Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:01, 3 November 2008

Welcome!

Hello, Factchecker atyourservice, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Murderbike 14:35, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Sherman Austin

Welcome to Misplaced Pages. It might not have been your intention, but your recent contribution removed content from Talk:Sherman Austin. Please be careful when editing pages and do not remove content from Misplaced Pages without a good reason, which should be specified in the edit summary. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Murderbike 14:35, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, what you deleted, that I restored was the bot inserted notes saying who added what text, particularly, the text that you had added. It's VERY helpful for material in talk pages to be signed, so editors know who they are responding too. Murderbike 22:12, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hi, there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Misplaced Pages pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot 17:31, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Commercial use of Image:COPWATCH HWAY PATROL.jpg

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Image:COPWATCH HWAY PATROL.jpg, by another Misplaced Pages user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Image:COPWATCH HWAY PATROL.jpg has a copyright license type implying some type of restricted use, such as for non-commercial use only, or for educational use only or for use on Misplaced Pages by permission, which was either uploaded on or after 2005-05-19 or is not used in any articles (CSD I3). While it might seem reasonable to assume that such files can be freely used on Misplaced Pages, this is in fact not the case. Please do not upload any more files with these restrictions on them, because content on Misplaced Pages needs to be compatible with the GNU Free Documentation License, which allows anyone to use it for any purpose, commercial or non-commercial. See our non-free content guidelines for more more information.

If you created this media file and want to use it on Misplaced Pages, you may re-upload it (or amend the image description if it has not yet been deleted) and use the license {{GFDL-self}} to license it under the GFDL, or {{cc-by-sa-2.5}} to license it under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license, or use {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain.

If you did not create this media file but want to use it on Misplaced Pages, there are two ways to proceed. First, you may choose one of the fair use tags from this list if you believe one of those fair use rationales applies to this file. Second, you may want to contact the copyright holder and request that they make the media available under a free license.

If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. This bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Image:COPWATCH HWAY PATROL.jpg itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. If you have any questions about what to do next or why your image was nominated for speedy deletion please ask at Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions. Thanks. CSDWarnBot 18:33, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Commercial use of Image:COPWATCH Poster B.jpg

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Image:COPWATCH Poster B.jpg, by another Misplaced Pages user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Image:COPWATCH Poster B.jpg has a copyright license type implying some type of restricted use, such as for non-commercial use only, or for educational use only or for use on Misplaced Pages by permission, which was either uploaded on or after 2005-05-19 or is not used in any articles (CSD I3). While it might seem reasonable to assume that such files can be freely used on Misplaced Pages, this is in fact not the case. Please do not upload any more files with these restrictions on them, because content on Misplaced Pages needs to be compatible with the GNU Free Documentation License, which allows anyone to use it for any purpose, commercial or non-commercial. See our non-free content guidelines for more more information.

If you created this media file and want to use it on Misplaced Pages, you may re-upload it (or amend the image description if it has not yet been deleted) and use the license {{GFDL-self}} to license it under the GFDL, or {{cc-by-sa-2.5}} to license it under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license, or use {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain.

If you did not create this media file but want to use it on Misplaced Pages, there are two ways to proceed. First, you may choose one of the fair use tags from this list if you believe one of those fair use rationales applies to this file. Second, you may want to contact the copyright holder and request that they make the media available under a free license.

If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. This bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Image:COPWATCH Poster B.jpg itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. If you have any questions about what to do next or why your image was nominated for speedy deletion please ask at Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions. Thanks. CSDWarnBot 18:33, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Username

Hi. As discussed at the helpdesk, you need to request a username change at Misplaced Pages:Changing username ASAP. See Misplaced Pages:Username policy before choosing a new username to change to. Thanks.--Chaser - T 18:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hi, there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Misplaced Pages pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot 19:52, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

repeated citings

Yeah, I just learned how to do this. If you're gonna cite something more than once, you put something like <ref name="Smith">Smith, John. ''Some dumb book''. Publisher, 1999.</ref> for the first cite, and then <ref name="Smith"/> for each successive cite. Good luck! Murderbike 02:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

