User talk:Cptnono

Glenn Beck

I have added "my" version of a proposed Van Jones section. The "right" one is likely somewhere in between yours and mine. (read: let's both be willing to compromise)— Mike :  tlk  02:23, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank goodness you're finally working on something. Now if you could start working on the ACORN section, see what I proposed on the talk page. Bachcell (talk) 22:19, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

BLP on Talk:Glenn Beck

You don't get to call living people names, sorry. The rules are pretty clear. Please don't make an issue of this because there is none to be made. Don't restore that comment again. Thank you. Gamaliel (talk) 15:01, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

See, now that's the polite way to say "get over it." A courtesy lesson, from an admin. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 15:50, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Totally was :) I also don't need a courtesy lesson since I am not in kindergarten. I still think they are interpreting the rules incorrectly. The admin also doesn't know how format talk page headers (before someone gets offended: I screw them up too sometimes so am just poking fun). Cptnono (talk) 21:11, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is very sensitive to BLP issues, i.e. to disparaging living persons. The probability of someone suing wikipedia, because an anonymous editor called them an idiot on a talk page, is likely very small. But they don't want to take chances. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 21:35, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

They are right Cptnono, you cannot give your opinion that a living person is an idiot. You can say that X source called the person an idiot, but you cannot call that person an idiot. nableezy - 21:38, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

No they aren't. A known writer wrote in his TV critique piece that being parodied on SNL was a greater tribute than a TIME magazine cover. This is colorful writing that I doubt was supposed to be taken seriously. Since an editor was pushing inclusion based on it being a huge deal for the subject (not the writer and this was on the subject's article's talk page not the article), my comment was that the writer was "an [BLP censored?] if he actually believes that. I have a feeling it was just to be cute...". It was colorful but it wasn't overly offensive. Since it is assumed that he didn't mean it literally then it is not offensive to him at all. If he did mean it literally there is still nothing in the BLP guideline prohibiting this manner of making a point on a separate subject's article's talk page.

Yes there is. The BLP policy is not strictly for making comments in actual biographies, it says that any such comments anywhere on Wikipedia must have highly reliable sourcing. Your opinion does not count as a highly reliable source. Dont take this the wrong way, Im just trying to make sure you dont get blocked for future comments. nableezy - 21:59, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

No worries, I'm not taking it the wrong way at all and enjoying our little kumbaya. As I mentioned last night, I am still quitting smoking so I could snap at any moment, though! The opening line discusses "biographical material". I was not discussing biographical material I was asserting that I was potentially disagreeing with the writer. It is also clear that I assumed I was not calling him an idiot with the follow up line. I was making a point to another editor on an unrelated talk page and I think the admin took it the wrong way. Also, on my revert, I made sure to add "in my opinion" to make it clear that it was not fact. I also wanted to point out that the subject was called a knuckle dragger on the talk page. Why wasn't that removed?Cptnono (talk) 22:08, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I was overzealous but better to err on the side of caution when it comes to BLP. As for the other comment, I'm not omnicient nor do I examine every inch of every page for possible BLP offenses. I just delete the ones I see. If there's another offending comment you can remove it yourself or provide a link to the section that contains it and I'll do it. Thanks. Gamaliel (talk) 22:56, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

The other comment was a red herring (idiom) on my part since you can't be expected to go through line by line so no problem. Thanks for getting back to me.Cptnono (talk) 23:18, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

"Knuckle dragger" is just as bad as "idiot" (maybe worse) and should also be expunged, if it's a BLP reference. And for what it's worth, objectively speaking, I would have to say that anyone who seriously thinks an SNL parody is a greater achievement than a Time cover is, shall we say, a little too narrowly focused. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:35, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Glenn Beck and ACORN

I see they finally got Van Jones in, but are they still keeping ACORN out? Check out NYT finally admits they dropped the ball and they need to have at least one person watch the conservative news and talk circuit. Now when WP people admit they've been playing see no evil hear no evil, that will be the day. Bachcell (talk) 15:57, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

No worries!

