User talk:Telecineguy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hello Telecineguy! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking Image:Wikisigbutton.png or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Cometstyles 20:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Getting Started
Getting Help
Policies and Guidelines
The Community
Things to do
Miscellaneous


Contents

[edit] Welcome!

Hi Telecineguy, and let me echo the welcome to Wikipedia! I notice you've made a lot of edits to television and videotape-related articles, and I just thought I should mention WP:JARGON (ie, just remember Wikipedia is for a general audience) and WP:CAPS (Wikipedia capitalization), though by the looks of your most recent edits, you might have read these already!

As someone who obviously knows something about the tech side of things, I'd be interested on your take on two articles I started, An Evening with Fred Astaire and The Edsel Show, if you can add anything to them. If, for example, you know anything about the technical issues regarding 405-line television (and BBC One, which contains the early history of the BBC Television Service), please add it. Of course, there are lots of other articles - just follow the links or check the categories at the bottom to find those that are related.

I hope you enjoy your time here on Wikipedia! Regards, ProhibitOnions (T) 22:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Thank you for the reply, I will try to keep an eye on the cases and links. Telecine Guy

[edit] Motion picture film scanner / Telecine merger

Whoops. I left the following note on the talk page for the IP address that did some of the edits, and I missed the fact that you were logged in for one of them:

Hi. Regardless of how strongly you believe Telecine and Motion picture film scanner should not merge, would you please express yourself on the page where discussion is directed (Talk:Motion picture film scanner[1]) or pertinent talk pages, rather than by removing one of the two proposed merger tags, as you did in Telecine? The merger tags exist to let editors know a merger has been proposed, and to weigh in on both sides of a debate.
Would you please restore the merge tag to Telecine and attempt to prevail in the debate on the merits? I don't want to engage in unseemly reversion of your edits, so I'll wait a day before doing it myself.
Thank you. jhawkinson 12:32, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Telecine (SDTV&HDTV) work and Scanner work (making DPX files) are not the same. I am not the only one to point this out. Please drop this merger topic.Telecine Guy 07:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Lets keep discussion on the merits on Talk:Motion picture film scanner. Since you clearly read my note and did not comment on the request to restore the merge discussion tag, I've done so myself. Please don't remove it until the discussion has reached concensus or a reasonable time (a month?) has passed. You say, "I am not the only one to point this out" but I don't see any comments from anyone else, so I wonder what you mean? (Also, remember that a merger between two topics is merited not only if they are the same thing, but if they should be covered in the same page, e.g. if there is substantial overlap. But let's keep that conversation on the discussion page.) jhawkinson 12:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Reply is on Talk:Motion picture film scanner. I also updated Motion picture film scanner, so it is clear why it is not a telecine. I agree it was not clear before. Telecine Guy 17:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  • This is a done issue, others did not think that the two are the same either on the talk page. Thank You. Telecine Guy 19:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Inappropriate additions to Category:Clinton administration controversies

FYI, in Category talk:Clinton administration controversies, I have described what I believe is the inappropriate and unfounded addition of a large number of existing articles to Category:Clinton administration controversies, and the creation of a number of new biographical articles of minor Whitewater figures that violate WP:Notability and WP:BLP. Wasted Time R 11:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

FYI, I agreed with a few of your removals and let them stand. I strongly disagree with you tagging pages for deletion, when I clearly had ref notes to the front page of the Washington Post. If your name is on the front page of the Washington Post, on CNN and the CBS news, you meet the WP:Notability. Would you like me start deletion tagging pages your worked on, because I did not like the ref? The answer is no. Telecine Guy 17:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
That these people were found guilty of crimes as part of the overall Whitewater affair is a notable and well-sourced fact, I agree. They should be listed in the Whitewater (controversy) article (not in Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy, where they inexplicably are now). However, that does not mean that these people are notable enough to merit articles of their own. That's a higher bar to meet - look at Wikipedia:Notability (people) - and I'm not convinced that they meet it. Furthermore, if you do give them articles of their own, then I think you have to do more biographical research than you did - what is their date of birth, what positive accomplishments did they have, etc. As it stands these articles are extremely negative about these people, and may well violate WP:BLP and WP:NPOV guidelines. And again, look at Wikipedia:Notability (people). Wasted Time R 20:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
1) More info on the people is a good idea, I agree. 2) I think these people need to go into a page titled Starr Report or Starr probe or something like that. The Starr Report now goes to Ken Starr's page. Whitewater (controversy) is a large part of the Starr Report and conviction, not all. What do you think? Telecine Guy 22:17, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Actually Starr Report seems to redirect to Monica Lewinsky, which is totally wrong. Starr report redirects to Lewinsky scandal, which I also disagree with. Starr Report should be its own article, independent of any of these others. Wasted Time R 22:44, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback, I agree. Telecine Guy 23:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Just a friendly reminder about the U.S. Constitution...

