User talk:Ramsquire/Archive 7

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)


 * Thanks for the note, but I have two questions. One, I have no idea what "poking" is. Can you explain what it means?  Two, I'm assuming this is a general note sent to all who commented at ANI, so I appreciate the conclusion of the matter.  But as I have not attacked anyone nor have I been accused of doing so, do I have permission to delete your notification, lest someone reads my talk page and think it was personally directed to me. Heck, I ignored the guy to avoid wading into the sewer.  Plus, I've been around here long enough to be accused of all sorts of things, and just want to head this off if I can. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 00:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Ramsquire, it is a general note. I left the same message to everyone who participated at ANI (except for the one self-designated uninvolved editor).  "Poking" is just a term to describe edits people make, which can have the intended effect of provoking an unacceptable response from another editor (esp. one under stress. . .kinda like "baiting").  The threshold for poking is lower when someone feels (justified or not) like they're not being treated fairly.  Thank-you, btw for your input there, and no one should construe the above notice as an indication of any problem behavior on your part.  Hope this helps,  R. Baley (talk) 01:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Video Music Box.jpg}
Thank you for uploading Image:Video Music Box.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check:
 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
 * That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 18:40, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

He's Back
This time as Raulman. Big surprise, eh? Joegoodfriend (talk) 19:57, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Steve Harvey
Do you have a source for Steve's birthname? I remember there used to be one, but I can't find it in the history of the article. Since his name is not well known, I think it should be sourced, to stop people from reverting it. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 22:46, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Quick search of IMDB comes up with reference. See here. When I get a chance I plan to do a good scrub of the article and update/add references for all of his stuff. Thanks. -- Absolon S. Kent (talk) 12:58, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

JFK Film idea
I really like your idea about how to include historical inaccuracies in JFK (film). Being general like that makes it easy to source, and readers can explore if they like. Tell me whether or not you will do this. If you can't, I'll be happy to do it for you —Preceding unsigned comment added by JakeH07 (talk • contribs) 19:42, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

FAQ
Hey man... I probably did not read the addition closely enough. I think my major concern is that the previous wording suggested facts not in evidence. Specifically: "Is there any proof that Fox News is biased as the lead implies?" As written, the question states an objective fact ("the lead implies Fox News is biased") and the answer implicitly agrees ("yes, the lead does seem to imply proof, but here's why it's not"). Though I think it's important to make the distinction between the controversy and the allegation, the previous wording is unquestionably a case of petitio principii. I tried to reword the question and the response with respect to those concerns without losing the underlying truths. It seemed to make more sense to address the issue in the context of the entire article rather than just the introduction, though the precedent is that the FAQ has only dealt directly with the intro in the past. If you have any opinions or ideas I'd love to hear em. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:32, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * That makes sense. I was trying to state the question the way a detractor would ask it. But if you thought it was begging the question and needed to be cleared up, I don't have a problem with it.  I also don't have an issue with making the FAQ about the article in general, but it may be one of those things where a consensus should be formed.  If no one objects, then that'll be good enough for me. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 17:30, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey there--Criticism of Bill o'reilly question
You said on the talk page that "consensus can change" and i agree, but in this instance, there was ZERO opposition/no talk objection to the subsection before it was deleted. So there was no consensus for deletion; in fact, deletion was not discussed, nor was any edit at all. So, again, what gives with the sudden deletion of a subsection that head been in the article for two months w/o any objection?Jimintheatl (talk) 02:26, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't know the history of the specific edit. But the policy reads that if a change is made and there is no objection, re-edit or anything, then you can take that as a consensus for your edit.  But if someone later removes it, then you can take it that consensus may have changed.  There doesn't have to be discussion first.  There's a whole flow chart on consensus that bears this out. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 22:05, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * A brief history: the section was added mid-July. It was never deleted, no one objected to it.  Several edits/expansions were made.  Then, boom, outta here, gone.  I found it odd.Jimintheatl (talk) 03:58, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Yo
I'm a little distressed at seeing you and Croc having friction, as I have immense respect for both of you. I think it's just kind of a misunderstanding, in that Arzel's been hit pretty hard because of his long pattern and recent suggestion that the article is an attack page, going through and objecting to all of it. That certainly removes any chance of objectivity, and Croc pointed that out. That certainly doesn't mean Jim's actions are okay, and I'm still not sure how to influence him without pissing him off to the point that he doesn't contribute at all. As I said on talk, the problem lies in allowing the zealots to war and then drawing the line somewhere in the middle of their battlefield. Not sure how to fix. Thinking... //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:54, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