DivaNTrainin

Please stop editing this article "Copwathch"until you are willing to follow Misplaced Pages guidelines, with specific attention to the rules found under WP:Verifiability and WP:Citing sources. Thank you. Divantrainin 23:51, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Diva. That's what I posted on your user talk page before you deleted it. I posted it again after you deleted it because it seemed you had simply ignored the message. I don't need a record of it because I can just cut & paste it out of the edit history of your talk page if I ever want to post that comment again. Please drop this childish tit-for-tat and start editing constructively. If you do not, I will support all future efforts to have you banned from editing again, or at least banned from editing the Copwatch article.Factchecker atyourservice 18:24, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

BTW, ban inc IMO.Factchecker atyourservice 18:56, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I will also support the ban. This user has repeatedly violated WP guidelines and refuses to engage other users constructively. His/her childish behavior is totally unacceptable. Mycota 04:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I posted on the Admin Noticeboard yesterday. Someone there said the vandalism "appeared to have stopped" ... I don't know how he figured that exactly but didn't want to argue. Diva pulled the same edit today so I posted it on the Misplaced Pages:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism page. Diva, if you're reading this, cut the crap and come to the table.Factchecker atyourservice 15:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Arv

as a tip please try to keep your summaries short when reporting as you did when reporting mrtobacco Shawnpoo 15:41, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

That was another user who posted that report with 3-page "summary".Factchecker atyourservice 16:03, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

my bad the report was so big i found the wrong name ;p Shawnpoo 16:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

SHRM article

A tag has been placed on Society for Human Resource Management, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant advertising that only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 11, as well as the guidelines on spam.

If you can indicate why the subject of this article is not blatant advertising, you may contest the tagging. To do this, please add {{hangon}} on the top of Society for Human Resource Management and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would help make it encyclopedic, as well as adding any citations from reliable sources to ensure that the article will be verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this.

Hello. I have replaced the Verifiability tag which you removed from the SHRM article. Please do not construe a temporary absence of commentary by other editors to indicate that "resolution" of a dispute has been achieved.

Additionally, I have added an NPOV tag due to the obviously promotional nature of the article, and also nominated the article for Speedy Deletion under the Spam rationale. I believe it will be necessary to start over from scratch with this article in order to achieve an acceptable encyclopedia entry.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 18:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the note. I have added a request for you on the article's talk page. Your help would be appreciated. Thanks. --Eustress (talk) 01:00, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Editor's Barnstar
		For making fine decisions in general editing with a good attitude. Best Eustress (talk) 21:27, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

RPI and WorldAtWork

I have tagged the Recognition Professionals International and WorldatWork articles as advertising. Since you appear to have written the articles in their entirety, I wanted to advise you of this and provide an opportunity for you to edit these articles yourself. If you choose to do so, please be mindful of the prior discussion under the SHRM article. If you do not wish to, I will do so.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 18:39, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I believe I removed any advertisement issues, using your SHRM text as a template for the Intro. If there are further problems, skip the tag and go ahead and fix the issues—they're short, stub articles. --Eustress (talk) 18:47, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Palin Abortion Edit

Factchecker, you have just reverted my edit and put in the exact same reference (except that it is the Seattle Times article itself, instead of a Google News reference to the same article) I removed because the transcript of the interview the article is summarizing clearly shows that "would ban" is the reporter's opinion and not Palin's. Please revert your reversion of my edit and continue the discussion on the Talk page. Thanks!--Paul (talk) 17:24, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

As noted in my edit summary, first, there is no such requirement on using sources, at least none that I am aware of. Second, there are direct quotations available confirming what the reporter stated. The statement is now fully referenced and I will not be reverting it.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 17:27, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Palin

Thanks. My goal is neither to praise nor to criticize Palin, it is only to comply with our NPOV policy which demands that all significant views that are verifiable and come from reliable sources are included in the article. I wish more people would see this as a matter simply of complying with NPOV. Unfortunately most of my edits have been criticized by editors active on the talk page - I wish there were more people active who shared (and valued) my approach... Slrubenstein | Talk 16:08, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again for your note - I hope you find the energy and time to participate more on the article talk page, we need to create a positive attitude towards collaboration! Slrubenstein | Talk 18:04, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

source-spamming

You don't need to apologize - I hope nothing I wrote questioned your ood faith! You really did remember something real, you just didn't remembe enough of it. This happens all the time and is nothing to feel bad about (you might just want to write a note to Jossi that you were sorry that in your zeal to uphold policies you judged his good faith attempt to hlep in haste ... but i am sure he understands too!!) Slrubenstein | Talk 14:35, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Strangers in a Strange Land

