User talk:Tkhorse
"Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge." — Jimmy Wales
And then imagine a world in which Tkhorse repeatedly deletes the controversial statement, "The government lied about inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color", from the 'controversy' section of Jeremiah Wright's wikipedia entry because, in his opinion, Fox News, rated as number one cable news program in America, is more "biased" then ABC News (which reported on other controversial racial criticisms Wright made, and which Tkhorse left in the Wright entry). 152.23.68.27 (talk) 16:29, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- TO: Anonymous Contributor: You still don't get it. First, I have not repeatedly deleted the sentence--it was being deleted AUTOMATICALLY because the page was semi-protected. I merely happened to write up some of the reasons why I thought the quote, in isolation, was out of context.
- Second, I don't think that ABC News is less biased than Fox News. In fact, as I stated before, I think that the ABC News Blotter with Brian Ross website is an especially poor source, because it often publishes unsubstantiated rumors, and always in a sensationalist manner. But in this case only, the source should be cited because it "broke" the news--Ross had bought the tapes of the sermons, had gone through them, and picked out the sensationalist snippets.
- Third, most of the informed public would probably agree that, objectively speaking, Fox News is often biased. I am not saying Fox's point of view is wrong--it may be the perfectly correct point of view, which is probably what you think, and I am not questioning that--but what I am saying is that Fox often does not present information in a neutral and non-opinionated fashion, which are goals of Wikipedia. The fact that it is the number one rated cable channel is not really relevant to this point. People magazine is the best selling magazine in America. --Tkhorse (talk) 18:03, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
First, there are multiple ways to delete information, you happened to choose a more indirect and underhanded way (protecting the page to ensure the info could not be added after becoming aware someone was re-adding it). Others have agreed in the talk that the page had no reason to be protected.
Second, you allowed hard news facts from ABC but not from Fox News, citing Fox's bias as the reason. Period. Your excuses don't hold water because you have no proof, nor have you given someone any reason to believe, Fox or any other news organizations have not bought the sermon tapes as well.
Third, there is no rule that only news orgs that "break" stories can be cited. Fox News and ABC both have reputations for getting hard facts right, regardless of their editorial slant. Their ratings are relevant because many Americans trust them for hard news (in addition to enjoying their editorial positions). A quotation is a hard fact, and a hard fact cannot be "biased." I do not "agree" with Fox News because I have no idea what their "position" is. I hardly ever watch Fox News. And by the way, I am an Obama supporter and plan on voting for him... I just honestly think the public should know about these controversial statements (in part b/c I wanted Obama to approach them more directly).152.2.100.229 (talk) 20:42, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- Truce. I did not protect the page, someone else did. I no longer remember what we are arguing about re Fox; anyway, for anything that is actually broadcast on Fox, if you can cite a link to the actual Fox news video or the text of the transcript, that would be fine. As I recall, the ABC News Blotter is an actual website that one can cite and link to. However, a Youtube video which clearly shows the Fox logo violates copyright.--Tkhorse (talk) 02:52, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Wright
[edit]You seem to have a dog in this fight. Please see relevant talk on discussion page to build consensus. This is just a courtesy, your presence is not required, but this is the Wiki process( to work from consensus).--Die4Dixie (talk) 17:27, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
AIDS conspiracy theories
[edit]Hi, please read the discussion on the talk page. We have no source describing OPV AIDS hypothesis as a "conspiracy theory". And therefore OPV AIDS does not belong in this article. This was recently discuused on the article talk page.
Please, either show on the talk page or with cites why OPV AIDS is a "conspiracy theory", or remove your recent edits. Alternatively please discuss on the talk page why OPV AIDS is relevant to this article. SmithBlue (talk) 11:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC) Arrrgh yes. I see what you have done and why your discusion did not show up on my watchlist. There is a well established article AIDS origin that covers non-conspiracy theories on AIDS origins. I suggest you return the article to its conspiracy title and remove OPV AIDS. SmithBlue (talk) 12:04, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Jeremiah Wright controversy - title
[edit]Hi Tkhorse, There is currently a proposal to change the existing title "Jeremiah Wright controversy" that I supported last month, to a title that includes Barack Obama's name. If you could "Oppose title change" on the talk page [[1]], it would be appreciated. Thanks, IP 75 75.25.30.215 (talk) 07:34, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation
[edit]
- If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Joseph Tsai.
- To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
- If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the . Please remember to link to the submission!
- You can also get live chat help from experienced editors.
- Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! nonsense ferret 13:16, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Joseph Tsai, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.
If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.
You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.
If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.
Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 02:07, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Your draft article, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Joseph Tsai
[edit]
Hello Tkhorse. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "Joseph Tsai".
The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.
If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Joseph Tsai}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, click "Save", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.
Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. HasteurBot (talk) 13:15, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for August 16
[edit]Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bruce Wasserstein, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vanity Fair. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:34, 16 August 2016 (UTC)