User talk:Tiger97882

December 2007
Welcome to Wikipedia. A page you recently created may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for new pages, so it will shortly be removed (if it hasn't been already). Please use the sandbox for any tests. For more information about creating articles, you may want to read Your first article. You may also want to read our introduction page to learn more about contributing. Brianga (talk) 02:43, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Palin7monthspregnant.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Palin7monthspregnant.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

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

This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 20:09, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

August 2008
This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. The next time you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced defamatory content into an article or any other Wikipedia page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Kelly hi! 20:15, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I endorse that. If your content  proves to be accurate, it will run in the New York Times or some such place almost immediately.  When that happens, if that happens, it can be included.  For a person with such public prevalence, any verifiable fact will be published quickly in a reliable source.  Jehochman Talk 21:13, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Hahaha, epic fail, Tiger. Seriously, the Daily Kos?  And then you accuse other people (e.g. Kelly) of being biased?  Shameful.  Hold your horses, legitimate controversies can't remain hidden for long.  68.43.197.22 (talk) 22:39, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

They can if the issues are buried by partisans who are trying to protect their chosen candidate. Whether or not this runs in the NYT does not decide whether or not it is legitimate. I am not suggesting that the story is true, but rather that there is a controversy surrounding it. That is indisputable fact. It is a shame that Wikipedia is no longer the peoples' place for all information, but rather an archive for issues already completely fleshed out by the antiquated media outlets. Shame.
 * There's a difference between reporting controversy and making controversy. The latter is essentially indistinguishable from making shit up.  Have you tried your hardest to make sure that every dim-witted conspiracy theory running around on the Internet is posted on Wikipedia?  Or is it just this one in particular?  68.43.197.22 (talk) 00:04, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Just because you don't like the story doesn't mean it isn't legitimate. You are not the arbiter of truth, nor is the NYT or any other media outlet. A confession from Mrs. Palin is not necessary for it to be worthy of being acknowledged. I doubt you would take such a vehement stance against a philosophical theory which gets no play in the media. It strikes me that you are a partisan.
 * It's a classic strategy - call the other guy a partisan before he has a chance to call you a partisan. Well played, nobody would have ever seen that move coming.  How many years of fighting the partisan-forces-that-seek-to-bury-controversy did it take you to learn that move?  You want to know what I think?  Here's what I think: Palin has less political and foreign policy experience than Obama, which takes away one of McCain's stronger attacks against him.  She was probably chosen to placate the evangelical crowd, throw Democratic strategists for a loop because they didn't consider her a serious enough choice to bother making canned advertisements against her, and also to try and win over some disgruntled Hillary voters.


 * Indeed, there isn't a clear arbiter of truth out there. Reputation serves as the best stand-in we have, so if you cry wolf too many times, too damned bad.  Your proposal is that we throw accumulated histories of general trustworthiness out the window simply because the story that a particular source is propagating happens to be stirring controversy.  Oh wow, a glorified blog with dubious sources is stirring controversy!  YAWN.  It's easy to create controversy online.  Rule #1 of the Internet - there will always be people online to defend every idea, no matter how stupid it is.  Look at all the boneheads out there who think Obama is a closet Muslim who hates America.  And for the record, basically no mention is made of this "controversy" in the Obama article.  It's only hinted at by stating that some percentage of Americans incorrectly believe Obama is Muslim or was raised Muslim.  That's the way it should be.  If you were being consistent, you would fight tooth and nail to make sure that "controversy" (read: random crap that a bunch of partisan hacks cobbled together over a case of beer) was included in the Obama article.  You'd be wrong in your approach, but at least you'd have some semblance of internal consistency in reasoning going for you.  You call me partisan, presumably in the "blind to criticism of his favored candidate" sense.  If opposition to random bullshit which no major, trustworthy, and reputable media outlet has picked up on qualifies me as a partisan, then count me in.  In the meantime, I'll sit back and watch as this story maybe gets some minor facetime, is dealt with properly (just like the "his middle name is Hussein...he must be a Muslim!" nonsense) by pointing out what an obnoxious and demonstrably wrong idea it is, and finally dies, only to live on in the minds of conspiracy theorists. 68.43.197.22 (talk) 03:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Hah! Who called it? The "Palin-faked-her-own-pregnancy-to-cover-for-her-daughter" nonsense has been thoroughly debunked and dealt with accordingly. There's no mention in her article of the "controversy" that you worked so tirelessly to include on Wikipedia. Better luck next time on finding a poorly-sourced, sensationalistic rumor on a political blog that actually holds water. In the meantime, the rest of us will continue to employ the scholarly and intellectual approach to deciding what should and shouldn't be on Wikipedia. Tootles. 68.43.197.22 (talk) 13:45, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Image:Palin7monthspregnant.jpg
Please refrain from introducing inappropriate pages such as Image:Palin7monthspregnant.jpg, to Wikipedia. Doing so is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on  explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Kelly hi! 20:16, 31 August 2008 (UTC)