Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! -- Francs2000 | Talk [[]] 21:57, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Heads Up

Your "spelling mistakes" are being monitored. [1]

And apparently, some comments of yours that you previously deleted, are being restored on to Discussion pages for some unknown reason. [2] 165.247.202.245 21:33, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

TDC, Winter soldier etc.

TDC is being completely ridiculous on Criticism of the Winter Soldier Investigation, you are certainly right for removing his changes. Ruy Lopez 22:20, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Swiftboating

The alternate definition on "swiftboating" that we negotiated is now coming under attack. I have reverted twice today, and am about to run up against 3RR. Just thought you should be aware. Crockspot 15:00, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I don't know how the reversion rules work, but maybe this should be hashed out on the talk page. --EECEE 06:01, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Swift Vets and POWs for Truth

Thanks for your recent edit at Swift Vets and POWs for Truth. It was an improvement over my version and I agree with your edit summary. Crust 14:12, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recent Edits

You recently made several edits at Vietnam Veterans Against the War including this one. This edit appears to have messed with the formatting of the article, causing the last third of the article to disappear. You may wish to reapply that edit. Xenophrenic 08:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, no idea how that happened. Thanks for catching that, and fixing it. --EECEE 18:41, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

American Patrol?

Self published if I ever saw one. You know better than that. Try to find a transcript from the original publisher, shouldn't be that hard. - Crockspot 21:21, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why Crock, are you following me around?! Very well, I found the original CSPAN transcript and will use that.

By the way, a page that consists entirely of a CSPAN transcript is most definitely NOT a self-published source under the Wiki guidelines. [3] --EECEE 00:02, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith. Your edits happened to pop up on my watchlist, as I have the Malkin article watchlisted. The AmericanPatrol website is most certainly a "self-published" source, in the sense that it is a website that is published by some guy, and has no editorial oversight or fact checking process. (IE, a blog). The CSPAN transcript direct from CSPAN is fine, but nothing from AmericanPatrol should ever cited as a reliable source, whether or not it is a transcript from an otherwise reliable source. That website is not itself reliable. - Crockspot 21:16, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Crock, I was just teasin' ya. I did see that you were a regular over at that article, so sorry I yanked your chain before looking. I disagree about the definition of a "self-published" source,as I think it goes to the content itself, but I did find and link to the original source. --EECEE 07:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I've had a chance to look at it again, it appears to be original research. The transcript is being used as a primary source to contradict or show hypocrisy in her stance. This violates WP:SYNTH. - Crockspot 18:21, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take this to the talk page. --EECEE 04:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Citing sources

Thanks for your continued work at the Swift Boat article. Please consider using <ref> </ref> tags and the cite templates ({{cite web}}, {{cite book}}, etc.) when adding sources. Thanks! /Blaxthos 17:32, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for all your work. Yes, I'm trying to figure out the newfangled (to me) tags and templates as I go, will try to be more consistent. --EECEE 17:57, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can copy all of the templates off of my user page, already preformatted with ref tags. - Crockspot 21:19, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. Thanks Crock. --EECEE 07:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just letting you know that I quit smoking last saturday, after about 35 years of on and off smoking, so I'm in a less than ideal mood lately. I've already snapped a head or two off this week, and I should not even be taking on any new disputes right now, but this one is so clear to me, that I cannot let it go. So try not to take this personally, it's about the content for me. I haven't even analyzed the entire Malkin article, and I am sure there are going to be other problem areas, but I'm going to focus strictly on this one issue. I have to work, so I'll try to get a neutrally-worded RfC out in the next 24 hours. - Crockspot 13:10, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for the disclaimer, Crock. I know you're usually a pretty civilized guy, so I won't take it personally. And congrats on quitting ! --EECEE 18:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP

I think you reverted sources including Chicago Tribune, Washington Post, Seattle Times, New York Times, and Factcheck.org on mistake as you called all those sources "inaccurate info". Since there were serious allegations, about a living person, John Kerry the claims must comply with WP:BLP. That means anything negative that is not cited with a WP:RS must be removed immediately. You reverted all those sources replacing them with unsourced allegations, in violation of BLP. We66er (talk) 17:33, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, this article is not a biography of a living person, but is about a political group. The biographical information about Kerry is secondary, and is not even really included in the discussion of the book. It is the book that made claims about Kerry, and the previous version of the article discussed those claims and the response to those claims in an NPOV fashion after much discussion among editors at the talk page. It was accurate and supported by cited material. (I have added even more cites.)

Those provisions were stripped out of the article without any discussion of their appropriateness by the editor, and were replaced with original research, personal conclusions, and argumentation. It contained extraneous material that was tangential to the article and to the book section of the article - for example, the response of the Kerry crewmates to T. Boone Pickens, which belongs, and is addressed in, the Swiftboat Challenge article. In fact it even argued about the ads, which are discussed in an entirely different part of the article. In addition, there certainly was inaccurate information, as they claimed that Corsi was a veteran when he is not.

