User talk:ImVeryAwesome
Welcome
[edit]
|
List of social networking websites
[edit]Thanks for adding Instagram to List of social networking websites! That list has been fully protected for a long time, and only recently was reduced to semi-protection, so there may be more missing entries, and there are certainly a lot of out-of-date ones. If you could help update more of them, it would be very greatly appreciated. :) Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 06:40, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks also for updating some of the Alexa rankings. —rybec 13:13, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Debate WikiProject
[edit]Hi! I am trying to revive the debate Wikiproject. Any questions should be left here!
Dear ImVeryAwesome, I'm willing to help you with the debate Wikiproject as much as I can. Since I'm a student, I don't know how many hours will I have, to spend on that, but I'll do my best. If we're tackling the subject by countries, I could do all about debate in Balkans (Serbia, Croatia, Slovenia, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Montenegro, FYR Macedonia..). Best regards, --Sajmonara (talk) 07:50, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
- Sajmonara, thank you for offering to help. Like you I am also a student, and can cover the United States. I think I am going to add a section about major articles by region. Right now I need help re-rating most of the articles, editing a few and tagging some.
Tack me on; I'll do what I can. I'm in the US. --Braniff747SP (talk) 02:18, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
That'd be difficult, considering that I'm quite busy with, well, debate, along with other work. Like I said, I'll do what I can--if you get the ball rolling, maybe I'll pitch in. --Braniff747SP (talk) 02:34, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Nomination of Washington Arlington Catholic Forensics League for deletion
[edit]
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Washington Arlington Catholic Forensics League is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Washington Arlington Catholic Forensics League until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 04:21, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
September 2014
[edit]
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Tournament of Champions (debate) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
- List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
- debaters affecting the rankings. The Tournament currently holds competition in [policy debate]], [[Lincoln–Douglas debate]], [[public forum debate]], and [[Congressional Debate]].
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:00, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Splitting Debate per WP:CONSPLIT to move content pertaining solely to competitive styles into a new article title Debate (competitive)
[edit]Hi, just letting you know that there is a discussion occurring on Talk:Debate about moving article content related solely, or mostly dealing with, competitive debating into a new article to allow Debate to be more about the form of discussion instead of styles of competitive debating. Thanks, Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 09:30, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Erroneous Corporate Personhood edits
[edit]Hello ImVeryAwesome;
The edits you made to Corporate Personhood article and talk page are erroneous. Specifically here: https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Corporate_personhood&diff=next&oldid=792543152
No court ever 'held' that Nike's assertion, that their lying was 'protected' as free speech, was indeed protected. In fact the exact OPPOSITE is true.
You may wish to learn more about this topic by starting here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Kasky#Kasky_v._Nike,_Inc.
I assume you made your edits in good faith and that you have genuine interest in the topic, and so I encourage you to educate yourself and correct your own mistake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.79.167.78 (talk) 14:04, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
- IP Address:
- I appreciate the attempt to "correct" my "erroneous" viewpoints on an edit I made almost a year ago. I'm incredibly confused, however, by your comments. You mention the edit I made to the talk page, so I'm assuming you read my talk page post. If you read the second section below my talk page post (created by The Yar), you will see that someone has already pointed out the error--I have since responded to this talk page section. In the future, it would be more constructive if you responded to posts on the talk page about article content and tagged the people you were talking to, rather than "correcting" users on their own talk page.
- As for my edits themselves, the bulk of the edits were made to address concerns about substantial bias. There are at least three separate talk page posts (roughly half of the non archived ones) that also have concerns about neutrality and undue influence, and my edits were made based on the consensus that it appeared had been reached. While no guidelines prevent users from making assertions like that Nike was "lying" on a talk page post, similar sentences in the articles themselves are prohibited by WP:UNDUE, WP:SOAP, and WP:ADVOCACY. While the revision you link to makes a large number of edits, it appears you are only responding to part of the first one that appears, about the Kasky case. Here I am further confused, because I didn't actually add the information; the sentence was written poorly, and I rewrote it to make it clear. From other comments and reading more about the case, it appears that the original sentence was missing importation--it said roughly "in (the Kasky case) asserted." I took this to mean the opinion for the case itself asserted something, which would be correctly changed to "held." I did this based on the good-faith assumption that the sentence referenced a relevant SCOTUS ruling, and not the irrelevant, privately-settled case that Kasky actually is.
- As for the rest of the edits (besides rewriting a few words that were originally wrong), I eliminated block quotes from dissenting opinions, pejorative words, and other problems with the article. These problems violated WP:NPOV, WP:FALSEBALANCE, WP:PROPORTION, and WP:LABEL. If you have a problem with any of the other edits, I suggest making a new talk page post about them.