What I like most about the Sarah Palin article is that it puts me in touch with knowledgable editors like you. Your comments regarding the goings on at the rape kit thread are educational and informative. I also Wholeheartedly agree with your comments about editor:C-----t. There is something more than meets the eye there. I have some derogatory and self-created (by him) information that I would like to reveal regarding C-----t. But, I would like to create a situation where most of the editors that have worked to formulate a quality article are present. Unless C-----t pushes too much, I will probably wait till closer to the election. (I feel like Sam Spade/Private Detective). Sometimes the things that are found in an editors "contributions" can be very interesting.--Buster7 (talk) 23:47, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

If you do have some kind of relevant information, I'd caution you to take it to administrators sooner rather than later and avoid revealing it in a public context. It will lose a lot of credibility if you try to use it to torpedo the guy instead of going through the proper channels in a timely fashion. You might even get into trouble for it. As for my own sentiments, I just find the whole thing very frustrating. It's very hard to AGF. I feel if I were not devoting time to the article then a lot of massaging and reinterpreting and excluding of the sources would be taking place.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 00:37, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

please see ] here....and advise ASAP. What to do.....and when....it explains alot...confidential, please...I have shown only Homunq since he also has expessed problems --Buster7 (talk) 04:47, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Just now shared with admin LessHeard vanU...thanks for advice--Buster7 (talk) 05:10, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Much as I would like to view that as a gloves-off admission of an obstructionist editorial style, it looks more like a sarcastic commentary on typical edit-warring. I don't like the guy too much, and have suspicions about his motivations, but I really don't think you're going to get anywhere with this. I wouldn't even bother bringing it up.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 15:34, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Your right. I didn't get anywhere but frustrated. Thanks for confiding and guidance. I'll drop it and move on.--Buster7 (talk) 16:48, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Your opinion on NPOV Sarah Palin? TAKE TWO

Please post at talk, thanks. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 03:33, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

And so we move on...

Of course you know what happens in court stays in court. You would be surprised how little I would ever mention politics in Real Life, as I have no time for it. I'm actually in a very good position in life where it would be very unlikely for me to be impacted by even the most incompetent administration, save something catastrophic, if that office really even had the power people believe it does! 23:20, 22 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fcreid (talk • contribs)

• • Note, I don't know why everything has become block quoted. I needed to reply line by line**

I'll start by saying that your characterization of me as a bully couldn't be more off base.

In my opinion you've been lecturing people on policies you know nothing about and presenting yourself as if you have an authoritative say that overrides other editors.

I've made it my life's ambition to achieve things through consensus, and I've been quite successful in doing that. I'll dismiss your cheap snipes as you just not being WP:CIVIL, as I do understand such things can happen in the course of passionate discussion (apparently one that's far more passionate for you than for me).

You've repeatedly questioned my good faith. This is just as uncivil.

I will suggest that losing your cool and perspective, as you've done, doesn't serve you well under such circumstances. But whatever... you obviously could care less about advice from me, right? Anyway, I acknowledge that I have indeed been a WP:SPA for my few weeks of existence on WP.

And I am not saying that you should not be editing the Palin article, but perhaps you could show the slightest deference or even listen to people who have been in the trenches longer than you?

I've explained that elsewhere, and I need no approval from you for my actions and edits.

Of course.

Despite, as I constantly strive to improve, I wanted to see what seasoned, respectable and broad-based WP elite like yourself do,

I'm certainly no elite, but I have spent a lot of time, reading, re-reading, interpreting, and having my interpretation correct on, the core Wiki policies.

and lo and behold... you've contributed to virtually nothing except the Palin article for a longer period than I've been a WP member! 

