User talk:JoeFriday

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Top | Talk (new message, archives) | User page | Contribs | User log


Note: Please set each comment apart with a #. It makes it easier for me to see the steps and follow the discussion. Also, I try to keep <br><br> at the end of the page to give a minimal space before the talkbar, so it doesn't cramp the comments. —joeFriday— {talk}  00:42, 5 October 2007 (UTC)



Contents

[edit] Little context in DTIC

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on DTIC, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because DTIC is very short providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting DTIC, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. CSDWarnBot 00:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] David Petraeus

  1. The David Petraeus article received heavy editing today by unregistered users, which I noticed at WikiRage.com. According to Wikipedia Page History Statistics, you are one of the top contributors to that page. If you think your efforts to improve that article would be improved if new and unregistered users were blocked from editing that article, please let me know and I will protect that page. Thanks. -- Jreferee (Talk) 07:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
  2. Thank you for your message. I do think the article could be improved if new and unregistered users were blocked from editing it. The problem with many of the unregistered edits is that they are in violation of NPOV and RS policies. Where possible, I try to improve sourcing of statements and show alternatives if both have RS. This article has become a target for activists seeking to insert all manner of partisan vitriol. JoeFriday 22:01, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] September 2007

  1. Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent contribution removed content from Wikipedia. Please be careful when editing pages and do not remove content from Wikipedia without a good reason, which should be specified in the edit summary. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Tiptoety 05:00, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
  2. Can you be specific. I did a lot of archiving and creating subpages.--JoeFriday (talk) 05:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
  3. I am referring to McAlester. Tiptoety 15:56, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
  4. Last night was not a good night for my editing. In response to a comment on Talk:David Petraeus, I archived the old topics and created subpages for the really long ones. The reaction was not favorable. I tried to undo the changes but Wikipedia prevented it saying their were conflicting interventing edits. In response to a comment on McAlester, Oklahoma, I moved the list of links in the external links section to the talk page for further review. This was then undone by Tiptoety who is now in discussion with the SarekOfVulcan who reinstated the move. I don't have strong feelings on the matter. I'll let you two hash it out.--JoeFriday (talk) 21:46, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
  5. I am fine with the move, i would just have liked you to have stated that you were moving the content to the talk page in the edit summary, i was unsure if your edit was vandalism or not. thank you. Tiptoety 21:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
  6. You're right. My apologies.--JoeFriday (talk) 21:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
  7. No problem, thank you! See you around. Tiptoety 21:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I object to you, sir

  1. I object to your implication that, simply because I have not chosen to customize my user-page with boxes, that my edits have less value than your's. Your edit was a very, very clear violation of WP:SYN. So, rather than acting derogatory because I have a "non-existant user-page", you might want to take a look at why YOU so clearly violated WP:SYN. - Jarn 03:21, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  2. My apologies. I wasn't responding to your lack of customization. I was responding to the fact that, when I clicked on your name or user talk, it said there was no page. I wrongly assumed that meant the user no longer existed. I was wrong. I'm sorry. You confuse your inference with my implication. My implication was not that the edits of a non-existent user, had you been such, were of any less value than mine. The implication was that a non-existent user might be engaged in self-promotion. As for WP:SYN, I didn't know what it was until you pointed it out. Now that I read it, it does appear that I have violated it. Would the proper thing to do have been simply to list the largest donors and cite that information; then as a separate piece of information list the net worth of said individuals with the respective citations? That is how I read the WP:SYN. I didn't realize combining them was a violation though in retrospect it makes sense. My intention is not to promote a POV but to counter those who promote POV's through attacking others. The BetrayUs article gave MoveOn's claim that an opposing group was a few mega millionaires. To cite such a comment, sounds like an effort to defame those with opposing views. Additionally, every article that I have run across that mentions MoveOn sounds like a fund raising brochure. I don't make a point of countering self-promotion but attacks on others in concert with self-promotion should not go unanswered. I hope I have resolved your concerns. May I humbly suggest you may have violated WP:AGF better known as Writers persecuting aging goat frogs. I promise not to tell. Thanks for the education. :·) —joeFriday— {talk}  15:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  3. I'm not too sure about how that could have been fixed under WP:SYN. I actually asked on the Talk page about situations like this because I've run into them before. The rule states that you can't say "A+B therefore C" without a source citing that. I asked what would happen if you did A+B and just implied C and didn't state it. There seemed to be some disagreement but the general consensus appeared to be that it would still violate WP:SYN, not in the letter of the law but in the SPIRIT of the law. Maybe there will be more agreement later, but from what has been so far it seems like you wouldn't be able to say anything about the donors until a RS said the same thing. And, yes, I also thought that the comment about it being "a few mega millionaires" should not have been there. It has since been removed. And I apologize for getting a bit uppity, I have seen too much POV-pushing lately and I think I have become bitter and cynical - I did not AGF and I should have. - Jarn 22:15, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  4. So then could I just do a list of donors as shown on the IRS form and then wikify those that have their own articles? —joeFriday— {talk}  22:35, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  5. I'm not sure. From the discussion about it, it looks to be split about evenly. Some people would consider that an implied synthesis and still against the policy, some would say it's perfectly all right. I guess, go for it - but not in the ad controversy page, it doesn't fit there. - Jarn 02:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  6. I read your thread on WT:NOR. It made no mention of wikifying information as being SYN. I removed the facts about the donors which violated WP:SYN and just left their names though they are Wikified. I agree about not placing it in the ad controversy article so long as the "mega millionaires" quote isn't there. —joeFriday— {talk}  03:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  7. Hrm, I think you misunderstood me (and I you). It wasn't the list of donors with all the other information that violated WP:SYN - that was really good. It was the quote of "x is just a few mega-millionaires" juxtaposed with "MoveOn.org itself is funded by millionaires" that was WP:SYN since you did not have an RS to cite the connection for you. -Jarn 01:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
  8. Now, I'm confused. ¿It's ok to say that MoveOn receives large donations from the super rich but I need RS using it if MoveOn first attacks its opponents? —joeFriday— {talk}  05:52, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
  9. The way that I read it is that you can say it, but if you try to connect it to any idea (such as to juxtapose that with them saying someone else is a mega-millionaire) you need a RS first that says it. - Jarn 06:31, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
  10. How's this? —joeFriday— {talk}  05:53, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
  11. I see nothing wrong with it. I wonder, though, if you want to go down that far into the contributions. If I were you, I wouldn't list anything less than $10,000 - Jarn 22:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
  12. That's a valid point but as it stands it gives the entirety of the list of individual donors with no more editorial discretion than (a) ordering the list from largest to smallest rather than the reverse as MoveOn did in its filing, (b) combining the in-kind donor with the cash donors, (c) providing labels for the secondary address columns, (d) sourcing the the table with a footnote as well as the caption, (e) linking each donor to a search of their donations showing their donation pattern which acts as a secondary source for many of the contribution numbers, (f) adding table gridlines rather than using columns, and (g) correcting the spelling of one name (Polls to Polis). I didn't see the list of organizational donors, or I would have included that. I think that's important as well. Many non-profits, NGO's, foundations, 527's, et al. are used to conceal donors. —joeFriday— {talk}  00:27, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hi

  1. You wrote (above) "My intention is not to promote a POV but to counter those who promote POV's through attacking others." Oh, how I feel your pain. I've tried as well, but we're clearly outnumbered by the agenda-pushing mob. Good luck editing, anyway!  :) --Beth C. 01:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  2. Thanks. —joeFriday— {talk}  06:20, 24 November 2007 (UTC)