User talk:Cool Hand Luke/Archive 5

Synthesis / NPOV on MPAA wiki
Well, I added the 5th source which directly comments on the MPAA numbers and their lack of credibility. I don't think it would look so much like syn if I distributed the sources throughout the paragraph so that they directly proceed the respective statements. Everything in there is directly stated in the sources at at least one point and I'm pretty sure no one statement is derived from two individual sources (syn).

I don't know, I could be wrong. pyrogenix

Rofecoxib
The first sentence of the reference to the WSJ article is deleted because it is NOT supported by what the WSJ reported. The WSJ reported that an e-mail was sent to NEJM staff (it doesn't specify who) from a PR representative the night before the EOC was released. The WSJ does NOT state that the EOC was either produced or timed based on any outside advice, and the entry stating otherwise is both false and not at all supported by the source material. The WSJ language is quite careful and explicit on this matter.


 * You might have something about their careful language, but the article says:
 * "Internal emails show the New England Journal's expression of concern was timed to divert attention from a deposition in which Executive Editor Gregory Curfman made potentially damaging admissions about the journal's handling of the Vioxx study. In the deposition, part of the Vioxx litigation, Dr. Curfman acknowledged that lax editing might have helped the authors make misleading claims in the article. ..."
 * I think that the article might be a little sloppy in its characterizations, and you're right that it doesn't say that it was timed based on outside advice, but it was apparently timed to cast the editors in a good light; that appears to be the whole point of the article. I'll try to reqrite it a little. Cool Hand Luke 18:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

re: msg
you must understand that the sentence in question was originally added as a joke (by me, and i regret that), but later was restructured and even supported with a botched up "evidence" by someone with a vested interest of laundering the effects of msg. there is no evidence of the effects on humans being different from that on rats. the "supporting study" that i keep deleting is a non-scientific SURVEY. GIMME A BREAK! some freakin SURVEY is used to PROVE that msg does not cause obesity in people???

just flip a few weeks back in the history and you will see how the original subsection appeared.


 * It was a scientific survey of 4938 ethnically Japanese men in Hawaii that was involved in the Honolulu heart program. In addition to interviews and self-reported symptoms, they drew blood measuring glucose and cholesterol levels in the participants. That said, I appreciate that you're not making personal attacks.  Cool Hand Luke 00:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) A good-natured editor has removed this user's attack. Cool Hand Luke 22:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Continued trolling. Cool Hand Luke 03:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Still trolling, still hasn't bothered to fix the typos. Cool Hand Luke 15:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) *sigh* Cool Hand Luke 18:10, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Blah blah blah &mdash;  RevRagnarok  Talk Contrib 13:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) ect. Cool Hand Luke 13:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) ... Cool Hand Luke 14:52, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Other friendly editor again reverted
 * 9) And again Tired of this. Semi-protecting my talk page for a year, or until I feel like removing it. Cool Hand Luke 01:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Can I use your image?
I was curious if I could use your picture "Image:TRAX train downtown.jpg" on my website promoting streetcar transit. I'll give credit to you. :) PerryPlanet 05:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for reverting back to my changes. I cant get the higher ups to put semi protection or full protection up (Obviously the people who are putting those images up have no life and I equate it to vandalsim). But I appreciate it :)

