User talk:Mrlefty

Mrlefty, you appear to be very knowledgable of Wikipedia and its rules for someone who only just opened an account today and has only edited one article, albeit numerous times. Have you previously been editting under another name, or anonymously? Also, repetedly reverting something which has been in the article, and is not POV is not appropriate. Xtra 01:58, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

And if it is true that you are the person who runs Boltwatch, it is highly innapropriate for you to make any POV related comments about it on an article on Wikipedia. Xtra 02:03, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Are you the person, or a person who runs or edits Boltwatch? If so, please refrain from editing the link to Boltwatch. Xtra 02:16, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Don't be ridiculous. The wikipedia entry is not about BoltWatch: it's about Andrew Bolt.

I am the editor of the BoltWatch site. David Tan is claiming that I am a specific Melbourne barrister. He has absolutely no evidence for this, and I object to him taking credit for the BoltWatch blog from me.

I have previously been editing under another name, which I've now forgotten, and anonymously.

You have been adding that "anti-Bolt" guff about BoltWatch for a long time, and it's been reverted repeatedly. It is WRONG, and POV. Why is the description of BoltWatch as "critical" inaccurate? What does "anti-Bolt" add? It misleadingly implies that BoltWatch is just an attack site, where it is in fact a site for responses to his columns. ie, "critique". "Anti-Bolt" is simply wrong, and POV.

As for David Tan's attempt to identify me, it's irrelevant as well as unsubstantiated, and should not be clogging up Wikipedia.

Disruption
Please do not edit or remove comments left on talk pages, doing so is disruptive, and doesn't help your case. The text needs to be left there for transparency reasons. --bainer (talk) 04:34, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

It also doesn't help my case if he's going around trying to identify me. Wikipedia is not supposed to be used for one user to conduct a campaign against another user, including trying to personally identify him.

Apart from deleting at the very least Tan's attempt to name me, what's the alternative?


 * I've warned User:210.23.133.216 not to make edits to Wikipedia with the purpose of harassing other users. --bainer (talk) 05:14, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I suspect, from his last remark, that he's going to create a decidedly POV Wikipedia article on BoltWatch, now. What's the quickest way to delete it when it appears? It'll clearly not qualify for a Wikipedia entry.


 * Something can only be deleted quickly if it satisfies the criteria for speedy deletion. Otherwise it can be listed on articles for deletion following the instructions there. Also, please remember to sign your posts on talk pages, including user talk pages. You can do so by typing ~, four tildes, which will automatically be substituted with your name and the current date and time. --bainer (talk) 08:13, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Please don't
Please don't post nonsense, even for tests. Please use the sandbox instead.

Naughty kitty
Please stop adding nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! (Whisper...) 11:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:06-03-28 naughty kitty 001.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:06-03-28 naughty kitty 001.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, consider reading fair use, and then use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. 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 unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Image legality questions page. Thank you. Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! (Whisper...) 11:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

That's okay - you can delete it as soon as you like. Mrlefty 21:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Done Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! (Whisper...) 07:11, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Re:Username
Well, that's too bad. I really don't want to change my username. Although I really think people can handle the concept of a space and a period in a name. If it becomes a problem, we can sort it out. Mr. Lefty 21:38, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Andrew Bolt
I've reverted your recent edit to this article. Bolt's forum was pioneering; that's a statement of fact, not an opinion. (I just wish he'd replace the wattle-and-daub forum software with something less primitive.) He does interact with his audience, getting ideas from them, expanding on columns, debating them, etc. And technically what he does is journalism: writing a newspaper column comes under "journalism", but it's not the first thing most people think of in association with that word. I therefore contend that the sentence
 * Despite its low budget format, the forum was a pioneering experiment in Internet-aided "interactive journalism".

is clearly accurate and appropriate, except for the last word. (I can't think of any replacement that isn't appallingly clunky. Can you?) Cheers, CWC (talk) 13:49, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Al Steiner
I have added a "" template to the article Al Steiner, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Jeepday 13:27, 10 March 2007 (UTC)