User talk:Simnel

Welcome!

Hello Simnel, 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:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

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 have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  Cobra 19:08, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

---

In case I've offended or frustrated you in any way with my modifications done to the Batman page, I sincerely apologize, but for the record, my modifications have been mostly limited to making the statistics box more factually correct (e.g.: clarifying which alliances and relatives only belong to alternate realities, erasing the "deceased" tag from some of the "previous alliances" (since we only put them in for deceased relatives), changing "Jean Paul Valley/Azrael" to simply "Azrael II" (since again, real names usually only appear in the relatives section in superhero statistics boxes). Some of my modifications were inexplicably removed: e.g.: I changed "Barbara Gordon" to "Batgirl I/Oracle", but it's been changed to just "Oracle" for some reason. --Ace ETP 19:28, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Not at all offended. However, please use the talk page. I don't see the need to tag the characters with every superhero identity they've ever had; honestly, I would have changed them all back last time, I just got kinda tired of doing it over and over again. As far as 'world's greatest detective', that's not an alias. It's a description. Again, if you want to discuss the way people are being referenced (in this overlong article), just bring it to the talk page. Simnel 15:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi

hey I did heard something about Batman Begings being inspired by Year One!! I think if that's true we better make sure for the sake of the article--T-man, the worst "vandal" ever 06:01, 21 January 2006 (UTC) And btw, you still owe me some ilustration about how year one is considered after zero hour... I read them both but after ZH, I just eraset de catwoman being aprostitute part, instead I just imagine she was some poor chick, but the rest is true to me...At least til now that I'm not that sure because of what you said.--T-man, the worst "vandal" ever 06:08, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Batman

Got your message and took a look at the page. I'm not up on the subject and to me it looked as though there wasn't much vandalism going on. I'm more than happy to help, but you have to make a strong case for semi-protection. Take a look at Wikipedia:Semi-protection policy and then point me to what you specifically think is the problem. I saw only a few anons on the page. Most of the problems seem to be from User:69.3.101.54. I blocked this user for 24 hours. If this user continues to be a problem, let me know and I will use a longer block. Also, I would suggest that you use more edit summaries, especially if you are reverting vandalism. It helps admins see which edits to look at when dealing with these sorts of problems. -- Samuel Wantman 07:34, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, I just got sick of doing edit summaries like 'reverted idiotic nonsense again'. Look back a week or so and I did for every one; now, I just don't bother if all I'm doing is reverting T for Troublemaker or 69.3.101.54's repeated attacks. Simnel 08:06, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

C'mon, give some chance! You know I sourced. I agree the sourcing could be better, you can hepl me if you want.--T-man... ""worst vandal ever"" 00:47, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Wertham

I fail to see what's wrong with what I wrote, it's verifiable and it helps the section to be neutral. Perhaps you could rephrase me better if you don't like the words I used.--T-man... ""worst vandal ever"" 00:45, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

personal attacks

some of the comments you have made towards t-man have been massivley in breach of the wiki-harrasment and civility guidelines, if you have a genuine girvence please add it as an "intersted party" to the current arbitration comitte case.Benon 02:40, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Batman again

I've been keeping an eye on Batman, and the"Dark Knight" seems to have given up. I've also noticed some edits of yours which I'd like to mention. Reverting 68.39.72.108 (talk · contribs) could be seen as biting the newcomer. These were first edits, and not unreasonable. To revert them without a welcome and comment on the user's talk page is likely to be percieved as being harsh. I think you should look at the additions and consider keeping most of it, and open a dialogue with the user at the same time. One of the keys to making Wikipedia a success is creating an atmosphere where people's contributions are welcomed, and everyone acts with civility. --Samuel Wantman 22:31, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Holy Terror, Batman!

We edit conflicted on this, but I was just about to tidy the text to this:

• * In February [[2006]] Frank Miller announced he was working on ''[[Holy Terror, Batman]]!'', a work in which Batman would battle [[Osama bin Laden]]. <ref>{{news reference |firstname=Harry |lastname=Mount |title= Holy propaganda! Batman is tackling Osama bin Laden |date=February 15, 2006 |org=Daily Telegraph |url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/02/15/wbats15.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/02/15/ixworld.html}}</ref>

Given you removed the text I'm not going to add it straight back in, but I'm worried at your revert and statement that it isn't important. This was reported all over the world.[1] It's quite notable. Appreciate your thoughts on moving this forward. Steve block talk 19:26, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know it's not in All Star. I believe, looking at the press, it's a 200 page graphic novel with no as yet publication date. I agree that we should't list every book, but I am arguing that given the press attention, I mean even China reported on it, this one is perhaps more notable than the average work. It's Bin Ladin, it's Miller, it's Batman. Miller's probably the most notable of the current crop of Batman writers, Bin Ladin's notable, and Batman's notable. I don't disagree with you on the press release nature of it, there's also a small part of me that wonders if this isn't something of a hoax or a misleading on Miller's part. DC have yet to issue any statement whatsoever on the project, not even a confirmation or a denial. However, I mean, even if we agree it's trivial, there is a trivia section and it seems to me as being of equal worth to the height of Adam West and the weight of the other feller, um, Christian Bale. What do you think? I've made my best case, I'll respect whatever you say next. Your call.  :) Steve block talk 19:59, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I know it's not your page, don't worry about that. The reason I'm happy to keep it between the two of us rather than hash it out on the talk page is, I guess, it's not an issue I feel strongly about. What bothered me most was your rejection of the material as unimportant, not the rejection of the material as such. The issue might come up again, I don't know, but I can't say for sure you're right or I am, so it's easier just to come to a fair play state of affairs. Yeah, there does need to be a critical evaluation of superheroes fighting the threat of the day, I haven't looked at superhero for a while now though, I don't know what's there. Ack. I just looked. Um... Steve block talk 19:05, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Cleaning up Batman