Just because I'm not CURRENTLY working on other articles doesn't mean I work ONLY on this article. If you look at my edit history, you'll see massive contributions to other seriously controversial articles. And if you look at the contributions... for whatever it may be worth... you might discover that my political leanings are closer to your own than you might suspect just from looking at my Palin edits. So.. not it is not a pot/kettle thing. I've just got a lot more experience.

Isn't that kind of a pot-kettle-black thing? Moreover, not a whit of your contributions have provided any "balanced" material whatsoever, but rather always represent a consistent drag to the negative side of the article's content.

Can you really look at the rape kit edit I made and still say that? Regardless, most of the editors show a "constistent drag" towards one side or the other. I've commented specifically on that. We're not editing in a vacuum. The majority of people editing the Palin article have strong views on the subject.

You've never put in a single, positive point about Palin.

I've fairly and strongly reflected defenses against criticisms. That's just as good as -- no, better -- than putting in trivial "positive" material that's not relevant to her notability. In any case, the balance of editors seeking ONLY to introduce positive material, while wrongfully excluding most negative material, coupled with the observation that we ALL have a view one way or the other, makes this conduct completely reasonable.

Please show me where I'm wrong. At least I have some edit history where I've tried to arbitrate, moderate and compromise towards consensus. 

If you think I do not, then you are not reading my edit history closely enough.

Frankly, in comparison, I'm quite proud of my edit history so far on WP, whether that makes me WP:SPA or not.

The SPA comments were not meant to totally invalidate or question your contributions... merely to suggest that you might step back and take more of a hands-off approach while you learn.

I was a bit creeped out by the weird edit you make to Young_Trigg talk a week or so ago... it looks like you're tilting at windmills hoping to scare away bogeymen!

I made that comment yesterday, I think. It was completely fair. The article has not seen such a blatantly POV-pushing and policy-violating editor as Trigg. Not even the people I argue with today.

You need to chill out, man. No one is paying you to be a partisan (or at least I hope not).

Most assuredly not. I would be a horrible Obama campaigner.

What you and I will get at the end of the day is the same old gruel served in a different colored bowl. I live for collaboration and mental exercise. I loathe those who tell me I'm not allowed to use my brain, but instead must think inside the little squares they've painted. You'll want to look for another foil if that's how you hope to mold me as a Wikipedian.Fcreid (talk) 20:28, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not questioning your intellect, but you must come to realize that it's Misplaced Pages's job to reflect published opinion EVEN IF YOU DISAGREE WITH IT. I do wish you the best and I'm sorry we have had such confrontational exchanges. Please read the blurb on my user page and understand that it is not my intention, but is an unfortunate result of taking a stand on a controversial topic.

Despite our disagreements, vehement at times, there's no hard feelings on my part.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 20:47, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

too many edits to make, too little time

Hi Factchecker- could you just give me a link to or the wording of the rape kit wording you now propose - not how you got there, but the compromise version you can live with, and a short explanation of why - I can't spend the time to go through the iterations and arguments, as throughout the last couple of years I've found that some folks on these pages go for excess verbiage and middle of the night edits to obscure and bully in their positions and I don't have the time or patience to go through it yet again. I've been focused on other parts of this article and other articles, trying to keep them balanced - so, I'm not up to speed on rape kits. I have what Fcreid says and would like to know what you say. Thanks Tvoz/talk 21:43, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it should mention at minimum the police dept policy, Alaska state law suppressing it, the allegation that she knew, and the St. Pete Times investigation not finding any evidence of this. You could also include the comment by the deputy mayor, any sourced claim that no women were ever billed, etc. If we were *really* committed to neutrality we would also mention the Palin spokesperson refusing comment and the St. Pete Times comment that the campaign offered no evidence she ever opposed the policy. Personally I do not care how much space is spent addressing this as I think the article could stand to have more detail than it does. I am sensitive to the need to not have everything be ridiculously verbose, but on the other hand it seems somewhat pointless to let subjective concerns about article length substantively restrict the presentation of relevant material. So I don't know really what people would expect, if they are even willing to compromise on inclusion in the first place. I guess what I'm saying is I couldn't offer a submission other than what I already offered without a more concrete idea of what people expect the word count to be.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 22:36, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

