User talk:Maniwar/Archive 1

Boortz
I am surprised that you would remove my recent edits for "vandalism," as they are all supportable statements (unlike many of the current claims in the article, which are mostly self-serving statements made by Boortz himself that cannot be verified). Seems like the current authors are Boortz (and probably FairTax) fanatics, which does not exactly lead to a neutral POV. Please go back and look a little more critically what is actually in the article and delete the parts that are just cheerleading.

Thanks. GeorgiaTex 03:31, 27 September 2006 (UTC)GeorgiaTex
 * Your article was clearly POV. Granted some of the other entries may be POV as well, but yours was clearly POV. Making statements that he "is a self-described Libertarian" is clearly POV and biased. Boortz is a Libertarian member and has spoken many times at their conventions and is registered with the party...He is a known Libertarian. Citing Sugg as a source is not all that realiable. Sugg himself is a liberal commentator and like Boortz says things to agitate others. Your other statement that his book is "unsubstantiated" is total bias and POV. Your comment that donations from his book are "unverified" is POV because no one has tried to very the facts in this. Cite sources to verify your charges. Maniwar 13:00, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Perhaps your "controversies" would be better discussed here Neal Boortz Controversies, but again, cite reliable sources. Maniwar 13:20, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll try to respond to your points.

1. The Libertarian issue. This is discussed elsewhere. But here's one example. Libertarians do not endorse foreign engagements. Boortz does. Thus, he would not fit into the standard definition of Libertarian. Also, he almost always endorsed Republican candidates rather than Libertarian candidates. Thus, to the extent Boortz identifies himself as a Libertarian, it would be more correct to call him a self-described Libertarian.

2. Texas A&M. If the article is going to assert [without any citation] that Boortz was in the Corps, it is more than appropriate to point out that he dropped out of the Corps within a year. You claim that Sugg is not a reliable source, but Sugg clearly shows that he contacted Boortz several times to get Boortz's comments, but Boortz never replied.

3. If the article is going to say assert that Boortz attended Texas A&M [again, without any citation], it is clearly appropriate to point out that he never graduated.

4. Since Boortz (the supposed Libertarian) is such a strong supporter of the current war, and it article states that he was in the Corps, it is more than appropriate to point out that he never served in the armed forces during the height of the Vietnam War. Again, Sugg substantiates his articles and has offered to give Boortz the chance to respond.

5. The article says [without any citation] that Boortz passed the Georgia Bar on his first attempt. The implication is that this is somehow unusual when, in fact, almost every law school graduate passes the bar exam on their first attempt. There's no point in even putting the first statement in the article without putting the statement in context.

6. The article states that Boortz donates the book's profits to charity. Since this is a completely unverifiable and self-serving assertion (unless Boortz publicly releases his tax returns), why even put that statement in the article without pointing out that it is unverifiable.

7. The citation for the "rumor" that Boortz' profits exceed $1 million is, again, Boortz own self-serviing, unverifiable statement. (By the way, the Neal's Nuze blurb that is cited to says the amount would be in the "six figures,", which does not add up to $1,000,000.)

8. The article has at least two references [without citations] that Boortz's show provokes thinking and discussion. This is clearly POV. It is not unfair to point out that Boortz does not allow the targets of his criticism on his show to respond.

9. The article says [without citation] that Boortz is an "equal opportunity offender," yet 90% of his targets are Democrats, moderates and liberals.

10. It is not unfair to point out that The FairTax Book makes completely unsubstantiated claims. (For example, there is not one citation to any study anywhere that a 23% tax rate would be revenue neutral.)

In sum, I suppose it is impossible to do a completely NPOV on someone like Boortz, but the current article is so ridicuously pro-Boortz that a little balance would probably be appropriate.

