edit] Undid your changes to the Killian Documents
Hi. I removed your Major Media Scandals category add to the Killian Documents since the forgery charges were never proven (and never will be). I also removed the Political Forgery category while I was at it for the same reason. It was all largely a blog-driven event of highly confused info and deliberate disinformation, exacerbated by CBS's mishhandling of it. If you still wish to add it, please discuss this on the Talk page. FYI. -BC aka Callmebc 18:27, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Bizarre. Even the NY Timed readily calls their polling partner CBS News' treatment of the Killian Documents a "scandal" and notes Burkett admitted he lied about the source of the Documents. The last I checked NY Times was still claiming not to be a blog although that may change in the future given their own problems with journalistic integrity.
Notations restored. --DaleEastman 15:26, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
