User talk:Ann arbor street/archive00

Welcome!

Hello, Ann arbor street, 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 messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Nsaa (talk) 21:57, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 22:42, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable source

I've left a comment on the talk page. The source is much too vague on that issue and doesn't elaborate on any specific admission by Lipson himself or the other founders of RationalWiki that they personally organize vandalism against Conservapedia. Stating in the article for a fact that he does seems to be a violation of WP:BLP.--ParisianBlade (talk) 02:03, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Userpage

The issue with the userpage was that it contained the name allegedly of the girl in the article even though her name was not mentioned in the article itself. This seemed like an outing of personal information on this individual, so I requested that you verify that you are the individual if that was the case. As such, I understand the situation now.--ParisianBlade (talk) 04:17, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Username

Per Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Conservapedia_edit_war it may be a good idea for you to change your username. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw it now, here. The discussion is already gone. The address is the address of Milo Radulovich, now deceased. The address was broadcast on an old episode of Edward R. Murrow's See It Now on Radulovich. It was public information, broadcast on national television. I don't know if Radulovich's family still lives there. Do I really need to change my name? Ann arbor street (talk) 19:07, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I hadn't stopped to consider that the address would still exist at the time I picked my username. Ann arbor street (talk) 19:13, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even so, I've just requested a name change. Doesn't bother me, and if it protects the privacy of the current occupant, all the better. Ann arbor street (talk) 19:25, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I figured it was probably something like that. Probably better this way. In general the appearance of propriety can be as important as propriety. It will at minimum prevent future distractions about this issue. Thanks for being flexible about this. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:34, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I agree that it is better, in that it would be a pain to have to explain to every suspicious wikipedian who is scructanizing one of my edits the significance of the address. It is an ironic coincidence, however, in the case of Milo Radulovich, during an era we now call McCarthyism, that the airforce was also concerneed with the appearance of propriety, and not propriety itself. Ann arbor street (talk) 16:42, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:PalinInDover-cropped2.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, File:PalinInDover-cropped2.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 14:01, 7 March 2009 (UTC) --/Blaxthos ( t / c ) 14:01, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look. My recollection is the image was a simple color temp. correction of an image previously uploaded to wikipedia. Ann arbor street (talk) 17:08, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the original image was uploaded by J.delanoy (talk · contribs · count) in about October of 2008 here. Hope this helps. It turns out that this information was in the here when I modified the file, although you might have missed (as I did originally) that J.delanoy's version had an uppercase .JPG extension. Ann arbor street (talk) 17:43, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RFC

"Several sources"? Can you please supply some of them. We shouldn't have misleading RFCs. Guettarda (talk) 17:09, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously - you shouldn't misrepresent sources in an RFC. You provided one source which in no way supports your assertion. Guettarda (talk) 17:17, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you intimating that the RFC is misleading? Seems out of order. Ann arbor street (talk) 17:23, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Intimating? You mention "several sources", and then link to one that doesn't support your claim. To begin with, your claim that there are sources is unsupported. Secondly, the source you link to in no way supports your assertion. One unsupported claim + one false claim = misleading RFC. Guettarda (talk) 17:27, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you're gonna paraphrase me, please do so accurately. I wrote "several sources, some of them reliable". I provided one reliable source. The claim is that he earned a degree from Cornell University, from the College of College of Agriculture and Life Sciences. Nothing false about that claim as far as I can tell. Ann arbor street (talk) 17:34, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You provided no sources that support your assertion. The one source you provided does not support your assertion. You are claiming that a source supports your assertion when it does nothing of the sort. Hence, your assertion is false. Please provide source(s) that support your assertion, and please stop misrepresenting sources. This is especially important in a biography of a living person. Thank you. Guettarda (talk) 17:44, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What are your sources? Instead of citing "several sources", why don't you actually provide them. WindyCityRider (talk) 19:13, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously - you need to provide some evidence to support your claim. Guettarda (talk) 20:58, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did. You're welcome to argue that the evidence is insufficient on the appropriate talk page. Kindly keep the discussion there. Thanks. Ann arbor street (talk) 20:59, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing is important, especially in articles about living people. Your summary of the source did not match the source. You said that he had "earned his degree from [the college]". For that to be the case, the college of ag & life sciences would have to issue the degree. For it to be at all relevant, then this would have to be a deviation from the norm. Saying that he was enrolled in that college (which is all the refs suggest) is not the same as saying that the college issued his degree. Neither ref discussed the body that issued his degree. So they do not support your assertion. It is not acceptable to mislead other editors by claiming that sources make assertions that they do not.

Now if it were the case that degrees at Cornell were granted by colleges rather than by the university, surely it wouldn't have been difficult to supply a source that showed that. That would have been far better than simply asserting that your source said things that it obviously did not say. Of course, even if that were so, it would not have made your case, since the onus would still have been on you to provide some reason as to why this case should be treated differently from the other 1600 Cornell alumni with Wikipedia biographies. What is is about Olbermann's degree that would require that we treat it differently from all the other Cornell degrees?

I realise that sourcing can be a difficult issue for people. But if you don't understand sourcing, you should ask for help. If you don't understand something, it's never helpful to simply deny that there's a problem. Guettarda (talk) 22:38, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure who your target audience is, but clearly you have a very difficult sell. We shouldn't resort to misleading arguments. The Rfc on the piped link was closed, without much discussion on the relevant points, viz., easter egg link versus getting bogged down in minutia (e.g., identifying, the specific college within Cornell University that Olbermann actually, and I quote, "attended". Too bad that other wikipedians were unable to weigh in on the actual point. Congratulations, though, as it appears you've gotten your way, the easy way. Ann arbor street (talk) 04:36, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]