User talk:Cool Hand Luke/Archive 4

Archives
Archive1–through Nov 11, 2004
Archive2–Jan 5, 2005
Archive3–Dec 1, 2006
Archive 4–Apr 13, 2007
Archive 5–Sep 19, 2007
Archive 6–Jan 27, 2008
Archive 7–May 22, 2008
Archive 8–Dec 15, 2008
Archive 9–Mar 30, 2009
Archive 10–Oct 7, 2009
Archive 11–Oct 4, 2010
Archive 12–Sep 18, 2014

Questions

Hello, I did some editing on the Kelo page and you suggested that I sign up. I'm not sure how to do this, but would like to because I think Wikipedia is such a great thing. I promise I won't keep coming to you to "report" things, but I'm having trouble at the Anna Nicole Smith page. Particularly the section of her litigation that has made it to the Supreme Court. I put in extensive time researching the case and reading the relevant decisions, and I put in what I thought was a good description of the complexity of the cases. I realize that my piece might have been POV from the standpoint that it did not have much info on the Texas probate decision, but I was trying to distinguish the two lines of cases, which are completely separate (and which the article does not recognize). I now strongly feel (as noted in my talk comments) that somebody involved in the litigation is attempting the hi-jack the section. Just thought I'd point it out and ask what suggestions you may have. On one hand, I don't really care and feel like saying "fine, let it stand as is." But on the other hand, I feel like it's a figh for the future of Wikipedia (and, oddly, that is an important battle to me). thanks.129.210.218.152 06:29, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello. Making a wikipedia account is easy; you don't even need to have an email address. Just click on "sign in" and click to create an account. Just make a unique user id and type your password in twice.

I must admit that I'm not an expert on these topics (I happen to be a 1L law student), but controversial topics are often littered with popular distortions, and Kelo is certainly an example of this problem. Your work seems good to me, I removed it mostly out of concern it violates the policy Wikipedia:No original research.

Article inaccuracies are particularly distressing because Wikipedia articles are sometimes cited in briefs! Finals are coming up for me, but I promise to look into Anna Nicole Smith sometime soon. It wouldn't surprise me at all. Cool Hand Luke 21:18, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for, err, visiting

Thanks for signing, lots of people just view the page without even signing it. Again, thanks - The RSJ 18:19, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and I just barely checked my talk page history. Thanks for saying I did good work - The RSJ 01:51, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: Liebeck

Thank you for the encouragement. And another thank you for the edit of the article. That was just the wording I was looking for. I felt that Tort-reformists should be mentioned as they undoubtedly form a large base of the critics of the telling of the case... but I didn't think of that way of writing it. --J-Star 05:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

From User:24.2.92.27 12/21/06

Hey, Luke, Joseph did not found any more than one church. He only founded, with God's commission and help, the actual Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and then if any other churches split off from that, they did so on their own. Presidents Smith and Young didn't start any of those others.

Okay, how is there a specific intentional use of "Latter Day" as an adjective to describe "Saints" when multi-word adjectives (just like that one there, "multi-word") actually need the hyphen to function properly as just that--a multi-word adjective?

I wasn't changing "Latter Day Saints" to "Latter-day Saints" just to fix it according to the way the Church's name is spelled/punctuated, but just because that's the way multi-word (there's that example again) adjectives work. How can it possibly work otherwise, regardless of what you said was part of the naming of that movement?

And how are you so suddenly aware of when an article is changing in subtle ways?

---

Luke:

Okay, thanks for the interesting information. I never knew a simple punctuation error could be used as a way of creating a newly accepted "correct" adjustment of a way of mentioning something.

I'm not so sure I understand how just taking the hyphen out of a multi-word adjective--like "multi word adjective" can be a good enough tool for changing the reference. Why wouldn't there be a less ambiguous way of doing it (besides using the term "Mormon")? Why couldn't they just differentiate between the two by saying "Latter-day Saint church" and "Latter-day Saint MOVEMENT" (with the hyphen that the multi-word adjective is grammatically hungry for, in both of them)? Wouldn't "church" vs. "movement" be clear enough?

Oh, yeah, and I understand watch lists, but since people may not always be checking their watch lists, how are you made aware to check your watch list after an edit? Or do you just check your watch list every other minute?

