User talk:Mbc362/Archive1

Reporter Working on a Wikipedia Story
I'm putting together a story on the challenges involved in keeping ideologically charged Wikipedia pages up, open and unlocked. I'm really interested in tracking down people that monitor such pages. Examples include: George W. Bush's page, the page on the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, the page on The Armenian Genocide and pages on creationism and evolution. I see that you’ve worked on the Bush page a lot. I was wondering if you might be willing to talk to me about the challenges of keeping pages like this up and unlocked. If you have any thoughts on tracking down the right person to talk to for a story like this, please shoot them my way. I hope to get in contact with you. You can email me here: matt.phillips@wsj.com

Thanks much, Matt
 * I've set up an email address, so if anybody wants to contact me via email they can do so. Its mbc362@hotmail.com--Mbc362 20:39, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Michael Savage (commentator)
I have warned EnglishEftermamn on his talk page about violating WP:3RR and urged an admin (Gamaliel) to take another look at what's going on. This is really getting annoying. I will be offline until tomorrow but if he reverts again, you can report him here at the 3RR noticeboard.--WilliamThweatt 05:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I would, but I think I accidentally violated it myself. Mbc362 06:05, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Scratch that, I didn't--Mbc362 15:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Bush and privacy policy
Hi, thanks for rewording/wikifying my sentence. Also, I think something should be said about his privacy related legislations in the domestic policy or related section, as it is not only criticism, but actual policy of administration. They made many laws since 911 as response to terrorism, but actually limiting our rights. Lakinekaki 23:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The laws you are alluding to were passed in response to 9/11; as such, they would fit best under "War on terror" or "domestic criticism". In fact, that entire war on terror subsection is in need of a rewrite, as it has nothing to do with the war on terror and is merely a rather long summary of the events of Sept. 11th and the days immediately following, minus all the important stuff.  Unfortunately, the Bush main article is far too long for anything more than a cursory explanation of these laws and their impact.   I would suggest adding a brief mentioning either under either war on terror or domestic criticism, and saving a more detailed explanation for another page, perhaps War on Terrorism?  I didn't include your piece about the signing statements being used to erode civil liberties in the domestic criticism because they have been used for far more than just that and the source you provided didn't explicitly mention it.--Mbc362 05:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: George W. Bush talk page vandalism
Sorry about that. I was surprised to see the "edit" hyperlink on a talk page and just wanted to verify that I could actually edit others' comments. It was my intention to immediately revert the change, which I did. I meant no harm whatsoever. I really don't see why anyone should be allowed to edit talk pages--maybe you could fill me in. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.130.27.84 (talk) 20:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC).
 * Well, you did revert it yourself, so no harm done I guess. Editing on talk pages is allowed so that users can add their own comments in a discussion.  Editing of another user's comments is usually considered vandalism unless its done in order to delete trolling comments or move off topic comments to a more appropriate page.  If you have any other questions about editing on Wikipedia, I would be happy to answer them.--Mbc362 21:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Good Job
I thought you did a great job rewording the Hurricane Katrina reference in George W. Bush and added some excellent citation. I'll find a barnstar for you if this rock-solid-ness continues. :) --Iriseyes 02:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It's great to hear that my work is appreciated. Thanks!--Mbc362 03:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppets
Well you could report it at WP:SSP however, his sockpuppetry seems minor at the moment and I would advise not to. What you can do is place the following tag on his page:  . The tag indicates that the user's contributions lead them to be suspected of sockpuppetry. If you have any other questions regarding the matter feel free to ask.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 21:54, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the advice.--Mbc362 21:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

re: Source for Criticism on George W. Bush
I rambled on a bit longer than I anticipated so I went ahead and responded on my talk page rather than the article's talk page. The basic summary: While WP:RS is merely a guideline and has exceptions, it seems the source in question is just too biased. The author lacks the neutrality and objectivity to qualify as a reliable source, IMO. The full rambling is on my talk page, but I wanted to make sure you saw a response. Thanks,  Auburn Pilot talk 23:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Your VandalProof Application
Dear Mbc362,

Thank you for applying for VandalProof! (VP). As you may know, VP is a very powerful program, and in fact the just released 1.3 version has even more power. Because of this we must uphold strict protocols before approving a new applicant. Regretfully, I have chosen to decline your application at this time. The reason for this is that you have 244 mainspace edits please come back in a month. Please note it is nothing personal by any means, and we certainly welcome you to apply again soon. Thank you for your interest in VandalProof. Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 15:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

my spelling and grammar
Catching and going back to change your own "to" to a "too"? Now you're just mocking my poor spelling and grammar, aren't you. Just kidding, thanks much for your great input on that Global Warming section and discussion.-JLSWiki 18:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem, and thank you for all your help on that article.--Mbc362 18:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to VandalProof!
Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Mbc362! 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) 18:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Stephen Colbert vandalism
Actually, if you watched The Colbert Report, you would know that that wasn't in fact vandalism, but truth. Said fact was featured on the show itself.