Competition law
When you get a chance, can you take a look at the competition law page? Real WP:OWN problems there, and the editor refuses to acknowledge a legitimate NPOV tag other than minor cosmetic changes to some of the more blatant problems. THF 09:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I am being attacked on the COI/N page because I added the NPOV tag. THF 17:43, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Dangerous POV at Wikipedia
The Vaccine controversy article is a public health hazard. There are sources of the worst, unreliable, partisan types, promoting dangerous ideas. We need to only allow scientifically firm sources. I'm not sure what to do, but this stuff causes deaths, especially of children. The AVN list has been known to praise parents who have stood firm to anti-vax principles and allowed their children to die of easily preventable diseases like whooping cough. In at least one case they stood so firm in their anti-medical stance that they even refused to seek treatment once the child was sick and could still have been saved. When the child died the parents were treated like heroes. This is criminal behavior, but the AVN link is there.-- Fyslee/talk 13:53, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Harassment
ConfuciusOrnis is getting harassed, his user page vandalized, and the vandal is violating 3rr in a couple places. He needs help immediately: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:ConfuciusOrnis&action=history -- Fyslee/talk 21:56, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Wow. It seems he broke the rule on three different pages. Thanks for the tip. Cool Hand Luke 22:03, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the quick rescue to a beleaguered editor. -- Fyslee/talk 22:04, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Stephen Barrett talk page comment
I want to apologize for my comment about the list being ridiculous the way it is. I got frustrated with the back and forth stuff. Also, saying it needs proof of weight by other editors when this is a biography about Barrett and not needed, well, anyways, I'm sorry for allowing my emotions to get out of control on this. I still think deep linking is more consistent on the article but will accept the way it is now if that's the consensus. Again, sorry. -- Crohnie Gal Talk  11:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * No, that's no problem. I think a compromise is good because it won't make a substantive change to the text of the article. It's a little strange to be so worried about the links, but I do see where they're coming from. Cool Hand Luke 15:59, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for understanding and being so calm about it all. -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  16:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I didn't know if you were aware but this link goes to your notepad; "http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Lupin/navpop.css&action=raw&ctype=text/css&dontcountme=s  Also what I see going on is a tit for tat behavior.  There is a group against Barrett who lost a consensus, Cabal mediation failed (do to arguing and bad behavior) and mediation was not accepted.  So, as you have seen, I think you have, board certification keeps coming up as reasons to remove and change items in the Barrett article (also in the Quackwatch article.)  I left for a while because one of the editors tried to out who I really am and make a connection to me about a blocked editor, which is not true.  You can find all of this in the archives of the articles.  I consider myself not pro or con about Barrett, just a disable person trying real hard to learn policies and follow them.  I might make mistakes and be wrong on an idea, and if that happens, please do bring it to my attentions.  My user page is filled with policy links so I can remember where they are to help me along. Personally I would take all of this to the proper channels but I don't know how to.  I don't even know how to use the warning templates.  Thanks, -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  15:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

AT&T Corporation history link
I love the AT&T Corporation history link; however, it does not refer to AT&T Inc. in the slightest bit. In fact, on the very last section of the history page ("The New AT&T", which actually is referring to AT&T Corporation following its name change from American Telephone & Telegraph Co. to AT&T Corp. following its spinoff of Lucent and NCR) it lists "March 2005", the last time that the page was ever updated. The IP user that continues to note this link as the "AT&T Corporate History" is misleading users into believing that it is the history of AT&T Inc., when in fact it is the history of the old AT&T Corporation that wasn't eliminated from the AT&T website database upon purchase by SBC Communications. The reason I eliminated this history link from the AT&T page is because it is appropriate on the American Telephone & Telegraph and Bell System pages due to the fact that AT&T Corporation existed then; it has no reason on the AT&T page because of the fact that it hasn't been updated in almost 2 1/2 years (otherwise it would have noted the closure of the buyout by SBC).

This dispute over having this link also comes down to an ongoing edit war this IP user has dragged on as he disputes the SEC in its records that AT&T Inc. (current company) was incorporated in 1983 - he continued to vandalize the page changing it to 2005, then claiming that AT&T Inc. is the exact same company today as it was in 1885, ignoring official citations - nevertheless, I personally do not feel the AT&T Corporation history link appropriate on the AT&T page; rather, it is better fit on the American Telephone & Telegraph and Bell System pages. However, a .pdf file from the AT&T website would be perfectly fine, which I am adding, as AT&T Inc. clearly denotes that the AT&T today is SBC renamed, and it also lists the histories of the Bell Operating Companies, Baby Bells, AT&T Corp., etc. that became a part of SBC, now AT&T. I don't want to remove the AT&T Corporation history link from the AT&T page until I receive further input from yourself regarding this link.

Hope this clears up confusion. KansasCity 04:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * GTE was not a Bell System entity, and only became a step-child of the Bell family by its acquisition by Verizon. This event was unrelated to any activity AT&T Corporation or SBC Communications (today AT&T Inc.) has done. KansasCity 04:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I am opposed to a mega-page consisting of all the entities SBC (now AT&T) has acquired as this would not be beneficial to distinguishing between AT&T Inc. and the entities it acquried. Having these companies on separate pages is beneficial as their history is not that of AT&T Inc., formerly SBC. KansasCity 04:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Most vs. numerous
Good points here. It is in the nature of things that science is limited by verifiable facts, while alternative medicine has no limits, consisting of a combination of facts, fantasies, lies, deceptions, delusions, scams, etc. etc. etc. ad libitum. There is no doubt Barrett has (rightly) criticized "numerous" forms of sCAM (so-Called "Alternative" Medicine), but I doubt it can be proven he has criticized "most". -- Fyslee/talk 19:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Edzard Ernst may have criticised most forms, and as a professor in the rigth department, criticism is used in its precise form. Unlike for instance "vaccine critic" which is a stealth mantle for anti-vaccinationists.  Midgley 23:37, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Anti-vaccinationist
Now you've moved it, keep an eye on it please, with the Wakefield case proceeding there will be a flurry of revisionism around. Midgley 23:37, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Yankeeization went a bit too far
Your recent change to Vaccine controversy replaced "immunisation" with "immunization" in a couple of places where it shouldn't. Any direct quote of a British source should use the spelling that the source used. For example, if the title of a British document was "Vaccination and immunisation policy" or if a British press release is quoted as saying "immunisation where appropriate" then WP:ENGVAR says the original British spelling should be retained, even in an article that uses American spelling consistently elsewhere. Eubulides 08:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