I am going to revert your reversion until these proposed changes can be discussed at the talk page for the article, in keeping with the controversial topic process. Please do not start a revert war over this. (Crossposted at SBVT talk page.) --EECEE (talk) 05:06, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deepwater Horizon Edit

Actually, a lawyer is a reliable source. Not only because he can subpoena information, but also because it would be illegal for him to lie about the facts of the case. You should see the extensive debate on this earlier in which yet ANOTHER editor agreed that such a statement was, indeed, reliable. You should see the extensive commentary on MY talk page. 24.255.165.125 (talk) 18:21, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RSN#Deepwater_Horizon_Oil_Spill_Source . This has been debated extensively. Most editors agree the information is reliable. Stop killing it. 24.255.165.125 (talk) 18:28, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I pointed out before, at least one editor believes that Truthout and Greg Palaast may be considered reliable sources generally. That doesn't mean that this opinion piece in itself is a reliable source for supporting the text you included in the article.

As to your entry, despite your "At least one source suggest" statement, the rest of the text repeats an unsupported rumor as fact ("Workers claimed," "As a result, Halliburton..." etc.). It is a rumor propagated by a lawyer trying to make his case againsgt BP in the press. Not in a court of law, where the standard for evidence is indeed higher... in which case this unsupported statement would be inadmissable. In any case, even a legal argument made in a court of law cannot be presented as anything but an argument, not objective fact.

There are any number of rumors about the cause of the blowout, some reported by reputable sources. They are still just rumors and are not helpful to the objectives of the article. Please ask for more opinions before inserting this language again. --EECEE (talk) 19:21, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There have been at least 4 separate Wikieditors who have agreed that this language is fine and that the source is reputable. There is myself, the user who put it in separate from me, the editor on the reputable source page, and the editor who I had a skirmish with agreed in the end. Please read the links next time I send them to you. Please respect the decisions of the community and the proliferation of knowledge. That's what wikipedia is about. 24.255.165.125 (talk) 23:02, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I did read the links. The editor at the reliable source page said Palast and Truthout were considered reliable sources generally. That is not the same as saying your use of the article was appropriate. As I have said before, it is merely repeating a third-hand, unsupported rumor being propagated by someone with an agenda. Oh, and the editor who "agreed with you in the end" didn't agree with you at all but appears to have just given up, saying it would eventually be edited out when accurate information surfaced ... which of course is not the same as agreeing that it is an appropriate addition. That fourth editor just happens to use the identical language and use the identical, interchangeable arguments you make...just a coincidence I'm sure. Wikipedia is actually about the provision of accurate, unbiased, and verifiable information. Unsupported rumors presented as fact don't qualify. If you want to add a section for "Rumors" go right ahead, but include them all. --EECEE (talk) 23:23, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a freakin' rumor. Did you not listen to what I said about LAWYERS and SUBPOENAS. Lawyers CANNOT LIE ABOUT THE FACTS OF THE CASE. And I'm not sure why he's using the same arguments-- probably because they are good ones. So stop being a loser and leave the edits alone. 24.255.165.125 (talk) 23:39, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your saying it isn't a rumor doesn't make it so. And please reread what I said before about the difference between talking to a reporter and presenting evidence in court, not that I'm sure you get it but don't say it wasn't explained to you. Yes, just a coincidence your uhm, "friend" makes the same arguments you do. --EECEE (talk) 00:07, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Check the IPs, idiot. I'm in the middle-of-nowhere Kansas. I'd bet my bottom buck that whoever is agreeing with me ISN'T from Kansas (duh) (who is????) And bots would have reverted my edits if I had been using a proxy. It doesn't matter about talking to a reporter, he'd get kicked off the case for spreading terrible information. Losing potentially millions in the case. You should go back to law school. 24.255.165.125 (talk) 00:13, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well the whole point of having a screen name is that it doesn't show an IP address, isn't it? But sure, whatever you say...you guys are just connected on the astral plane. As to the rest, you might think twice about insulting other people's intelligence.--EECEE (talk) 00:25, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How was I to know he wasn't using an IP. You linked me to no such discussions or to his talk page. 24.255.165.125 (talk) 00:28, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're the one who brought up this mysterious "other user." --EECEE (talk) 02:20, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deepwater Horizon oil spill

Hi, EECEE. You have been an active editor on Deepwater Horizon oil spill and/or its related articles. During some last months there has been an active development of cleaning up that article by splitting off large sections into separate articles. A Deepwater Horizon series were created (all the articles accessible by Template:Deepwater Horizon oil spill series. You are invited to assist by cleaning-up and copy-editing these articles. There are also ongoing discussion concerning additional split-offs. You could see split-off templates at the article's page and find discussions at the talk page. Your input would be useful for building consensus on these issues. Thank you. Beagel (talk) 23:39, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 12:56, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]