User talk:User At Work
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Wikipedia isn't what you think it is, either. It's not in your hands to decide anymore. Michael Slavitch 20:38, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Quailtard
Thanks for the redirect. Good solution. Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 21:19, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] User:Michael.slavitch
Just a heads-up, but trust me, this guy is simply trying to screw with your head as part of a WP:POINT campaign.
The whole Quailtard article was, quite literally, a joke: it started on a private virtual community, was carried out by one guy, and now this User:Michael.slavitch is simply chipping in. Ignore what he says.
--Calton | Talk 03:16, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Abramoff, etc
Welcome aboard. If you're into following the Abramoff story (and I'm guessing you are, given that you've added to the template), and you have a bit of time, may I suggest you might want to create an entry for Ed Buckham. May I suggest you go to http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Ed_Buckham, grab that code, and then modify. That's how I created entries for Tony Rudy and Neil Volz -- you might want to check them out to see what kinds of changes I made (including adding the GNU licence stuff at the bottom). Sholom 17:31, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
- Hey there. Last week you asked me to check in on Jack Abramoff Indian lobbying scandal. I was on vacation and essentially off-line -- so sorry if I appeared to be ignoring you. Has it been resolved well enough, or would you like me still to check in on it? -- Sholom 19:10, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Internet Gambling Prohibition Act
Hey, thanks for the message. I reverted that yesterday around the time when we hit the 1,000,000th article, so the vandalism was kind of intense at the time. I'm sorry I reverted it, but at first glance, it appeared to be a)out of the format typically required for Wikipedia articles and b}unreferenced. If you can find a reference for the material you put on and if you can add it in proper WP format, I think it will be perfectly good. JHMM13 (T | C) 
18:18, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Help on the timeline
Sure, I'll be happy to help on the Jack Abramoff timeline -- sounds like fun. John Broughton 22:41, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Abramoff
- Image:Abramoff SIAC 20040929 2.jpg is public domain and already in the article
- Image:Time Cover Abramoff.jpg is not public domain but there is a very thorough fair use rationale for its inclusion.
Sorry if I've caused you any stress or problem by deleting the image. Mark83 21:31, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Neil Volz
Hey there. I removed the Sourcewatch reference because, except for the list of sources, I'm not sure that Neil Volz and Sourcewatch's Neil Volz look anything alike anymore. (In fact, we might want to use some of Sourcewatch to beef up the Wp article, but as it stands now, I don't see a lot of justification for including the licence. No that it matters a whole lot to me, I just want to be accurate. Thoughts? -- Sholom 17:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Tom DeLay peer review
You may be interested to know that I have submitted Tom DeLay for peer review, in the interest of eventually nominating it for Featured Article status. Please leave your comments and suggestions at Wikipedia:Peer review/Tom DeLay/archive1. Thanks, NatusRoma | Talk 21:01, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Scooter Libby
Please elaborate on why you decided to revert my edit to the Scooter Libby article, which you describe as "strange, unsourced editorialising." I disagree. It's in no way strange, I see no instance where a source would be required (unless you mean my comment about his insistance on White House staffers calling him Scooter, which I am citing from personal experience and as such I concede that it may be unwarrented) and also I disagree that it is editorialising. If anything, it's bringing the article back to a neutral standpoint from where it is at this point. The idea that Libby encouraged the use of his nickname in order to appear less threatening cannot be disproved merely by the shaky at best "fact" (which I've heard cited only by Libby himself) that he has carried the name since early childhood. The fact that many different versions of the story of where he picked up this name exist only lends weight to the idea that it was self concieved for his own shady motives, and even if it is decided by the community as a whole that adding the fact that the widely adopted standpoint that this name was of Libby's own inception exists is not encyclopedic, then it should certainly not be dismissed entirely. This kind of think is clearly POV. I'm going to go and edit it again now, to a version which offers more of a compromised position between the two. Please let me know if you disagree with it.--84.9.45.60 23:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Lewis, Lowery, et al
I asked User:John Broughton if he would join me in attempting to write an article on the potential scandal between Congressman Lewis, the lobby firm started by Lowery, etc. We started with just a data collection dump into a temp area, at User_talk:John_Broughton/Lewis-Lowery-Shockey-White_lobbying_controversy, and from that have started to make an article at User talk:John Broughton/Jerry Lewis - Lowery lobbying firm controversy. As I was writing this morning, I noticed that Jeff Shockey was blue instead of red! And now I see that you just created an entry for him. So, I wanted to alert you to the project. We were thinking of "going public" on Friday. -- Sholom 14:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
- And, if it wasn't clear from Sholom's posting, you're welcome to help edit the article before its official release (going into official wikipedia namespace) later this week. John Broughton 18:14, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Marianas Islands
I've wanted to do an separate article on this for a while. Now this Legal Times article says that "Roger Stillwell, the desk officer for the Mariana Islands at the U.S. Department of the Interior who dealt closely with disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff, is expected to plead guilty to a misdemeanor count of false certification, his attorney confirmed Wednesday." I think the time has come! Thoughts? -- Sholom 19:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- FWIW, I'm going to start with a "data dump" at Jack Abramoff/CNMI. FYI: this evening I am going on vacation for a week and will have no access on-line until next Wednesday. -- Sholom 13:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Abramoff "Scandal" vs "Controvery"
Please see this request to change the name. -- Sholom 13:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Dorgan addendum - preventing an edit war
I took the liberty of adding some section titles that make it clearer that sticking the Dorgan refund in the middle of the list of events isn't appropriate. I also went ahead and kept the refund text, but moved it down into the article, and used it as an example; in the best of all worlds, whoever really, really thinks it belongs in the article will be satisfied with that. Hope this helps. John Broughton 21:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Lewis Libby
Though you say Libby is "never called 'Lewis Libby,'" I'll direct your attention to his book cover at The Apprentice (book). Would you mind changing those page moves back, please? Thanks! Jokestress 23:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
- His name is certainly a source of a lot of complication. His official State Department biography had Lewis Libby. His website has Scooter. NNDB has Lewis. His book has Lewis. It seems two groups of people writing about him prefer Scooter: people who are trying to evoke sympathy, and those who think it is silly-sounding. I'm not that adamant about ether one, but the talk archive didn't really have a discussion or consensus (btw, the archive name changed when you did the page move). Maybe we can have a discussion/straw poll on the talk page? Jokestress 20:46, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Re List of pronouncements of a critical period for the US occupation of Iraq
OK, I'll undelete it later and reopen the discussion. I can't do it now because I'm editing from my alternate account which does not have access to admin tools. Waltonalternate account 08:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- Done. The new AfD discussion can be found here. WaltonAssistance! 16:38, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Re: On References
- Reply to [1]
Ah, ok. Glad I could help, and sorry for the mistake there. :-) Hersfold (talk/work) 00:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Subpage query
May I ask the purpose of User:User At Work/Pols under investigation? A user tagged it for speedy deletion as an attack page, but I declined because the info you cite seems to come directly from the respective articles where it is cited. If you are using the page for some purpose, I would prefer you finish it and move it into article space with citations. If not, I would like to delete it. --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 15:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think it's really article-space material, which is why it's on my userpage. There's certainly not any defamatory or false information. I don't mean it as a statement of any opinion; rather, I constructed it originally to fact-check claims by reporters that equated present GOP and Democratic corruption. It's quite possible that the preponderance of Republicans on the list reflects their recent dominance in national politics--again, this is not meant as a statement of opinion and my understanding was that users are generally given reasonable leeway over their userspaces. --User At Work 19:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
