User talk:SecretaryNotSure

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or ask your question and then place  before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Regards, Phaunt 08:47, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Stossel
Do you think, "Media Matters for America criticized Stossel over a 2007 20/20 segment on health care," conveys any substantial information? Why delete the gist of the claim? Rtp4 14:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Not a lot, but at least the link is there. The problem is I'm not a doctor and not going to decide if the doctors at FAIR are right or if Stossel was right. I'll take another look at it and see if maybe it's "right" or shall we say "FAIR" to put in a blurb about what that dispute was about.SecretaryNotSure 14:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The claim was about how much time was devoted to each side of the topic. Rtp4 16:03, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Removing sourced information
Please stop doing this. I honestly don't understand your edits to Criticism of Walmart. A lot was put in to getting this article to Good article status, and you're removing sourced information and rewording things to be vague. Do I really need to source the "significant impact". I think the references throughout the article back up the use of the word "significant" consdering Wal-Mart shuts down businesses. In any context, that's significant.  Lara  ❤  Love  15:05, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, I'll be happy to explain. Yes, we do need a source or some evidence for "significant." The critics say Wal-Mart large and powerful and "has significant impacts" on something or other. On the other hand, economists who know about the subject say this is nonsense, that Wal-Mart is a just an ordinary store, it doesn't "impact" the world. It "impacts" people who are competitors, (in a bad way sometimes) and it "impacts" consumers and workers (in a good way). That's what the economists say. So, yes, to say Wal-Mart "impacts" the world in general, and not just the competitors, we need evidence.

You might be surprised that economists don't agree that "Wal-Mart shuts down businesses." I have some studies on that to but I haven't dusted them off yet. One of which I participated in heheh. Basically, the economists point out that Wal-Mart has no power to "shut down" anything, a business closes or goes out of business if their customers choose to shop somewhere else.

Thanks for your comments. I'm not fixing the article to "remove" or silence any criticism of Wal-Mart, it's an important topic to have an article on. I'm trying to present the whole issue in depth and make it a great article.SecretaryNotSure 15:35, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the point is that WM moves into small towns, takes the business away from existing businesses subsequently shutting them down. So in that "a business closes or goes out of business if their customers choose to shop somewhere else" is precisly the point.  Lara  ❤  Love  16:46, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Your userpage
Would you mind if I redirect your userpage to your talk page?  Carbon Monoxide  02:34, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * On a side note, would you mind helping out with User:CO/Criticism of George Soros?  Carbon  Monoxide  02:36, 6 October 2007 (UTC)‎

I wish I knew what a userpage and a talk page were. I thought I already had a talk page. heheh... I'll check out that page, although I'm not an expert on the lives of flaming liberals.SecretaryNotSure 03:04, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Lol, okay, thanks!  Carbon Monoxide  03:08, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Milton Friedman
I re-added the official name of the prize that you removed, as cited by the reference. If you are unsure of the name of the prize, please look at the cited reference. –panda 18:27, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I had the same kind of disagreement with the name of an astronaut, of all things, even though all the NASA paperwork listed his correct name, he had a nickname and a real name and military title. Of course, I was right, but the consensus of the group, and Wikipedia style and consistency with other article over-ruled what I thought. It's the same with the silly dispute over what some people think is the "real" name of the Nobel Prize. It's sort of "been decided."SecretaryNotSure 19:02, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what WP's policy is about using official names vs common names in articles (vs article titles) but it seems it would be educational and instructive to include the official name in this case, especially since many don't seem to recognize it and it's what's listed in the reference. The discussion that was in Talk:Milton Friedman was about one unofficial name vs another so I didn't think it applied to this case. Your thoughts? –panda 19:11, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Probably, but I'll tell you what I think the problem is. It might be technically more correct that there's another name for the prize, but in America it's sort of "known by" the more common name. And in this case, my guess, it's just a feeling, that even though that's an interesting bit of trivia, using the alternate name makes it sound like this "great man" won some prize that's like the Nobel Prize, but not the "real" Nobel Prize. And that sounds like it tarnishes his reputation a little bit. That's not a good reason to change facts or the truth, but I'm checking the back of my copy of Capitalism and Freedom and it says "he was awarded the Nobel Prize in economics" so it's probably not a battle worth fighting. Maybe somewhere else, like on the "Nobel Prize" page something like that could be noted.SecretaryNotSure 19:36, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, the name of the prize has nothing to do with the reputation of the prize but I can see how others may think so. Could you replace the citation then since it doesn't support the current statement? The current citation doesn't say "Nobel Prize in Economics" anywhere, but there may be others that do. –panda 22:34, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/2006-11-16-obituary-friedman_x.htm http://www.cato.org/friedman/ - this one says "Nobel Prize for Economic Science" hmmm http://chronicle.uchicago.edu/951012/lucas.shtml http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9035426/Milton-Friedman

They call it all sorts of names. I see your point -- I don't think anyone's going to go for changing the introductory paragraph, it's just too well established and it would be bringing a controvery into the first sentence. Actually the article does mention the right name later on. Maybe we could add a footnote or something (but not in the first paragraph).SecretaryNotSure 23:38, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm only suggesting that the citation/reference (Reference #1) should be replaced since it doesn't support the text that it refers to. (However, if someone feels strongly about leaving the citation in the text, then the text should state what is in the citation.) –panda 00:14, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

McDonalds
Hi. As you point out, all successful companies must please their customers, so it is pointless to include this item in defence of McDonalds. The same sort of statement can be made for every enterprise which makes it meaningless. I think the article is stronger without that addition. Bob98133 18:51, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I guess, possibly. Thanks for your comments. Maybe there's some better way to get that concept in there because it goes to the "criticism" ... sort of a criticism of the criticism.SecretaryNotSure 18:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * There you go! Much better. Bob98133 22:08, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Where ya been?
Don't ask. I think I've had enough of having to constantly fight the ignorant. Yes, I said that. By "ignorant" I mean those who aren't educated or aren't motivated to read or study or learn, or the intellectually lazy. If you fall into this category (and if you want to "correct" something I've written, you probably do) don't bother to tell me about it. You are welcome to live in your own world.SecretaryNotSure (talk) 10:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Suggesting Changes to Milton Friedman Article
I've requested a reassessment of the good article status of the Milton Friedman article based on lack of neutrality, and have added a POV tag to the article. Please join the discussion, if you are interested. Thanks. Jdstany (talk) 03:22, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Ron Paul
Ron Paul has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured quality. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. --Andrew Kelly (talk) 05:23, 13 November 2008 (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) 01:14, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

This so called "article" should have been deleted the second it was created.SecretaryNotSure (talk) 01:30, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:39, 23 November 2015 (UTC)