I think going and calling "bad reference code" over at Fox News Channel is a little much... it's nothing more than a missing url= tag, and functionality is the same. Please go easy on the removal of descriptions or information, or claims of "bad coding" :) thanks /Blaxthos 17:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I came off as overly sensitive -- the Fox News Channel article has always been a serious flame and vandal target, and I was a little confused regarding the removal of information from the citations that had no error at all -- it's one thing to add "url=", it's quite another to remove descriptions from working citations. It's been no easy task keeping the trolls off of FNC article, and I'm sure my WP:AGF reserve is lower than it should be. No hard feelings?  :-) /Blaxthos 19:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The new edit is much better. Thank you. -- I already forgot  talk  16:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I made a proposal it starts a paragraph above Talk:Off-road_vehicle#Build_a_criticism_section. Please come take a look and see what you think. Jeepday (talk) 03:43, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a desire to participate in writing a criticism section for Off-road_vehicle? Jeepday (talk) 15:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If your question is do I (Jeepday), make significant contributions to Wikipedia, look at Road and it's history. If your question is will you and I have different perspectives, I am pretty sure we agree in advance that will be true :) Hopefully I have outlined a process that will minimize the stress, in Place to discuss the steps and process I put an area to fine tune and reach agreement on what we are going to do before we actually start writting.

If your question is what body of work do I expect major participants (you and I, and who ever) to contribute. I expect at step 3, 4 and 5 we will each have an even division of labor on researching and writing about the subjects we select (maybe each will write 2 or something). I also expect that step 6 is going to be the hardest, but that can be minimized if we do a good job on step 1. I would expect that you I are probably pretty far apart on POV but I think as long as all participants are committed to working equally towards a WP:NPOV body of work and we do our best to assume good faith it should be fine. Jeepday (talk) 23:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I have a paragraph posted at Talk:Off-road_vehicle#Place_to_work_on_the_paragraphs and a discussion about vandalism at Talk:Off-road_vehicle#Jeepday_paragraph_on_Illegal_activities_of_ORV.27s take a look and let me know what you think. Jeepday (talk) 13:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Jeepday first draft of paragraph on illegal use of please take a look and give feedback. Jeepday (talk) 16:11, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How is it going? Jeepday (talk) 02:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I found this one http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=9989&page=6 while looking for my stuff. Seems like a pretty strong reference, that talks to fuel consumption and such. Jeepday (talk) 04:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I provided a Government Printing Office cite on my reversion of your edit with the above explanation at UCS since the Chicago Manual of Style site wasn't opening, but ran into a link to the Wikipedia MOS shortly after, so can now point to WP:PUNC (note the very first sentence) for examples of punctuation not migrating into quotes. You had me questioning my understanding for a sec, but... Andyvphil 08:56, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your good-faith edit to the Scott Thomas disambiguation page. I have reverted your edit for a couple of reasons:

1. It has been incontrovertibly proven that Beauchamp fabricated his stories.
2. Per WP:MoS (disamb), the description associated with a link should be sufficient to allow the reader to find the correct link.
3. Per WP:MoS (disamb), articles should not be pipe linked. Since there is no biography article for Scott Thomas Beauchamp (and since he is only notable for one incident, there should not be), the link redirects to Scott Thomas Beauchamp controversy. When there are exceptions to piped links, they should be explained. The article is about the fabrication controversy, not the controversial articles themselves--hence, noting that he fabricated the stories will lead the reader to identify the Scott Thomas Beauchamp Controversy.

In order to maintain a neutral point of view, the article could be tagged {{NPOV}} and other editors could comment. In the meantime, we should refrain from editing it further unless someone can come up with a more neutral way to mention that he fabricated the stories in a sentence fragment.

Thanks. Mrprada911 22:42, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Scott Horton (lawyer) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. —Jonathan | Quality, not quantity. 00:24, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]