Before My Ken (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 165: | Line 165: | ||
=="Mein Kampf" in [[Berghof (residence)]]== |
=="Mein Kampf" in [[Berghof (residence)]]== |
||
"Political book" is an unecessarily bland and somewhat misleading description of this volume. A "testament" is "a profession of belief"[http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=testament], which is a perfectly accurate and appropriate desciption of ''Mein Kampf''. It is neither POV nor either inflammatory or celebratory, and should remain. <b><i>[[User:Ed Fitzgerald|Ed Fitzgerald]]</i> <sub>[[User talk:Ed Fitzgerald|t]] / [[Special:Contributions/Ed Fitzgerald|c]]</sub></b> 08:08, 7 April 2009 (UTC) |
"Political book" is an unecessarily bland and somewhat misleading description of this volume. A "testament" is "a profession of belief"[http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=testament], which is a perfectly accurate and appropriate desciption of ''Mein Kampf''. It is neither POV nor either inflammatory or celebratory, and should remain. <b><i>[[User:Ed Fitzgerald|Ed Fitzgerald]]</i> <sub>[[User talk:Ed Fitzgerald|t]] / [[Special:Contributions/Ed Fitzgerald|c]]</sub></b> 08:08, 7 April 2009 (UTC) |
||
::I find it too PoV, understanding that some readers would not. [[User:Gwen Gale|Gwen Gale]] ([[User talk:Gwen Gale#top|talk]]) 12:24, 7 April 2009 (UTC) |
Revision as of 12:24, 7 April 2009
Talk archives | |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 |
- Ericg33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 69.154.214.28 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
The user that you just blocked is now IP socking in order to evade his block, see here.— Dædαlus Contribs 20:03, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- The user is socking again, see
- 69.155.107.222 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
This deleted page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Hornsby with the explanation of " 04:26, 26 October 2008 Gwen Gale (talk | contribs) deleted "Dan Hornsby" (A7 (bio): Doesn't indicate importance or significance of a real person) " seems pretty harsh.
Facts are that Dan Hornsby was noteworthy throughout Americana Musical History in the 20's & 30s (Columbia Recordings D series found a long list of his 78 recordings on http://www.patswayne/nikki/dan.html)singing the first recording noted of "Oh Susanna" "Arkansa Traveler" etc.
He was a singer songwriter musician recording artists with enough creditability to be installed in the Atlanta Music Hall of Fame in 1986 and mentioned on other Americana musician recording artists bios and different print publications from a North Caroline newspaper writers article to Bluegrass publications magazines in reference. This man lived in the Southern States of the USA working in the new music industry even the first radio shows of the South like WSB Radio and died in the late 50s. He is burried in Atlanta GA USA.
Dan Hornsby was alive working before the times of the internet & fast media buzz. He was alive back when newspapers [www.patswayne/nikki/dan.html like shown on this web site] with proper references of page, authors, & dates were accepted and also researched before printing.
At those times truth in reporting facts in print were challenged for authenticity by the editors or the writer or critics. This was done regarding anyone or that writer/editor may be no longer contacted to report or edit facts or would loose his job in reporting untruths because of the law.
People online today may rediscover an outstanding artists with verified documents but is not able to find them even mentioned on this Wiki website.
Would you mind if some ones research contribution where to add this noteworthy significant REAL person who died in a lifelong musical career once again to Wikipedia sources of facts named DAN HORNSBY? There are actual audio clips of his singing voice that can be obtained.
Would you be able to do some research with Columbia 5000 series recordings from 1923-29 to find the data needed online?
Or you especially with your talents in writing / research as an editor maybe could write a short bio for him too?
This is how we honor others of the past and we are honored with more of the future in return. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.111.244.102 (talk) 03:04, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Palin
Per your request, I was seeking to have the Palin article track two reliable sources.