;^) ↜Just M E here , now 06:02, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Spoof of Beck

With regard to citations

(in the article about the spoofer website) -- Would you help me move them up into the text? If you were to try(?), do note that I'm not emotionally attachment to any of em so if you think any one or several bloggier uns are unable to be attached to a statement of opinion somewhere in the article, don't hesitate to delete it or them entirely.↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 11:17, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll look.↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 11:22, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Had to add brand-new cite for "Anonymous" (group) association.↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 12:04, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Although much blogospheric chatter talks much of Google bombing this meme, I can't find it mentioned in a 2ndary source other than Wikinews so maybe we should take our mention of "Google bomb" out.↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 12:12, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Lol @ e/c comment↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 12:49, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

What should be the article's title? then, what should be it's lede? (& so forth -- )↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 13:33, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

A riddle on English syntax

Were we to say, Glenn Beck Rape Satire, would we be meaning a "satire of Glenn Beck about rape" or a "satire by Glen Beck about rape"? (Or, for completeness here, the technicality that we could mean a satire of a person's raping Glenn Beck.) Or were we to produce a script called Stripper Vampire Murderers, which of several variable roles possible would we be trying to cast? "strippers who murder vampires"?, "vampires who murder and also strip"?, or "people who murder stripping vampires"? Only after our title became an idiom could our audience know for sure which one we meant!↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 19:56, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing like someone who appreciates and enjoys the complexities of the English language. Perhaps you should take a look at the argument for & against referring to the "Gaza massacre" or the "Gaza Massacre" in the article on the Gaza War. Here is my contrib for your enjoyment. As a kid a teacher used the following sentence to demonstrate the importance of punctuation: The Indians said Jane scalped General Custer. Stellarkid (talk) 22:49, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

@ Stellarkid: lol

@ Cptnono on my talkpage: "Rape satire of Glenn Beck" would be M U C H clearer (howevah, I myself have retired from messing with the article, having emended my AfD !vote to one of deletion!)↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 01:27, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

BTW I did go ahead and, citing WP:Naming conventions, boldly moved the article to something less imprecise and ambiguous than before -- my sort of "randomly picking out of my hat" "Glenn Beck – Isaac Eiland-Hall controversy." Please feel free to move it to something else. The article has been barely worked on by anybody -- which, by a certain measure, shows its subject matter to be of less interest to WP editors, for whatever reason (and perhaps less notable?), than I had previously thought. (It is a pretty crass joke/parody.)↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 23:42, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 23:55, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

• I took out the website infobox to emphasize the dispute, per se, over, per se, the website, but it certainly could go back in. Cirt had added most or all of the "See also" wikilinks. I put them into columns so they would take up less space on the page; they could stand some culling though.↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 01:22, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Review

Dude, I've been fairly busy with personal issues and been spending too much time on Ricky Ponting. Have added at comment on the review page and will be looking to add more by the end of the night here. Aaroncrick (talk) 09:00, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Nah everything's fine. Just found a life off wiki. Should be still editing but not as much, or at least not for as long. Aaroncrick (talk) 11:16, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

May be easier for me to copy edit it. I've done a few sections. Aaroncrick (talk) 11:23, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Article looking good. Will give a final ce. Aaroncrick (talk) 09:46, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Great. Have you fixed all the refs? Aaroncrick (talk) 07:11, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

You finished? Need to finish the review. Aaroncrick (talk) 23:47, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry didn't notice you replied. Archived talkpage so should be easier! Aaroncrick (talk) 23:58, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Fine how it is. Should be finished within 24 hours. Aaroncrick (talk) 00:05, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

SSCS

Where a category could smear the organization or is otherwise disputed, it is better to wait and leave it out until consensus is that it should be there. That is the same as any article, if something is questionable, leave it out until there is consensus to include it. No consensus or consensus to leave something out = leave it out. I don't see any proof of strong consensus to include it anywhere, so the less damaging thing is just to leave it out for the time being, the world won't fall apart while discussion is ongoing, but leaving it there could generate a bad rep.--Terrillja _talk 00:12, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what your arbitrary 24 hours thing was about with adding the category again, but I think you should rethink your actions. When something is being discussed for addition, then it is best to maintain the article as it was until there is strong consensus to add it. I have yet to see strong consensus anywhere for this to be included. I do however see a long term history of you warring over the category. You might notice that I had no activity during your arbitrary time period, because contrary to popular opinion, there is something else to do outside of wikipedia.--Terrillja _talk 17:53, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your help

Good work on the Jennings article. It looks good! Timemachine1967 (talk) 23:47, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Request

I'm sorry if I am putting this in the wrong area, but after your helpful comments earlier on today on the help page I would be grateful if you could give some advice please. I am editing the Nicholas Hagger page as the original information contained within it was incorrect. The areas I need help with are:

1. How do I link the reference numbers in the text to the actual references at the bottom of the page? I added the reference numbers from the button on the toolbar. At present the references are not linked.

