User talk:DrWitty

Welcome!

Hello, 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: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

I responded on my talk page to your suggestion that we take the discussion off AFI and over to the RFC discussion page; I agree, but I'd leave AFI as is and just continue at the RFC page. Georgewilliamherbert 07:37, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

---RTD DrWitty 19:56, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

McCotter
I added a straw poll to hammer the issue out. &mdash;This user has left wikipedia 15:09 2006-02-01

Quick thing: Just for the sake of readability, remember: When answing someone's question Indent your response one extra level to avoid confusion. Eg


 * Comment by bill
 * Comment by bob
 * Response by bill
 * Respone by bob
 * Further addon reponse by bob
 * Respone by Jane to Bill's comment

etc....

~Cheers &mdash;This user has left wikipedia 15:34 2006-02-01


 * That is the presentation that I'm an trying to achieve. We have been editing too concurrently and it is making it very difficult.  DrWitty 15:59, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * OK see how it looks now, lets avoid modifying at and just wait a couple days for responses. &mdash;This user has left wikipedia 16:01 2006-02-01
 * I proposed the multiple source entries because that site is so complex to navigate -- it is not obvious how to verify the information simply from the candidate page. DrWitty 16:04, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't worry on the navigation issue, that can be fixed later via the references plugin. As long as it's an authoritative source there's no need to add multiple links. Think of how you cited sources back in college, (APA,MLA etc) &mdash;This user has left wikipedia 16:10 2006-02-01
 * Oh, and don't worry too much about the congressional staffer's edits, I had them blocked for a few hours&mdash;This user has left wikipedia 16:23 2006-02-01
 * Even then you point to the location of the information itself (which is buried in the PAC contribution breakdown by cycle), in addition to identifying the reference. The existing link is closer to a bibliography. So long as it can be fixed, I don't care. Is there any difference between the proposed statement and the entry that you've removed/withdrawn from the Tony Trupiano entry? I'm assuming that the resolution of the McCotter statement will settle that one as well? Despite my particular opinion, I'd like to see the community be consistent in its standards. DrWitty 16:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * That's correct Tony/McCotter were by the same person pushing POV, thus I reverted both initially. &mdash;This user has left wikipedia 17:30 2006-02-01

the great State of the Union debate
I think that you'll find that all of your concerns have been addressed here. --Bigtimeoperator 21:39, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Kaine's response to the State of the Union
I'm working on expanding that right now. Unfortunately, both Uncle G and Howcheng insist my content is "original research" so there's a chance they'll delete it. KI 01:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I understand. I like the page and the intro blurb, and think they are appropriate.  I'm not sure about the rest in view of this original research dispute.  I think I'll stay out of that one. DrWitty 02:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Request for Mediation
You recently filed a Request for Mediation; your case has been not been accepted. You can find more information in the rejected case archive, Requests for mediation/Rejected 1.
 * For the Mediation Committee, Essjay  Talk •  Contact, Chairman, 12:12, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
 * (This message delivered by Celestianpower (talk) on behalf of Essjay.)

Per your comments
When leaving comments such as this, it's accepted practice to place them on the talk page of the user to whom you're addressing. In response to your query, had you taken a look at Pinkboy's contributions, you would have seen that the only two articles other than Terry Shannon he has bothered to look at since last year were ones created by me -- following my note about additional sourcing guidelines. Shortly afterwards, he inserted four tags in Fran Rubel Kuzui and left a comment at Talk:Amazon_%28TV_series%29 about it seeming to be a "cut and paste". That's clearly intended to "prove" a WP:POINT, rather than be helpful. -- LeflymanTalk 06:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Until you can point to a policy that requires you to place comments on the talk page of the user to be addressed, I will favor placing comments within the talk page containing the existing discussion. The hyperlinked frenzy that you are advocating makes no sense when the discussion and context are otherwise gathered on a single talk page.  The contributions of an editor over 4 days in two articles, with one comment on a talk page, do no rise to the level of Wikistalking.  Your accusations on Pinkboy's talk page violated numerous guidelines, you admitted that the citation tags were appropriate by referencing the material, and the question on a talk page was not disruptive and not directed at you.  You do not own the articles that you have created.  Do not presume that contributions that are clearly not vandalism or against consensus are attacks against you simply because you originated the article.  I have no desire to become an administrator, and quoting policy to me will do you little good.  However, since you appear to desire to become one, you would be well adivsed to use policy to build editing expertise, rather than to bludgeon all who disagree with you or cause any minor annoyance. DrWitty 02:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC)