User talk:Kirby Morgan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Welcome

Hello, Kirby Morgan, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! -Willmcw 00:09, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Peter H. Gregg

[1] The reason why this closely aligns with "IMHFs" bio& also happens to align with the bio in my 1975 24 Hrs of Daytona program. The material comes from the public domain press package Gregg distributed.

That's pretty unusual, in my understanding, to release a press package to the public domain. Could you provide some evidence that it really was? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:31, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


Sure. Mail me a check for $400. I'll be happy to sell you my 1975 24 Hours of Daytona program. BTW - Press packages are always understood to be in the public domain unless there is some type of reserved rights disclamer in the package.

KM

[edit] Bolton

I am goign to revert the article. Opinion columns are not really sources. We should wait until articles in major newspapers or established news wires (Reuters etc.) are published. --Ampersand 07:20, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


FoxNews is clearly an established news source with more viewers than CNN and MSNBC combined. 4 cited credible references are clearly quite enough. --Kirby Morgan 16:04, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


Now 5 credible references. Need more? --Kirby Morgan 17:27, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

See my discussion on the nomination on why qualifiers were placed originally. In the future please read an argument before responding: if you disagree about what a source is then argue your point. As an aside; it is wrong to view things through a partisan lens all the time. No, Mr. Morgan I do not read the Daily Kos, and if I did I'd be offended at your immflamatory remark. Most of the other sources were opinion; just as one does not cite Maureen Dowd or Moveon.org or DailyKos etc, one should not cite Brit Hume's blog or Powerline or even Instapundit. Wikipedia will be much poorer when every single edit turns into a partisan flame war; keep your politics out. And...we're not in grade school, title your edits appropriately.--Ampersand 20:08, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Right in this very article (that I've only recently visited) is yet another Wikipedia reference to Daily Kos Horrifying, personal John Bolton story, Daily Kos, April 15, 2005, that has been there for quite some time along with several references to Democrat advocacy claims that were never challenged until I happened along [2]. I would never consider using such blatantly political sources, yet they've conspicuously remained in the article despite your ostensible desire to stamp out all the politicing and questionable sourcing. I've left these sources in so you can find them, but couldn't help but editing the Waxman stuff so it better reflected the truth of the "16 words." I also cannot help the fact you may not have liked the nomination, we might find ourselves even close to agreement there. The Nobel Peace Prize has become a joke after they selected the incompetents at IAEA last year and Jimmy Carter the year before - both botched anti-proliferation efforts in North Korea and are impotent on Iran. But point of fact there is only one opinion piece among the original 4 references - that being an editorial from Investor's Business Daily. The rest were news stories and/or press releases you had also rejected on some pretext or other. Glad I found the reprint of the WSJ article but given the standards of Wikipedia's continual inclusion of left spectra questional references and blogs it should never have taken 5 citations and a near revert war to achieve this. --Kirby Morgan 23:36, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

sigh...This is ridiculous. I am not every idiot who decides to post on Wikipedia. Nor have I ever used or condoned ever using Daily Kos etc. as a source. You assume that every act on Wikipedia or elsewhere must be partisan. That is not the case. Editors must be skeptical and demand sources. You also overlook that my position was simply to wait a short while until a source was found TO REMOVE A QUALIFIER. If you must know most of my views are right of center, though I think it unbecoming of editors to discuss them on Wikipedia. In the future, please listen to an argument first. If you are going to edit something controversial discuss it in the article. --Ampersand 01:23, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Then you and I should both be pleased I'm removing the overtly biased left of center references from the article that were somehow overlooked. BTW - what is Brit Hume's blog? I'm not familiar with that. Is it anything like Ben Wattenberg's journal? --Kirby Morgan 01:28, 11 February 2006 (UTC)