User talk:DaleEastman: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 15:06, 7 November 2009

Bolton

Hey. Sorry, but I replaced the qualifiers again. There is only one source that claims Bolton's been nominated by Per Ahlmark. (Both citations on Wikipedia are derived from the same source.) Nominations are secret, but often leaked out to the media. If Bolton has been nominated, I expect the story to get picked up by a few organizations. Until then, I think it should stay as is. I argued as much in the talk page of the article. --Ampersand 07:32, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of National Socialism: A Left Wing Movement

National Socialism: A Left Wing Movement, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that National Socialism: A Left Wing Movement satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National Socialism: A Left Wing Movement and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of National Socialism: A Left Wing Movement during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Mendors 00:51, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nonexistant cat

Re: Operation Tailwind. Major Media Scandals does not exist as a category. I see it is also applied to a couple of other articles. Perhaps the existing category "Journalistic hoaxes" is more appropriate? - Crockspot 16:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't think so. A hoax does not convey the "life of its own" character that say, the Operation Tailwind story did. That story killed a CNN program and caused the firings of several CNN employees. Additionally, Dateline NBC's rigged GM trucks has no story of its own. The reader cannot be properly pointed to the story within the article on Dateline NBC. The program was not a "hoax", the story was. Cheers. --DaleEastman 16:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see that the category now exists, so nevermind. I should point out that it violates the manual of style though. Usually the first word is capitalized and the rest aren't, unless they are proper names, so it is likely to come up for an afd to be changed to "Major media scandals". Reading your description, it might make more sense to call it "Mainstream media scandals", because the current name could be confusing whether it means "major media" or "major scandals". I'm not inclined to mess with it, but a lot of editors would be. Let me know if it does come up for AfD. I will support a name change, but not a deletion. - Crockspot 21:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's up - I see you're adding this category again, which is miss-capitalized and is redundant with Category:Journalistic hoaxes. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 16:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How many times do I need to explain the same thing? "Dateline NBC" isn't a hoax, however, they involved themselves in a Major media scandal. I'll be happy to comply with what I believe are errant rules for titles, but I won't accept the claim a TV show is a hoax. --DaleEastman 21:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding a deleted category. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you think the existing category's name is insufficiently broad then I suggest you request that it be renamed. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:10, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The category was deleted: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 August 28. Please don't use it until the deletion has been overturned. You can make a request for undeletion at WP:DRV. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 16:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Undid your changes to the Killian Documents

Hi. I removed your Major Media Scandals category add to the Killian Documents since the forgery charges were never proven (and never will be). I also removed the Political Forgery category while I was at it for the same reason. It was all largely a blog-driven event of highly confused info and deliberate disinformation, exacerbated by CBS's mishhandling of it. If you still wish to add it, please discuss this on the Talk page. FYI. -BC aka Callmebc 18:27, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bizarre. Even the NY Timed readily calls their polling partner CBS News' treatment of the Killian Documents a "scandal" and notes Burkett admitted he lied about the source of the Documents. The last I checked NY Times was still claiming not to be a blog although that may change in the future given their own problems with journalistic integrity.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/20/books/review/20alter.html?ex=1189224000&en=3bbf8a2aeabe9769&ei=5070

Notations restored. --DaleEastman 15:26, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

August 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Barack Obama, but we regretfully cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses novel, unpublished syntheses of previously published material. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:50, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be foolish. Obama's "work" on Cabrini Green is well known enough to be considered tautology. http://www.chicagomaroon.com/online_edition/news/2007/01/19/obama-explores-08-bid/

--DaleEastman (talk) 22:20, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Barack Obama birthplace controversy

I made no attacks. http://www.obamacrimes.com is the bona fide mane of the website of a the Democrat former Assistant Attorney General of Pennsylvania. It is no "attack." Your blatant and likely politically motivated censorship, however, is an extreme attack on the human rights of all mankind. BTW - since you still can't produce the list of sites not allowed on eBay your position is as arbitrary as it is fascistic. --DaleEastman (talk) 15:52, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not make personal attacks. Wikipedia has a strict policy against personal attacks. Attack pages and images are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who continue to create or repost such pages and images in violation of our biographies of living persons policy will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. --GoodDamon 03:06, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to say something more personal, too. The source you cited in the creation of that attack on Obama's birthplace, "www.obamacrimes.com" is not and never will be a reliable source, and cannot be included in any biographical material related to Obama. The mainstream media, the state of Hawaii, and even all reputable conservative commentators do not lend any credence to Berg's absurd, evidence-less assertions. However much you may subscribe to this particular theory, you must accept that per Wikipedia's policies, it is extremely fringe, and has no place here. --GoodDamon 03:17, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obama article probation

IOW, the fascistsic culture here not only objects to factual articles about Obama's birthplace controversy, it also objects to objections about their objections. 1984 came late.--DaleEastman (talk) 20:31, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Barack Obama, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Talk:Barack Obama/Article probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.

