User talk:Anastrophe/Archive 2009

Roberts

I already reported that character. He's at about 7RR at this point. Best leave it be until they block him. Then we can fix it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Verio/citations

Thank you for the utterly brilliant and devastating replies in this thread (when EdJohnson simply seems to have given up responding)- it's a model response to deletionists.

re: citations.. WP's biggest problem is citations, but not for lack of them. Rarely are citations verified due to the difficulty of either obtaining the sources (books and journals), or the time required. The few instances I have checked other editors citations from books, I have found they usually say something different from what the editor wrote in the article. This happens for a number of reasons. 1. To avoid copyright problems the contributor re-worded the source in good faith, but in doing so changed the meaning in a subtle but significant way. 2. the editor in good faith misunderstood or misinterpreted what was being said in the source, often seeing what they wanted to see and/or taking things out of context in a literal way. 3. intentionally misrepresent the source in bad faith (or simply the source says nothing about it).

Thus, citations give the appearance of authority, but since they are rarely verified due to the difficulty of time and resources, they really have little authority at all. The emperor wears no clothes. The citations are only as good as the editors, and the editors, as you say, are unverified and unknown. Two possible solutions:

1. Citations should include an excerpt from the source, thus the citation is self-verifying. This of course is not perfect due to contextual/literal problems and bad faith editors who just make stuff up, but it's a step forward that could easily be done right away as a best practice.
2. A technical mechanism to mark citations as "verified". Number of issues with this such as who is trustworthy to mark verified, and what happens when previously verified text in the article is changed (the verified tag has to be removed and re-verified).

--Fothergill Volkensniff IV (talk) 06:44, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

calling attention

I asked you a question[1] on the article talk page which you didn't answer and may have overlooked. SaltyBoatr (talk) 03:07, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Second Amendment Talk page

I've explained why my edit was relevant to the discussion at User_talk:SMP0328. It was a minor talking point, but was in direct relation to the topic of the article, and it was in response to another editor's request for sources. As I told SMP0328, it is considered vandalism to remove someone's edits from a talk page, except in limited circumstance. Although you might consider my edit "cute", as far as I am concerned, this is a serious matter. I will be restoring my edit and taking this matter to an administrator. Further removal will be considered vandalism by me. Thanks. --Cdogsimmons (talk) 15:38, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

2008 presidential election article

What would be the criteria for inclusion in this article, and are there any for the presidential election articles? Any I can think of would be arbitrary, save the inclusion of only those who received pledged delegates. However, this method would exclude Giuliani, Keyes, and several others that are listed. Timmeh! 00:42, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

help

Hey, I saw your notice on the review board and just wanted to let you know that if you need any help resolving this I'd be happy to do what little I can. I will be away from a computer this weekend for Saturday and most of Sunday but will still do what I can. I just hate to see you be marooned, so just letting you know, you're not alone!Prussian725 (talk) 04:32, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

thanks. however, user hauskalainen has leveled charges previously that i am colluding with other editors, and that i may be an agent of the "gun lobby". both charges are false and no evidence was proferred besides further conspiracy theories but as a matter of remaining overtly and entirely above-board, i must decline any offer of assistance from my fellow editors. if you wish to weigh in on the matter, you're certainly welcome to, and i obviously won't discourage it. hope you understand.Anastrophe (talk) 05:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Fully. Good Luck!Prussian725 (talk) 18:17, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Links on Second Amedment page

The question is not whether the links are "necessary" but whether they improve the article. Do you know that with the removal of the links there is not ONE link pointing to Heller original documents?68.160.176.7 (talk) 15:52, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Notice of of vandalism

H iUser talk:Anastrophe]

Would you look into Lyrical Abstraction I added references and as a result the whole list of participants have disappeared. This is vandalism. The addition of references are important to the list and consequently to the article.(Salmon1 (talk) 16:11, 22 March 2009 (UTC))

H iUser talk:Anastrophe]

The segment that I referred to has reappeared exactly how I intended. (Salmon1 (talk) 17:11, 22 March 2009 (UTC))

another user corrected the cites.Anastrophe (talk) 17:21, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Anastrophe (talk) !

Thank you for your reply. (Salmon1 (talk) 01:32, 23 March 2009 (UTC))

Your input is requested for improving the Second Amendment lede

Please add any input you may have as to whether the Second Amendment lede will or will not be improved by a mention that its purpose is to forbid Congress from "infringing" on the the right to keep and bear arms.00:05, 24 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.163.98.56 (talk)

CSGV incident

FYI. Yaf (talk) 18:59, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

March 2009

I noticed the messages you recently left at Talk:Coalition to Stop Gun Violence were hostile to a newcomer. Please remember: do not bite the newcomers. If you see someone make a common mistake, try to politely point out what they did wrong and how to correct it. Thank you. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:09, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

i will note here that the claim above is fraudulent. i was not "hostile to a newcomer". at least, i was no more hostile than this belligerent, hostile, threatening newcomer was to other editors. a paid mouthpiece for the organization, badgering and threatening other editors, hardly qualifies as a doe-eyed newcomer who made a silly mistake and was pounced upon by the evil cabal of gun nuts. quite not the case at all. one merely needs to read the comments in question to see that. Anastrophe (talk) 03:07, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Rudeness

Alerting you that this comment of yours[2] directed to a new user is filled with rude sarcasm, and you may not be aware of this. SaltyBoatr (talk) 19:08, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

reply

Truwik has been an editor only since December, that is 'new user' in my opinion. Your opinion may differ. And as I said, you may not be aware that your reply came across as rude, again opinions may differ. In my opinion your reply was dripping with sarcasm, which is a form of rudeness. If you and I disagree about this, we disagree. Maybe we can see a third opinion? Also, How is it fair for you to describe this as a misrepresentation? A disagreement, yes. A misrepresentation, no. In any case, rudeness on that talk page is a problem, please help out fixing that problem. Thanks. SaltyBoatr (talk) 19:25, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

more unclear on the concept comments

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller See additional comments under Scholarly commentary in discussion.

You failed to provide a citation to Wikipedia Policy for a decision that seems to fly in the face of building a reference-quality entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.49.11.48 (talk) 00:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

message from a troll.

You're one of those Bullshitting liberals that deleted my Gitmo headline. You better put that back, because I already think you're CRAZY! Renegadeviking

Greyhound Bus Beheading

I can appreciate your side of the argument. On the surface it really seems to fit, but after spending a lot of personal time sifting through a lot of marginal entries, it just falls short. The first time this entry was added (you're not the first) I really thought it should stand, but stripped down it doesn't hold up. But I love debating an entry so don't give up. Cheers! --JeffJ (talk) 05:21, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Gun violence

I gave a little more detail on the talk page regarding the reasons for the changes I made to the Gun violence article to remove inappropriate POV editing and asked you to justify further your reversions of those edits. Maybe you will be so kind as to examine EACH edit I made (there were several) and tell me why each was, in your opinion, inappropriate. That will give a basis for proper discussion of the issues. The reason you gave for the blanket reversion of my reversion of Yaf's edits is, frankly, disingenuous. You attribute motives to me that are from true.--Hauskalainen (talk) 10:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

another fun comment

rather than edit warring perhaps we can compromise? SaltyBoatr (talk) 03:06, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Dancing with the Stars (U.S. season 10)

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Dancing with the Stars (U.S. season 10). 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 Wikipedia:Notability and "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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dancing with the Stars (U.S. season 10). 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) 01:42, 12 December 2009 (UTC)