My complaint was about excessive verbiage on the talk pages - I agree with you that we don't need to worry so much about article length. Have ad that argument on other articles many times. Can you give me a diff for the wording you'd prefer? Tvoz/talk 06:59, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I apologize for barging in. I'm sure there's some WP:JERK policy I'm violating by doing so on user talk pages. Yes, I understand I'm long-winded, but I don't consider it bullying to elicit critical thought before entering contentious and inflammatory material into a BLP. I also appreciate that you sincerely want to bring this to a consensus edit, Tvoz. I object to anyone's contention there is an allegation provided of Palin's involvement. I'll even take a leap of faith and allow that a known Democrat partisan and vocal critic of Palin, eight years after an event and during her campaign, might be called notable. However, the exact "notable" quote, "I find it hard to believe that for six months a small town, a police chief, would lead the fight against a statewide piece of legislation receiving unanimous support and the mayor not know about it", is not an allegation. The statement creates no burden of evidence to support the supposition, and is therefore nothing more than a musing. "Notable" or not, anyone can muse, "I find it hard to believe that so-and-so didn't know about such-and-such." It doesn't pretend to know the accuracy of the statement. It doesn't pretend to have evidence that it's true. It doesn't pretend to be anything more than Croft's own unsubstantiated thoughts. Fcreid (talk) 12:06, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

...yes, otherwise known as his opinion...Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 16:13, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Please endure me for one final point, because it's critical we get this one right. While purely anecdotal, it's very telling that none of the major RS were willing to run this story in their mainlines, but only in rare op-ed pieces. That includes NY Times, Boston Globe and several others that would historically have pounced on an anti-Palin story that could be sourced. While we shouldn't bury our heads in the sand that the controversy exists, we must be very cautious here at WP giving a platform to something that's potentially libellous. Fcreid (talk) 13:34, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your input, but it's not potentially libelous. I would vigorously reject your making analysis and assumptions based on which newspapers "should have published this story" or the notion that newspapers publish stories in their op-ed pages when they think the stories are baseless slander. More OR and going quite far out on a limb if you ask me. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 16:13, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I appreciate your input too! At least we can be amicable while disagreeing emphatically, eh? :) Yes, suggesting that a person knew of something without a factual source most certainly is potentially libellous, i.e. "harmful and often untrue; tending to discredit or malign". Ironically, citing Croft does not transfer that violation to him, as his comments clearly say he does not know whether she knew about that policy, simply that he can't imagine how she could not have known. Fcreid (talk) 16:32, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Like I said. The comment wasn't libelous. Quoting the comment wouldn't be libelous. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 15:16, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Words are powerful things, and his words were clearly minced. Notice the analogy to, "I can't imagine the moon isn't made of cheese!" Note that I am not actually saying I think that, and I'm in no way suggesting it's true. I'm merely saying I can't imagine that it isn't! Damn politicians do that crap all the time! :) Fcreid (talk) 16:18, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so you think the moon is made of green cheese. Roger that, you are a foolish caricature of somebody or other. You are doing ridiculous rhetorical backflips trying to make it to look like the guy was being dishonest. He wasn't. You're also doing ridiculous rhetorical backflips trying to make it look like he wasn't saying he thinks she knew. He was.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 16:29, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm really not! I'm taking his words at exactly their face value, and I'm not even dissecting them. If he wanted to be on record that he knew that she knew, he would have said, "She knew about it."

Yet he wasn't saying that. He was saying he thinks that she knew. And he has damn good reasons for thinking that... reasons which he states right there in the quote.

If he wanted to be on record saying she should have known (i.e. it was within her purview to know), he would have said, "She should have known. (It was her job to know.)"

NYT opinion piece said that. Regardless, it's not your place to search for misleading, non-face-value ways of interpreting what the source said.

If he wanted to be record that he personally thought she knew, he would have said, "I think she knew." Instead, he simply mused, "I can't imagine she didn't know."

He said ""I find it hard to believe that for six months a small town, a police chief, would lead the fight against a statewide piece of legislation receiving unanimous support and the mayor not know about it," He finds it hard to believe she didn't know. It is his opinion that it's probable she did know. Can we not argue what the meaning of the word "is" is?