2. While editing the page, half of the toolbar disappeared from the top. Can you tell me how to get the full toolbar back (as it is at the top of this article? The one with the ref button on it.)

3. The Bibliography and the Notes at the bottom are in double-line spacing and do not look right. I need help with this, including how to put in the square bullet points.

4. External links, there are some external links I need to put in, at present two are waiting to be added, see bottom of Nicholas Hagger page.

5. As I was not sure where to save the edited page for you to have a look at to check, I published it. I do appreciate that the page has not been checked by one of the editors but hope that it will not be deleted this time. It does have red writing at the bottom which refers to the incorrect citing of references. I do not know how to get rid of this. It was not my intention to publish until all the links were perfect, but I was not sure how to transfer all the work I had done to a sandbox.

6. When asking a question, where is the best place to do this? Apologies if this is the wrong place. Maybe you could let me know which is the best way to proceed.

I am new to this, and would be very grateful for your help.

With many thanks --Sanrac1959 (talk) 14:48, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the message you left for me. I have been looking at all the various help-pages yesterday and I think most if not all my queries have been solved. The page works very well I think. It would be good if I you could ask you for help with any future queries I may have. Thank you once again. --Sanrac1959 (talk) 10:04, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

WILL HURD

---

This is a response to the copyright infringement violation for the Will Hurd page I have created. I have expressed permission from the author Will Hurd, to publish any and all information from the website. What sort of evidence do I need to support it?

Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by WilliamHurd (talk • contribs) 04:40, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Sea Shepherd Conservation Society

Hey there! Thanks for trying to work out an amicable consensus. I disagree with removing the content of the biodiesel fuel of earthrace and preferred the balanced "animal fat and soybean" approach because it is mentionede in so many sources and obviously important enough for people to have feelings about. Regardless, the reason I'm writing now is because the article is being reverted via sock puppetry and I'm not sure how to aproach dealing with it. Do you know what to do with sock puppets? --68.41.80.161 (talk) 17:15, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

OK.. I did it, I'm official. :) --0nonanon0 (talk) 23:19, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

My edit

If I take it to the talk page than same as always, nothing will ever be done. Why am I not a loud to actually edit the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Craigboy (talk • contribs) 06:40, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Well who's conscious do I have to have? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Craigboy (talk • contribs) 07:24, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Its like that because of the strong pro-israel contingent on Wikipedia. I think they work for the Israeli government myself. Da'oud Nkrumah 03:10, 8 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dnkrumah (talk • contribs)

Please go look at the number of Stars of David on user pages of contributors to this article before saying silly things. You might notice lots of green, white, red, and black. Don't forget to sign your comments

Excellent point. Thanks for the constructive retort.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 03:50, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Seattle Sounders FC task force

Hi, I wanted to notify you that I've created a proposal to create a Seattle Sounders FC task force at WikiProject Football. As someone who has edited articles in the space, I thought you might be interested. If so, you can add your name to the list of supporters here. Cheers. ← George ^talk 17:04, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't mind your contibuting to the discussion, Cptnono

But your meta points confuse me.

The religious content that Bytebear objects to is currently in the article in the Skousen section, since *I* put it there. Thus, for example, how am I not contributing what I had already contributed? See how your statements confuse me?

(To fill you in: Bytebear had written on one of our -- either his or my -- talkpages that he was disappointed in my having reverted his removal of the religious content in this section; so, I am now providing information on the article talkpage to buttress its inclusion.)↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 03:00, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

• Good idea, Cptnono. How much is Leap on Kindle?↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 03:13, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll look at the local library/used bookshop tomorrow.↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 03:19, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:AE

I have filed a report regarding your comments at Talk:Gaza War here. Tiamut^talk 14:16, 10 October 2009 (UTC)