Article One, Section 2, Clause 5 you'd find interesting reading in light of the editorial dispute at Impeachment of Bill Clinton. It states that only the House of Representatives can impeach a President (which has been done three times in U.S. history). The fact that Nixon resigned before the Senate trial is irrelevant to whether or not the House had passed articles of impeachment. If you have a published interpretation otherwise (that does not contradict Article One of the Constitution) from a reliable authoritative source, you're welcome to present it and convince other editors who have been working on the article. 147.70.242.40 19:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


On Friday, August 9, Nixon resigned the presidency and avoided the likely prospect of losing the impeachment vote in the full House and a subsequent trial in the Senate. He thus became the only U.S. President ever to resign. Telecine Guy 02:02, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


[edit] June 2007

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. An article you recently created, The most ethical administration in American history, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for new articles, so it will shortly be removed (if it hasn't been already). Please use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do and please read our introduction page to learn more about contributing. Thank you. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 04:03, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to ignore our policies by introducing inappropriate pages to Wikipedia, you will be blocked. --MZMcBride 04:09, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Reply

  • What part of the policies are you talking about?

There is no bright-line rule about what constitutes a personal attack as opposed to constructive discussion, but some types of comments are never acceptable:

  • Racial, sexual, homophobic, ageist, religious, political, ethnic, or other epithets (such as against disabled people) directed against another contributor. Disagreement over what constitutes a religion, race, sexual preference, or ethnicity is not a legitimate excuse.

None used

  • Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views -- regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme.

None used

  • Threats of legal action.

None used

  • Threats of violence, particularly death threats.

None used

  • Threats of vandalism to userpages or talk pages.

None used

  • Threats or actions which expose other Wikipedia editors to political, religious or other persecution by government, their employer or any others. Violations of this sort may result in a block for an extended period of time, which may be applied immediately by any administrator upon discovery. Admins applying such sanctions should confidentially notify the members of the Arbitration Committee of what they have done and why.

None used

The fact you tag without any feedback, shows you are the NPOV. My ref. were CNN, and a gov. report. Did you read the CNN page? Telecine Guy 05:00, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Attack

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on this page, by GearedBull, another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because the article is a page created primarily to disparage its subject or a biography of a living person that is controversial in tone and unsourced, where there is no neutral point of view version in the history to revert to. (CSD G10).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting the article, 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. Please note, this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate the article itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --Android Mouse Bot 2 04:18, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Sigma 7, wrote rm speedy - what's being disparged without sources?

I would like to know also. Info is from:

  • 1. ^ Frieden, Terry, "Ex-Ron Brown Partner Claims Clintons Backed 'Sale' Of Trade Seats", CNN.com, March 23, 1998
  • 2. ^ “Memorandum Opinion Judicial Watch vs. Department of Commerce, page 14.” U.S. District Court. Archived on April 14, 2006.
  • [1] NY Times After Judge's Rebuke, Commerce Secretary Widens Inquiry Into Mishandling of Papers January 3, 1999, National Desk Late Edition - Final, Section 1, Page 20, Column 1
  • [2] CNN, ALLPOLITICS, Independent Counsel: No Conclusions On Brown Probe Nov. 14, 1994
  • [3] NY Times, National News Briefs; Official's Partner Pleads Guilty to Tax Charges February 2, 1999

I added more info., to be fair I miss this NY Times page (my 1st google)that noted: In February of 1999 Nolanda Hill pleaded guilty to 3 counts of preparing and filing false income tax returns, has part the Commercegate investigation. This has been added


[edit] Warning MZMcBride deletes

  • Warning MZMcBride deletes pages that have cited reliable published sources (CNN and NY Times) without the needed warning on the user page! MZMcBride is a very NPOVer that will delete anything MZMcBride does not like. A danger to About Wikipedia. Telecine Guy 21:18, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

The above two users at least put the needed warning here, they are NPOVer also. The pages they delete were also cited reliable published sources (CNN and NY Times).Telecine Guy 21:21, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Deletion

The article you began writing, The most ethical administration in American history, was an attack article that did not conform to a neutral point of view. While there may have been citations, articles may not simply seek to disparage their subjects, with or without citations.

In regard to my removal of your comments from my talk page, I don't appreciate bold warnings about my actions splattered on my talk page. Also, there is a + button at the top of the page to add new sections to the bottom of a talk page. Cheers. --MZMcBride 03:13, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


You did not delete this page (The most ethical administration in American history) so why are you writing about it? You Delete Coffeegate. With no note here.

