User talk:Fstutzman

facebook

I kinda foolishly started over the facebook voting debate at Talk:Facebook_(website)#Voting (because there were some comments like waffle iron's that weren't clear whether or not they were voting and for what). I have now realized that not everyone who commented before may have had it on their watchlist so I am sending this to anyone that commented earlier and has not yet (re)voted. Sorry. --L1AM 07:09, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

mciroID affiliation?

Hi, are you the author of [[1]]? If so, then you might want to declare as much when writing about it, to avoid conflict of interest or original research issues. I'm not an admin or anything, so if I don't know what I'm talking about, please ignore or enlighten me. Ojcit 00:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I see in your ibiblio link; sorry I missed that. I definitely think it's a notable subject/article; I'd just hate to see it construed as advertisement. Ojcit 01:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. Fstutzman 03:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

STOP VANDALISING

Please don't vandalise the page Bebo again. As a PHD student, you aren't showing much maturity, are you? Dalejenkins 11:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've vandalized my profile. Look over my changes for bebo, and you'll see that all I've ever done is revert from vandalism. Perhaps your vandalism. Fstutzman 05:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded to you on your discussion page, and would like for you to cite evidence or I will report this as vandalism. Fstutzman 05:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After investigation, these accusations of vandalism are baseless. An errant line that was added in a revert. The original vandalism was added by 81.132.91.128 and was simply caught in an accidental revert. Do your homework before you go accusing people of vandalism. Fstutzman 05:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

JOHN EDWARDS

You have stated that the Raleigh office of AP has since retracted AP's nationally circulated article that indicated that the Edwardses' two youngest children (born when Mrs. Edwards was 49 and 51, respectively) were born with the help of surrogate mothers. I have not been able to find this retraction anywhere on the Web. Could you please post the link? At the very least I'd like to answer my wife's questions on the subject. Thank you. AuH2ORepublican 15:34, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The AP does not post public retractions. It sends retractions or corrections to paper editors, and the paper editors are responsible for pulling or correcting the story. Please see the section "Corrections/Correctives" on the | AP website for further information. As you can see, WTOP has pulled the page as part of the corrective. If you still don't believe me call the managing editor of the AP in Raleigh. The number is on the AP website. Then you will get the proof you so doggedly desire. Fstutzman 05:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Protection of Bebo

Hello. You asked me what warranted the removal of the Bebo protect status. I presume you are referring to my removal of the {{sprotected}} tag from the article. The addition or removal of tags like that does not protect the article, they just attempt to notify other users of the article's current protection status. In this case, I only semi-protected Bebo for 24 hours due to particularly heavy vandalism from anonymous users. That protection had expired, so I removed the notice from the article.

Only rarely do we semi-protect articles on a relatively permanent basis. Vandalism is a sad part of life on Wikipedia, and for the Bebo article to have only been vandalised twice since the protection was automatically lifted is actually quite good, by comparison to the rate of vandalism before the protection.

If some more heavy vandalism comes along to the article, I won't hesitate to reprotect the article if I am around. But I'm not about to leave it permanently semi-protected when it is clear now that the vandalism spree has passed for now. - Mark 01:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, fair enough. Thanks! Fstutzman 14:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Verification

"Sure, I've just messaged you." Wasted Time R 02:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]