User talk:Random832/Archive 4
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:Random832. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
Username
As I had been reading this section from the user:Eonon userpage, what about user:Moorcroft shouldn't that lot be blocked as this is the reason why I plus some other users had to nominate pages related to the Moorcroft company considering that is all they had edited. Willirennen (talk) 18:38, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Ron Paul - newsletter controversy
I kindly ask that you reconsider denying the requested protected edit of the Newsletter controversy section of the Ron Paul entry. The current version of the section opens with and repeatedly refers to "Paul's newsletters", yet Ron Paul claims he did not edit the newsletters and that he has "never uttered such words" as those quoted from the newsletters.[1]. I find our current language to be misleading and possibly violating WP:BLP, and potentially libelous (although presidential candidates are in open season so we're unlikely to be sued). I thus requested that the repeated instances of the possessive "Paul's newsletters" are changed to the neutral "the newsletters".
Please note how journalists at UPI and CNN report on the newsletters controversy, avoiding the possessive and using phrases like "newsletters under his name". I think we should stick to at least the same level of objectivity and neutral point of view. Of course, it is possible to cherry-pick media coverage that actively uses the possessive, particularly opinion articles and sensationalist press, headlines, blogs and letters to the editor. Case in point, The New Republic, listed by another editor in the discussion as an example of "three reputable publications" that "have used the terminology", is a limited circulation liberal opinion magazine. No surprise their article "Angry White Man - The bigoted past of Ron Paul" repeatedly refers to "Paul's newsletters". But that doesn't give us a free pass to frame our section that way without explicit citations and careful choice of language.
Most of the opposition arguments in the debate boils down to that the editor's point of view is that these were Ron Paul's newsletters, ergo we should write they are his newsletters. In contrast, my position is that we should carefully avoid imposing our own POV.
Note that I am not arguing for language that deny that these are Paul's newsletters, and we should of course not be shy about including material that may contradict Paul. I am arguing for use of neutral language that let the readers draw their own conclusions based on the facts presented in the section. I thus request that you make the requested protected edit to the article.
-- Terjen (talk) 18:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Yukon stubs
One reason I used cut and paste was to avoid having to make multiple edits, since the categories the template fed into had to be changed as well. By the way, doing the move on top the new template caused a small problem that required a null edit in one of the articles using the template in order to have the template place them in the correct category(s). Caerwine Caer’s whines 22:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I see I forgot one :) ˉˉanetode╦╩ 23:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Like this alot!
|
The Barnstar of Good Humour | |
| For this |
Rudget. 18:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for January 14th, 2008.
 |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 3 | 14 January 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:51, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
RE: media deletion
Regarding the comment left on my talk page yup that's me, yup I said that, and yup, I'll say that again if anyone asks to use my anthems on Wikipedia! Pretty much my standing policy, they can use them if they want but IMHO it'd be better if they found an MP3. I would like for it to be reinstated if possible.
Any way I can get this taken care of so that this hassle isn't done again next time someone wants to use an anthem from my site without making it a hassle for them or me? I would like to know! --Canuckguy (talk) 05:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I am quite sure that the song is public domain (as all anthems are, think of the kind of hassles there would be if anthems weren't!), but individual arrangements of the anthem are subject to, and often are, copyrighted. I use the MIDI files simply because (except in three or four cases, where they are clearly marked, and this one isn't one of them) they are free to be used. I'm hoping to make this more clear on my site, but I'm not sure how. My thought is to go with a tag from creativecommons.org that places them in the public domain, but then I'm wondering if I have to put it on every page? Also, I'd like the text to be used too (as I share Wikipedia's ideas that information should be free), but I don't think factual information is covered under a creativecommons tag. Regardless, I'd like to make the process easier for the next time this happens. Thoughts? --Canuckguy (talk) 01:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
my monobook.js
I've readded your script to my monobook, and reloaded with shift-control-R - but I still see no difference on AN/I. Can you take a look here and see if I missed a piece? Avruchtalk 19:37, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
I thought I'd try it and see what it did ;-) Avruchtalk 19:43, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Ah, that fixed it. I see what you mean about resolved needing to be the first paragraph - if its inside archive tags, it shows up bolded still. Avruchtalk 19:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Its pretty slick - it should be standard interface for that page. Avruchtalk 21:16, 18 January 2008 (UTC)