RUReady2Testify

 * Might you have a talk with this user? After his repeated outbursts on article talk pages, I checked to see what else he was up to; he had created a few inappropriate pages, and I marked them for speedy, and he's been throwing a fit on my talk page every since the administrators deleted them (or created a redirect in one instance).  He doesn't appear to understand how Wikipedia works, and it's far from clear that he's willing to learn. THF 04:36, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Many thanks. THF 05:01, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I spoke too soon. THF 05:08, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Etc. THF 05:17, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Cool Hand Luke, I put a message on my talk page that I'd like you to look at. Thanks. RUReady2Testify 20:25, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Might I ask that the personal attack on RU's userpage be deleted? THF 23:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Joseph Smith, Jr.
Hi - we have a persistant POV anon. I've reverted him twice for the same "labeling". If you're online, would you take the next shift? Thanks. WBardwin 23:42, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Signing off now. Thanks.  WBardwin 01:36, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you; a persistent individual. Given that the anon is only adding a category, I suspect we have a sock. I don't know why they just don't talk about it on the discussion page. --Storm Rider (talk) 07:33, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Eric Dill
Hello there... How come Eric Dill has gone back to a protected redirect? It looked like that it was determined that he should have his own page during the discussion of the redirect, yet now he is back on the protected redirect. Thanks. SummerRidge123 09:23, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Henry Grow
Though I did not nominate it, I thought you might like to know that a page you started has been nominated for deletion. I'm surprised the nominator didn't tell you. See Articles_for_deletion/Henry_Grow. –SESmith 04:54, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Surprise. I have nominated an article you started for deletion, Articles_for_deletion/Henry_Grow as stated above.  There are no sources for anything written whatsoever, and I couldn't find any myself.  If they're out there and can be added, I no longer object. Reswobslc 05:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Surprise again, I found the sources I felt it was lacking, and added them. So, that's the end of that. Reswobslc 05:15, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Allegations of Chinese apartheid AfD
Following your recent participation in Deletion review/Log/2007 July 30, you may be interested to know that a related article, Allegations of Chinese apartheid, is currently being discussed on AfD. Comments can be left at Articles for deletion/Allegations of Chinese apartheid. -- ChrisO 15:23, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Press TV
I added the owner of the station to the block, per your request. However, please don't delete all the work I did throughout the article. The items I added are well sourced and it's rude to off-handedly delete them. I wouldn't do the same for your articles. --Vitalmove 18:16, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

If you look at the BBC's Wikipedia article, you will see that they have both ownership by the government, and independence, in the block. Since the BBC article mentions its independence in the block, the Wikipedia article should be allowed to do the same. Shouldn't it? --Vitalmove 18:37, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


 * All of the sources seem to be self-descriptions, so I think we should leave it out of the main block until a third party authority confirmed actual independence. Actually, I didn't mean to revert that change. You had added it in since I started editing, and I didn't want to remake the same style tweaks. Incidentally, I think there's no reason to source the BBC funding. It's obvious, and the link might give the erroneous impression of synthesis. Cool Hand Luke 18:40, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * But that's impossible. There is no independent third party which grants the seal of "independence" to a station. Every news station, whether the BBC, Fox News, NY Times, WSJ is alleged to be biased in some way. This seems like a simple matter of fairness. The BBC has the word independent in its block. Also, the BBC's ownership & independence sentence is near the bottom of its block. So shouldn't Press TV get the same treatment? --Vitalmove 18:47, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * P.S. I don't know if you logged off, so I'm going to tentatively change it back. However, if you disagree then please note that I didn't change it back in an attempt to close this discussion. I'm going to move this to the talk page. --Vitalmove 18:53, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I decided to leave it alone. We'll leave it your way. It's ridiculous to debate one word in a block. However, do you mind if I move the ownership stuff to the bottom of the block? The BBC block starts with a description of the station then talks about ownership. The Press TV article currently talks about ownership first, which is kind of leading. --Vitalmove 19:34, 5 August 2007 (UTC) Thank for the discussion. On second thought, I'm just going to leave everything as it was the last time you edited, with funding up top. Have a nice day. --Vitalmove 19:44, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I noticed you added criticism of Press TV from this article. 