RFC
Well said, makes sense. Thanks for your help. Wikiport (talk) 17:07, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

MSNBC
Please read WP:WEASEL for an explanation of my edits on this article. "Some observers say" is not the sort of prose we want on the encyclopedia. It can be fixed by simply saying who the observers are -- they have names, surely, so let's use them.  Warren -talk- 23:02, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Ramsquire - see my replies here and here. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:30, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

O'Reilly & BLP
Thanks for the response. Obviously the editor may have some personal affiliation with the general subject matter, and it shows in his wording. However, removing his post entirely throws the baby out with the bathwater. In essence, there is only one sentence that actually crosses into the gray area surrounding WP:BLP. I will be re-inserting his major points, including the specific references he made, after dinner. We'll remove the offending sentence, to be sure; your help would be most appreciated. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * No prob, and will do. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 23:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Re:Lee Oswald
I didn't upload the picture, but merely copy-pasted it from the Jack Ruby article. Joyson Noel (talk) 04:15, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Criticism of O'reilly page....again.
If you have the time, could you (or maybe Balxthos) take a look at the Media Matters Source Reliability discussion on the CoBR page? The reason is because it is a fair amount of citations at risk, and the fact that MM is one of the critics mentioned in the first line makes me wonder what normal wikipedia procedure is to be used, or if there is to be a exception. I really don't know enough to participate in the discussion. Thank you. &eta;oian  &Dagger;orever &eta;ew &Dagger;rontiers  03:42, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm interested to see that Fru23 made edits to the Osama Bin Laden article, which he/she has not before, suddenly, and agree with another user, who seems to not have made any recent contributions to the article. Also, the edit summary:

'Fine, nobody seems to care about bolp any more. I guess being poorly sourced is not enough of a reason to remove stuff, I will go about this some other way.' seems to indicate that Fru23's been on wikipedia for a substantially longer time than his/her account. I don't know if this has to do with the possible WP:COI, but it seems like either Fru23 was either a really busy anon, or a returning user, if he/she is not a sock. Thanks for correcting the record on his blocks in Wp:BLP. &eta;oian  &Dagger;orever &eta;ew &Dagger;rontiers  06:21, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

JFK Movie Debunking
I've read 2 of the source texts for the JFK movie: On the Trail of Assassins and Crossfire. I believe the movie was true to those books. I have Robert Groden's book around here somewhere. I've followed this investigation since I was 12 (way before it was a movie) ... so I'm curious about claim that the movie has been proven completely fraudulent ... and therefore your justification for campaigning against assassination related articles. Hutcher (talk) 02:20, 16 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I have no idea what you are talking about. I've never made the claim that the movie wasn't true to those books.  In fact, JFK is one of my all time favorite movies.  However, me pointing out that the narrative of the movie stretches some facts, misreads others, and makes up some is not a campaign against the movie or against assassination related articles.  I am not going to list everything in that movie that has been debunked but it is easily available on the Internet and even here on Wikipedia. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 22:26, 16 November 2008 (UTC)


 * So you're saying that movies take dramatic license with their narrative? That's a different then "most of his most damning evidence in the film, is quickly shown to be false".  If it's so quick and easy to disprove then enlighten us instead redirecting articles regarding the different subjects involved?  A campaign is defined as "a connected series of operations" kind of like "My most inspiring, and tiring, work at Wikipedia has been in the JFK articles".  Hutcher (talk) 02:37, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


