User talk:Editor19841/Archive 5

Note: This page has been slightly modified from it's original format for purposes of archiving; all original text and posts have remained.

Template:Denver
Hiya, Editor19841. You're very welcome for the template help! And I do have userboxes&mdash;I guess they're pretty difficult to find&mdash;at User:Webdinger/Userboxes. You have a wonderful userpage also, by the way; it's one of the most informative userpages I've ever seen. Thanks for all your wonderful help in WikiProject Colorado; keep it coming! ;) &mdash; Webdinger BLAH 23:37, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Response
Thanks for the complement! I've tried to network the most information possible in the contained space of my user page. When I recently changed the format, I found that the old one was apparently pretty popular, so I ended up sticking with the one you see today. By the way, I think you're doing quite a good job yourself at the project. It's good to see the progress that we as a coalition have made in the efforts to improve Wikipedia. Anyhow, thanks again and have a good one. Editor19841 (talk) 23:11, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for September 25th.


You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:53, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 2nd.


You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:26, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Username
Nice name ;-) I'm surprised there aren't more people on here with "Editor" in their name; after all, that's what all Wikipedians do, isn't it? I'm just glad I got mine. I don't know what I would have called myself. — E ditor at L arge  ( speak )  09:27, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Response
I've got to agree with you, it is kind of surprising. I wanted something basic, so I figured I'd go with the most basic thing to call yourself here: "editor". I like your name to, as it's got the same kind of ideology as "Editor19841". And don't be fooled; there's plenty of "editors" here doing more vandalizing than editing. But that's not the majority. Thanks for dropping by. Editor19841 (talk) 19:18, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 9th.


You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 16:44, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to WikiProject Guitarists!
Hey there, thanks for signing up. We are dedicated to improving all guitarist articles, including bass guitarists and all genres. We also work on guitar equipment articles. Check out our main project page and see the to-do list for places to get started. Welcome! -- Aguerriero  ( talk ) 20:58, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Response
Thanks for the warm welcome. I primarily play acoustic and have always been interested in the music industry. If there's anything specific that you need my help with, just let me know and I'll do what I can. I'll drop by the project page today and check things out a little more. Anyhow, thanks again. Editor19841 (talk) 20:12, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Taichung City
I am new on WikiProject Cities. I have added considerable content to the first city I am working on, which happens to be the city of my residence, Taichung City. Would you mind taking a few minutes to look it over and leave comments on how you think I can make it better to bring it up to WikiProject Cities standards in a section of the discussion page for the city’s article page that I have set up.

Thank you. Ludahai 03:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Response
Welcome to the project, first off. I had a brief look at your work, and I can honestly say that you really did very well for the short time that you did it. I've been here for a year, and I think you might have topped the contributions I've made to municipality articles in a single effort! Second, I think that you’re off to the right start as far as the by-the-book standards of Wikipedia go. I'll have to look it over more in-depth, but I wanted to respond a.s.a.p. on what I thought based on the quick look at the edits you made and the current article. My schedule is cramped off-line right now, but I will do my best to give you my more comprehensive opinion of your work. I'll drop by the article and analyze it a little more today. Thanks for your comments and asking my opinion. Editor19841 (talk) 23:22, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 16th.


You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 17:46, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 23rd.


You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:19, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 30th.


You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:34, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

2008 DNC
The endorsements you just added to the article really don't belong. They're not encyclopedic in any way. And the comment about Denver being the frontrunner needs to be sourced, and in reality, it can't be in any meaningful way. I think all these edits should be removed.Simon12 02:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Response
I disagree; endorsements are an intricate part of the bidding process as well as the buzz-factor. The article details everything about the 2008 convention - including the bidding process, and therefore the additions I made I believe should be upheld. It may not be the thing that opponents of Denver's bid want to hear, but it's the facts. And in a case such as this, all of the facts I stated in regards to endorsements and buzz are indeed the truth and important to the history and encyclopedic entry on the 2008 Democratic National Convention. I stand by my edits. Editor19841 (talk) 00:11, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The article does not and should not detail "everything about the 2008 convention". It's a Wikipedia article, and therefore only important things should be noted, and it's a tough argument to make that endorsers of a convention bid qualify in that regard. Also, I disagree with your statement that all the facts you included are true, since there are congressional supporters of the New York bid, but they're not shown. And all this has nothing to do with which bid I support (it's Denver's), but with improving the article. Thanks.Simon12 04:10, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Response 2
Hey, wait a second. I never said that you were rooting New York on, simply that supporters of New York might not like the facts. Second, I want to clarify something: I put down what I knew about supporters of both bids. As far as I knew, New York only had a couple locals, and obviously I was wrong. Why is it I have to be solely responsible for the article? Why can't you or someone else research NY's supporters and list them?! I disagree with you that "it's a tough argument to make that endorsers of a convention bid qualify in [the article]", being that it's a key factor in the decision process according to most pundits, bloggers, etc. The statement "detail everything about the 2008 convention" was meant to convey everything encyclopedic, but obviously I didn't get that point across (my apologies). I'm not trying to be confrontational, or biased (I support Denver's bid as well and founded Wikipedians for Denver 2008, which you may want to check out), I'm just trying to get the facts down. I continue to stand by my edits. Thanks for the comments. Editor19841 (talk) 00:19, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, we'll agree to disagree on whether the info should be there, and we'll see if anyone else has an opinion. When the site is finally announced, the article will get more attention, so we'll see what others have to say. Simon12 02:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Response 3
That's fine with me. Have a good one. Editor19841 (talk) 00:11, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Homelessness article edits you made
I am unclear as to the intent or clarity you embarked upon in making your edits now to the article on Homelessness. There were also numerous typographical errors you introduced. As well, "twisted" is a POV, I think. Please advise. I think the material needs re-working since your changes, especially some material you deleted would need to be re-introduced. One is almost tempted to roll it back to the version before your edits until it is clear what you were trying to do. Best. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 20:10, 4 November 2006 (UTC) (User talk:Wikiklrsc)