The article however goes on to say "Only five days after launching, Press TV invited me to take part in a televised panel discussion about journalism in the Middle East. I argued that the biggest challenge facing journalists in the region is a lack of freedom and cited, among other examples, the case of Zahra Kazemi, the Canadian photojournalist who was raped, tortured and murdered by Iranian officials after she was arrested for taking photographs outside the Evin prison in Tehran. To his credit, the host and chief press officer, Shahab Mossavat, did not interrupt or silence me. He called my comments "offensive" to Iran but pointed out that I was given free rein to say what I wished by Press TV. He then steered the conversation toward obstacles confronted by journalists in Israel." Thus the author demonstrates that Press TV let him criticize the Iranian government. If we're going to add the critical parts of an article, shouldn't we add one sentence about the positive elements of the article too? What do you think? I'm going to move this to the article's talk page since it's easier to talk there. --Vitalmove 23:07, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

3RR and Vitalmove
Regarding your post on his talkpage, he has not yet violated the rule. In order to violate WP:3RR one must make four or more reversions in a 24 hour period. Both Vitalmove and I have made three and thus have no violated the rule. My point in posting that is that if other users revert his edits he will be unable to revert anymore. If you click the link I posted on the talkpage you will see that this issue was previously discussed and consensus is that Press TV is 1. not independent 2. not at all reliable. Perspicacite 19:53, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * ahhh I had not seen that. Well I'm not going to report him for that. I would much rather see him blocked for his repeated personal attacks. Perspicacite 20:12, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

PRESS TV
Luke, what's up with these guys (Vitalmove and Perspicacite)? I see a 3RR violation by User:Vitalmove but with all the accusations flying back and forth I'm hesitant to act before knowing just what's going on. Note to Vitalmove and Perspicacite if you're watching, please don't chime in yet -- I want to hear Luke's take first. Raymond Arritt 22:22, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Islam in Angola
Hahaha I saw your post on Raymond's talkpage. I'm not sure exactly, but I think there is a grand total of six Muslims living in Angola. For future reference, I edit articles related to Angola. I am the only editor on the English Wikipedia who edits Angola-related articles with any regularity. I care neither about PRESS TV nor Islam. The dispute originated from another user, Seabhcan, trying to use PRESS TV as a source. Perspicacite 00:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Userfication requests
Thank you. And thank you for offering to help me out by recovering them. Right at the moment, I think the more of those that can be recovered temporarily to my userspace, the better.