It's a completely blame-free statement that, while tortured, relieves him of any potential other interpretation or liability. Anyway, despite his own tortured phraseology, don't you think we've unearthed enough Palin enemies in Alaska that someone would have since come forward to say, "Yeah, she knew... I talked to her about it!" Fcreid (talk) 16:36, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

He stated his opinion without asserting it as fact. Are you saying there's something dishonest about that? Your true intention is revealed in the last sentence. You think it's not true, so you're going out of your way to reinterpret the sources to support your belief. That is the essence of original research. In any case... I think the vast majority of people who would have heard such a discussion want Palin to win VPOTUS and are keeping their mouths shut.. similar to the way all those people refused to comply with subpoenas once they realized their testimony might be damaging to Palin's chances on election day.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 16:48, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Word to the wise: if you say you think the moon is made of green cheese, but you're not saying the moon is definitely, for sure made of green cheese, you're saying you think the moon is made of green cheese but you can't prove it. You still are saying you think the moon is made of green cheese. Therefore it is your opinion the moon is made of green cheese. If you were a notable critic of non-cheese-moon theories, your opinion would be relevant.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 16:33, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but what if I really didn't think the moon was made of green cheese, but rather I just couldn't imagine it not being made of green cheese? And I will have to see if I can dig up my diploma of moon-cheesology. :) Fcreid (talk) 16:44, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so, you can't imagine the sun not coming up tomorrow, circumstantial evidence all points to the sun coming up tomorrow, but you don't think the sun will come up tomorrow. Roger that... you are a foolish caricature of a thought experiment. If people quoted in newspapers were all prone to such self-contradictory riddles and gibberish, I would agree that we shouldn't cite their opinions on anything.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 16:54, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

"I just heard the moon was made of green cheese. I just can't imagine that the moon isn't made of green cheese!" Fcreid (talk) 19:31, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, first off, (1) that makes no sense whatsoever unless the speaker immediately believes everything somebody tells him and can't see how it could be false, and is therefore unable to see how the moon could not be made of green cheese once anybody in the world has told him it is made of green cheese; (2) it's still obvious to anyone who understands English and isn't trying to play deceptive semantic games, THAT THE SPEAKER OF THE ABOVE SENTENCE THINKS THE MOON IS PROBABLY MADE OF GREEN CHEESE AND CANNOT FATHOM ANY ALTERNATIVE STATE OF AFFAIRS; (3) the idea that this hyperbolic statement, which is itself contrary to reason, has any meaningful correspondence to croft's original statement, "I find it hard to believe that for six months a small town, a police chief, would lead the fight against a statewide piece of legislation receiving unanimous support and the mayor not know about it," and that this profoundly flawed thought experiment somehow proves his statement doesn't imply he thinks she probably knew about the rape kit policy, is patently ridiculous; (4) AS I SAID BEFORE, you are going through ridiculous rhetorical backflips trying to "prove" two things that aren't the case -- namely, that Croft was dishonestly speculating without basis (he wasn't) and that he didn't really believe what he was speculating (he did).

I consider myself to be amenable to discussions, but I am going to have to ask you to subject your comments to careful analysis and scrutiny before you post them here.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 20:47, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, based on your own inclusion of OR above that Croft was neither speculating nor deliberately crafting his words, maybe we can have a more serious conversation now that I see a crack of light from an open door that allows rational interpretation of "other things". First, and I reiterate, if Palin knew about this, why isn't that position documented anywhere? If the matter was a state-wide spectacle, as you seem to embrace, it would have been raised at hearings, legislative sessions and the media. The dearth of contemporaneous evidence is deafening, Factchecker, and simply does not corroborate Croft's after-the-fact recollection. Next, the legislation was Croft's baby. He sponsored the law, and it's a good law, at least given that it did once result in a victim receiving a bill (although never in Wasilla). It would be unthinkable had he not interpreted all dissent as confrontational, i.e. Fannon. As sponsor of the bill, and given it was just Police Chief of Podunk resisting, why did he never contact the local mayor to make her aware of that resistance and to squelch it? Again, the supporting inaction is deafening. Finally, if you're not forthright about this last one, further discusion is fruitless... while Croft and Palin, as governor, actually have worked hand-in-hand and cross-aisle on legislation matters, he is on record as a vocal critic of the McCain-Palin ticket and is actively stumping for Obama in conjunction with his own bid for Mayor of Anchorage. He has a vested interest in Obama's victory. That matters. It matters in how words are parsed, and it matters on the weight we give to them. Fcreid (talk) 21:58, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, this is maddening, like talking to a child who has his fingers stuck in his ears. Your screed is so chock-full of ridiculousness I am going to have to respond clause by clause instead of sentence by sentence.

