User talk:First draft of history

Hello from Bob

Hello, First draft of history, 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:

Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, you can ask me on my talk page, check out Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{helpme}} on this page and ask your question here. Happy editing! — Bob • (talk) • 01:57, August 4, 2007 (UTC)

NYT Edits

You might want to familiar yourself with Wikipedia's policies before you go and make an inaccurate comment on an edit. Don't be counterproductive. I'm sorry you consider fact "utter nonsense", but if a section mentions "the blogosphere", and multiple blog sources are included, then of course, it's legitimate, as it backs up the statement. Your personal feelings about a blog should have no bearing on listing littlegreenfootballs.com as a source when specifically referenceing blogs that covered an issue. There was nothing but fact in the blog entry itself, as you can see from examining it. You also don't have the power to block users, so I suggest you cease your empty threats. I'm re-listing the reference in a separate article about the criticisms of the NYT, to include most of the controversies on that page, similar to the same articles on the BBC, FNC, etc.

You might want to check out Fox_News_Channel_controversies#_ref-88 -- as you can see, another blog, the Daily Kos, is listed as a source. I'm sure you have no problem with that, however, it being a liberal blog and all. -DMCer 01:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In retrospect, my last edit summary on The New York Times Wikipedia article was "over the top." However, if you click on the history tab of that article over the past 12-24 hours (as well as the article for publisher Arthur Ochs Sulzberger, Jr., you will see that there has been a lot of very obvious, petty and just plain amateurish vandalism. My most recent edit summary apparently represented some sort of cumulative "cry of enough!" type of human reaction. I have just scanned Google News for what this whole controversy is based on, and have read what I consider the most authoritative article on the new "Wikipedia Scanner" on Wired News at:

http://www.wired.com/politics/onlinerights/news/2007/08/wiki_tracker?currentPage=all

Whoever was using an NYT-networked computer to monkey with the George W. Bush and Tom DeLay articles should be disciplined, but without airtight corporate IT security policies, it could have been a member of a contract office cleaning company deciding to have some late-night fun (inserting "jerk, jerk, jerk" is not terribly creative for a Times editorial department employee) on a Times computer. It probably wasn't, I'll grant you, but it could have been, and it would be impossible for The Times to corner the actual culprit, ala Jayson Blair. But The Times is a fairly minor player in the whole Wikipedia Scanner inaugural news story. More interesting ones are the CIA, Vatican, Diebold, the DCCC, and Fox News, which at least made more cumulative, and substantial, edits than anyone using an NYT computer.

Yes, you are correct that I do not have the power to block anyone from editing, and could even be blocked myself by an actual administrator, which I am not one of. I have absolutely no problem with you starting a separate article on the controversy, and would appreciate a link to it when you have finished it. I might like to contribute to it myself. However, my objection to what was being done to The Times article was not ideologically based, as you suggest. First draft of history 01:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move of talk page

I have reversed your move of your user page and user talk page to User talk 2:First draft of history and Talk:User talk 2:First draft of history. User and user talk pages do not belong should always be prefixed with "User:" and "User talk:", respectively. For instructions on how to archive your talk page, please see WP:ARCHIVE. Please let me know if you have any questions. Cheers, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CIA hacks

OH, I know... I just wanted to see whether the local cabbies' nick for the agency would stand more than ten minutes... I used to drive onto the property to pick up fares 23 yrs back, now the cabbies only pull up to the main gate... I never really expected this li'l tidbit to last on such an active page! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark Sublette (talk • contribs) 21:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was interesting and amusing; glad to know that it was posted with a sense of humor about its relative importance. First draft of history 21:40, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]