According to Reuters (September 1, 2008), the earmark for the Gravina bridge was separate from the earmark for the Knik Arm Bridge: "The bridge, a span from the city to Gravina Island, home to only a few dozen people, secured a $223 million earmark in 2005."[1] The New York Times and Associated Press (September 23, 2007) said the same: "Senator Ted Stevens and Representative Don Young, both Republicans, championed the project through Congress two years ago, securing more than $200 million for the bridge between Revillagigedo and Gravina Islands. Under mounting political pressure over pork projects, Congress stripped the earmark...."[2]
Ferrylodge (talk) 16:21, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
- They seem to support the article edit that I was suggesting. The two sources discuss an earmark for the Gravina bridge, but not for the Knik Arm Bridge. And the amount of the earmark is 200 mil instead of 400 mil.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:35, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
- The sources you cite don't in any way support your assertions as to dollar amounts or structure of the earmark. Your interpretation of the sources draws an original conclusion, which is original research and isn't allowed. The sources don't even agree with each other and look sloppy (or at least lacking, but this isn't startling, given that journalists are wontedly clueless about detail) and the article text indeed seems flawed, but it can't be fixed with the edit and sourcing you've shown me. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:49, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
- They seem to support the article edit that I was suggesting. The two sources discuss an earmark for the Gravina bridge, but not for the Knik Arm Bridge. And the amount of the earmark is 200 mil instead of 400 mil.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:35, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
- Gwen, I really appreciate your efforts here, and in no way should this be taken as requesting you stop - indeed, please do continue - but perhaps there is a little confusion. Unfortunately, the problem (which led to the 1 week article ban) with those edits wasn't that the edits were bad or not correctly sourced or any of that, but that he made them in a section which everyone was (gentleman's honor) refraining from editing until a core content dispute was settled. The edits were made, then when I requested Ferrylodge also honor the No Edit Zone so as not to do the virtual equivilant of a smack in the face to the editors observing the restriction, he took them to the talk page rather than wait until the core dispute was resolved as I requested. The edits he had made were about something other than the discussion all the other editors were working on, and distracted attention and effort from the core issue to this sideshow. I asked FL to wait, and he bombarded the talk page with arguments for these edits and accusations against me, and ignored the main issue - that they have nothing to do with, and were derailing, the core dispute. As other editors weighed in and objected to the edits, he expanded his tendentiousness to repeating himself and attacking them. Sorry to butt in, just wanted to make sure you were aware of that! KillerChihuahua?!? 17:04, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
- Had it been a truly helpful edit, it's likely he'd have been allowed to make it anyway, but it was original research, which makes it all even worse. Ferrylodge, I think you've been rather heedless (not saying you meant to be), both as to sourcing and getting along with others on a very high traffic and PoV drenched article. KC set the ban to settle you down. I think you got off lightly, you could have been blocked for disruption. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:13, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
- Well yes, if it had been a non-contentious edit I would have said nothing, of course - but the mere making of them wasn't what led to the ban. that's the point I was trying to make. KillerChihuahua?!? 17:15, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
- Gwen, your opinion is duly noted. Your notion that I ever put original research into the article is manifestly incorrect, and is totally different from any rationale that KC ever provided. Thanks for your time.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:18, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
- Ferrylodge, all I've done is dig up yet one more underlying worry. Not only did you barge forth into a swath of a sanctioned article which everyone had been asked to stay away from for a tick, but you did so with an your own interpretation of two sources, which is straightforward original research. The sources do not say there were separate earmarks. The sources do not clearly match up and put forth the amount of any earmark. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:39, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
- I was never asked to stay away from the article prior to my edit. Subsequently, I reverted my edit upon request.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:55, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
- Ferrylodge, all I've done is dig up yet one more underlying worry. Not only did you barge forth into a swath of a sanctioned article which everyone had been asked to stay away from for a tick, but you did so with an your own interpretation of two sources, which is straightforward original research. The sources do not say there were separate earmarks. The sources do not clearly match up and put forth the amount of any earmark. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:39, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
- Gwen, your opinion is duly noted. Your notion that I ever put original research into the article is manifestly incorrect, and is totally different from any rationale that KC ever provided. Thanks for your time.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:18, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
- Well yes, if it had been a non-contentious edit I would have said nothing, of course - but the mere making of them wasn't what led to the ban. that's the point I was trying to make. KillerChihuahua?!? 17:15, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
- Had it been a truly helpful edit, it's likely he'd have been allowed to make it anyway, but it was original research, which makes it all even worse. Ferrylodge, I think you've been rather heedless (not saying you meant to be), both as to sourcing and getting along with others on a very high traffic and PoV drenched article. KC set the ban to settle you down. I think you got off lightly, you could have been blocked for disruption. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:13, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
- Gwen, I really appreciate your efforts here, and in no way should this be taken as requesting you stop - indeed, please do continue - but perhaps there is a little confusion. Unfortunately, the problem (which led to the 1 week article ban) with those edits wasn't that the edits were bad or not correctly sourced or any of that, but that he made them in a section which everyone was (gentleman's honor) refraining from editing until a core content dispute was settled. The edits were made, then when I requested Ferrylodge also honor the No Edit Zone so as not to do the virtual equivilant of a smack in the face to the editors observing the restriction, he took them to the talk page rather than wait until the core dispute was resolved as I requested. The edits he had made were about something other than the discussion all the other editors were working on, and distracted attention and effort from the core issue to this sideshow. I asked FL to wait, and he bombarded the talk page with arguments for these edits and accusations against me, and ignored the main issue - that they have nothing to do with, and were derailing, the core dispute. As other editors weighed in and objected to the edits, he expanded his tendentiousness to repeating himself and attacking them. Sorry to butt in, just wanted to make sure you were aware of that! KillerChihuahua?!? 17:04, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
(undent)Gwen, you disagree. That's fine. I reverted all of the article edits, and brought the discussion to the article talk page, as requested by the admin. But then I was banned for talking about it at the talk page.