"Okay, based on your own inclusion of OR above that Croft was neither speculating nor deliberately crafting his words,"

First, I never said Croft wasn't speculating. I said he wasn't DISHONESTLY SPECULATING WITHOUT BASIS. And he wasn't... he *states the basis for his speculation right there in the article"

Second, I never said he wasn't deliberately crafting his words, I said he wasn't playing deceptive semantic games in which he is saying something he doesn't really believe. And he's not. He thinks Palin knew. That much is clear from his words. The idea that he is saying something he doesn't believe only comes into play when you assign him the role of "lying, dishonest campaign smearer". In any case *IT'S NOT ORIGINAL RESEARCH TO TAKE COMMENTS FROM A RELIABLE SOURCE AT FACE VALUE* ... IT'S ORIGINAL RESEARCH TO TAKE THEM AT ANYTHING OTHER THAN FACE VALUE.

Once again, I am going to assert that you have near-zero understanding of Misplaced Pages policies. If you don't believe me, fine. I don't care if you're convinced or not. But I'm not going to argue "the finer points of utter nonsense" with you ad infinitum.

"maybe we can have a more serious conversation now that I see a crack of light from an open door that allows rational interpretation of "other things".

I have been having a serious conversation with you. You have been spouting utter nonsense. I'm sorry there isn't a more charitable way of saying this.

"First, and I reiterate, if Palin knew about this, why isn't that position documented anywhere? "

If anyone were trying to insert a Misplaced Pages claim saying "Palin knew about her appointee's controversial rape kit policy", this would be relevant. Since it's just a fact about someone's opinion, it's not relevant. If you're asking for my personal opinion on why it's not documented anywhere, it's because Palin is crafty about hiding her actions and intention because she feels her critics are untrustworthy or have no right to judge her. (Shades of Pentecostalism). This is evidenced, for example, by her conducting state business using her personal email account FOR THE SPECIFIC REASON THAT THIS PERSONAL EMAIL ADDRESS IS SHIELDED FROM THE SCRUTINY THAT THE OFFICIAL ADDRESSES SHE WAS SUPPOSED TO USE ARE SUBJECTED TO. But guess what? Even if I went and substantiated that extensively with my own investigation IT WOULD BE ORIGINAL RESEARCH and couldn't be reflected on Misplaced Pages.

And guess what? Your attempt to discount or refute Croft's claim USING YOUR OWN UNPUBLISHED ANALYSIS .. IS ALSO ORIGINAL RESEARCH.

And guess what? QUOTING CROFT ISN'T ORIGINAL RESEARCH, NOR IS A PLAIN ENGLISH PARAPHRASE.

"If the matter was a state-wide spectacle, as you seem to embrace, it would have been raised at hearings, legislative sessions and the media. The dearth of contemporaneous evidence is deafening, Factchecker, and simply does not corroborate Croft's after-the-fact recollection."

It was raised in hearings and the media. Witness the Frontiersman article, witness the hearings. And once again, IT IS NOT YOUR JOB, AND YOU HAVE NO STANDING, TO CLAIM A RELIABLY SOURCED PUBLISHED CLAIM BY A NOTABLE FIGURE IS NOT CORROBORATED, NOR THAT IT'S A MESS OF LIES BECAUSE IT WASN'T PUBLISHED IN 2000. You can say it to your friends, to your family, but not on Misplaced Pages... because THAT WOULD BE ORIGINAL RESEARCH.

