User talk:Ink Falls/Archives/2010/May

FAIR

Hi. In the past you participated in a discussion regarding the appropriateness of using FAIR as an RS. The question has arisen again, in this case with regard to a BLP. The issue is being discussed at the RSN here. Your thoughts would, of course, be welcome. Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:31, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks :), I'll check it out. Ink Falls 20:20, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Sure thing. I recognize that as you say you are fairly new here, but thought that at minimum it would interest you. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:51, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks for the thoughtful input. BTW -- my favorite poets are Dorothy Parker, Sylvia Plath (whom I see you like as well), and Yehuda Amichai. (for what it's worth). Best. As you are new, always feel free to drop by if there is a question I can help with.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:16, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

No problem, I'm glad to hear you like Sylvia Plath too. I'll be sure to drop by if I have any questions, thanks. :) Ink Falls 22:22, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry

I wrongly reverted a perfectly legit edit of yours. I'm sorry. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 23:14, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

That's ok. Out of curiosity, where was this? Btw, I like you "Let's talk 'bout it!" beside your name. :) Ink Falls 23:22, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

It was here. And thanks. ^______^ Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 23:25, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh, that's ok. ^,^ (this is my favorite smiley) Ink Falls 23:29, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Cited

Where are these citations? Did you watch the program or what? Are you citing to transcripts? Off2riorob (talk) 23:39, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

You're referring to the maurice strong article right? I watched the documentary and interview online. Ink Falls 23:41, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

You can't watch something and add a commentary about it. We report reports of programs, we don't critique programs.Off2riorob (talk) 23:46, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I only stated what the program said word for word, that's how citations work. Ink Falls 23:47, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry you can not do that. See if you can find a report independant of the program and cite that. Off2riorob (talk) 23:53, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I think you are incorrect, a documentary is a reliable primary source, you do not need a secondary source to report on what a documentary says, if anything that would be worse. Ink Falls 23:55, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Your revert at Sylvia Plath

Please see my reply here. María (habla conmigo) 18:43, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Curious isn't it?

As to restoration of the "much of it is really good" quote in the Arguing with Idiots article, fair enough. On second thought it had seemed a bit mushy to me, but it does help make the point that the reviewers over-all impression of the book was favorable. The main reason I'm contacting you is to note how eager certain editors were to assume that Media Matters and Olbermann, of all folk, were the only "reliable reviewers" of the book. Why you'd almost think that they weren't really trying to find others. Regards. Badmintonhist (talk) 19:12, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I think it's called liberal bias. ;) Ink Falls 22:22, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

3RR on Keith Olbermann

Just letting you know, you're at WP:3RR on Keith Olbermann. Please don't edit war, and continue the discussion on the talk page. Thanks! Dayewalker (talk) 04:28, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

BLP

I've removed part of your comment here [1], please limit discussions on talk pages to conversations about the article itself, and not the subject of the article. While some of your other comments certainly aren't productive, that one went beyond the bounds of what is allowed on a biography of a living person. Please limit your comments to discussion on the article. Dayewalker (talk) 05:26, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring & policy violations

I have reported your recent edit warring, POV pushing, and policy violations. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:45, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

That's the pot calling the kettle Blax. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 02:05, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Minor clarification

Regarding the edit of Keith Olbermann where I changed the wording to "avoids mentioning", the other source used says, "O'Reilly assiduously avoids uttering Olbermann's name on the air". I didn't see the other source's mention of O'Reilly not saying Olbermann's name. Once you pointed it out, I saw it. Either wording works, but I do feel "avoids" represents the situation better, as it illustrates a conscious effort on O'Reilly's part; whereas, "rarely, if ever" just represents the fact that it hasn't happened. Again, either one works and I wanted to clarify why I changed the wording.  Chickenmonkey  23:06, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok sorry, I didn't read the other source, you can change it back if you want. Ink Falls 23:07, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

That's fine. I wasn't going to change it back because either one works, and changing it back would have seemed like warring. Someone else did change it back, though.  Chickenmonkey  23:14, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Kk. Ink Falls 23:15, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked for a period of twenty-four hours for overt POV/agenda-pushing at Keith Olbermann. To contest this block, please reply here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} along with the reason you believe the block is unjustified, or email the blocking administrator. For alternative methods to appeal, see Wikipedia:Appealing a block. -- tariqabjotu 23:37, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, to be precise, it's more so at Talk:Keith Olbermann. -- tariqabjotu 23:37, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Ink Falls/Archives/2010 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

If I had been warned that POV pushing was against the rules on the subjects talk page then I wouldn't have done it.

Decline reason:

Normally it isn't. But if you're being aggressive about it and/or trying to ram through a point, which you appear to be, it's disruptive. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 00:40, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I still say a block is pretty harsh. A warning that I was being disruptive would've sufficed for me to tone my speech down a bit. :P Ink Falls 19:02, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Discussion on my "blocking"

As I have argued I have been being excessively and needlessly derisive on Keith Olbermann's talk page, and have been blocked to make a point that I should be more focused on discussion of the article and less inflammatory, and I am ok with this(although I do feel a warning would've been just fine as well). Some(Blaxthos) would disagree with me... Ink Falls 19:36, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

No, this user is blocked for massive POV-pushing and edit warring(Note: by Ink Falls, The Admin who blocked me specifically said it was not for edit warring[see above]). The fact that you refuse to acknowledge your personal responsibility in getting yourself blocked for egregious POV-warriorism only justifies extending your block. POV warriors are not welcome; continued warriorism will result in a topic ban, or removal of editing privileges entirely. Please take some time to reconsider your positions, and reflect on why you've been blocked. Best of luck. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 11:27, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Blaxthos, Your level of hypocrisy is on the subject of POV pushing is astounding. Pathological. Badmintonhist (talk) 17:39, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

How many times have I been blocked or otherwise sanctioned for "POV pushing", Badmintonhist? Pushing a POV and NOT allowing others to push their POVs are not the same thing.  :-) //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 18:18, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Quit overreaching your bounds. Not being blocked for POV pushing obviously doesn't mean you don't push a POV. All I am trying to do is balance the POV on both sides by including the other sides argument, I wasn't blocked for that but for being needlessly unproductive and obnoxious on the talk page by continuously insulting the subject, and I was given a 24 hr block, that's like the weakest of all blocks. I'll be back and ready to argue latter today. Ink Falls 18:58, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

No sir, you were blocked for "overt POV/agenda-pushing" -- can't get any more clear than that. I think you'll find that most of us no longer afford you any good faith, and are not planning on continuing discussion with an editor who's expressed purpose is to advocate a POV. Future agenda-pushing will be met with blocks of longer duration; long-term disruption will result in a topic or site ban. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 19:22, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Quit pretending like you have any authority to back up anything that you have said. I got banned for insulting Keith Olbermann excessively on his talk page, but at least 2 other editors agreed with me, suggesting that the section in question might better be removed and moved to his talk show and the three of us would be more than willing to discuss things civilly with out you. Ink Falls 19:29, 25 May 2010 (UTC)