User talk:Wikipediatoperfection

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

{{helpme}} I have used the New York Times and other newspapers as sources on several occasions. However,after awhile they move the articles to archive and they can no longer be accessed. Is there a way to preserve a source such that it can be linked to even after it has been taken off of a web site? Wikipediatoperfection 07:17, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Some sites use permalinks, which are links that are still intact after they have been archived. If not, you will just have to update the link when it has been changed. — E talkbots 07:55, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I would be interested to know why it requires a different user name and password to get credit for non-English edits? It seems to me that one user name should be sufficient to edit in any language.

The various wikimedia languages are organized as separate wikis, with separate administration, rules, and authorization. If no one has claimed a particular username on a wiki, you can claim it for yourself, and use the same username and password on all wikis. There are some conveniences for easy InterWiki links, but otherwise they are independent. —EncMstr 07:17, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

{{helpme}} When I tag an article as a stub of a certain subject is is automatically listed on the page of stubs needing expansion or do I need to add it to that page?

No, you don't need to do that. It's like a category - automatic. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 20:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Welcome

Hello, Wikipediatoperfection, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} and your question on your user talk page, and someone will show up shortly to answer. 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 four tildes, like this: ~~~~. 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! Newyorkbrad 03:03, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Custodial Account

Hello! I just thought I'd let you know that I've tagged the article you recently created, Custodial Account, for context. At the moment, it does not provide enough context for the article to be of any value to a reader who is not previously familiar with the subject (such as myself). It would be appreciated if you could take the time to fix that. —Keakealani·?·!·@ 19:09, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ronald Reagan

I just wanted to let you know that I understand your frustration with the Ronald Reagan article, but that if you look at the FAC and the peer review, the editors are really trying to improve it. It is just that they are self-professed conservatives, see User:Happyme22, so it is perhaps as difficult for them to write the Reagan page as it would be for us to write a page on liberal figures we admire deeply. Anyway, I have found that patience and lots of careful explanation has produced some good results. Unfortunately, liberals do not seem to want to write a page on Reagan, but I do feel that it is important for wikipedia to have a "fair and balanced" :) page on him. I would appreciate any help you can offer in this endeavor. I have been offering reviews of the page and will be copyediting and editing it from time to time. If you have sources at your fingertips, that would be fabulous; I am more of an eighteenth-century person myself. Awadewit 18:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ronald Reagan

hey, you're not supposed to have article in FAC and Peer Review at the same time.... talk to ya later Ling.Nut 19:09, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean to confuse you with this message... since it's on the instructions of both FAC and Peer review I thought it was common knowledge.. please do list your POV concerns about the article on its FAC page.. thanks! Ling.Nut 19:47, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Are you new to wikipedia? Please don't let this discussion discourage you. It is quite typical, and is in fact clearly on the civil side... I am working on a dissertation proposal now but will probably be available 09/07/07 to help with any changes that you see as necessary. I really do appreciate your input, though I may seem to be opposing you... --Ling.Nut 00:15, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
I keep adding the expl. why critics called it trickle down; someone keeps removing it. Look in article hist. for dugger cite. -- Ling.Nut 18:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
OK, I just put hte critics' def of trickle down back in (see above). Let's see if it lasts. ;-) -- Ling.Nut 19:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

(undent) "Some critics say, but look what a great guy he is..." Have you seen Hugo Chavez? :-) Ling.Nut 00:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

  • I like Reagan, but care about Wikipedia even more. I'm pretty sure you've successfully muddied the waters enough to kill the FAC, esp. since.. umm, your political views are shared by others.
  • I really will hit the article hard on my marathon wikipedia day, as mentioned earlier.
  • Perhaps you should enable your Wikipedia email option for sidebar discussion etc.
  • Later! -- Ling.Nut 03:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More Reagan

I just wanted to make something clear: I don't dislike you. I disagree with you, but I don't dislike you. I want to work with you, and I'm trying not to work against you, I really am, but the article is supported by 10 users, and you (and maybe one other person) are really the main objector to the article and I want to try and sway you the other way. Let me try and work things out with you in a softer tone. I'll say what I've done so far; you can leave a message on my talk page here and give me a list of things you think still need to be done, ok? It's a little clogged on the Reagan FAC page, so I think this is better. I did want to make on thing clear, though. You can't oppose the article because, as you said on User:Ling.Nut's talk page, you don't like Ronald Reagan. I'm not accusing you of this, but please keep that in mind. I'm not going to purposely oppose Bill Clinton's FAC because I don't particularly care for him, nor that of George W. Bush (those won't become FA's in my opinion, though).

  • The Iran Contra affair section I hope seems more neutral because we added about the findings criticizing President Reagan by the Tower Commission and Congress, which I agree make the section more neutral. I think the overall wording seems better also and I'm actually grateful you jumped in and helped us out.
  • The Reaganomics section is better written and clearer, although you mentioned that you think it still does't cover trickle down well. Why? User:Ling.Nut and User:SandyGeorgia gave some good sources to explain why the term "trickle down economics" came about. Please contact them about that issue for I do not know a substantial amount about economics.
  • The War on drugs section now has a sentence added about the increase in the prison population. I agree that that sentence should go in there, and I had it in there, but it was removed for length purposes not by me.

I left Wiki for about a month when I went on vacation a few months ago. I came back to the Reagan article to find it filled with POV statements, mostly from the right. Believe it or not, I highly decreased the number of POV statements removed and corrected claims, then the article was nominated for GA status and passed. Even though I'm called a conservative right-wing nut who promotes "his heroes" agenda I'm not. Wikipedia needs to be a fair and balanced place where scholars, students, and just ordinary people can get correct and factual information. The Reagan article needs to be a great place of factual and correct info about our 40th president presented in a NPOV way, for when you type "Ronald Reagan" in on Google, it's the first site to pop up. I thought that the article had accomplished that, but according to you it hasn't. The FAC is still going to go on for two or three more weeks, so I hope we can work together. If it fails (it might not, there are 10 supports) we'll give it another try. I think that really, you and I are more alike then different; we both want an informative and NPOV article about Ronald Reagan, so I have an idea. Why don't you go through the article and list all of the statements that you call POV, and please include the citation we have provided. Then, contact me on my talk page (there's a link above) and we can review all your supposed POV statements then come to a concensus and reach an agreement. My goal is that in the end you'll support the article! And that's where we have to start. Best, Happyme22 07:28, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm not going to give up on the FAC; If Raul deems it failed, then it failed, but I'm going to stick it out until the end. So do you like my listing POV statements idea? And would you be willing do that? I'm willing to work with you always. Please take a look at the newly redone "War on Drugs" section, redone by User:Paul.h. I'd say it's more neutral and definetly has better wording. I also removed some POV in the "Cold War" section, and removed the quote by Richard Reeves in the "Legacy" section. I can see how that can be considered POV-ish. I'm also curious what else you think is wrong with the article, because it seems that (correct me if you think I'm wrong) the Reaganomics section is better; the war on drugs section is better; the Iran-Contra affair section is better; the cold war section is better; and the Legacy section is better....Anything else? Again, I would find it really helpful if you did the line-by-line of what you think are POV statements. That would help all of us out. And for the FAC purposes could you please strike out what we editors have completed? And thanks for the reminder about archiving my talk page :-). Best, Happyme22 08:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] With appreciation

The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
This Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar is a token of my appreciation for your review of Jimmy McAleer, a sports biography that benefited from your feedback. Thanks, again, -- twelsht (talk) 19:50, 20 December 2007 (UTC)