 * What I'm saying is exactly what you quoted, "most of his most damning evidence in the film, is quickly shown to be false". It's a great movie but as Stone even admits, it's fiction.  If you didn't know this, do a quick Internet search.  You'll find a treasure trove of stuff.  Here's one example.  The "magic bullet" scene in the courtroom-- the only thing accurate in that scene is that Connally and Kennedy was in the same car, and there was a bullet, everything else is completely wrong.  Oh and Ferrie never confessed to anything and died of natural causes. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 19:01, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

BOR
Please read the source, nowhere does it say that the settlement was "most likely millions of dollars". Weasel words and OR. Fru23 (talk) 00:58, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Either you are grossly misinformed about the source or are telling an outright lie. The portion of the article is on the talk page, and the relevant section highlighted.  If you have a problem with the section, get another source through consensus-- otherwise find another way to contribute. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 01:04, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Your subsequent silence on the issue, shows that in fact you are a liar. You never checked the source and only cared about POV-pushing.  Ramsquire (throw me a line) 18:45, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

O'Reilly and Fru23
Here we go again: Articles for deletion/Criticism of Bill O'Reilly (political commentator) (2nd nomination) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:28, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

You canvassed... Fru23 (talk) 01:54, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I informed editors you were recently hassling with, since you didn't bother to notify them yourself. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 01:56, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Canvassing. Fru23 (talk) 01:59, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I told a grand total of 3, and I see that 4 others turned up, probably many of them who have your POV-pushing on their radar. So I probably didn't need to tell anyone, but I didn't want you to think you could just slip this thing in. Meanwhile, where were all your alleged support buddies on this one? Christmas vacation? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:04, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I could have canvassed but I did not want to risk a ban, I told no one, I was under the impression thats how it is supposed to work. Fru23 (talk) 02:21, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Do you even know the difference between a block and a ban? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:25, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh well, block or ban, it is not important. Fru23 (talk) 02:30, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It is important. You've been temp-blocked twice, but never banned. You could be banned from editing on this subject, but could still edit other topics. Which, for a single purpose account, would be interesting. You could also be indef-blocked from wikipedia, or permanently banned from wikipedia. Indef-blocks can come back if they make a persuasive case. Banned is pretty much forever. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:37, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Socks are typically POV-pushers, and sooner or later they'll give themselves away because they keep coming back to the "scene of the crime", i.e. the topic that's their main purpose in being here. In this case, his first mistake was in giving away his IP address, a blunder that opened the door to a broadened investigation. Another mistake socks make is they think they're the first ones ever to try it. When a red-link jumps right into a particular topic that's recently contentious by a blocked user, that looks suspicious. And when they also start out by defending the blocked user (i.e. themselves) it practically shouts "I'm a sockpuppet!" Especially if almost the first words out their mouth are "I am not a sockpupper of that guy." Like with Richard Nixon's infamous, "I am not a crook." Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:32, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * They also make up stories about evil twin brothers, evil roommates, etc., again thinking they're the first ones to ever try that excuse. For some additional insight, please note the attempts by User talk:KingsOfHearts to get himself unblocked, with the admin strangely not buying a word of it. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 22:43, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Conspiracy fun!
If you want some fun, stop by Jim Marrs. Happy new year! Gamaliel (talk) 18:42, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Same to you. I happen to like Marrs' work, but to deny he's a conspiracy theorist is really taking the ostrich thing too far. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 19:04, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Loves Art
First off, I apologize for the spam. You are receiving this message because you have indicated that you are in Southern California or interested in Southern California topics (either via category or WikiProject).

I would like to invite you to the Los Angeles edition of Wikipedia Loves Art, a photography scavenger hunt to be held at the Los Angeles County Museum of Art (LACMA) on Saturday, February 28, 2009, from 1:00 to 7:00 PM. All photos are intended for use in Wikipedia articles or on Wikimedia Commons. There will be a prize available for the person who gets the most photos on the list.