I don't appreciate you deleting pages without putting the hold on warning an the users page.Telecine Guy 03:25, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I did. From the deletion log:
* 00:05, 2 June 2007 MZMcBride (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "The most ethical administration in American history" (csd g10, g1) (Restore)
* 00:07, 2 June 2007 MZMcBride (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Coffeegate" (csd g10) (Restore)
I also don't understand what you're referring to as a "hold on" warning on your user talk page. Attack pages are speedily deleted per policy. Cheers. --MZMcBride 03:39, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Why did - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 04:03, 2 June 2007, put the note here. ? There was not attack in coffeegate it was well ref to CNN and Ny Times.

Edits like this are disruptive and unnecessary. Your page was speedily deleted under the speedy deletion guidelines (WP:CSD). It had nothing to do with the Articles for deletion process which you pasted onto my talk page. The Coffeegate article did not contain a neutral point of view and it sought to disparage its subject (Bill Clinton). It was labeled as speedy-deletable under WP:CSD#G10 and I deleted it after reviewing it. If you feel that my deletion was wrong, you may appeal it at Deletion review. As a side note, generally notes are left on talk pages by the editor who added the speedy delete tag to an article. Admins don't generally put notes on user's talk pages, and they certainly are not required to.
All further comments regarding this should be left on your talk page. I have your talk page on my watchlist so I will see any replies. Any comments left on my talk page regarding this will be reverted and ignored. Thanks. --MZMcBride 19:34, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Contents of Clinton administration controversies category

Telecineguy: You are making repeated categorization mistakes. Category:Clinton administration controversies is for articles that describe the actual controversies, such as Filegate, Travelgate, etc. If someone writes a book about Filegate, that book in itself is not a controversy! (Unless in the rare case there's some controversy about the publication of it, such as the administration goes to court to suppress its publication.) I've created Category:Books about the Clinton administration to collect such books. Similarly, if a person is tangentially involved in a controversy, but is not the subject of an inquiry, indictment, etc., then that person is not themselves a controversy. I've created Category:Lewinsky scandal figures and similar categories to collect people such as Betty Currie who fall into this class. Trust me, the Clinton administration had enough real controversies to populate Category:Clinton administration controversies without polluting it with articles that do not belong. Wasted Time R 04:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, see Category:Books about George W. Bush ... even though many of these deal with Bush administration controversies, none of them are in Category:George W. Bush administration controversies, nor should they be. Wasted Time R 17:45, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


  • I agree with may of your moves, Thank you for the work you have done on Whitewater figures and Lewinsky scandal figures. While Betty Currie was a Lewinsky scandal figures, she was in the middle of the leading questions issue and the subpoenaed gifts issue. You are correct on Vernon Jordan, Jr. and the others you have moved to Lewinsky scandal figures. A few others should be move also, I will move in the future. Thank you for the feedback Telecine Guy 19:35, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fernseh

I've reformatted and added wiki links to this page. Ozdaren 13:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank You, looks good Telecine Guy 04:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] VTRs

  • About the IVC article, no problem, my pleasure. I suggested making a redirect previously for IVC 2" helical to IVC's main article, due to the former article (IVC 2 inch Helical scan) being a red link at the time, not being writen. Thanks for doing so, and thanks also for the info you added to the 1" type B videotape article too, interesting that there were so many modifications of that format....! :) About the VK format, I could write up an article for that as well, but you can too if you feel inclined to do so... misternuvistor 00:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the feedback Telecine Guy

[edit] Wampumgate

Please see Wikipedia:Citing sources and Wikipedia:External links. Do not revert again. Thank you. Ward3001 14:01, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

This is a short page, it is not honest to say "no Cited sources", when it has 7 news links for ref. for the info on the page. As you wish for now. Telecine Guy 03:42, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

It is perfectly honest to say "no sources cited" when, in fact, no (or almost no) sources are cited. The shortness of the article does not exempt it from a firm policy of Wikipedia on verifiability. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. There are many short articles that include citations. Additionally, if it has a thousand external links and no citations, it is still uncited. Ward3001 21:23, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


I tagged this article as possibly NPOV. It comes off as very one-sided.Gwynand 14:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

If you do not like it try reading the links and them hit the edit button and fix it.Telecine Guy 15:32, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

  • [1] NY Times, RENO REQUESTING A COUNSEL TO LOOK AT BABBITT MOVES February 12, 1998, By DAVID JOHNSTON, Late Edition - Final, Section A, Page 1.
  • [2] NY Times WEB OF INFLUENCE -- A special report.; Casino Inquiry Pushes Babbitt From the Pinnacle to the Brink January 11, 1998, Late Edition - Final, Section 1, Page 1
  • [3] NT Times, Mr. Babbitt's Troubling TestimonyOctober 31, 1997, Late Edition - Final, Section A, Page 26
  • [4] NY Times Sinking of Casino Plan Makes Tribes Cry Foul September 10, 1997, Late Edition - Final, Section A, Page 18.
  • [5] PBS SECRETARY BABBITT IN THE HOT SEAT, October 30, 1997
  • [6] Babbitt Probe to Focus on Memory of Discussion Washington Post, March 29, 1998; Page A08
  • [7] Report of the Independent Counsel