The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you.

Please be aware that various articles on the subject of Barack Obama are on article probation, so administrators are particularly on the lookout for personal attacks, edit warring, etc., on the subject. Wikidemon (talk) 18:34, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

November 2009

Please stop. If you continue removing Articles for deletion notices or comments from articles and Articles for deletion pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Once submitted, the category deletion discussion must be completed and the tag not removed from the item in question. Thanks! ♪ daTheisen (talk) 13:27, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Can I please suggest you try to be careful in what you say to User Sherurcij? Comments like those left in your category for deletion discussion are not in the spirit of Wikipedia and violations are strictly patrolled. Fair warning-- I'll have to post you for administrator user review if you do anything similar again. Thanks! ♪ daTheisen (talk) 13:34, 7 November 2009 (UTC) ♪ daTheisen (talk) 13:34, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I wanted to let you know that I needed to look over your extremely large volume of edits after finding possible vandalism on another discussion page. You've also seen the messages above this here ↑ but those are different issues and any further investigation or action would not be my decision to make. In regards to your placing a new category tag in the large number of articles, I did piece through each of them and did have to remove a number of them. My criteria for removal was extremely simple; articles with no mention of "Islam" whatsoever had it removed. That's pretty self-explanatory. Oddly, a few of the articles were not even contain "Terrorism" in the text. Following that logic, I wanted to make it clear I wasn't trying to shove in any social bias and left the category tag in anything that has the exact phrase, any direct mention of Al-Queda, or even a loose relation to both "terrorism" and "Islam" in the same article sections. My guess... hm, at least half of what you added to the category is there. Since the category is up for deletion discussion, you may want to be careful how much adjustment you do within the category or create any more, as these contributions would be seen at the time of a deletion decision.

I am very sorry for needing to leave the above warnings, and I hope we share mutual good faith as I was very particular with any article edits. The texts above are technically unrelated to the category adjustments I made, and I hope a good split can be kept with your antagonist user before any additional action needs to be taken. Both of you have a large number of contributions and quite obviously know the ins-and-outs of Wikipedia, so maybe a small reset like this will help.

Oh, and it's Islamic. Common mistake, I've learned, even for some people in my dedicated political science discussions. Cheers. ♪ daTheisen (talk) 15:06, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 83: / Line 83: @@
 [[Image:Nuvola apps important.svg|25px]] Please [[Wikipedia:No personal attacks|do not attack]] other editors. If you continue, you '''will''' be [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked]] from editing Wikipedia. <!-- Template:uw-npa3 --> ''Can I please suggest you try to be careful in what you say to User Sherurcij? Comments like those left in your category for deletion discussion are not in the spirit of Wikipedia and violations are strictly patrolled. Fair warning-- I'll have to post you for administrator user review if you do anything similar again. Thanks! <b>♪</b> <span style="font-family:Verdana;font-variant:small-caps">[[User:Datheisen|daTheisen]][[User talk:Datheisen|(talk)]]</span> 13:34, 7 November 2009 (UTC)'' <b>♪</b> <span style="font-family:Verdana;font-variant:small-caps">[[User:Datheisen|daTheisen]][[User talk:Datheisen|(talk)]]</span> 13:34, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
+*Hello. I wanted to let you know that I needed to look over your extremely large volume of edits after finding possible vandalism on another discussion page. You've also seen the messages above this here ↑ but those are different issues and any further investigation or action would not be my decision to make. In regards to your placing a new category tag in the large number of articles, I did piece through each of them and did have to remove a number of them. My criteria for removal was extremely simple; articles with no mention of "Islam" whatsoever had it removed. That's pretty self-explanatory. Oddly, a few of the articles were not even contain "Terrorism" in the text. Following that logic, I wanted to make it clear I wasn't trying to shove in any social bias and left the category tag in anything that has the exact phrase, any direct mention of [[Al-Queda]], or even a loose relation to both "terrorism" and "Islam" in the same article sections. My guess... hm, at least half of what you added to the category is there. Since the category is up for deletion discussion, you may want to be careful how much adjustment you do within the category or create any more, as these contributions would be seen at the time of a deletion decision.
+:I am very sorry for needing to leave the above warnings, and I hope we share mutual good faith as I was very particular with any article edits. The texts above are technically unrelated to the category adjustments I made, and I hope a good split can be kept with your antagonist user before any additional action needs to be taken. Both of you have a large number of contributions and quite obviously know the ins-and-outs of Wikipedia, so maybe a small reset like this will help.
+:Oh, and it's <b>Islam<i>ic</i></b>. Common mistake, I've learned, even for some people in my dedicated political science discussions. Cheers. <b>♪</b> <span style="font-family:Verdana;font-variant:small-caps">[[User:Datheisen|daTheisen]][[User talk:Datheisen|(talk)]]</span> 15:06, 7 November 2009 (UTC)