"Next, the legislation was Croft's baby. He sponsored the law, and it's a good law, at least given that it did once result in a victim receiving a bill (although never in Wasilla). It would be unthinkable had he not interpreted all dissent as confrontational, i.e. Fannon."

Ok, so the law was Croft's baby. He'd get madder n' a' snake if anyone opposed it. I'm not sure where you are going with this. If you're trying to suggest that we not reflect his views because he's bound to be critical of anyone who opposed the laws, please read WP:BLP ... and stop trying to suggest that.

"As sponsor of the bill, and given it was just Police Chief of Podunk resisting, why did he never contact the local mayor to make her aware of that resistance and to squelch it? Again, the supporting inaction is deafening. "

First off, do you have a source for that or are you just making it up? Second, where are you going with this? Are you going to try to say that if Croft didn't contact Palin in 2000, this proves she didn't know, or this proves it wasn't controversial, or what? Once again, if you're pulling analysis out of thin air, IT'S ORIGINAL RESEARCH. ONLY IF THE ANALYSIS HAS BEEN PUBLISHED CAN IT GO IN WIKIPEDIA. Why can you not understand this simple bedrock policy?

" Finally, if you're not forthright about this last one, further discusion is fruitless..."

Further discussion is indeed fruitless, but it's not because I'm not forthright.

"while Croft and Palin, as governor, actually have worked hand-in-hand and cross-aisle on legislation matters, he is on record as a vocal critic of the McCain-Palin ticket and is actively stumping for Obama in conjunction with his own bid for Mayor of Anchorage. He has a vested interest in Obama's victory."

This makes him a Palin critic and opponent. Your repeated suggestions that this somehow disqualifies his criticisms are nothing short of absurd. Once again I direct you to read Misplaced Pages policies, especially WP:BLP and WP:Verifiablity.

"That matters. It matters in how words are parsed, and it matters on the weight we give to them. "

TRUE... FALSE... TRUE

It CERTAINLY does not allow us to reinterpret what was said to have a meaning opposite the obviously intended meaning. It requires THAT WE ATTRIBUTE THE WORDS TO CROFT AND NOT PRESENT IT AS A MAJORITY OPINION. WOULD YOU FREAKING READ WP:WEIGHT BEFORE NAME-DROPPING THE RULE??

I have no interest in continuing this discussion further. I'm a big fan of real life and there is a brick wall outside so I will just go bash my head against it. Please don't post here anymore unless you have some epiphany that makes you think, "I've seen the error of my ways!" Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 23:45, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Factchecker, but I'm of the ilk that subscribes to the theory that rules must be broken if they don't pass a basic smell test. If you're looking for some lackey whom you can whip into line like a rented mule here, you've rented the wrong mule. I may be a n00b, but I'm not your bitch. Fcreid (talk) 18:41, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Go ahead, keep breaking every rule in the book to force your slant onto the article. I can't stop you and 3 other full-time policy-ignoring ownership editors at once. Just don't try to come here and tell me you're justified in rewriting the 5 pillars whole cloth. And for the third time, please leave me alone.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:13, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Preserved for posterity (and irony)

The statement about a clear majority is false; but even so, consensus doesn't mean unilaterally ramming your way down the throat of numerous other editors. Please see WP:What_is_consensus?.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 00:17, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, so stop unilaterally cramming your already defeated ideas down the throats of the majority of editors.LedRush (talk) 00:31, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Full Protection of Candidate's Bios

Hi Factchecker, Please express your opinion in the discussion at "Should the election bios stay fully protected through the election": ] Thanks, IP75 (talk) 07:55, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Hokey mom's Hitler salute

Good catch! I'm only surprised that it survived so long. So long, Writegeist (talk) 20:26, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Sometimes it's impressive what people think they can slip in. Next we'll see a supposedly "earnest discussion" on whether Palin has stopped beating her husband.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 17:17, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

3RR Warning for Sarah Palin

Your enthusiasm is commendable, but WP:3RR still applies.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:10, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Using a tag-team is not a way around 3RR, nor is 3RR a way around NPOV, Verifiability, etc. Warn away.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 22:16, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

"Warning" from one of a WP:TAGTEAM? That's rich. Writegeist (talk) 23:01, 3 November 2008 (UTC)