If you don't like art, why not come just to meet your fellow Wikipedians. Apparently, we haven't had a meetup in this area since June 2006!

If you are interested in attending, please add your name to Wikipedia Loves Art. Please make a note if you are traveling to the area (train or plane) and need transportation, which can probably be arranged via carpool, but we need time to coordinate. Lodging is as of right now out of scope, but we could discuss that if enough people are interested.

Thank you and I hope to see you there!  howcheng  {chat} 00:20, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Review
Hey man, didn't mean to imply that the BillO criticism article doesn't need improvement. Regarding your question, you can ask for a peer review of articles that may need attention of outside eyes. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * No problem. my response was much shorter and terse than I intended it to be.  I wrote it just before rushing out for a meeting (I don't even think I signed it, which I never do).  Sorry if my tone came across as annoyed, I wasn't. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 23:27, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Do you really want to know
Basically because the people in charge of hyping up that article have put in countless over the top references. That's why.  Lighthead  þ 21:46, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Responded on talk page. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 22:01, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Welcome back?
Long time no see. Hope all is well. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 02:59, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm good, hope I could say the same about this place. It looks like my return will be short. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 17:51, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid I may contributed directly to that. :-(  Sorry, but I have to full court press on the intro thingy (see below).  //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:22, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Bold statement
"How other's view O'Reilly belongs in a public perception section, not the lead." -- careful. You're basically saying that the only view presented is the one the subject wants presented. Where's the honesty in that? //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:21, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I am only speaking about this article. And in this article, considering its construction and content, that information belongs in the public perception section. I meant no grand pronouncement or bold statement about Wikipedia convention. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 17:50, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * This is the same editor who in a previous talk page discussion (when the subject was Olbermann's liberalism) said that "labels inflame passion, are subjective, and poison the well" and strongly agreed with Dayewalker that self-identification was a necessary condition for putting a label on anyone. Oh Momma, what people!! Badmintonhist (talk) 01:45, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Here's to hoping

 * ...that you haven't abandoned the whole enterprise in disgust. It really shouldn't be rocket science. What do you think of the following formulation? I've thrown in the word "conservative" on the rather dubious proposition that it might mollify Blaxthos.


 * O'Reilly's views usually lean to the right [sources], but he describes himself as a "traditionalist" rather than as a conservative.


 * As for the complementary Olbermann brouhaha that you may have noticed how's this?


 * Though Olbermann's views lean to the left [sources] he has said on at least one occasion "I'm not a liberal, I'm an American." [sources]


 * Regards Badmintonhist (talk) 21:11, 18 April 2009 (UTC).