GeorgiaTex 14:11, 27 September 2006 (UTC)GeorgiaTex
 * I think this topic is best discussed at Talk:Neal Boortz and I won't take much time responding. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia and again encyclopedias are to be informative. There's a new controversies section that you can rant on all you want. The article is aiming for unbiases (NPOV) and everything you said above is POV. I could respond to each of your points, but I won't. Rather than argue, help with making the article NPOV. Maniwar 14:21, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Curves for Women
The current article is an improvement, but most of those long quotes should still be rewritten. &mdash;tregoweth (talk) 02:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you want - if you compare it to Subway (restaurant) it reads very similar. I'll go ahead and try to do more stats, I'm not totally sure if that will improve it. -Maniwar 12:31, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Passerby at WP:RM
If there are two articels about the same thing, the one with the less correct name should have its contents merged into the other one and changed to a redirect. 68.39.174.238 00:23, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I wanted to do that, but was not sure what the proceedure was that's why I requested the move. Guess I should place a help in there somewhere. Please share your opinion at Talk:Curves (fitness). Maniwar 01:11, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Krista Allen
I just deleted a very large chunk from Krista Allen that you cut and pasted from IMDB, this page. This is a serious infraction. I've seen an established editor with a long history of contributions indefinitely blocked by Jimmy Wales for cutting and pasting from IMDB. Please read Copyrights. --  Donald Albury ( Talk )  23:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm new to Wikipedia and I admit, I really do need to read more of the guidelines. However, I got the idea from the Ethan Hawke section. I was paroosing his info and found it. Why is that a problem? Is that info not common knowledge. I was going back to put it in tables, but ran short on time. Anyway, let me know...thanks Maniwar 23:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The Ethan Hawke filmography does not duplicate his IMDB entry that I can see. You had obviously cut and pasted from IMDB, which is a violation of copyright law. You can use the IMDB as a source, and you can freely use the facts contained there, but you cannot use the expression of those facts. You can summarize and write up the material in your own words as long as you do not write a new narrative that goes beyond what is in the sources you use. --  Donald Albury ( Talk )  22:49, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

My Bot
let me make a note that Category:Resistance training does not exist, that is why it was removed please feel free to create the page but at the moment it does not exist (Note redlink)Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 18:31, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm actually trying to have it redirect here Resistance training, but it doesn't seem to be doing so. Did I do something wrong? If you don't mind checking it out and letting me know, I'd appreciate it. I've wondered why it won't point to the Resistance training entry in Wikipedia. Thanks! Maniwar 18:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Categories cant be used as a redirect. Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 18:48, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I mis-spoke. Did not mean redirect. The category has been made. Thanks! Maniwar 19:07, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Question BetacommandBot, how do you get your "Talk" to show up with your name on every post? Is there a quick way to do so like using the "~"? Maniwar 13:06, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

FairTax
Since you're a frequent editor of the Boortz article, I expect your also very familiar with the FairTax. Consider part of this article as well if you have time. We have a great article that probably needs a little bit of brilliant prose work to get FA. May need a little work on neutral language too. :-) Morphh (talk) 14:21, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't really know that much about it. I know some, but plan to learn more some day. I will however, when I get a moment try to help with the neutrality of it. Maniwar (talk) 15:54, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to VandalProof!
Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Maniwar! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 00:05, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * See this for VP 1.3 you are approved tp use it. Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 13:29, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Do I just change it to an .exe file? I apologize for asking, but not sure what to do with them. I am assuming I change to .exe and stick the files in the Vandalproof folder...let me know. Thanks! user0&#124;Maniwar 13:36, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * yeah just rename the vandalproof to Vandalproof.exe. I use ~ for my sig. Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 13:41, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Welcome!
 Welcome!

Hi, and welcome to the Biography WikiProject! We're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of biographies.

A few features that you might find helpful:


 * The project has a monthly newsletter; it will normally be delivered as a link, but several other formats are available.

There are a variety of interesting things to do within the project; you're free to participate however much—or little—you like:


 * Starting some new articles? Our article structure tips outlines some things to include.
 * Want to know how good our articles are? The assessment department is working on rating the quality of every biography article in Wikipedia.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask another fellow member, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! plange 04:06, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Reverting your edit
my apologies to reverting your edit. I totally read that edit wrong and honestly don't know what I was thinking. After going back and looking at it, I'm sure I had some thought, but cannot recal why I did the edit. Anyway, my apologies. -- 03:02, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Not a problem. -- Beland 12:40, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Cindy Sheehan
Please consider your own POV. The statement I deleted gave the impression that ALL of Casey's relatives signed onto that statement. The version as of this time (see Cindy Sheehan) seems much more NPOV than what was there earlier. I hope you agree. Pgc512 01:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Boortz Toolbar
I added a link in the External links to the Unoffical boortz radio Tool Bar. I'm not sure why someone removed the link. It IS infromational, and I wish you would at least download it and see what it is before removing my link. It is very similar to the page that displays Show times and stations for Boortz. .. but only a 2006 version, because it allows people to LISTEN to the show in various time zones and on various stations. it also links to the Boortx website, Neals Nuze and other popular lnks on his site.
 * Who are you? Please sign your name. --16:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry -- my username is --