Actually, some of the changes you made were wrong ! For example, Jacob Riis wrote about and photographed the destitute and downtrodden, not only homeless in the classical sense. We need to roll back. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 20:13, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Response
Alright, here's what I have to say. My intent: to start to get the full story into the article (hence, the editing of a specific section). "Twisted" is a reality to the subject I was referring to. As to whether or not it's POV, debatable. I get what you’re saying, and I also want you to realize my POV; the article is going farther towards a non-neutral point of view. I deleted most of: "Some are hustlers masquerading as homeless, simply to make money, some are substance-abusing people who live in flop-houses or on the street whose main incentive to panhandle is to get their liquor or drugs, whilst others are the hard-core homeless, for the most part destitute and without a home address and telephone, and likely mentally confused or simply downtrodden in life and spirit and living on the street or in a public emergency shelter. These images confound most working people and make the situation for the truly homeless a much more difficult one." For a good reason! "Truly homeless"??? Is someone trying to say that this statement isn't POV? Come on! The fact is, statements like this are throwing the article off into someone's opinion, not an encyclopedic entry of the facts. I'm not trying to start trouble or editing wars, but I stand by my edits. As for my "wrong" addition, can I get a citation on that? "Classical homeless" is awfully broad; especially being that homelessness is so diverse that it's hard for even the government to keep tabs on. Bob, I see your merit for the revert. I'll even admit that "twisted" is probably a POV, despite the fact that it refers to the torture of human life, in the most tasteless, un-provoked of situations, and that most people with a conscience would agree that "twisted" is befitting the kind of deviants perpetrating these crimes. As an editor here, just like you or any other, I feel a duty unto Wikipedia's quality of standards to keep any article I contribute to up to, at minimum, status quo. Where the Homelessness article is at right now, it's flunking. I'll see what I can do, but I can't say I don't disagree with this whole thing. Thanks for dropping by, anyway. Have a good one. Editor19841 (talk) 21:35, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Editor19841. My response is delayed. Too much writing and editing to do and vandalism on the article and others. Thanks for the thoughts. I actually reflected on this material I put in originally about how societally it is getting harder for the general public to distinguish "real" homeless people in need vs. hustlers, etc. It affects the plight of the actual homeless (I'll use that as opposed to "truly" -- no POV at all). I backed it up with reasonable citations. I think the point needs to be made. It is currently not in the article. Best Wishes. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 16:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC) (talk)

Response 2
No problem about the delay - it's cool. Point well made; but I'd also like to introduce a new thought. What about the fact that society, as a majority or at least as a publicized majority, has created a very controversial and often false image of the homeless at large? C'mon, Bob. You probably watch TV just as much as I do, and know what kind of stuff the media wants you to think about the homeless: "drugs, filth, crime, low-class, etc". Wikipedia shouldn't be a venue for a pundit's or otherwise's opinions. Even in a country like America, where our founding fathers only wished an ultimately free society with equality for all, which many a person has fought to claim, no one can deny the obviously stereotyped image of the poorest among us. Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to pick a fight with you or anything, just with the issue as a whole. I'm passionate about this issue and the realities it faces and feel that the truth must be depicted, if nowhere else, in an encyclopedia. The article needs some real help, and I'm willing to do what I can just as you are. Thanks for dropping by and Happy Holidays to you and yours this season. Editor19841 (talk) 19:42, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 6th.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:10, 7 November 2006 (UTC)