Vandalism at Free Republic

Cool Hand Luke, I must advise you that FAAFA is continuing to use an unreliable source in violation of WP:RS. He is opposed by a consensus, yet he keeps making these reverts to include material by Todd Brendan Fahey, a person who brags about the quantity and variety of illegal drugs and alcohol her has used. This is not a RS. Please make a ruling regarding the use of Fahey as a RS. -- BryanFromPalatine 20:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

RFH References

Just wanted to say thanks for your recent work on the Radio From Hell page. Much thanks. Proper linking and references give the article a lot more credibility. -- AtroposTheRandom 00:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your help on "Fawn Brodie." It's a better article for your contributions.--John Foxe 00:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

My RFA

Hey, thanks so much for supporting my recent RFA. A number of editors considered that I wasn't ready for the mop yet and unfortunately the RFA did not succeed (69/26/11). There are a number of areas which I will be working on (including changing my username) in the next few months in order to allay the fears of those who opposed my election to administrator.

I'd like to take this opportunity to thank you sincerely for your support over the past week. I've been blown away by the level of interest taken in my RFA and appreciate the time and energy dedicated by all the editors who have contributed to it, support, oppose and neutral alike. I hope to bump into you again soon and look forward to serving you and Wikipedia in any way I can. Cheers! The Rambling Man 19:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC) (the non-admin, formerly known as Budgiekiller)

Clara Copley

Thanks. KP Botany 01:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Glad to do it. I grew up in a blue collar Irish neighborhood so, although her name was unfamiliar, all the others rang bells. I boxed as a kid and watched or listened to every match I could in a hellaceous era for boxing (the late 60s/early 70s). I'm rather surprise there isn't a Wikipedia article on Rinty Monaghan, though, so I might have to do that also. KP Botany 01:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Utah Law

Whatever works is fine with me. Are there enough such articles for their own category? If not, maybe just put them in History of Utah. Lots of the state Law categories need improvement. I have created some of them as placeholders and plan to go back to the states and move more into them. I am puzzled, however, over how much of this should be duplicated in the 'Government of foo' categories and how much should just be moved to the law category and not left in government. Example: the courts and judges articles and the constitution articles. Thanks Hmains 04:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Criticism of Mormonism

I understand your postion and can see where you are coming from but my issue isn't so much with the Criticism of Mormonism articles but with articles that deal specifically with criticism of a topic because I believe that these articles will start to proliferate Wikipedia and will be detrimental to Wikipedia's image as to reliability. There will come a time in my mind when people will begin to see Wikipedia not as an online encylopedia but a forum, or blog for their POV's and they will continue to create such articles to the point where it will be impossible for people to consider Wikipedia a reliable source. Inclusion of criticisms in an article can be properly weighted but an article dealing specifically with criticisms cannot because it is balanced on one end of the spectrum just like an advertisement article is balanced on the other. They cannot in my mind ever be NPOV. I understand that there seems to not be a consensus on this issue but I think Wikipedia should reach a consensus and establish a clear policy against this type of article (as opposed to section) alongside Verifiability, neutrality and no original research. That said, I thank you for your consideration and I commented on your edits to the Utah Politics section on my talk page. I see nothing wrong with your edits. Edward Lalone | (Talk) 04:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Peninniah

Hi, I just prod'ed Peninniah, which I see you have worked on. It seems to me that she has no claim to notability beyond her association with Father Divine, and all the relevant information about her is already in his article; this one seems a bit redundant. Also, it is unsourced and contains a lot of speculation ("she was apparently Methodist...", "1882 is possibly the date...") as well as apparent original research (for example, that she was "dignified-looking".) Even if some of the stuff could be well-sourced, I still feel like it belongs in the Father Divine article, as her identity was so tied to his and she is not known for anything independant of that association.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 02:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the message, as I mentioned above I am more concerned with the concept of the article than the lack of cites - I think it is more appropriate as part of the Father Divine article, which in fact it already is. The article name can redirect to him.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk*

Translators

Hello, I was wondering if you could explain where you got data for Utah TV translators such as KUED/List of KUED translators. It's particularly urgent because List of KTVX translators was nominated for deletion. Cool Hand Luke 09:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi - thank you for bringing this to my attention. I have posted a defense to the Afd. dhett (talk • contribs) 05:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

