User talk:MattJanovic

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, MattJanovic, 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 ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! ←BenB4 18:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Adultery?

When is the last time anyone has been convicted of adultery in D.C.? Not since the 50s I bet. I don't like Vitter either, but people are going to think you're a nut. ←BenB4 18:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I agree, but don't you think the hypocrisy is obvious enough without the reference to laws that haven't been enforced in decades and probably never will be again? Maybe it's just me, but I think a summary of the latest Wendy Cortez happenings would be more appropriate and effective. ←BenB4 02:26, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your recent edits

Hi, there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button Image:Wikisigbutton.png located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot 18:05, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] a heads-up on David Vitter

Your edits to David Vitter violate at least a couple of Wikipedia guidelines or norms, including WP:LEAD and WP:OR. A lead (intro) section should summarize the article in a balanced way, while your version dwells on the prostitution scandal. Additionally, Wikipedia articles must not engage in original research, which is "unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories" as well as "unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position." So for instance, this:

Specifically, since the evening of July 9th of 2007, the public has been aware of his five calls to Pamela Martin & Associates spanning 1999-2001, which could have been repeated 'Master 9 severity' violations under District of Columbia prostitution statutes. It's unclear whether this could impair his ability to continue serving as a ranking minority member on the Subcommittee on International Operations and Organizations, Democracy and Human Rights. This is a subcommitte of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

...probably violates the policy against original research.

One way to avoid original research is to post information that have been published in reliable sources and to cite them. --Proper tea is theft 22:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

You're being partisan and your own objectivity is questionable regarding the removals--the research is published at www.yardbird.com, by Bill Keisling. However, all of the basic information is searchable and verifiable. Until you can disprove it, I'm reposting it. Look at the talk page--the scandal is what he's known for nationally. There is a comment in talk that also highlights that the other thing he's known for nationally was a controversial remark during the immediate aftermath of Katrina. Best to let the board decide, frankly, the majority of editors can decide. I wouldn't leave it to you. There's nothing in the additions that has a POV. Where's the POV exactly? He's on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee--this is a commonly known fact. He has oversight over USAID and the State Deptartment--also a fact. DC prostitution statutes describe seeing a prostitute as a "Master 9 severity" offense. That's the one part that could be interpreted as speculative, though only because Ms. Palfrey hasn't had her trial yet. If it helps you, you might know that I neither like or care for either the DNC or the GOP, I'm a Socialist. There's nothing in there that isn't factual. --MattJanovic7:00 PM, EST, 09.23.2007

I have replied on Talk:David Vitter.--Proper tea is theft 03:29, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I know, I've dwelt too much on the fact that Ms. Palfrey is involved in her own predicament. How silly of me. Insofar as the Vitter information, it's verifiable. You know, I've looked through your records, and I'm certain that Mr. Keisling has been published numerous times by third-party imprints. There shouldn't be a problem with his credibility. An example would be his work his work on Three Mile Island ("Three Mile Island: Turning Point," Seattle, Wash.: Veritas Books, 1980.)MattJanovic 10:02 PM EST, 24 September, 2007 [1]

[edit] three reverts in 24 hours

You should be aware that making more than three reversions to an article within 24 hours is grounds for blocking. As you have now made your third reversion to David Vitter in 24 hours, you may wish to review this policy. --Proper tea is theft 19:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on David Vitter. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. --Proper tea is theft 02:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

You are the only one that I know of who has a problem with the additions. You might consider the irony of your statements. I'm using the talk page to no avail, and we're having a circular-discussion. A complaint is being filed this week. MattJanovic[MattJanovic|MattJanovic]] 11:49 PM EST, 24 September, 2007

Please see the talk page for David Vitter, where another editor has expressed reservations about your edits.--Proper tea is theft 04:23, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for three revert violations on David Vitter. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

- Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 04:33, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Matt -- please see discussion about resolving disputes. First, discuss. Then, disengage. If you still feel frustrated, then I would encourage you to request a a third party assessment of the dispute. This is the usual avenue vs. making complaints about another editor. If your request for comments falls to your favor (by consensus), then you will be free to add in your suggestions. ∴ Therefore | talk 04:38, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I welcome other editors to come forward to challenge the other disputants in this, but I stand behind the additions. The information is factual and verifiable and should become protected. I would ask that we examine the IPs of disputants and those who have removed the article in-general, that could tell us more about the nature of the dispute--or not. Wiki has a history of articles being compromised by individuals connected to the living persons being written about, and even employees of business establishments that are being bio'd in an article. I am unaffiliated with anyone. MattJanovic 15:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[[User:MattJanovic|MattJanovic] 11:56 AM EST, 25 September, 2007.