User talk:User At Work

Wikipedia isn't what you think it is, either. It's not in your hands to decide anymore. Michael Slavitch 20:38, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quailtard

Thanks for the redirect. Good solution. Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 21:19, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Michael.slavitch

Just a heads-up, but trust me, this guy is simply trying to screw with your head as part of a WP:POINT campaign.

The whole Quailtard article was, quite literally, a joke: it started on a private virtual community, was carried out by one guy, and now this User:Michael.slavitch is simply chipping in. Ignore what he says.

--Calton | Talk 03:16, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abramoff, etc

Welcome aboard. If you're into following the Abramoff story (and I'm guessing you are, given that you've added to the template), and you have a bit of time, may I suggest you might want to create an entry for Ed Buckham. May I suggest you go to http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Ed_Buckham, grab that code, and then modify. That's how I created entries for Tony Rudy and Neil Volz -- you might want to check them out to see what kinds of changes I made (including adding the GNU licence stuff at the bottom). Sholom 17:31, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there. Last week you asked me to check in on Jack Abramoff Indian lobbying scandal. I was on vacation and essentially off-line -- so sorry if I appeared to be ignoring you. Has it been resolved well enough, or would you like me still to check in on it? -- Sholom 19:10, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Internet Gambling Prohibition Act

Hey, thanks for the message. I reverted that yesterday around the time when we hit the 1,000,000th article, so the vandalism was kind of intense at the time. I'm sorry I reverted it, but at first glance, it appeared to be a)out of the format typically required for Wikipedia articles and b}unreferenced. If you can find a reference for the material you put on and if you can add it in proper WP format, I think it will be perfectly good. JHMM13 (T | C) 18:18, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Help on the timeline

Sure, I'll be happy to help on the Jack Abramoff timeline -- sounds like fun. John Broughton 22:41, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abramoff

Image:Abramoff SIAC 20040929 2.jpg is public domain and already in the article
Image:Time Cover Abramoff.jpg is not public domain but there is a very thorough fair use rationale for its inclusion.

Sorry if I've caused you any stress or problem by deleting the image. Mark83 21:31, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neil Volz

Hey there. I removed the Sourcewatch reference because, except for the list of sources, I'm not sure that Neil Volz and Sourcewatch's Neil Volz look anything alike anymore. (In fact, we might want to use some of Sourcewatch to beef up the Wp article, but as it stands now, I don't see a lot of justification for including the licence. No that it matters a whole lot to me, I just want to be accurate. Thoughts? -- Sholom 17:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tom DeLay peer review

You may be interested to know that I have submitted Tom DeLay for peer review, in the interest of eventually nominating it for Featured Article status. Please leave your comments and suggestions at Wikipedia:Peer review/Tom DeLay/archive1. Thanks, NatusRoma | Talk 21:01, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scooter Libby

Please elaborate on why you decided to revert my edit to the Scooter Libby article, which you describe as "strange, unsourced editorialising." I disagree. It's in no way strange, I see no instance where a source would be required (unless you mean my comment about his insistance on White House staffers calling him Scooter, which I am citing from personal experience and as such I concede that it may be unwarrented) and also I disagree that it is editorialising. If anything, it's bringing the article back to a neutral standpoint from where it is at this point. The idea that Libby encouraged the use of his nickname in order to appear less threatening cannot be disproved merely by the shaky at best "fact" (which I've heard cited only by Libby himself) that he has carried the name since early childhood. The fact that many different versions of the story of where he picked up this name exist only lends weight to the idea that it was self concieved for his own shady motives, and even if it is decided by the community as a whole that adding the fact that the widely adopted standpoint that this name was of Libby's own inception exists is not encyclopedic, then it should certainly not be dismissed entirely. This kind of think is clearly POV. I'm going to go and edit it again now, to a version which offers more of a compromised position between the two. Please let me know if you disagree with it.--84.9.45.60 23:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lewis, Lowery, et al