 * I don't have a problem with that, but I don't think it's going to work either. What I am reading from the discussion is that Blaxthos wants the lead to state or reference that BOR is an influence in the "conservative movement".  Anything short of that and this will go on and on. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 16:08, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Correct, more or less, though I don't know about that exact verbiage or point. The association of Bill O. with conservative thought is what makes him so significant; we can't describe a subject and totally ignore his significance, just like we don't summarize a book's plot without discussing why the book is notable.  There are a couple of different linguistic formulations as to how the point should best be presented, and I'm hoping that the RFC will (eventually) lead to a wider scope of community input as to the best way to word it.  //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:07, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm DONE with this article and once anything is ever solved at the criticism article(if at all), I'll be done with ALL the political articles on this "project". I'm sick of the dishonesty, and back and forth lawyering that goes on here.  This "discussion" to me is rife with such dishonesty.  It starts off with an anon totally misreading a source to say that BOR self-describes as a conservative.  Then after a good faith attempt by Happyme22 to meet in the middle, this thing is still going. On top of that we have you arguing two completely opposite viewpoints at the same time on different pages.  Yeah I know each article is it's own...blah, blah, blah.  I know we as lawyers are trained to argue both sides of every issue, but to be actively doing so is just terrible bad faith.  And to stick my head and in the sand, and not acknowledge this is unreasonable.  Your bias has never been a secret to me (as mine has not been to you) but you were always fair in my eyes.  But right now, you sound an awful lot like Cbuhl from the FNC discussion. And I don't think holding my tongue in this instance, does anyone any good. If this is what this place does to seemingly reasonable people, I want no part of it.  You seem to be itching for a fight, and I don't know why, and I no longer have the desire for these things. Peace!Ramsquire (throw me a line) 21:55, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I try to pride myself in being reasonable, and I'm sad to learn that you honestly think my position is based on ideological alignment. Humor me a moment, because I believe strawmen arguments have colored what my actual position has been.  When the original discussion came up on the Olbermann talk page the thrust was that he is mostly known for being a liberal pundit.  My objection there was that Olbermann may have been known mostly for being a liberal pundit within the politically astute, but on a broader scale I think a large number of people will think of his ESPN/FOX/sportscenter days, and a fair number will probably not know who he is at all.  Now, that was before Fences & Windows provided a slew of sources verifying that justify the statement of "widely regarded as a liberal commentator" (or whatever), and I haven't advocated that viewpoint since the Bill O' discussion started -- long before Fences & Windows provided those sources; in fact, he did so only after Badmintonhist tried to shade this as a tit-for-tat with ad hominem red herrings.  Regardless of what goes in the Olbermann article, I still contend that O'Reilly's significance belongs in the lead; what I think about Olbermann article should have nothing to do with it.  I've only avoided re-opening discussion at Talk:Keith Olbermann to avoid re-visiting the whole "ah ha" bullshit, as the conversation there has been dormant for a while.  Anyway, sorry if you're not going to be around as much.  I still respect you as an editor, and regardless of how you see me I hope you will give careful considerations to my points.  //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:39, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

RIght
I have been meaning to get to it, but have been held up by college orientation. :) Soxwon (talk) 03:28, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

The O'Reilly and Olbermann Leads

 * Yup, back to discuss your two favorite Wikipedia profiled personalities. Princes among men, both of them. In all seriousness, I acted boldly and modified the leads of both a couple of nights ago, and both of these modifications have basically held so far. If you look quickly enough, I think you will see that the lead descriptions of their respective political leanings is now roughly equivalent and that each is a reasonably fair description. That's what I wanted to accomplish. I don't even know if the O'Reilly RfC has ever been official (I'm horrible on anything even slightly technical in Wikipedia). I shouldn't assume anything too quickly, but perhaps, just perhaps, your dignified, well-measured chastisement (you are a better man than I am in that regard) of a certain editor has done some good. Regards. Badmintonhist (talk) 03:38, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

BLP noticeboard
Should I mention DrxAwesome's report to Blaxthos and Jimintheatl or do they already know? Soxwon (talk) 19:10, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * You could, but I suspect they already know. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 19:44, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Alright...
I have self-reverted. But I still feel that at the very least, the article should not be larger than the parent article. Soxwon (talk) 00:29, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

New Orleans, Garrison and Baker
Hey Ram, I thought that with this recent Judyth Baker business, it's high time that the JFK conspiracies page finally got a section on the Garrison Affair. I don't think anything I've written will ignite any edit wars, as all the Garrison-related stuff is just cut and paste from other articles. I'm hoping what I've written will also provide a good substitute for the Baker page that's going to be deleted. Any ideas you have are quite welcome. Thanks, Joegoodfriend (talk) 19:26, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Criticism of Bill O'Reilly (political commentator)
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Criticism of Bill O'Reilly (political commentator). We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Articles for deletion/Criticism of Bill O'Reilly (political commentator) (3rd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:34, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:Hornbook -- a new WP:Law task force for the J.D. curriculum
Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 19:55, 31 July 2009 (UTC)