Incidentally, I think the closing admin on pac-man did userfy it for me, after a space of time. He or she put a link on my user (not user talk) page. AndyJones 17:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Excellent. Many thanks for your efforts. AndyJones 18:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I see User:Mathmo left a message, apparently intended for you, at my talk page, here. I see the closing admin on Articles for deletion/Hermes in popular culture specifically refused to userfy, but I'd be grateful if you'd do so for me. AndyJones 12:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Sicko
I think your warning was merited and has been heeded; however, I think since you have been involved before with Ted Frank being accused of making biased edits in favor of his employer, it seems you may want to give him a warning as well that writing an anti-Michael Moore article for a magazine his employer, AEI, publishes, being paid for it, then strenuously arguing for its inclusion on the Talk:Sicko page, and then trying to have it inserted on two other film pages, doesn't look so good on the WP:COI front. And I don't think I'm the only one who will think so, aside from his very impassioned defense of the magazine at AfD (where he did little to provide evidence, but did provide a lot of argument), this subject from July seems very pertinent. I think a warning to him would be warranted to "cool it" since it has been an issue in the past. It's your choice, Luke, but I'm surprised you warned me and not him. But thanks for the warning - it was merited. Have a good night! --David Shankbone 03:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Mr. Shankbone has filed a frivolous WP:COI/N report, and has WP:CANVASSed the filer of the previous frivolous WP:COI/N report on competition law. I'd like WP:STALK to be invoked, especially given the bad-faith AFD nomination earlier and the repeated personal attacks on every page I edit.  I shouldn't be harassed for doing precisely what WP:COI requires. THF 05:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * These accusations are warrantless, Ted, and I'm a well-known, long-time contributor on Wikipedia who has given quite a bit. I may be known for terse-ness, but I am not known by anyone--anyone--for raising frivolous arguments that lack substance.  I think it is clear there are COI issues here, and you apparently haven't read the financial section of WP:COI.  I am glad you are on Wikipedia, and just yesterday told you I respect your edits, until you started pulling this crap with the documentary list, and the inherent WP:COI problems with it, and your edits to AEI and The American magazine.  COI basically cautions you to stay away from these articles and let other editors handle them; situations like yours are the exact reason COI exists.  Which is why you find yourself, for a second time, on the COI noticeboard.  --David Shankbone 05:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Have you read WP:COI? I've followed it consistently.  You apparently have not read that policy (you certainly didn't read the COI/N instructions) and apparently do not care about the results of the previous frivolous COI/N report that you keep invoking, and your harassing motives are quite clear. THF 05:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * At this point, Ted, I will allow others to decide that; engaging each other is clearly unproductive. Have a good night - get some rest.--David Shankbone 05:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Retaliatory AfD's happen, one just happened to one of my ancient articles, but articles are usually improved in the process, and I was hoping we could consider this issue closed.
 * The reason I didn't warn TedFrank for COI is because it appeared he was following it. TedFrank was made aware of WP:COI almost from the beginning, and he was tested on it in February with a pretty nasty editor. See, for example Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive202. It couldn't hurt to have impartial users look at him again, but I think TedFrank is making a good faith effort to follow our policies. I think you are too. This content dispute should be resolved as civilly as possible. Cool Hand Luke 06:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Luke may mean Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive77 or Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive206. THF 07:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, right, those are more on point. I find those archives so hard to locate. I wish they would move-archive so that the old edits would move with the subheadings and be correct. Cool Hand Luke 07:24, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Hermes in popular culture
I didn't userfy it due to the overwhelming consensus to delete it outright. Go on and userfy it if you want, but I'm not sure the problems it had can be fixed. --Core desat 20:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I hate to bother you but ...
Would you check into the article? A cool head is desperately needed since the article is no longer protected. A large amount of info is being removed and then reverted and so forth. I really don't want to see the article protected again since the same old feuds will begin again. I tried to get everyone to talk on the talk page but it doesn't seem to be helping all that well. Someone who is not really active will be useful I think. A couple of editors are deleting things saying there is no consensus yet it all needs to be talked about. And there is more going on but mainly I don't like to see the incivility and the warring. Your help would really be appreciated before things really get bad. I will understand though if you are too busy with other things. Thanks in advance, -- Crohnie Gal Talk  20:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I just want to thank you for your quick response and great idea. (At least I think it's a great idea)  You have a great night and thank you again.  -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  21:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

WT:COI
I don't understand your 22:35 comment. THF 22:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:AN/I
I'd really like to avoid further disputes with DSB, but I have to object to this WP:POINTy edit, if only because I was threatened with an indef block in the identical situation involving Jance when she changed her user name. THF 01:54, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You show absolutely no desire to avoid further disputes with me, Ted, considering the juvenile back-n-forth you pulled when I wanted to remove my comment from your Talk page, you were told my two admins, three, actually, that you should remove it, and you decided to keep it up there, although you quickly removed the warning you got from RA about calling it vandalism. This is, in no sense, a desire to avoid disputes with me, but to engage in pettiness.  --David Shankbone 02:12, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * While I'm a big believer in letting users control their own user space, I think it's probably a good idea to let others remove their own comments. If you need to refer to them later, you could always use a diff. Anyhow, I'm glad this is now moot. Cool Hand Luke 12:51, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm also glad that User:FayssalF removed the unacceptable ANI remark. Cool Hand Luke 18:02, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Would you please check out these links
I think they may have a big influence on the libel suits that are being disputed. 

-- Crohnie Gal Talk  20:50, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * That's interesting, but I don't think it helps Barrett. His cases were shut down by the CDA interpretation that limits liability for third parties reposting libel. In the New Jersey case, it looks like the party was posting directly, so the CDA would not apply to them. We don't seem to have a good article on the Zippo sliding scale for personal jurisdiction (the only thing I could find is here), but Barrett would probably still lose even if he could get into another forum because of the CDA.
 * All of this would be original research anyway. Cool Hand Luke 21:05, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Would you explain why it would be original research? Thanks,-- Crohnie Gal  Talk  13:31, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * It's not original research to discuss it on the page about personal jurisdiction, but it would be OR to evaluate Barrett's lawsuit in light of this. Until another source specifically comments on the Barrett's suit in light of this, it's synthesis at best. Cool Hand Luke 18:16, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you, but would the article on Yahoo count? -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  20:28, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * No. It doesn't even mention Barrett. Applying this ruling to Barrett is synthesis. Cool Hand Luke 20:30, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I understand. Sorry to bother you. -- Crohnie Gal Talk  20:42, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

