Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:04, 28 March 2011

Please place new messages at the BOTTOM of the page.

I detest penis, especially since I lack one.

I detest stalkers, especially those who can't get their facts straight.

Watching the paranoid imagine more silliness. Paranoid people are so predictable

BJJFan

Hi Niteshift, I want to start updating some of the bjj fighters information on wiki.what would wiki consider reliable sources? I mean the only reliable source of bjj information seems to be from articles and news web sites spread out through the internet. Here are some examples: , , , those are the major online news for bjj and mma in the world. They publish monthly magazines as wellI mean would you consider those reliable sources? If not we have to shut down every major bjj competitor, because most information come from these sites. Also I've notice some fighters are adding the tournament results and fight records, in which are detailed information about their matches, what do you think about that? --Bjjfan232 (talk) 03:17, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Corkscrew store photo

that would be incredibly cool —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timothyapetty (talk • contribs) 01:13, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Sean Hannity

Greetings, Niteshift! I've asked an admin whom I respect greatly to weigh in on the whole Sean Hannity/waterboarding/sock puppet issue. Though he and I have collaborated on several articles in the past, we come from very distinct worldviews. As a self-described conservative Christian, he's actually probably more inclined to side with you, although I trust him completely to strive for a neutral point of view. (Not saying you don't... but again, I've worked with him many times.) Mainly, I'm hoping he can get to the bottom of the issue of sockpuppets and SPA's thwarting our efforts at consensus building. Looking forward to working with him, and you! -- JeffBillman (talk) 23:52, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Please don't think that I've supported the inclusion of the waterboarding statement because I want to see criticism of him for the sake of criticism — I believe that it's better included as an example of his political views on a touchy subject. And your userboxes — see mine if you've not already looked. I'm not suspecting you of being a staffer working with a hidden POV :-) Nyttend (talk) 13:19, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

• After giving the matter quite a bit of thought, I decided I agree with you on the Hal Turner issue. It's just not notable to an article on Sean Hannity. Indeed, about all that is notable about Hannity's days at WABC is that which already appears in the article-- and I say that as a fan of Hannity since shortly before his leaving WGST. (Yes, really! A non-traditional Libertarian who is a fan of a faithful Catholic conservative. Whodda thunk it? ;-) ) What worries me, though, is how the article has been redacted to the point that it does now seem to be askew of NPOV. And although the POV I think it now represents is not my own, that does not make it any more worrisome to me than if it had taken a POV that more closely matches my own. Cheers! -- JeffBillman (talk) 00:49, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Niteshift36

The references and facts you deleted form the Sean Hannity page met both notability and wp:V guidelines, and are clearly referenced according to BLP. Assuming good faith, otherwise deletion of referenced facts on public instances directly related to a new broadcaster and his show I think would be Vandalism. You stated there is no dispute the facts happened, and state they are given undue weight? What is the undue weight? They are simple statements he made, unkept promises he made on his tv show, (which must be given undue weight if it is mentioned? and the public response to his actions, including being called out infront of the President, and several other media outlets picking up the story. Being made a joke of infront of POTUS, while you may not like it, is NOTABLE, VERIFIABLE, and meet the WP:WELL KNOWN standards.

Please reference how this is given undue weight if there is no dispute about the fact that it happened? Is Al Capone's biography giving undue weight to his criminal actions when they are the newsworthy and notable events?

Also please justify the comment: The statement generated some attention, though there has been no public follow-up by Hannity and has since dropped from the media's attention. Or another question: why his theme songs are included in the article and relevant, or not considered given undue weight if something he said or promised to do but did not is relevant?

Please See: Public figures WP:WELLKNOWN

In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If it is not documented by reliable third-party sources, leave it out. Example: "John Doe had a messy divorce from Jane Doe." Is this important to the article, and was it published by third-party reliable sources? If not, leave it out, or stick to the facts: "John Doe divorced Jane Doe." Example: A politician is alleged to have had an affair. He or she denies it, but The New York Times publishes the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation belongs in the biography, citing The New York Times as the source.

Please do not violate 3rr or begin an edit war.Bluebadger1 (talk) 08:53, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Portal:Gang

I noticed that you been editing the Gang article . I just created a Portal (Portal:Gang) I need your help. If you have time, Can you help add some content to my portal. I would appreciate it, Thanks.--Zink Dawg -- 06:44, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Prod on David M. Malone

Drmies has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. {{subst:if||| {{{message}}} ||subst=subst:}} To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Wikiwings

		Wikiwings
		For extraordinary contributions to Aircraft in fiction, thus improving hundreds of aircraft type articles along the way! - Ahunt (talk) 15:19, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar may be awarded to those that show a pattern of going the extra mile to be nice, without being asked. This barnstar is awarded to User:Niteshift36, for his dedication to compromise and his ability to work with other editors to come up with amicable solutions which satisfy everyone. Thank you for your valiant efforts to the project. Ikip (talk) 02:59, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: Our earlier disputes

Hello, I'd like to formally apologize for any hurt feelings I may have caused, on the stormfront (website) page. I think we all have heated opinions about this, but I look forward to working with you to make a better article for everyone. Cheers :) Mr. Kent (talk) 23:47, 8 March 2011 (UTC) has given you a dove! Doves promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day happier. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a dove, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past (this fits perfectly) or a good friend. Cheers!

Spread the peace of doves by adding {{subst:Peace dove}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

History of the University of California, Los Angeles

After viewing the talk page in the main UCLA article, I have self-reverted to your version as the content is controversial and there isn't a clear consensus to its inclusion. If yet another user prefers it, I will support them. --Oakshade (talk) 04:10, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

• I saw that and had just finished responding on your page. I do appreciate it. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:13, 26 March 2011 (UTC)