All translators are now merged back into the main articles - I was able to knock off the PBS stations tonight. Thanks again for the heads up and for your support in both the merge and AfD processes. dhett (talk • contribs) 07:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Small request

Hey, I know this request might be kind of strange coming from me, since we've certainly had our disagreements. But I just noticed you're an admin. User 63.3.19.2 has blanked an entire page [1] after another admin gave him a final warning not to vandalize anymore articles [2]. The IP user 63.3.19.1 is also the same person and has just recently personally attacked me on my talk page [3]. This user has consistently harassed me over the last week or so on talk pages when I've been trying to contribute as much as I can to making better articles. If you could help out here (and block him) it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.--Ubiq 00:00, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

User 63.3.19.### has not ceased in harassing me. He left another threatening message and personal attack on my userpage. I just want this to stop. It is getting very annoying. For a reference to how many times he's been blocked and threatened to be blocked, see: [4] [5] [6] and [7]--Ubiq 02:32, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Criticism of Bill O'Reilly merge/move

There seem to be some problems with how you merged Critics and rivals of Bill O'Reilly and Bill O'Reilly controversies. You first moved one article to Criticism of Bill O'Reilly, then deleted it and moved a second article to that location, and then it seems you merged the deleted text into the article. What happened to the edit history of Critics and rivals of Bill O'Reilly? --- RockMFR 22:16, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:AN

Please see my reply to your post. If I had actually acted in the way characterized I would have struck through my statements and apologized long before now. That wasn't what happened. I will gladly correct any actual mistakes, but I cannot withdraw a misinterpretation of my action. To that I can only clarify, and when the clarification goes overlooked I can only object. Durova^Charge! 02:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Salina and the Salina Journal entry query

Since you bothered to notice (and complement, thank you) my Salina, KS adds, could you give me your take on the current entry (under "333") for the Salina Journal? It seems a hair POVish to me. (specifically where it says "The comments often showcase the ignorance and racism of Salina residents." I think it should be changed (not erased, but, er, neutralised). Aaron headly 03:12, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

• A PS: I'm going to take a shot at an NPOV version of "333" - The folks around here sure do pay a lot of attention to it, so I figure it should be at least explained a little. thanks again, Aaron headly 03:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm Confused

I'm sort of confused; did mistag (OK) or tried to block me (How Dare You (Take the last three words with a pinch of salt if not intending to block)). I just am BAD with templates, wiki formatting etc. Reply on my talk page, please. Mbralchenko 02:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

It's not a matter of me being angry, but just wanting clarifying everything. Mbralchenko 02:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Matter closed. Mbralchenko 02:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Ann Coulter and my stalker

This is the last time I'll mention this. Promise. The IP user who you blocked the other day has gone to great lengths to defame me and has admitted so on his edit yesterday to my talk page, as he continues to harass me. [8] If you want, I can provide pretty clear proof that this IP user edits under the 4 different IPs I've mentioned previously.

Concerning the Ann Coulter article: In editing amygdala today, I realized I got more accomplished in an hour than I ever did with anything in the Ann Coulter article. And I also realized that brain structures don't have obsessive fans that will e-stalk me either. Though I think I became a smarter arguer and learned a little bit more about the WP:N policy (partly thanks to you), it'd be in my best interest to disengage from anything and everything Ann Coulter, as I feel a lot of the IP users and Lou's out there cause the discussion to go in circles. I think the only reason I've been sticking it out for so long is because of a sunk cost fallacy. Regardless, I'd like to thank you for your contributions to it. I think you're very solid in your argumentation. Hopefully some more open-minded people will join the discussion on it. But as for me, my passion is elsewhere. Best of luck. --Ubiq 10:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Ann Coulter and FAIR

You seem to be working to improve the article, rather than arguing with others who are doing likewise. I don't think the FAIR stuff belongs. Some reasons: They are a site with an agenda, and such things are best avoided in controversial articles. They are commenting on Time, not on Coulter (but then they do an anti-Coulter tirade). In their tirade, they cite the absence of Canada from somebody's book as proof that Coulter was wrong. This is no sort of proof for anything.

As hard as it may be for some people to accept the fact, Canada DID send troops to Vietnam. You can see some evidence HERE. (It's on a User Page. Please don't edit it.)

