Archives

/Archive 1: July 19, 2006 – August 22, 2006

Archives

/Archive 2: August 22, 2006 - July 26, 2007

Archives

/Archive 3: July 27, 2006 - September 12, 2007

Thank you for catching my spelling mistakes. Me lern too speld purty sumday. :) youngamerican (wtf?) 11:59, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good edits to my work on Robert Byrd, though. I think your work balanced out my work.--Getaway 14:03, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A compliment from you gives me extra validation as to why I spend countless thankless hours on this project. I'm truly honored. Cheers. youngamerican (wtf?) 01:38, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great edits at Robert Byrd! I undid one edit here, basically because I had to "prove" that the Slate article was not an op-ed piece and was verifiable. It is also not against policy to add more than one cite if it satisfies the basic requirement of citing a source. I can't recall if this was discussed at Robert Byrd or at Strom Thurmond more extensively, but let me know if you want to discuss this further! Keep up the good work, Seicer (talk) (contribs) 03:23, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just because it doesn't have a URL attached to a reference doesn't invalidate it. I suggest you do a little searching and I'm 100% sure you will find it. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 17:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did search and I did not find it. Also, the burden is on you to provide the citation, not me.--Getaway 17:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The citation is there. If you are not willing to locate the source, and others can vouch for it, then the burden is on yourself. There is no reference at WP:CITE regarding non-Internet sources. Would you disregard a book if it was a source if no free or snipped version was available online? Or a newspaper with no online homepage? For this particular article, it is in the archives and can be referenced through Access News Web -- although it cannot be hyperlinked here to Wikipedia due to its excessive length and because only academic students typically are the only users of such a service. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 22:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, the burden is on you, the editor bringing forth the citation. If you cannot hyperlink to it, then you need to provide some of the wording of the source on Robert Byrd's talk page. That burden is on you, the proponent of the allegedly reliable source. You have made a claim that the citation exists, but you have not offered any proof that the citation exists. You have merely asserted that I must do your work and find the citation. Well, I did your work and I did not find the citation. However, there is a larger problem with the information. It is still an opinion that is offered as fact. And you are using an opinion piece to back up a commentary that you are offering as fact, even though it is opinion. Now, there is a third problem with the information. It does not provide anything of value to the article. The article already has several quotes from Byrd, not some source in a small town paper that no one can read, offering his mea culpa and apologia. And moreover, there is a fourth reason (but not the last reason) for the information's removal is that it was offered, in the first place, as simply a slam at Strom Thurmond somehow, and that is precisely what the Slate article does--clearly taking Slate into the area of opinion and not fact. Until the other article is provided (or some of the relevant wording is provided) then I am going remove the controversial material. Discretion is the better part of valor.--Getaway 22:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the future, regarding talk:Robert Byrd, just snip out the portions you want to reply to and post them in quotes or copy the signatures and apply them to the dissegmented post. Jumping in between a conversation that isn't exceedingly long without adding signatures to the chopped portions renders the attribution useless. If another user jumps in and replies to one of your posts, then it can become quite messy. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 17:19, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Responded on Seicer's talk page.

So, essentially you will be wikistalking my edits and violating WP:TALK in the future? Seicer (talk) (contribs) 19:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. I never said that. Now, you go away. I will not talk to you any longer. I will not stand for your harassment.--Getaway 19:59, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have created a Wikiquette Alert about your pattern of incivility.--Dcooper 19:56, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the current version of the Condoleezza Rice page represents a good compromise, and is perhaps the best solution, due to the fact that it does not require either of us to waste any more time, participate in an edit-war or violate the 3RR - all of which we are either currently doing, or in danger of doing. This current edit keeps all of the information regarding Forbes/Time, however moves it to a less prominent position, I hope you feel the same way as I do about this edit, as perhaps it would be better for us to spend our time editing wikipedia in a constructive manner, than having petty disputes.Sennen goroshi 20:17, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You must be very proud that a fellow American, Al Gore, has won the Nobel Peace Prize. Very proud indeed! 206.211.166.17 14:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't leave Wiki, come back and play! We miss you. Where did you go? --208.58.69.85 (talk) 23:56, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think he left. He formerly edited as Keetoowah but was placed on probation and when he began to attack users again, he was confronted and he switched to the Getaway account. After I started a report about Getaway's pattern of incivility, he abandoned this account. I suspect he then created the account JobsElihu. When someone asked him if he was Keetowah/Getaway, that account was abandoned. I'm sure he's still posting under another account and still seething with rage every time he encounters an editor without a right-wing bias.--Dcooper (talk) 15:35, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Now he's sniping anonymously from the revolving IPs of dial-up service, when he's not jumping from terminal to terminal at his local Kinko's. Poor thing. --StephenLaurie (talk) 04:06, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Too lazy to type m;mach 22:05, 1 July 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by J1MZ11 (talk • contribs)

Hi Getaway,

I'm asking Wikipedians who are interested in United States legal articles to take a look at WP:Hornbook, the new "JD curriculum task force".

Our mission is to assimilate into Wikipedia all the insights of an American law school education, by reducing hornbooks to footnotes.

• Each casebook will have a subpage.

• Over the course of a semester, each subpage will shift its focus to track the unfolding curriculum(s) for classes using that casebook around the country.
• It will also feature an extensive, hyperlinked "index" or "outline" to that casebook, pointing to pages, headers, or {{anchors}} in Wikipedia (example).
• Individual law schools can freely adapt our casebook outlines to the idiosyncratic curriculum devised by each individual professor.

• I'm encouraging law students around the country to create local chapters of the club I'm starting at my own law school, "Student WP:Hornbook Editors". Using WP:Hornbook as our headquarters, we're hoping to create a study group so inclusive that nobody will dare not join.

What you can do now:

1. Add WP:Hornbook to your watchlist, {{User Hornbook}} to your userpage, and ~~~~ to Wikipedia:Hornbook/participants.

2. If you're a law student,

• Email http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:Hornbook to your classmates, and tell them to do the same.
• Contact me directly via talk page or email about coordinating a chapter of "Student WP:Hornbook Editors" at your own school.

(You don't have to start the club, or even be involved in it; just help direct me to someone who might.)

3. Introduce yourself to me. Law editors on Wikipedia are a scarce commodity. Do knock on my talk page if there's an article you'd like help on.

Regards, Andrew Gradman ^talk/_WP:Hornbook 20:45, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. You are being notified as you have made a number of contributions to the article. I have found some serious concerns which you can see at Talk:Stem cell/GA1. The artcile appears to contain many copyright violations. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are addressed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:07, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. You are being notified as you have made a number of contributions to the article. I have found some concerns which you can see at Talk:Condoleezza Rice/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:09, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ward Churchill academic misconduct investigation is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ward Churchill academic misconduct investigation until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.  Sandstein  11:29, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]