User talk:24.12.67.218

Welcome

'Welcome!' (We can't say that loudly enough!)

Hello, 24.12.67.218, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

• Be Bold!
• Meet other new users
• Learn from others
• Play nicely with others
• Contribute, Contribute, Contribute!
• Tell us about you

If you have any questions or problems, no matter what they are, leave me a message on my talk page. Or, please come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Please sign your name on talk pages and votes by typing ~~~~; our software automatically converts it to your username and the date.  

We're so glad you're here! Ursasapien (talk) 05:03, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

September 2007

Please do not add defamatory content to Wikipedia, as you did to Sean Hannity. If you would like to experiment please use the sandbox. Your contribution was not adequately sourced (for such an extraordinary claim). In addition, it was not written in an encyclopedic manner. Thank you. Ursasapien (talk) 05:03, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

BTW, you did a great job of improving this edit. Ursasapien (talk) 05:33, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree, very nice edit. Well done. Snowfire51 05:40, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Hannity

We tried to track down this statement a few months ago and found it came from an editorial written by two comedy writers. They couldn't say where they had heard it just that "everyone had heard it." No other source was found and "extraordinary claims need extraordinary sources." --PTR 13:19, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

From the talk archives. http://web.archive.org/web/20040614100927/http://www.philly.com/mld/dailynews/news/opinion/8845252.htm. Editorials aren't considered reliable sources on their own. I don't think fair.org would care since they also reference onepeoplesproject.com --PTR 13:32, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

This editorial is dated Sat, Jun. 05, 2004. The Fair article is dated November/December 2003. The editorial cannot be the source. --24.12.67.218 14:02, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually you're right. It can't be. But onepeoplesproject.com does not have the information listed in the fair.org source. Read the archives under the "Removed text from Controversy section to this page" section for the trail of trying to track this source down.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sean_Hannity/Archive_1 --PTR 14:05, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Onepeoplesproject is not a reliable source. That's why we were trying to track down other references.--PTR 14:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Define reliability: You said, "There is a paragraph in the controversy section (Abner Louima para) that references Fair.org, but Fair.org references OnePeoplesProject.com and OnePeoplesProject.com apparently got the information from an opinion piece in the Philadelphia Telegraph. Is this an acceptable reference for a BLP? --PTR 15:53, 29 October 2006 (UTC)".

This editorial was clearly dated 6-7 months after the Fair article. You did not simply argue that onepeoplesproject was unreliable. Can I define your entries as unreliable?--24.12.67.218 14:42, 8 September 2007 (UTC)