Also in the article, the "For more about Canada in Vietnam, see X" links to an article with questioned sources, disputed sections, etc. Not very helpful, IMHO. Better would be to reference the two articles on the commissions, which are more to the point, well-referenced, etc. Lou Sander 22:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

3RR warning

You have reverted 4 times on Ann Coulter already today. The quotation you take issue with is now adequately (though not ideally) sourced. Please stop edit-warring. I will forebear making a 3rr report at this time. Please use the article talk-page if you wish to discuss the point. -- Lonewolf BC 02:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Twenty Mule Team

I used the Internet Movie Database as my source for dates regarding the movie "Twenty Mule Team" and the television series The Rockford Files, which is where I usually seem to turn for exact dates when I'm a little hazy about them. I went back to the "Twenty Mule Team" article and inserted that as a source in the text. I'd love to see this film to behold these two Beerys working together, they're two of my favorite actors and are terribly alike in appearance and manner, but that's easier said than done, I'm afraid; it's true that "Twenty Mule Team" is a fairly obscure entry in the Wallace Beery canon, since his period as the highest paid actor at MGM (he had it written into his contract that he had to be paid at least $1 more than any other contract player, effectively making him the highest paid actor in the world) had passed several years before. Anyway, thanks Luke, and thanks for merging the two articles of (1940) and (1940 film); not the first time I've made that particular mistake. Storyliner 08:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Correcting quotes

Well, depends whom we're quoting: are we quoting KSL or are we quoting the aunt? If the latter, then you certainly may correct introduced misspellings. - Tragic Baboon (banana receptacle) 04:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

There's certainly a case for doing this, but leaving in the html comment stuck out like a sore thumb to me because it was not a direct quote. I think we should indicate all alterations from reliable sources. No wikipedia policy squarely addresses this issue, but we should probably use the published RS version as the baseline, misspellings and all. Couple of brackets won't hurt anyone. Cool Hand Luke 04:42, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Fullprotected article

You recently unprotected an article that had an expiry date of one day on its protection as 'Not enough activity to justify this'. There was enough activity before the protection; that's why it was fullprotected. 1ne 22:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I guess we'll just disagree, then. The protection was going to expire in twelve hours. 1ne 22:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

RE: Barnstar

Thank you very much for the Barnstar; it's greatly appreciated. I must confess, however, that it wasn't nearly as difficult to do as it might have seemed. Programmer's File Editor is a text editor with a good scripting tool, which did most of the legwork for me. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 04:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

RE:Commufist

You recently deleted an article about the hand gesture called the "commufist." Is it possible to put it under the wikipage of "Hand Gestures?" We noticed many other hand gestures without sources or references, such as "The Shocker," for example. It is in the category of "articles with unsourced statements." I do not see the difference between the two. We plan on providing much more information about the topic. I look forward to hearing a response. I would also like to apologize for vandalizing the John Stossel page. There shall be no more vandalism from this user. TylerJG. Thanks -So will The Shocker page get deleted as ours did for the reason that there is a whole page dedicated to it, yet, without a single reference or source? If it does not, then I believe it would be completely unfair. Just because it said it appeared in an FX's program, that is not a reliable source. I would not get news from them, nor take any information seriously from that station either. None of the information in the "Appearences" heading can be considered reliable. -"Shocker has a reference in the form of that CBS sports article." The article you mentioned is a personal opinion of Clay Travis. In what way, shape, or form is that a reference/source? What makes his opinion about The Shocker any different than our "commufist?" Do I have to write an article about it? -This is a quote from said article, " Let's just go with Wikipedia's definition. The opening line states, "The shocker is a hand gesture with a sexual connotation that has become popular in many high schools and colleges throughout the United States." Now, since it said that they are going off of the wikipedia definition, the article was clearly written AFTER The Shocker page was created. Therefore, they are using wikipedia as a reference, when wikipedia is using the article as a reference as well. It is a paradox. Two refereces cannot stand on each other. Either way, it is STILL an opinion, even according to wikipedia's definition of "column." Opinions are not news. Everybody has an opinion, opinions are not facts, and news ARE facts. Therefore, the article is nullified as an unreliable source, and cannot be considered factual in respect to The Shocker. -What makes "Google" (a simple search engine) a reliable source? I can name numerous amounts of people who are familiar with the "commufist" If I have to use them as references, I can. And besides, The Shocker was made up by one person, and it's no different than the "commufist." All hand gestures start somewhere; the same applies to the "commufist." TylerJG 07:02, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