I asked User:John Broughton if he would join me in attempting to write an article on the potential scandal between Congressman Lewis, the lobby firm started by Lowery, etc. We started with just a data collection dump into a temp area, at User_talk:John_Broughton/Lewis-Lowery-Shockey-White_lobbying_controversy, and from that have started to make an article at User talk:John Broughton/Jerry Lewis - Lowery lobbying firm controversy. As I was writing this morning, I noticed that Jeff Shockey was blue instead of red! And now I see that you just created an entry for him. So, I wanted to alert you to the project. We were thinking of "going public" on Friday. -- Sholom 14:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And, if it wasn't clear from Sholom's posting, you're welcome to help edit the article before its official release (going into official wikipedia namespace) later this week. John Broughton 18:14, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marianas Islands

I've wanted to do an separate article on this for a while. Now this Legal Times article says that "Roger Stillwell, the desk officer for the Mariana Islands at the U.S. Department of the Interior who dealt closely with disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff, is expected to plead guilty to a misdemeanor count of false certification, his attorney confirmed Wednesday." I think the time has come! Thoughts? -- Sholom 19:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I'm going to start with a "data dump" at Jack Abramoff/CNMI. FYI: this evening I am going on vacation for a week and will have no access on-line until next Wednesday. -- Sholom 13:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abramoff "Scandal" vs "Controvery"

Please see this request to change the name. -- Sholom 13:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dorgan addendum - preventing an edit war

I took the liberty of adding some section titles that make it clearer that sticking the Dorgan refund in the middle of the list of events isn't appropriate. I also went ahead and kept the refund text, but moved it down into the article, and used it as an example; in the best of all worlds, whoever really, really thinks it belongs in the article will be satisfied with that. Hope this helps. John Broughton 21:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lewis Libby

Though you say Libby is "never called 'Lewis Libby,'" I'll direct your attention to his book cover at The Apprentice (book). Would you mind changing those page moves back, please? Thanks! Jokestress 23:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

His name is certainly a source of a lot of complication. His official State Department biography had Lewis Libby. His website has Scooter. NNDB has Lewis. His book has Lewis. It seems two groups of people writing about him prefer Scooter: people who are trying to evoke sympathy, and those who think it is silly-sounding. I'm not that adamant about ether one, but the talk archive didn't really have a discussion or consensus (btw, the archive name changed when you did the page move). Maybe we can have a discussion/straw poll on the talk page? Jokestress 20:46, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re List of pronouncements of a critical period for the US occupation of Iraq

OK, I'll undelete it later and reopen the discussion. I can't do it now because I'm editing from my alternate account which does not have access to admin tools. Walton ^{alternate account} 08:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. The new AfD discussion can be found here. Walton ^Assistance! 16:38, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: On References

Reply to [1]

Ah, ok. Glad I could help, and sorry for the mistake there. :-) Hersfold ^(talk/work) 00:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Subpage query

May I ask the purpose of User:User At Work/Pols under investigation? A user tagged it for speedy deletion as an attack page, but I declined because the info you cite seems to come directly from the respective articles where it is cited. If you are using the page for some purpose, I would prefer you finish it and move it into article space with citations. If not, I would like to delete it. --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 15:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's really article-space material, which is why it's on my userpage. There's certainly not any defamatory or false information. I don't mean it as a statement of any opinion; rather, I constructed it originally to fact-check claims by reporters that equated present GOP and Democratic corruption. It's quite possible that the preponderance of Republicans on the list reflects their recent dominance in national politics--again, this is not meant as a statement of opinion and my understanding was that users are generally given reasonable leeway over their userspaces. --User At Work 19:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's cool, I have no problem with the page. Please make sure future entries are properly sourced in their respective articles per the WP:BLP policy. --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 04:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Jennie Rothenberg

I have nominated Jennie Rothenberg, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jennie Rothenberg. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:15, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello User At Work! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 424 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

B. Dan Berger - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 05:17, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Americans Against Hate (Stephen Marks) for deletion

The article Americans Against Hate (Stephen Marks) is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Americans Against Hate (Stephen Marks) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. — Bdb484 (talk) 15:04, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Jared Carpenter for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jared Carpenter is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jared Carpenter until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 16:44, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:45, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]