User talk:JTrattner

Editing Concerns

 * 1) Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Please take care to not delete large amounts of others work without an explanation in the edit summary and/or a discussion on the relevant talk page.Kukini 05:51, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * This was not a test. It was removing bias comments from an artical.
 * The noting of a controversy is not necessarily biased. Also please sign all comments on talk pages with tildes. Kukini 06:17, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * It wasn't noting controversy. It was making several unsourced statements, in a highly biased tone with a very onesided POV.Jeff Trattner 06:20, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I added the first "citation needed" notice. You do this by placing the words "citation needed" between these. Kukini 06:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Trying to follow your edits...
Please take care to clarify edits such as this, particularly by stating what you are doing in your edit summary. I am trying to understand why you are deleting cited information. Best, Kukini 23:23, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Edit Summary Request
I have noted that you edit without an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This is considered an important guideline in Wikipedia. Even a short summary is better than no summary. An edit summary is even more important if you delete any text; otherwise, people may think you're being sneaky or even vandalizing. Also, mentioning one change but not another one can be misleading to someone who finds the other one more important; add "and misc." to cover the other change(s). Thanks! -- Kukini 23:24, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry didnt even realize that field existed.Jeff Trattner 23:29, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * This is OK. Although I did mention it in the green box above. Please don't delete cited information without giving rationale in the edit summary box. Best, Kukini 23:30, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry about changing the producer's list of films, I read something about him producing Philidelphia in wikipedia, but it looks incorrect.Jeff Trattner 23:52, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * We might be able to eventually delete his history from the article, but let's avoid trying to make his work look more serious than it has been. Philidelphia is likely in the complete opposite spectrum of the politics of this producer, anyway. But that is just my opinion. Best, Kukini 23:57, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I was trying to make it sound more serious because I thought it was, but I checked the reference and it looks incorrect, so I was trying to make sure it was changed back. Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_E._Platt, I assumed that "guided" meant produced, sorry about that. Jeff Trattner 00:04, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to help clean up that article as well. I hope you are enjoying your first days in wikipedia. Interesting process, no? Kukini 00:18, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * yep. I am amazed it works as well as it does. Jeff Trattner 00:20, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Your patience and efforts are appreciated. You might want to go take a few minutes to read that welcome box I posted back when, it will help you to better enjoy the process. Kukini 00:24, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

The Path to 9/11
Could you please explain your deletion of mention of the comments of William Bennett from The Path to 9/11? Thank you. Puzzled, -- Infrogmation 22:54, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The section seems to support the side of the controversy instead of it's response. I have no problem if you move it to the controversy section, but I am not sure where it really fit in. Jeff Trattner 06:18, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Please do not describe a content dispute as vandalism. It is rude and it is against Wikipedia policies of civility. Gamaliel 20:27, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Can you please revert the changes back. The section is about controversy. The letter was controversal. It is highly sourced. The title expalined what many conservatives claim the issue with the letter to be, in addition to the content of the letter itself. Please read the whole section before reverting it. Also, please note how quotes from limbaugh are allowed when the support one pov but not the other.