-Why would something have to be written online to make it a reliable source. What ever happened to physical evidence. How else can the general public learn about the commufist if we cannot create a page with the same name. If you do not allow us to create a page about it, then how will we be able to educate the people. The only reason that YOU haven't heard of it is because you obviously have no interest in the subject. I am not questioning that you are a mormon or any of the articles you have edited because of your own knowledge. This is OUR own knowledge and would like to express it. TylerJG 21:44, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Thats wierd because you failed to answer my question. And my comment had nothing to do with you being mormon or a martian, the point was that I am not questioning your articles about things you know about. TylerJG 03:19, 4 March 2007 (UTC) FTW

Survey Invitation

Hi there, I am a research student from the National University of Singapore and I wish to invite you to do an online survey about Wikipedia. To compensate you for your time, I am offering a reward of USD$10, either to you or as a donation to the Wikimedia Foundation. For more information, please go to the research home page. Thank you. --WikiInquirer 03:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)^{talk to me}

Nancy Cartwright

I was wondering why Nancy Cartwright was moved to Nancy Cartwright (actor). I always thought that disambiguation pages were used when there were more than 2 similar articles, and Nancy Cartwright the Simpsons voice is far more famous than the other one. With your permission, I'd like to move the article back to just being plain old Nancy Cartwright and add a note about the other one. -- Scorpion 05:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Which talk page? -- Scorpion 05:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Why was it moved to where it is in the first place? -- Scorpion 06:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I've posted a note on both pages and if nobody has any objections, I'll get back to you in a week. -- Scorpion 06:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Hi, Cool Hand! Just making my way round to thank everyone for their support at my RfA. Great level of support, humbling result, and yes! we definitely need more filmic referenced characters on Wikipedia! Thanks again. Bubba hotep 20:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

zsalamander

What do you mean by "collateral damage?" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.255.207.67 (talk) 22:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC).

My RfA

Hi Cool Hand. Thank you for participating in my RfA. Rest assured that I heard every voice loud and clear during the discussion, and will strive to use the mop carefully and responsibly. In particular, I will take your advice to heart. Please don't hesitate to give me constructive criticism anytime. Xiner (talk, email) 14:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure you did well on the finals...I'll accept the support vote in spirit. Thanks! Xiner (talk, email) 20:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Anonymous

Hey Cool Hand Luke, I was wondering why you reverted my changes to the page about Joseph Smith, I felt they were enlightening and factual. Do you not agree that he was a gypsy charlatan? Is it the characterization as a gypsy or a charlatan that you disapprove of? Thanks.

My RfA

Thank you for support in my unsuccessful RfA. I appreciate the support, and am disappointed on being judged by what in most opinions seem to be the wrong things. Until next time, edit on! :) — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 03:51, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants

Might you fix the NPOV problems caused by this edit? -- THF 04:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I was just in Chicago yesterday, albeit north side. I'm working on cleaning up the tort reform article, which has similar problems from a series of editors that disregarded NPOV and NOR rules, perhaps I can run it by you before I make any changes. -- THF 14:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Rofecoxib COI check

At your convenience, can you check the last couple of edits to Rofecoxib? I've written about the subject myself; the editor who removed the paragraph in question may be the outside counsel to NEJM, so would have his own COI issues, but would surely take it personally if I were the one to point it out.

The litigation section of that article is a year out of date also. -- THF 17:30, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Circumstantial evidence: [9]. May just be a coincidence. -- THF 11:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Shaykh Abdalqadir as-Sufi

You might want to brush up on your naming conventions with regard to the above history merge, as I had suggested on its talk page, but you conveniently misread my message. I'll even provide a link to the appropriate section: WP:NCP Errabee 22:55, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

stay the fuck off msg edits, smegma breath

go fuck yourself —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.4.139.51 (talk) 17:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC).

wheat

I really hate to have removed that 'info', as I think it would be interesting to see how long it would take before a citation needed tag was put on it. But as interesting as it may be, I simply could not let it lie any longer while knowing it was incorrect. And that, I think, is a result in itself: it shows that a user like me will fix a problem as soon as it is noticed, even in a situation such as this one. And isn't that a good sign for wikipedia all on its own? — Eric Herboso 08:58, 13 April 2007 (UTC)