Ben Carson
I kind of disagree with your edit summary here. Would you care to expound on why you think he is not actually an evangelical? Possible at Talk:Ben Carson. Cheers, Ans e ll  07:13, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Responded here Talk:Ben Carson. -- 13:04, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Resistance training
Hey Maniwar,

I re-worked the intro sections of weight training and resistance training. I think it would definitely be worthwhile to merge everything into strength training, have one heading saying types of strength training, then have sub-headings with brief discussions of the different types of strength training (i.e. different ways of opposing the muscular contraction). Each would then split off into their own main articles where the equipment and techniques are discussed in greater detail. The remainder of the article would stick with the general topic of strength training, including benefits, history, etc. The main changes to muscle are fairly independent of how the resistance to contraction is generated, and it seems to me that's what the main article on strength training should discuss. For history, I would suggest an acknowledgement that for much of recorded knowledge, strength training was weight training 'cause they didn't know about isometrics and they didn't have elastic bands, but in modern times it's much more than just weights. Thoughts? Maybe we want to start polling other users re: the merger? WLU 16:28, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I like where you're going with that. I did make a comment here . A poll would be good. My big objection is to the merger with Weight Training because they are not both weights. I've not done a poll, so I would suggest you mirror this talk at the Proposed merger site and do a poll. user0&#124;Maniwar 16:39, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll try but I'm still learning so expect mistakes! I'd like the discussion to stay at strength training 'cause that's the most 'central' page and where the merger would move to. I got a bit lost myself with the merger between resistance and weight training. I'll put up preliminary arguments on the strength training talk page and hopefully it'll roll from there. Feel free to correct any screw-ups I make and add your own take on things. BTW, when you were talking about hydraulic training I had no idea you were referring to pool aerobics. Now I get even more why you wanted to avoid the weight/resistance merger. WLU 17:52, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I just checked out Discuss, don't vote, the first thing that popped up when I searched for poll to set one up. How's about we leave the issue up on all the pages for a bit and see what people say? Should there be lots of unreasonable objections, we can put it to a vote. WLU 18:14, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Did my best, is there a trick to mirroring so the discussion is repeated on all pages? Right now I've just got notes asking to re-direct to the strength page. WLU
 * I just got back and need to get caught up before making a comment. user0&#124;Maniwar 03:32, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I've finished as much of the merger of weight training as possible, I'd love comments. Mostly what I did was take out the info that was duplicated in strength training and tried to highlight how weight training differs from the other types of strength training. Help! WLU 02:03, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Your problem with the "Runtime '91" error on VP
To overcome this problem, go to file, and disable "Use RSS Feed". --AAA! (talk • contribs) 07:06, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Category:Health Club
Sadly, redirecting categories doesn't really work ... the cfm is the right way to do it. -- ProveIt (talk) 16:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Why does it not work? I've redirected many pages. Please expound. --Maniwar (talk) 16:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Categories are different than pages ... note that it still has members. As a real redirected category a bot will move them. -- ProveIt (talk) 16:54, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Smiley Award
Feel free to place this award on your user page, as a token of appreciation for your contributions. If you're willing to help spread the good cheer to others, please see the project page for the Random Smiley Award at: User:Pedia-I/SmileyAward

Continuing personal attacks at User_talk:E.Shubee
Hello; I do not know if you are an admin. or not, but I noticed you did put a "last warning" on E.Shubee's page, which might indicate this. After the recent consensus on the Hybrid's dispute page, Mr. Shubert is back in action giving a poor report of the other editors involved, and crafting himself as the hero of the day. I believe this is extremely inappropriate, and I cannot but imagine that this portends future problems for the articles on which his targets have been set and a painful time for all involved. I do not want this to continue another day. Thanks for your time. Zahakiel 02:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Zahakiel, sorry I am not a moderator or admin so there is nothing I can do except report. If you feel this needs to be dealt with, you can take the complaint to WP:AN and ask them to deal with it. Best of luck and let me know if you have any other questions! --Maniwar (talk) 15:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 06:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Health Wiki Research
A colleague and I are conducting a study on health wikis. We are looking at how wikis co-construct health information and create communities. We noticed that you are a frequent contributor to Wikipedia on health topics.

Please consider taking our survey here.

This research will help wikipedia and other wikis understand how health information is co-created and used.

We are from James Madison University in Harrisonburg, Virginia. The project was approved by our university research committee and members of the Wikipedia Foundation.

Thanks, --Sharlene Thompson 17:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)