AN
Thanks for heads-up. Tyrenius 19:48, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Would you ask an editor to use only one acct when editing?
I'clast and the Nautilus is the same person but it looks like another editor is adding input. I don't want to start a feud with him so I am asking you to do this. Thanks, -- Crohnie Gal Talk  12:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Reverting
Your revert summary for this edits reads: All of these changes are necessitated by removing the unsupported last line and mentioning the CDA interpretation dismissal earlier

The problem is that you are reverting a lot of other research and work along with the one sentence you are trying to delete which only really needed a "citation needed" tag at the moment. The other sentence is actually more correct per the Fonorow suit which supports it. The Fonorow suit was not about Fonorow using the CDA to protect himself, but rather Barrett trying to use CDA against Fonorow and having the judge blow it back in his face. Please re-read Fonorow and I am sure will agree. Then consider self-reverting your edit. Thanks. -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Levine2112</b> <sup style="color:#774400; font-size:small; padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background-color:#FFFF99;">discuss 06:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The defendants moved to dismiss Barrett's libel suit under the CDA and the court agreed.
 * " Intelisoft moved to dismiss the complaint under section 2--619(a)(9) of the Code of Civil Procedure (Code) (735 ILCS 5/2--619(a)(9) (West 2000)). Intelisoft argued that Barrett's claims were barred by section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (Act) (47 U.S.C. §230 (2000))..."
 * Please be mindful of the procedural posture. You're looking at an appellate opinion here, so Barrett has to argue that the trial court was wrong. He didn't sue under the CDA: he lost on summary judgment because of it. Here he argued that he should not have lost because of the CDA. The appellate court also disagreed.
 * As for the "citation needed" tag, I normally do apply them insted of deleting the questionable text. This article is the biography of a living person, however. Cool Hand Luke 06:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

LDS subcategories, etc.
Cool Hand, I undid your change again, but after reading the old version that it reverted to I was highly dissatisfied with it, too. It's wrong to say it's "incorrect" to use the word Mormon for anything but a reference to the LDS Church (and you do know which one I'm talking about). I changed the opening paragraph of the article to reflect that the usage of Mormon to refer to an LDS member is so common that any other usage is esoteric. The Greeks call themselves Hellenes and insist that the real Greeks were only a small and disreputable tribe among their richly diverse demographics, but that doesn't change the fact that Americans know what THEY mean when they say Greek. Similarly, let's not use an article that's supposed to be informative to confuse people. And your statement that the article should represent all points of view is simply unachievable. It's not a worthy goal because no article can represent all points of view; it's not supposed to represent any point of view. Everything in it is supposed to be fact.

And the fact is, when people say "Mormon," they're thinking of the guys with nametags riding on bikes. Or, as will soon be the case, the folks associated with the Mountain Meadows Massacre. People can argue about whether other sects share the same heritage, but there's no basis for argument about what virtually all people mean when they say "Mormon." Preston McConkie 14:27, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Star Jones
Thank you for moving this article per my request. I greatly appreciate your assistance. ConoscoTutto 15:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Apologies re The Big One (film)
I messed up on setting up the templates for the merger proposal. Sorry about that. Noroton 23:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Noroton
Your unblock doesn't seem to have taken. THF 04:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Nope. He had an autoblock of the underlying IP. I forgot about that. It's been ages since I unblocked anyone... Cool Hand Luke 04:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Blogs
Blogs may be used in very limited circumstances. I left two links to a "Overlawyered" page which contains a copy of an article from "Reason" magazine, though we also have a guideline against linking to copyright violations. Blogs may be used as references for the articles on the bloggers themselves, but blogs should never be used as sources for 3rd parties, per WP:BLP. Regarding using blogs as sources for the opinoins of the bloggers, every blogger has an opinion on something. Unless the blogger is notable enough for a Wikipedia biography, they are probably not notable enough to have their opinion quoted. Even so, I did leave the one link in which the blogger is specifically referred to by name. Are there any specific articles that you think the blog should be restored? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Olson was a Reason editor, and has reprint rights to his articles, and to the articles of a number of other writers who gave him permission to reprint on his site, including Stuart Taylor and Michael Fumento. THF 18:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Looking over your contribution,s I see you've restored many to biographies, which is definitely prohibited by WP:BLP. I disagree entirely with the concept that a poor source is better than no source. If we can't find a good source then we'd best leave out the assertion entirely. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 17:51, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The overlawyered link on John O'Quinn is just a copy of the judicial opinion. If you want to change the sourcing to a footnote so that it explicitly makes clear that it's citing to the judicial opinion, as reprinted on the website, that's fine. But when blogs repost original documents, Wikipedia regularly links to those documents.  BLP forbids the use of blogs for controversial propositions; the fact that Berlet has an opinion about Nader isn't controversial. THF 17:55, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, so blog entries actually written by Walter Olson may be used with caution in topics related to his field of expertise. However blogs are never acceptable for biographies of living people, WP:BLP. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so.