Regarding the dollar amounts, I suggested changing 442 million to 223 million in the article. That seems consistent with the two reliable sources that I quoted above: “$223 million earmark in 2005" (Reuters); “more than $200 million” (NY Times, Associated Press). Even if you disagree for some reason, why ban an editor who wishes to track NY Times, Reuters, and AP?Ferrylodge (talk) 16:57, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
- I'd say it's rather more than disagreement. Neither source says there were two earmarks and hence your interpretation that there were two earmarks is a synthesis, original research (please read this if you haven't), never mind the sources have nothing meaningful to say about the structure of the earmark and the dollar amounts don't match up. Carrying on with trying to put original research into a high traffic article which is already under sanctions can get one swiftly banned, which is what happened to you. Drop that one, it'll never make it into the article. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:05, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
(undent)The article edit that I was suggesting did not say there were two earmarks. So I was not putting OR into the article, or even suggesting to put OR into the article was I Gwen?
Moreover, KC is incorrect that the edits I had made were about something other than the discussion all the other editors were working on. Here's what KC said during that discussion at the article talk page:
GreekParadise wishes to include mention of the Knik Arm Bridge, as that explains an otherwise unexplained 200 mil, almost half the sum in question. GP feels it is unbalanced, misleading, and poor writing to explain half the money and one bridge, and leave out the other half and the other bridge….It appears the primary argument for [inclusion of KAB in the article] is that the bill included both bridges and half the money was for the KAB. Can everyone concede that this is a valid point? We're talking about what, around 424 mil, and then we start talking about 240 mil with nary a mention of what happened to the other 200 mil - that could indeed be confusing.
Ferrylodge (talk) 17:12, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
- "...the earmark for the Gravina bridge was separate from the earmark for the Knik Arm Bridge..." means "two earmarks," you indeed said there were two earmarks. Moreover you're giving me different diffs with different content as if they're all the same single edit you wanted to make. If this is how you wontedly deal with stuff on talk pages I can see how you got yourself banned. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:24, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
- Gwen, you can go look at the article history if you like. I never suggested editing the article to say there were two different earmarks. And even if I had, that would have been a reasonble inference from the cited sources; it was hardly an inappropriate talk page remark. Your stance now is quite clear, and I again thank you for devoting your time to expressing your feelings about this matter, and your condemnation of what I have done. Have a nice day.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:35, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
- Ferrylodge, which part of "this section is offtopic for the main current discussion, please wait until that's resolved" don't you understand? Nothing wrong with you preparing and dscussing proposed improvements on the talk pages of editors who have the time and patience, as here, but you've been given good reason for a brief ban on editing the article itself and the article talk page to enable progress by others without your distractions. . dave souza, talk 17:30, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you for your comments, Dave. Have a pleasant afternoon.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:35, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
- "...the earmark for the Gravina bridge was separate from the earmark for the Knik Arm Bridge..." means "two earmarks," you indeed said there were two earmarks. Moreover you're giving me different diffs with different content as if they're all the same single edit you wanted to make. If this is how you wontedly deal with stuff on talk pages I can see how you got yourself banned. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:24, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Blech
Perte (talk · contribs). Bali ultimate (talk) 18:54, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Hypnotica (Pickup Guru)
10:54, 3 February 2009 Gwen Gale (talk | contribs) deleted "Hypnotica (Pickup Guru)" (A7: Article about a real person, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject)
Not sure why this was deleted or how well it was written but as hypnotica (aka Rasputin in The Game by Neil Strauss) is a performing hypnotist who produces Audio material available on CD, and mentioned prominently in "The Game by Neil Strauss" I would have thought it significant enough to be included in wikipedia.
I would request a new article but I have unable to figure out how to do this from reading the request page.
--Dh015488 (talk) 01:29, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
- The best thing would be to create the draft of a good article in your own "sandbox" and, when you're confident that it merits inclusion -- or at least demonstrates notability via citation of reliable sources -- then post another message here alerting Gwen to its existence. If you convince her, she'll give you the go-ahead to post it as a regular article.
- Incidentally, there's no reason to capitalize "Pickup Guru"; "pickup guru" would be better. But "pickup guru" seems bizarre: "pickup" is specific, while "guru" these days means next to nothing. Better rethink the title, probably aligning it with the titles of articles on similar people. -- Hoary (talk) 02:23, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
- Special report: Interactive OpenStreetMap features in development
- News and notes: Statistics, Wikipedia research and more
- Wikipedia in the news: Wikia Search abandoned, university plagiarism, and more
- Dispatches: New FAC and FAR nomination process
- WikiProject report: WikiProject China
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 19:06, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Seeing that you are the admin that protected the page, can you make a smalled edit an the end of the intro? Could you please add {{fact}}. Thanks, --The New Mikemoral ♪♫ 04:08, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
"Mein Kampf" in Berghof (residence)
"Political book" is an unecessarily bland and somewhat misleading description of this volume. A "testament" is "a profession of belief"[3], which is a perfectly accurate and appropriate desciption of Mein Kampf. It is neither POV nor either inflammatory or celebratory, and should remain. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 08:08, 7 April 2009 (UTC)