| Revision as of 00:28, 2 August 2010 editScjessey (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers29,035 edits Warning: Refactoring others' talk page comments on Talk:Barack Obama. using TW← Previous edit | Revision as of 01:16, 2 August 2010 edit undoJahnTeller07 (talk | contribs)190 edits deleted useless partisan noise from my talk pageNext edit → | ||
| Line 25: | Line 25: | ||
| :::Your argument is, essentially, if source A compares the two shows ANY source mentioning both shows is comparing both shows. This is ]. - ] (]) 01:59, 1 August 2010 (UTC) | :::Your argument is, essentially, if source A compares the two shows ANY source mentioning both shows is comparing both shows. This is ]. - ] (]) 01:59, 1 August 2010 (UTC) | ||
| :::No, my argument is that if a source states that "Show A has 10 million viewers a night, Show B has 1 million viewers a night" it is not my analysis to compare the two and say that Show A has ten times the number of viewers per night. ] (]) 15:27, 1 August 2010 (UTC) | :::No, my argument is that if a source states that "Show A has 10 million viewers a night, Show B has 1 million viewers a night" it is not my analysis to compare the two and say that Show A has ten times the number of viewers per night. ] (]) 15:27, 1 August 2010 (UTC) | ||
| == August 2010 == | |||
| ] Please stop. If you continue to ] legitimate talk page comments, as you did at ], you may be ] for ]. <!-- Template:uw-tpv3 --> ''Also, please don't use article talk pages as a forum.'' ] (]) 00:28, 2 August 2010 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 01:16, 2 August 2010
Your recent edits
Hello. 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. You may also click on the signature button 
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address 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 (talk) 00:47, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Eric Holder
- Actually, half of those are blogs or otherwise non-reliable sources.
- If you had used a single secondary source instead of a primary source, as I advised on the article's Talk, we wouldn't be having this conversation. So why don't you hone your reading skills a little? — Malik Shabazz /Stalk 00:39, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
- All but two of the links you left on my Talk page were editorials, opinion columns, or blog posts. There were news articles from The Bulletin and Fox News. Feel free to write about Holder based on what the news articles say, not the primary sources and non-reliable sources. — Malik Shabazz /Stalk 01:46, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you for your message. I'm glad we were able to work together constructively. I apologize for the nastiness of my comments above. — Malik Shabazz /Stalk 19:32, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
- Don't worry about it Malik...I knew it wasn't anything personal, thanks again JahnTeller07 (talk) 02:58, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
July 2010
{{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:39, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
JahnTeller07 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
while I agree that I should've used the talk page more often, I do not agree that some of my edits should have been reverted. I brought up a good point each time, but my edits are always reverted for partisan reasons. Every one of my edits was a matter of fact, and sourced with reliable sources.
Decline reason:
Please read WP:NOTTHEM. You were edit warring on multiple articles. Being "right" (assuming you were right) doesn't justify edit-warring. — Malik Shabazz /Stalk 19:52, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Hi...
So let me get this straight...if a source says that "Show A gets a daily viewing of one million people, and show B gets a daily viewing of 10 million people" it's my analysis to say that "show a gets one tenth the viewers of show B" because that's basically what I did. JahnTeller07 (talk) 20:49, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- P.S. Malik I understand your point and I do appreciate your clarification...but regarding the point above...I just don't see it. JahnTeller07 (talk) 22:49, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- You are the one person deciding to do that specific comparison. Why not compare Show A to Show C instead? Your favorite show absolutely CLOBBERED that rerun of some B movie run at 3 AM on some minor station. The show you don't like, how ever, was absolutely DESTROYED by game 7 of the World Series. Get it? - SummerPhD (talk) 00:58, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
- No, to me your logic is still flawed, it's pertinent to compare Show A to Show B if the subarticle is discussing the feud between the two anchors. The fact that they run at the same time on competing networks shows that A & B can and SHOULD be compared. It was talking about the feud between O'Reilly and Olbermann, why is it right to leave out the show's ratings? Or at least put "O'Reilly factor scores an X at time Y and a Z at time A; Olbermann's show has a rating of ... @ time ... etc..." It's pertinent information. JahnTeller07 (talk) 01:21, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
- Your argument is, essentially, if source A compares the two shows ANY source mentioning both shows is comparing both shows. This is synthesis. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:59, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
- No, my argument is that if a source states that "Show A has 10 million viewers a night, Show B has 1 million viewers a night" it is not my analysis to compare the two and say that Show A has ten times the number of viewers per night. JahnTeller07 (talk) 15:27, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
- No, to me your logic is still flawed, it's pertinent to compare Show A to Show B if the subarticle is discussing the feud between the two anchors. The fact that they run at the same time on competing networks shows that A & B can and SHOULD be compared. It was talking about the feud between O'Reilly and Olbermann, why is it right to leave out the show's ratings? Or at least put "O'Reilly factor scores an X at time Y and a Z at time A; Olbermann's show has a rating of ... @ time ... etc..." It's pertinent information. JahnTeller07 (talk) 01:21, 31 July 2010 (UTC)