Also, if there are other links which violate WP:EL or other guidelines or polices then let's remove those too. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:55, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Can we avoid WP:MULTI? This is going on on three pages.  I'll move to CHL.  The entire tort reform entry violates NPOV and NOR and EL and NOT#LIST, and needs to be rewritten.  It suffered from some very bad POV-pushing. THF 17:58, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * If the link goes to documents without additional commentary then that'd be acceptable, to me at least. However BLP flatly prohibits blogs as souirces for biographies.
 * Material from self-published books, zines, websites, and blogs should never be used as a source about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article  [emphasis in original]
 * Please remove any blog links that you restored that aren't simply copies of reliable documents. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 18:02, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agreed with some of the removals, and I think the Chip Berlet removal was probably appropriate, and I will self-revert Ralph Nader, but most of these refs look OK to me: they often just contained primary documents on the BLP or were citing somewhat expert polemic on the other topics. If you excuse me, I'm breaking for lunch now. Cool Hand Luke 18:04, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * What court documents are printed at this page on John O'Quinn? It appears to be opinion about a living person, hence a violation of WP:BLP. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 18:07, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Also, quoting a reliable source does not make a blog a reliable source. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 18:22, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't understand, as long as we cite the original and make it clear that the weblink is a convenience link, why is there an issue? JoshuaZ 18:27, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * If the blog posting is a verbatim copy of a published document, provided as a convenience link and where copyright violations aren't an issue, there's no problem. That wasn't the case here. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 19:27, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The John O'Quinn links have been fixed. I don't understand why Beback keeps removing the McDonald's material, as I hear from multiple law professors that they use that page in their class, and there is no BLP issue, and it's expressly stated in the article that it is the opinion of the author. I'd like to think of myself as a RS, too, and business publications keep treating me like one, but I'll let people without my COI on the subject to hash it out. THF 18:38, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * If the author of the blog postings is notable enough to quote by name he'd probably be notable enough to have an article on Wikipedia. The John O'Quinn link still went to a blog page with commentary. I've fixed it so that it goes to the unaltered PDF. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 18:46, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Apparently user:THF has gone ahead and posted at Reliable sources/Noticeboard. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 19:00, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry for butting in but I thought blogs where never acceptable. Am I incorrect about this and if so would you send me to the correct policy so I can read up on it?  Thanks, -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  23:18, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Blogs are never acceptable as sources for claims in the biographies of living people. However, they are commonly accepted as sources in non-biographies when written by established authorities. Articles on global warming frequently cite to scientist's blogs, for example. Cool Hand Luke 00:35, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to find what you're referring to. The only blog I see used as a reference for Global warming belongs to an economist, and frankly I'm not sure what value it adds to the article. Is there an instance in particular that you're thinking of? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 06:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * There are dozens, if not hundreds, of uses of the realclimate blog. THF 12:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of realclimate, there is a discussion at Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard on the subject. As you participated in WP:RS/N, you may be interested in a recent discussion on the BLP use of blogs at this noticeboard. THF 11:59, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Village Pump
The fact that the response to my rebuttal resulted in Wikidemo creating a new articlespace page was not quite the remedy I was looking for. Now that this future can of worms has been opened, can you watchlist it and keep an eye out for BLP violations? I suspect RFPP will be needed at some point. THF 21:11, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

First BLP violation
"has been quoted as critical of plans to allow homeowners to keep their homes in the face of foreclosures" isn't true. Who is the SPA a sock of?THF 21:30, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Troll (Internet)
Can you double-check my edits for this article? I'm not sure if I got the footnote citations right. THF 13:42, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Other matters
Separately, don't go too far out on a limb on any of this other stuff. My biggest concern is the neutral and reasonable application of COI rules, and it's not worth spending political capital on the battles that are going to be lost because they're a proxy war for opinions about Michael Moore or the SlimVirgin controversy. Better to ban anonymous editing altogether consistently. THF 13:42, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
I'm much better at being a pain in the butt than in showing appreciation. And thanks for the unblock, too.

