User talk:DaveThomas: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 21:13, 22 April 2006

Welcome!

Hello, DaveThomas, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

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:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --JAranda | watz sup 02:37, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

greetings

welcome. i see there is some disagreement over your edits at Bill Clinton. i encourage you to discuss major changes on the Talk:Bill Clinton. you might also find it helpful to review these pages WP:NPOV & WP:3RR Derex 17:07, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mary O. McCarthy

Leave out your bias. The article is about her life, not the leaking!!!

Macwiki 06:32, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good wook on the Mary McCarthy page. As for the plea to keep out the leaking, her life is now pretty much nothing but the leaking. Evensong 15:42, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

---

Obviously, the truth that she is a left wing activist meets acceptable Wikipedia standards for bias and accuracy. The same adjective is found in the Jack Abramhoff article and has been found there for months. As it happens Abramhoff is less of an activist than McCarthy. McCarthy gave contributions to only leftists while Abramhoff gae contributions to politicians on the left and right. --DaveThomas 16:34, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

---

I don't mean the story of the leaking, I mean adding bias to other parts of the article. And as for 'left wing activist', she made a couple of contributions, she was NOT a lobbyist. Jack Abramoff was. (and just because one article is bias does not mean all articles can be bias. UnBias Jack Abramoff if it bothers you so much) I guess that Wikipedias standards would allow you to be called a right wing nut job because you called a someone a 'left wing activist' --Macwiki 17:12, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm [[User:{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}|{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}]]. I noticed that you made a comment that didn't seem very civil, so it may have been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on [[User_talk:{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}|my talk page]]. Thank you.

Lobbyist is not necessarily activist and vice versa. Abramoff was a lobbyist for both Democrats and Republicans. Your personal attack has been noted and reported. --DaveThomas 17:22, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The reason the word activism doesn't work is because it is such a loaded term. If you wanted to broadly look at the term, both her and Che Guevarra could be considered activists. It doesn't say much when you use such a term and just categorizes the person instead of actually breaking down the contents of a person and their actions. Macwiki was trying to make that point but you took more as a personal attack (which I don't think it was.) Personally, I think what she did was totally irresponsible, but our responsibility as editors is to fully document and research everything about her, put it in context of the article and let the reader make that decision. You could for example put in the article that she has been noted belonging to the democratic party and has made several donations (listing the organizations.) --Unreal128

Standards throughout Wikipedia need to be uniform if Wikipedia is to be taken seriously. Accepted use of the term at the Jack Abramoff article provides an example of where the term should be accepted throughout Wikipedia. Like McCarthy, Abramoff gave money to influence politics. Like McCarthy Abramoff committed crimes in furtherance of his objectives. Unlike McCathy, Abramoff gave to both Democrats and Republicans. McCarthy gave only to leftists. Also unlike McCarthy Abramoff's crimes were not intended to significantly harm US wartime efforts. --DaveThomas 18:13, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I agree, standards must be applied. Abramoff's job was to specifically lobby in politics, which is defined as Activism. McCarthy's role was as an intelligence analyst. --Unreal128

User notice: temporary 3RR block

====Regarding reversions[1] made on April 22 2006 to Mary O. McCarthy====

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. The duration of the block is 12 hours. William M. Connolley 20:11, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Had you actually looked at my edits you would have determined there was only 1 revert. Please explain your rash suspension and then unblock my account. I am prepared to take this matter to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR as reccommended in Wikipedia guidance if we cannot settle this matter between ourseles. --DaveThomas 20:50, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've been blocked under 3RR! What do I do? First, check if you actually did make a fourth revert in 24 hours or very close to it.

If you didn't, you should email the admin who blocked you (or another admin), politely point this out and ask to be unblocked. If you did, you should either wait the 24 hours or email the admin who blocked you (or another admin), acknowledge your error, and ask to be unblocked. (They may, of course, choose not to.) Some admins look at the quality of the edits in question; others do not.

Note that historically, public denunciation of the blocking admin has tended not to gain sympathy. You can, however, report cases of egregious misapplication of this rule to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR; for more serious cases, to the "use of administrator privileges" section in Wikipedia:Requests for comment.

You have 4 reverts. If you doubt this, read the definition carefully William M. Connolley 21:06, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the definition:

"To revert is to undo all changes made after a certain time in the past. The result will be that the page becomes identical to how it used to be at some previous time. A partial revert undoes only some of those changes."

I did this exactly once. That was AFTER trialsanderrors had committed his 4th revert. Please remove the suspension or prove your contention. --DaveThomas 21:13, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 58: / Line 58: @@
 : You have 4 reverts. If you doubt this, read the definition carefully [[User:William M. Connolley|William M. Connolley]] 21:06, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
+Here is the definition:
+"To revert is to undo all changes made after a certain time in the past. The result will be that the page becomes identical to how it used to be at some previous time. A partial revert undoes only some of those changes."
+I did this exactly once.  That was AFTER trialsanderrors had committed his 4th revert.   Please remove the suspension or prove your contention.   --[[User:DaveThomas|DaveThomas]] 21:13, 22 April 2006 (UTC)