Thanks for your thanks. *heh* I got bored and pulled a possible Batman overhaul out of my hat between meetings. Feedback would be appreciated. -- Ipstenu 20:54, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

March 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article Glenn Beck, please cite a reliable source for the content of your edit. This is particularly important when adding or changing any facts or figures and helps maintain our policy of verifiability. Take a look at Wikipedia:Citing sources for information about how to cite sources and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. J DIGGITY (U ¢ ME) 20:42, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Glenn Beck

I wanted to let you know that I removed your edit again, but for good reasons. The source you used is not permitted according to Wikipedia's policy on Biographies of Living Persons. I am going to try to find a good source for your statement. If you beat me to it, so be it, but I wanted to explain that I am not trying to be a d-nozzle, just trying to get it right. J DIGGITY (U ¢ ME) 04:34, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

No problem at all - again, I appreciate it. However, I read through the page you linked - biographies of living persons - and I didn't find anything which would suggest to me that a NY times article would be a bad source for the information in question. What am I missing? Until then, NOT including language like that leaves the section significantly misleading - IE, it suggests something about ACORN which simply isn't true. Beck was taken in by something which was pretty much a hoax, as was just about every other media group. That feels like it's important to mention in the "media controversies" section - would it have been better to remove the whole section? That seemed like NOT the thing to do... :-) Simnel (talk) 13:40, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

This is an excerpt from WP:BLP on reliable sources:

Never use self-published books, zines, websites, forums, blogs or tweets as sources for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject. "Self-published blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some news organizations host online columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. Where a news organization publishes an opinion piece but claims no responsibility for the opinions, the writer of the cited piece should be attributed (e.g., "Jane Smith has suggested..."). Posts left by readers are never acceptable as sources. However, images of living persons that have been generated by Wikipedia contributors or other sources may be used to illustrate articles, provided that they have been released under a copyright licence that is compatible with Wikipedia's image use policy for user-created images and subject to the considerations set out in Images above.

Also, from WP:Verifiability:

"Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight."

Do you see now? If it were any article other than a BLP, I would not be able to make this argument, because it would not be a big deal. However, I have not found any sources that would count as an RS that made the claim that the tapes were doctored. I found several in which Bertha Lewis claimed they were heavily doctored, and that is certainly something that could be mentioned, but not on Glenn Beck's article, as it is not notable enough for his. However, you should feel free to edit the article about the controversy, which has been linked to from Beck's article, so when people jump over there they can see that there were claims of heavy editing. Again, if you find a good source, please include that in Beck's article. J DIGGITY (U ¢ ME) 14:17, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

...couldn't find any other sources? Okay, here are two that I found after a simple Google search.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_crime/2010/03/01/2010-03-01_bklyn_acorn_cleared_over_giving_illegal_advice_on_how_to_hide_money_from_prostit.html#ixzz0hBZViFYR. (Quote: "They edited their tapes to meet their agenda.")

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/23/us/23acorn.html?scp=2&sq=ACORN&st=cse (Quote: "later inspection seemed to indicate that he had manipulated that part of the footage...")

I'm still not sure I follow why an editorial piece by a member of the NY Times' editorial board doesn't meet the criteria above... it's hard to argue that there's no "editorial control" there. Especially when commenting about mistakes that the Times made in reporting a story. Maybe I'm missing something critical about the piece in question. I'll reinstate the edit again, using the first cite.

If I AM wrong - if I am either misreading the policy, or misunderstanding the NY times piece that I cited in some way - please tell me. Right now, I've got to admit that while your first revert seemed extremely helpful, your second one is making me feel like you're ideologically motivated. The things you cited did not seem at all to apply to the piece I used, and it was absolutely trivial to find other sources for the same thing. But as I said, it's easily possible that I'm simply misunderstanding something about Wiki's policies, so please don't take that the wrong way; however, rather than citing to policy which I then have to interpret for myself, please just explain what you think I've done incorrectly.

Thank you very much, either way! Simnel (talk) 18:41, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Nope, that edit and source look fine.

As for the piece that I argued against the first time, "editorial control" means the entire editorial board has control over it, and the Times page on "The Public Editor" says the following:

"Clark Hoyt is the third public editor appointed by The Times. The public editor works outside of the reporting and editing structure of the newspaper and receives and answers questions or comments from readers and the public, principally about articles published in the paper. His opinions and conclusions are his own."

I explained all this on the Beck talk page. I don't know if you saw it there or not. I apologize for not explaining that here as well, and I apologize if I came off as a ideologue. J DIGGITY (U ¢ ME) 20:48, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

No problem at all - makes sense to me now, and I'm sorry about the accusation.Simnel (talk) 12:27, 25 March 2010 (UTC)