Category:Reality films
This category was recently nominated for deletion and your input would be appreciated at Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_August_28. Thank you. --Pixelface 12:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

PROD for Ted Frank (businessman)
As the creator of this article I am letting you know I put a PROD tag on it. I also nominated Brainwashing 101 for deletion. Jeez - you'd think I was the Deletionist! lol. -- David  Shankbone  04:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Read WP:NOT
Content such as this is totally unacceptable. haven't you ever read WP:CRYSTAL? -- lucid 05:38, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Everybody and their dog knows that earth will be a smoking crater by then -- lucid 05:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
for the cleanup on my userpage. Much appreciation.  Citi Cat  <sup style="color:#000000;"> ♫ 17:13, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Arbcom
Hi, i'm going to try to stay out of this but finding out that THF was forced off was shocking, that makes two in two months and the first was an admin. This has to stop or there will be no-one left (or right as the case is with THF). ( Hypnosadist ) 23:26, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/THF-DavidShankBone
Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Requests for arbitration/THF-DavidShankBone. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Requests for arbitration/THF-DavidShankBone/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Requests for arbitration/THF-DavidShankBone/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon (t) 18:25, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: Bot and new RfC template format
That would be because I defined the task too loosely. Don't worry, it was just a one-time job. Just revert my bot as you see the mistakes. MessedRocker (talk) 03:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Ted Frank on Ted Frank
There was a phony account who made a few edits on Ted Frank. I notice you have previously deleted and restored that article. Do you think you could also do these three edits? Fred Bauder 23:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Melody Max
I saw that you have deleted this page based on this discussion. There has been a discussion in Persian Wikipedia over censorship and because of that, I looked at this article on Sep. 2. I don't remember seeing any AfD tag. Could you please check the history to see if the AfD procedure is done properly? Alefbe 23:13, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * No, it's fine. Thanks for checking it. Alefbe 05:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Remove VandalProof error and moved it to correct editor. --Storm Rider (talk) 19:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm strongly against the elemination of Melody Max article. according to this discussion please undelete the article and relist it on AfD in order to get more comments.

Many thanks --Kaaveh 05:39, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Ping you have mail
I would really appreciate a quick response. Thanks, -- Crohnie Gal Talk  22:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Law pages
Hi Luke, thanks for the welcome. You seem interested in law and in Wikipedia policy so you might be the best person to ask where I can find (or initiate the creation of) policies for the law articles.

The most obvious question is content duplication (something on which I am surprised not to find a Wikipedia-wide policy), which makes it hard to check/correct accuracy and verifiability issues. For example I tried to verify the claim in the competition law articles that "a French funeral service was found to have demanded exploitative prices". This is attributed to case C-30/87 Corinne Bodson v. SA Pompes funèbres des régions libérées [1987] ECR 2479. I read the judgment and it does not make such a finding (indeed it does not make any finding of fact: it is a preliminary ruling on an issue of law). Also the reference is wrong: it says [1988] ECR 2479 on the judgment. Now these errors, according to the search tool, appears in four different articles. This degree of duplication cannot be the right way of going about writing a verifiable encyclopedia.

Related to this example too, I am wondering whether case law references are too close to WP:OR, at least when some broad conclusion is being drawn from a case without giving specific paragraph number references.

And obviously there are enormous problems of failing to identify the countries to which the discussion applies. An Anglosphere bias seems fair enough but sometimes it sounds like we are talking about 19th century England only!

Finally for now, I think I saw somewhere a statement that no disclaimer was needed on Wikipedia articles. Is that really safe?

Thanks for any help or pointers you can give. Proz 07:30, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Many thanks for your response on User talk:Proz. WP:SUMMARY seems well thought through, including on consistency/synchronisation problems.  And your explanation on the use of case law makes sense too.  The problem might be in the way these policies are practiced on the law pages.  I have been impressed (or should that be shocked?) by the way in which my my removal of duplicated text, and my verifiability and merger-proposal tags, got reverted without discussion (or is that discussion by WP standards?).  I presume that I would be wasting everyone's time by putting sync tags where they would be needed according to the policy, or noting the absence of satisfactory sources for the claims that need them.  This is not a strong encouragement to spend time or effort identifying what is actually important for a good article and digging out reliable sources for it.  Proz 19:13, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:NPA
At any rate, you really shouldn't antagonize people with sarcastic comments either. There might be spurious accusations tossed about, but the appropriate response is not to belittle editors. Ossified 03:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Cut/paste repair query
Thought I'd ask you this, seeing as how you seem to be a regular helper outer at WP:SPLICE. Is the move repair stuff, which I understand is for the benefit of GFDL compliance, relevant to talk pages? I've just discovered Talk:European and Talk:European ethnic groups, but while the untidiness of the move makes me grind my teeth and claw at my cheeks, I know that's just my rather anal attitude to keeping things tidy, and I may have to just... (deeeep breath...) put up with it. If I can slap a db-histmerge tag on it that'd be just grand, but I wanted to check before I added it to the list. Cheers, --DeLarge 11:34, 15 September 2007 (UTC)