User talk:I dream of horses

	; Archives ;
	No archives yet.
	This page is archived by ClueBot III.

This is I dream of horses's talk page, where you can send her messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

If I have left you a message: please answer on your talk page, then place {{Talkback|your username}} on my talk.
If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, then place {{Talkback|I dream of horses}} on your talk.
Please click here to leave me a new message.

Please note: I am not a bot. I use huggle, which allows me to make a lot of edits in a short amount time. I will answer your message after I am done. Thank you.

This user talk page is watched by friendly talk page watchers, which means that someone other than me might reply to your message. Their input is welcome, and their help with messages when I can't reply in a clear or quick manner is appreciated.

I dream of horses uses the Wikibreak Switch template, and plans to update this notice if a wikibreak is taken.

en:User:Meaghan/Sunshine

National Report is NOT satire.

You need to look up the definition of satire. National Report is not satire. It is hoax site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarahseehoward (talk • contribs) 04:34, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since that's a negative bit of information about a company, you'll probably need a reliable source to back that up. --I dream of horses (T) @ 04:38, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Whether the term "hoax" is "negative" is irrelevant. It is simply truth. Calling it "satire" is flatly incorrect information about the site. Have you actually researched National Report? How about a reliable source that justifies use of the term satire with respect to National Report? You won't be able to do it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarahseehoward (talk • contribs) 04:44, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Sarahseehoward: They're in the lead. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:00, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, the sources are not in the lead. If you actually read the sources, you find that they tend to clarify that National Report is indeed NOT satire. Just because Facebook uses a satire tag on something, doesn't make the use of the term correct. If someone builds a fake UFO and floats it up with the expectation that people will believe it's an alien ship, that is NOT "satire." It's a hoax. Anyone who insists on using the term "satire" over "hoax" with respect to National Report understands the definition of neither. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarahseehoward (talk • contribs) 06:04, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

From Wikipedia: A hoax is a deliberately fabricated falsehood made to masquerade as truth.[1] That is EXACTLY what National Report does. There is no satirical element to its content whatsoever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarahseehoward (talk • contribs) 06:12, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@EvergreenFir:, what do you think of all this? I dream of horses (T) @ 07:46, 21 October 2014 (UTC) (fixed {{re}} at 07:47, 21 October 2014 (UTC))[reply]

That it's OR. I added another source to the lead and moved the citations to after the word "satire". All of them use "satire" in references to National Report. I agree it's shitty satire and more toward the hoax side, but we need to follow RS. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:34, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You agree that it is shitty satire, I think, because you realize it is not satire at all. Why can we not at least agree that it is "fiction?" If you read the sources, you will see that none of them actual conclusively refer to it as satire. They are two opinion columns, one of which puts "satire" in quotes with the clear implication that it is not. And there is a report of Facebook's use of a "satire tag" which could kill the "hoax" industry on the Internet. It seems as if nobody who is insisting these are sources are actually reading the content of those sources. Facebook's operational tag is not the determination of a definition. If Facebook tagged photos of zebras with "elephant" would we claim Facebook as a source that all zebras are, in fact, elephants? One reference is simply to National Report's own legal disclaimer claiming "satire." National Report doesn't get to decide what they are in Wiki article. Talk about not being NPOV! Come on guys. How "shitty" does satire have to be before it's not literary satire? I mean, is it not enough that it fails to objectively meet ANY criteria of satire? Was the balloon boy who was supposedly flying through the air in a mylar flying saucer satire? No, it was a hoax. Photos of a pie plate strung between two poles to look like a ufo satire? No. Hoax. And if hoax is too strong a word for you, how about the nice objective, "fictional stories written to appear as if they are real news stories?"

