User talk:MrMurph101/archive 1

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 need help, check out Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! dbtfz talk 05:00, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Thanks for welcoming me. I'm trying to learn all the tricks of the trade and hope to contribute significant content. MrMurph101 03:16, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Bill O'Reilly controversies
Thank you for making reasonable edits to this article. I believe your and my edits, as well as those of a few others, are at least a small start in turning what was an error-ridden attack page into a more encyclopedic entry. Stanley011 02:20, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Very nice work restructuring the page. Mrdthree 19:42, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

You reverted edits that were NOT POV edits, and have reinstated poor grammar, redundancy, hyperbole, and POV defense of O'Reilly, by removing clear grammar, careful construction, and POV avoidance. Airumel 16:55, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

The removal of the facts of his sexual harassment lawsuit was unwarranted. How can a case be discussed if the facts are not presented? Also, this site is for the presentation of facts. If we simply reverted to "they can look it up on the links" we would essentially be building a Wikipedia of links. If you are a fan of this man should not factor (no pun intended) into this. I am adding them back in unless you can provide a viable reason as to why we should not present them here. crazyd782 10:11, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The article explains what happened sufficiently. The direct details are already cited. If other editors agree with putting the information back in I won't have a problem with it. We can discuss it on the article's talk page. MrMurph101 19:20, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Mournful optimist
I agree that this one should go too. It's a construct - I've never heard it used before. I'm of the opinion that this list is too long - it ought to contain a good selection of common oxymorons, but should not attempt to be an exhaustive list of every oxymoron known to mankind. Thanks for your comment. D e nni &#9775;  17:50, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you for your vote on Articles for deletion/Bill O'Reilly controversies (second nomination). --Blue Tie 02:26, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

411mania
Help! Someone claimed you put notability and afd and some other tags in that article. However, we have trouble with this situation because we cannot hold it any longer. There were too many revert cases, and they're getting very heavy. Please we need your help as soon as possible. Thanks! --Gh87 19:15, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipdedia:Article size
Where is the typo that you're referring to? I can't believe anyone would type in "Wikipdedia" on purpose. NawlinWiki 03:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I don't know how to edit an edit summary without deleting it, so I just re-created the redirect that you were trying to make. NawlinWiki 03:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Survey Q
Have you ever been to the southern hemisphere, click here to reply.AstroBoy 01:46, 11 November 2006 (UTC) Deadline for entries is December 15th

License tagging for Image:Chalk-film.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Chalk-film.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Media copyright questions. 03:06, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Chalk (film)
Greetings! I've made a couple of additions, wikifications, etc. to the article and upgraded it from stub to start. I notice above the evil orphanbot tagged the image, best get that resolved. Otherwise, great work! SkierRMH 05:04, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Chalk-film.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Chalk-film.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Aksibot 11:09, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Straw poll on George Soros talk page
I'm asking for a straw poll to settle the Soros discussion. Please participate. Smallbones 18:37, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Soros chart.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Soros chart.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:41, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

George Soros
You might be interested in user:CO/Criticism of George Soros. I am looking to make a well sourced, neutral point of view, informative article. If you could help, that would be great.  Carbon Monoxide  03:32, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Tackle eligible
Hi MrMurph101 -- I've put a note on Talk:American football regarding your addition to the article. Please respond there, thanks -- Mwalcoff 03:44, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Chalk-film.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Chalk-film.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 03:24, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Chalk-movie poster.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Chalk-movie poster.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 03:25, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Removing RFC
By convention, you remove the RFC template and nothing else. Or you could wait for the template to be auto-removed after 30 days. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 05:11, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I wrapped the actual template in nowiki for the time being, this means it won't be automatically removed now, so someone will have to remove the actual template manually. As I'm not involved, I tend not to do that, I'm just trying to fix broken RFCs - the reason there were no comments was probably because of the broken RFC template usage anyway. However, it's always a good idea to leave the RfC section and the reason in the discussion for future reference. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 05:17, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Sorry. I followed the instructions which also said a bot take care the rest if there were any issues.  No bot did anything or message me saying something was done wrong. Anyhow, the article in discussion was locked at the time when I did the request but was subsequently unlocked lessening the reason for an RfC.  MrMurph101 01:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Orwell rolls in his grave.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Orwell rolls in his grave.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 10:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

andrea mackris
Should that section be turned over to the criticisms page of bill o'reilly and on his page state that he has several claimed controversies and give examples of some and then have the page redirect there to the criticisms oneRYNORT 01:18, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

one question
You seem like your a long time member of wiki. I was wondering what the (+120) and (-399) numbers on my watch list section mean(those numbers were examples)RYNORT 01:52, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

being nice
Hahahaha, "may I suggest somthing". You gave me the impression that you think I'm some 30 year old crazy guy that has no patience and was trying not to engage in a conflict by saying it in that tone. The truth is, that I'm 16. Anyway, thanks for the suggestion and I'm not finding wikipedia very enjoyable like I thought it was due to lots of spin on things, which could be just me like you said sending me that wiki bold thing but I'm about to end my editing.RYNORT 06:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