Reference: http://www.gay.com/content/slideshow/?coll=2516&order=5&navpath=/channels/entertainment/

Please check what you're saying before you jump down someone's throat for "vandalism." Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.156.220.39 (talk • contribs)


 * So sorry for my misunderstanding, if it is indeed true (the site you've directed me to doesn't actually list him as "man of the year"). In the future, please add a reference when you include information like that; if you need help doing that, by all means ask me.  A lot of pages are vandalized with homosexual comments and I mistook your edit for this type of vandalism.  Again, sorry for my mistake.--Mbc362 02:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * It's understandable, I overreacted. Also, I mistitled it, he was actually "person of the year," not "man of the year" -- a personal misunderstanding. But yeah, here's the correct reference link : http://www.gay.com/news/roundups/package.html?sernum=2964&ampnavpath=/channels/news/

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 23:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Edits to McCain Page questions
Thank you for your points about citations. I was not aware that YouTube recordings did not constitute a valid source. The source that you deleted from the McCain page was a clip of McCain himself speaking. What precisely is the problem with that? There is nothing in WP:RS about not using YouTube videos. In fact, this particular clip is a Primary_source, which WP:RS states is allowable. It is a primary source because it gives direct evidence of exactly what McCain said -- that is, it shows him speaking

As regards the "mavrick" comment, why is it ok to have the article state that some people call McCain a mavrick but not that other people say that he has been flip-flopping? Is that because "maverick" is positive term? 129.133.90.64 23:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * First off, the YouTube video appears to be have some content edited out, meaning what is left could have been taken out of context, etc, which makes in unreliable. Also, if you listen to exactly McCain says, you would realize in the first part he is talking about the general situation in Iraq; in the second part he is talking about the situation between Iraqi government's and the US government (in terms of cooperation).  While some people will definitely see that as flip-flopping, others might not.  Videos can be used to cite claims that a person actually said something, but generally they can't be used to cite criticism of the person speaking.  If you can find a reputable source that criticizes him for those statements, it could be included assuming it is stated in a neutral way.
 * As far as the maverick quote goes, it can be included because its sourced by a reputable book, The Almanac of American Politics: 2006. Please don't get the idea that you can't include the bit about flip-flopping as well; it is OK to mention the criticism but you first need a reliable source to attribute it to.--Mbc362 00:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Edits on Michael Savage article
Thanks for contributing to the Michael Savage page. However, the "fluff" that you removed was part of a NPOV edit to seperatea statement about him carrying a gun and arguing with his friends. The two have nothing in common, that is to say that the gun was not part of the arguments and therefore belongs in a different sentence. This is covered in the talk page for this article. If you would like to further discuss, let's move to that forum. Again, thanks for your contributions to wikipedia! - Eisenmond 15:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Didn't realize that there was a discussion about it, thanks for calling my attention to it.--Mbc362 19:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I will reply when I get around to it. I am currently on business travel and unable to focus on Wikipedia.  Feel free to edit as you wish, as it is an open article.  What I was doing was seperating the two occurrences because there is no indication that they were connected.  Sure, the readers can make up their own minds, but the NPOV issue was result of the way the article was written, considering sources, etc.  Thanks for getting back to me, but please consider that someone is not ignoring you, rather not available (you can always check my contributions list to see when I have been active).  Thanks - Eisenmond 13:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I waited 3 days and saw that you did make an edit after I posted on the talk page (meaning you were at least occasionally checking what was going on) and I wanted to make sure you didn't miss my message on the talk page. Please take no offense.--Mbc362 14:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * None taken. I apolgize if I came across as rash in my response.  I have replied in more detail on the talk page.  Let's move the discussion there.  Thanks - Eisenmond 14:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Dragonball Z vandal
Hey I just noticed the message you left on this guy's talk page- dont worry about offending him. His edit history shows nothing but vandalism and there were a bunch of previous warnings on his talk page. I've blocked him for now, but don't be afraid to be a little tougher with vandals- I'm sure nobody will fault you. All the best! --Scimitar parley 05:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No worries. Have a good evening. --Scimitar parley 05:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Mozilla Firefox Theme Creating
yo man please don't vandal, me because im actually putting one of the most wanted topics on Wikipedia. I'm just new to editing, but don't worry.

o sry man, cauz i was adding stuff, but the problem, was many times it didn't come out 2 the way i wanted it to, so PLEASE delete that annoying speedy deletion thing. I'll ix it all somehow.

ok, dude or dudette i will just give 1 Big FInalization, sry man or woman.

yo u know how i can upload a file to a wikipedia page???

Zombie
Evidently you sent me a message saying I vandalized the zombie page. I am confused as to how this happened, as I never edited that page and was not(at the time of recieving the message) actually  even  logged in.
 * See my reply on your talk page.--  Mbc  362  04:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)