You wrote: "The no ref tag must go". It's not a "no ref" tag. It's a "needs additional refs" tag. Ward3001 21:19, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the "no" was removed and the "additional" was added. still EVERTHING in the page is in the: NY times, Washington Post and IC report ref. Telecine Guy 04:13, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Stephen Smith (Whitewater)

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Stephen Smith (Whitewater), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Stephen Smith (Whitewater). User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 19:16, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Stephen Smith is a Recipients of American presidential pardons and should stay! Telecine Guy 18:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Eugene Fitzhugh

Another editor has added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Eugene Fitzhugh, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 17:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


If your name is in these it should stay:

Notable received significant coverage (see below) in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.


   * CBS News, Caught In The Whitewater Net, Washington, May 19, 1998
   * The NY Times, First Trial for Whitewater Prosecutor, June 20, 1994
   * Obituary: http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-08-25-3365001399_x.htm

Telecine Guy 22:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I have been on the front page of several newspapers. So are thousands of people, every single day. That is not enough for NOTE, nor does it address the COAT concern. Unless you directly address the COAT concerns, I will be re-PRODing, or alternately, RfDing. Maury (talk) 22:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Furthemore, reverts of the PRODs without any attempt to address the COAT concerns will count to 3RR. Continued reverts may result in a block. Address the issues. Maury (talk) 22:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] John Haley

Another editor has added the "{{prod}}" template to the article John Haley, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 17:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


If your name is on the front page of the Washington Post, you are a major player!

[edit] Chris Wade

Another editor has added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Chris Wade, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 17:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


If your name is on the front page of the Washington Post you are a major player.

  • CNN, All Politics, Arkansas Roots, April 12, 1999
  • Washington Post, Caught in the Whitewater Quagmire, August 28, 1995; Page A01
  • The Special Committee's Whitewater Report, Summary of the Evidence
  • CNN, All Politics, FBI agent traces money trail at McDougal trial, March 12, 1999


Telecine Guy 22:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Larry Kuca

Another editor has added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Larry Kuca, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 17:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

If your name is listed in a report by Kenneth Starr and the Washington Post page A01 notability has been met. Telecine Guy 22:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Neal Ainley

Another editor has added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Neal Ainley, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 17:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


  • If your name is listed in a report by Kenneth Starr and page A01 for the Washington Post notability has been met. Telecine Guy 22:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Seth Ward (Whitewater)

Another editor has added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Seth Ward (Whitewater), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 17:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

If your name is listed in a report by Kenneth Starr and page A01 for the Washington Post notability has been met. Telecine Guy 22:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


  • Arkansas Gazette interview with Seth Ward, 1978.
  • Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, Monday, July 10, 2000
  • "Special Prosecutor to Open Office in Little Rock for Inquiry on Clintons' Land Deal" NY Times, By STEPHEN LABATON, January 22, 1994 [8]
  • "Seth Ward, 79, Businessman Involved in Whitewater Case", NY Times, By DAVID STOUT Published: July 11, 2000 [9]
  • "Appraiser on Madison Loans in Plea Accord" NY Times, By STEPHEN LABATON, Published: December 6, 1994 [10]
  • PBS, WGBH educational foundation, Frontline, [11]

[edit] William J. Marks Sr.

Another editor has added the "{{prod}}" template to the article William J. Marks Sr., suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 17:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


Again major player:

References

  • The New York Times, National Desk News, Ex-Governor's Partner Pleads Guilty to Fraud, August 29, 1997
  • CNN All Politics, Tucker Partner Pleads Guilty, Thursday Aug. 28, 1997
  • The New York Times, Court Rejects Challenge to the Whitewater Counsel's Authority, October 8, 1996.
  • Caught In The Whitewater Net, CBS, May 19, 1998.

Ext. Link


Telecine Guy 22:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Deleting files again

As to the topic at hand, it does not matter whether or not these articles have references. All of the references in question are about Whitewater. All of the articles are coatracks. This means that you're talking a single topic, Whitewater, and splitting it out into multiple articles. None of these people would ever be notable otherwise. The only reason they appeared in the references is because they were involved in Whitewater or the Ken Starr work. That is not notable. Whitewater is, of course, but we already have that article.
If you really feel you need to report this as vandalism, please, feel free! I don't think the results will be to your liking, however.
Maury (talk) 03:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Deletion Discussion for Bill Van Auken

The deletion discussion is located at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bill Van Auken. I have copied your comments there. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 07:28, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
CC of comment on Talk:Bill Van Auken --Philosopher Let us reason together. 07:28, 5 May 2008 (UTC)