George Soros
Hi, I'm only new to this. Do you know how to block someone. The same person that vandalised 'George Soros' has done the same to about ten other financial articles. 134.148.5.118 (talk) 03:25, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:V
I believe you are misinterpreting the verification policy. Verification means that a source needs to be cited that backs up the statement. This source might be on the web that we can link to or it might not. A scholarly journal, magazine article, newspaper articles, books, etc. can be cited to veryify something whether it is posted somewhere on the web or not. If wikipedia only used linkable citations it would be a very incomplete encyclopedia. If you still question what I'm saying you can inquire about it on the WP:V talk page. Thanks. MrMurph101 (talk) 21:44, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * what would you do if an ISBN and page number are cited and that ISBN does not exsist or the correct book is 300pgs long and pg. 700 was cited and you can't find the relevent content. I find that no different than a broken URL. 64.238.172.212 (talk)

WP:V
I believe you are misinterpreting the verification policy. Verification means that a source needs to be cited that backs up the statement. This source might be on the web that we can link to or it might not. A scholarly journal, magazine article, newspaper articles, books, etc. can be cited to veryify something whether it is posted somewhere on the web or not. If wikipedia only used linkable citations it would be a very incomplete encyclopedia. If you still question what I'm saying you can inquire about it on the WP:V talk page. Thanks. MrMurph101 (talk) 21:44, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * re: I think your mixing up the link with the source. The source is the newspaper article.  There is a link because that is the standard way to source in most cases which is probably improperly done in this case.  The verification of this source would be citing the date and title and author of the article with no link.  You could go find this article in the newspaper's archives to get your verification.  This would take longer than having a direct link but you could still obtain said article.  By the way, I'm not really editing this article but once mentioned it on the talk page because the writer mentioned this wikipedia article and some of the things he thought were incomplete about the article.  Someone else inserted the source into the article who was working on it.  MrMurph101 (talk) 03:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * re:: I interpreted the citation as a citation for a website. I will dig a bit deeper into this. None the less someone had been removing [citation needed] and neturality disputed tags in the past. However that activity has ceased. Assuming it stays that way I will leave the article as-is until I can research the citation in question; Reading the article also might provide some insight as to what was actually intended by the author (or if the citation was just thrown in there for trying to prove their viewpoint.)

ANI
Thanks for taking the time to comment at ANI. The only suggestion I have is that the language could imply that you're speaking specifically about editors involved in the ANI proceeding. The sentence currently reads "...believe that editors should not be allowed to edit political or other contentious topics for their first two months or so...". I think your point was that new editors should not be allowed, if I'm reading it right. Just wanted to avoid a future miscommunication. :-) Cheers! /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 02:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I meant new users, clarified my comment. MrMurph101 (talk) 04:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Notification
I have decided to go ahead and implement the remedy as outlined at ANI concerning Jsn9333. Assuming Jsn9333 chooses not to comment further concerning this dispute,, I expect that other involved parties also let the issues/hard feelings go, specifically by not making any other comments. I am serious about the "poking" issues, and I want to re-iterate that everyone is cautioned to not attack each other's biases, not to speculate as to motivations, or basically do anything other than comment on the edits, not the editor. I hope this will close the book on the current dispute at the FNC talk page. Please go the extra mile to treat each other with respect. Thank-you, R. Baley (talk) 00:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

O'Reilly/ANI
I would appreciate it if you would review the talk page at Criticsm of BOR, especially between Ramsquire and myself and consider withdrawing your report against me, as you have against csloat. Thanks. Jimintheatl (talk) 18:16, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I have said that I will argue my position vigorously, and have done so, and will continue to do so.  I think my additions to the talk page may exceed all others.... But I will not stand for accusations of bad faith or dishonesty.  The reverts which lead to your report stemmed from a debate which I believed settled weeks ago, so my outrage may have lead me to act more in haste than reason, but not in bad faith.  Your willingness to hear  me out is much appreciated.Jimintheatl (talk) 00:26, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Porter Barry
Seems someone is trying to do a piece on Porter Barry, producer of The O'Reilly Factor of FOX news. Please look at the Porter Barry Wikipedia article. Thanks. Bebestbe (talk) 16:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

1916 Cumberland vs. Georgia Tech football game
You worked on the article 1916 Cumberland vs. Georgia Tech football game. Nice job!

This article needs to have the references placed inline, and a tag has been placed on the article. I'd love to do it myself, but it would be easiest if the original resarchers would take care of it. Thank you very much!--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:59, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Please return to Talk:Bill_O%27Reilly_(commentator)
Thanks --Dweller (talk) 20:45, 12 October 2008 (UTC)