Sarahseehoward (talk) 16:45, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that the consensus is that the news site is satire according to reliable sources. I dream of horses (T) @ 21:36, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I dream of horses is correct. It doesn't matter what we think/know. It only matters what sources say. Perhaps WP:TRUTH is a useful essay here. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:13, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps one day, one of you will actually read the sources and come to understand that they do not refer to the site as satire. And that there are far more sources labeling its stories as hoaxes. Never let facts get in the way of a good opinion, I suppose. — Preceding :unsigned comment added by Sarahseehoward (talk • :contribs) 00:42, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just left you a message on my talk back page

Just left you this message: 22 October 2014 (UTC) Hey horses, how's it going? Why do you get to decide if my post was constructive or not? Sincerely Aurumdog. Forgive me not sure what you mean by sign your posts Aurumdog (talk) 01:20, 22 October 2014 (UTC) Aurumdog (talk) 01:20, 22 October 2014 (UTC)Aurumdog[reply]

I "get to decide" because I've gained experience editing, and trust from the community. --I dream of horses (T) @ 01:36, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to bother you horses, but I guess that's decided then. So how can I make my post "appear constructive to" you?, thanks aurum Aurumdog :(talk) 12:21, 22 October 2014 (UTC)Aurumdog[reply]

It's fine to "bother" me sometimes. Part of what tipped me off to the fact it may not have been constructive was the word "crap", plus the reference was "check out this other Wikipedia page". Ironically, Wikipedia doesn't consider itself a reliable source, so it was a negative story that was unreliably sourced. --I dream of horses (T) @ 14:37, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Glocal Khabar speedy deletion

Hello! Few minutes earlier, I copied exact contents from my site( www.glocalkhabar.com/about-us) but it was tagged as a copyright content. Being the owner of website, don't I have right to copy my own content? I have also mentioned the website name about which description was made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diwaspoudel (talk • contribs) 03:46, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are two reasons why Wikipedia can't accept your copyrighted material:

Wikipedia almost never accepts fully copyrighted information, except under incredibly limited circumstances.
We can't be 100% sure you are whom you say you are.

On top of that, there's a chance that your website doesn't qualify for an article, anyways. I'll list a few pages that you'll want to look at.

Our conflict of interest policies and a summary of them.
Our general notability guidelines, and our specific notability guidelines for websites and organizations.
A summary of the sources we require. I dream of horses (T) @ 14:44, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ImageShack#Hack_by_Anti-Sec

The information is if not all perfect, I am x2Fusion, prior Leader of TheDefaced Security Team. The ImageShack breach was solely down to my stupidity for allowing and trusting a member of our own (situated in Arabic Land) to claim what rightfully belonged to myself.

I am not that fluent or clear of the working with editing over WikiPedia, However; my previous Edit now under https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ImageShack#Hack_by_Anti-Sec_:Revisited - Should perhaps give the needed information to once and for all sort the fixaction of "Anti-Sec" being the apparent reason for the Mid-2009 ImageShack security Breach.

Regards, -x2Fusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by X2Fusion (talk • contribs) 15:53, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You just got a notification from a bot, BracketBot, that you made a minor mistake. That's all. :-) --I dream of horses (T) @ 16:23, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clara Van Well

Who are? Do You Know Clara, because I am sitting right next to her making these changes...... Its not vandalism if I have consent from Clara is it?? I would never do something without her consent so there is no need for automatic reverting — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.23.18.28 (talk) 21:57, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just checked the page. I'm not sure talking about how her glow and red hair excites boys is appropriate for an encyclopedia. Some of your edits have actually been removed from public view. --I dream of horses (T) @ 22:58, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Checking the userpage of new users

Hello, my friend. Please consider a quick userpage check just in case a spamuser report would be better than a welcome. Many thanks, and all the best. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:45, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I must have either been going to quickly (possible, but hey, a welcome template isn't going to prevent a competent admin from blocking if neccesary), or you must have higher standards for what goes on a userpage (also possible, but slightly less so--however, see last parenthesis). Generally, if there's a chance that the userpage might be serving as a resume, I treat that as good faith. --I dream of horses (T) @ 03:23, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, I dream of horses. You have new messages at Fimatic's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

-File:Fimatic.svg 02:41, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Weird - why didn't that work?
-File:Fimatic.svg 02:42, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi,

You recently changed my edit on the "sendgrid" company's wikipedia page. I believe any reasonable person can agree that an unsolicited marketing email, whether the customer has a relationship with the company or not, is spam! The page as it stands is a veiled homage to a business, written in esoteric, corporate language that covers up how it is an entity that is dedicated to spam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikkiWikkiTavi (talk • contribs) 04:12, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the truth is not constructive enough for "Wikipedia".

-( — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.112.184.72 (talk) 04:25, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am really sorry dream of horses.