User talk:Newsroom hierarchies - Wikipedia

Please comment on merging Mike Huckabee controversies into Mike Huckabee here [[1]] Jmegill (talk) 10:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

I would like to know why this article Ron Paul Revolution is being considered for deletion?--Duchamps comb (talk) 19:19, 24 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Fine I'll keep the first quote out but keep the image, it is need and nice to see....--Duchamps comb (talk) 23:05, 25 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Well, I guess TIME http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1678661,00.html is also looking into the nonsensical future, and not credible?--Duchamps comb (talk) 00:43, 26 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

You may wish to reread the post to which I was directly replying. My point was that we don't create articles "before their time" or before their subjects become notable. --Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 01:08, 26 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

--I understand your POV however when mainstream media use the phrase (Repeatedly) I believe it is "notable".--Duchamps comb (talk) 01:45, 26 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Please see [2] about Ron Paul quotes on violence and the Glenn Beck interview.--Duchamps_comb MFA 20:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

  You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. --Duchamps_comb MFA 20:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

I reverted once, I believe. Please don't stick one of these on my talk page when you're the one who's reverted three other editors and about to violate WP:3RR--Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 21:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

I think we can compromise. The last version of Ota Benga which you edited seems fine to me, I no longer have any serious disputes. I'm glad this worked out, thanks for remaining civil and following Wikipedia policy throughout the issue. --RucasHost (talk) 22:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Okay, cool. For what it's worth, I completely agree that many evolutionists of that time period used the idea of evolution to racist ends. --Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 22:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Drama. Can I get a sanity check (candidly) from you about what I've been doing with the campaign article? --- tqbf 01:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

I ended up commenting on DC, which may or may not have been a good idea since it was "your" ANI. I think we share pretty much the same view of that article--it's way too long, and the pro-Paul editors are often a little too eager to insert what we consider fluff and trivial items. That bias stated, I haven't seen you commit any obvious breaches of WP policy or norms. Where you think you have, you've been quick to take it to the other editors' talk pages. You're pretty frank at times, but you haven't made personal attacks or been inappropriate. Hell, you and Terjen were even cracking Ron Paul jokes with each other (maybe that means you both need a break, but I'm not going to judge...). Hardly the actions of a "POV warrior," I'd think. --Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 02:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, I appreciate the feedback. Have a good weekend! --- tqbf 02:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

When you get a moment, check this diff (or just eyeball the two revisions). I cut several thousand words from the debate coverage by removing redundant information, eliminating play-by-play debate coverage, condensing paragraphs, and general copyediting.

What's left is a string of subsections that are each (mostly) less than 4 sentences each; the next step is to condense the whole sequence into a single prose section.

When you cut away the crap, most of these debate sections had virtually nothing to say about the debates, except that Paul was (or wasn't) there, and that he did (or, more likely, didn't) appear on TV afterwards.

--- tqbf 22:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

I've been following the changes throughout the day--looks good to me. I did revert Goon Noot's reversion of you just now, so you might want to check to see that that didn't mess anything up. --Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 23:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Sorry 'bout that, tried using Twinkle to do it and I must have messed it up. Burzmali (talk) 00:34, 19 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Saying he came in second is false; he came in third, behind a candidate and a platform. Stating that he came in second among candidates, however, is correct. Nice work finding a good way to word it. —XSG 18:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, I can't pretend that I have any real grasp of how the LA caucuses work. The wording Terjen put in seems to mirror how the sources have phrased it though, so that's good enough for our purposes. --Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 18:16, 26 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

A prod is a great first step on that article. Remember, though, that if the prod is removed, it'll probably have to go to AfD. But, you're correct - prod is probably the appropriate action to take. Thanks! - Philippe | Talk 17:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

You expressed interest in merging this article. Somebody has formally proposed the merge:

Talk:Vicki_Iseman#Merge_this_with_John_McCain_presidential_campaign.2C_2008

--TS 20:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

You should be aware that you should not spam experienced editors' talk pages with notices such as the one you added to mine. You need to start assuming good faith, and read WP:DTTR. - DiligentTerrier (and friends) 20:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

You made three reversions and you're not using the talk page--in short, you are edit warring. You should avoid such behavior if you don't want "spam" notices. --Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 20:28, 11 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

What's wrong with the changes, especially the section about rights and obligations?Ewawer (talk) 03:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

My objection is that it changes the lead to emphasize that marriage is a union between one man and one woman. The page has played host to a lot of argument and edit warring on this point and current consensus is that the lead we have now avoids this. If you change it again, I probably won't revert it--but I believe someone else watching the page will (I'm just quick on the draw). Anyway, I hope you'll discuss your proposed changes on the talk page first. Regards, --Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 03:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Your point re the leader is taken, and I was involved at one time in the wiki ping-pong. But the changes to Rights and Obligations and Sex and Procreation are worthwhile.Ewawer (talk) 03:50, 15 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Okay, agreed on the changes you made to Rights and Obligations. You might consider making the ketubah image fit the section though, but I totally agree it looks better on the right. You might also reconsider some of the changes to Sex and Procreation. You refer to illegitimate children suffering "disabilities" in society--not sure that's the right word. Also, I wasn't clear on why you made the change to the par on childless couples. My opinion, whatever that's worth, is that the wording was tighter before you changed it. --Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 04:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC)Reply