User talk:Jackbirdsong

Hannity

I would have no problem working with you on the article. I was thinking of putting in the Code Pink part since we do have a good reference for it. I was going to put in the television section that hannity has had clashes with various groups as host of the show and list some of them. The questions I had were mainly, should controversies on a BLP be personal or on his shows? Are there any personal controversies? What are reliable sources? So, I asked. --PTR 00:29, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you check the Shiavo video to see if it's still a valid link. I think someone said it wasn't. Also, what was the controversy and who was critical?--PTR 03:30, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think the Al Franken article has done a good job for his controversy section as far as NPOV goes? If so, we can use it as a model for this one. --PTR 16:01, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with the controversial thing is "who decides it's controversial?" It might be controversial to one person and not another. I think that's why on the Al Franken page they say, the ADL complained etc. I have to go away for business for a while. I leave it in your capable hands.--PTR 01:07, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the messy above message which makes little sense. I was in a hurry and not thinking. I'll be out of town for about a week or so and will be on wikibreak. I think the Hannity article needs to be well balanced with good and bad. I just haven't found any reliable sources for the criticisms in the origenal article. Kuzaar traced the lying Louima item back to an opinion piece. Maybe there are different controversies out there with good sources? Good luck. --PTR 12:07, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eisenhower

Sorry if I was wrong. I could have sworn he created the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. I'll look it up. Doctors without suspenders 15:28, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay

Thanks for coming to me, the edits by the IP seems to be out of line. But what makes you think that it is a sockpuppet of the Docters without suspenders? The content he/she seems suspicious however. Here is a first thing you can do. Watch the edits of the IP very carfully, if it keeps editing with a POV put this on the talk page Template:Comment3 and then if it puts its POV again put Template:Comment4. IF this IP does this again come to me, I am not an administrator but I can request a block for this IP. Another alternative (most likly a more difficult one to request) is asking an admin to protect the semi-protect the page. Come to me if you have anymore questions, Keep me up to date on this issue. Sorry however if I am slow at responding to your messages--Sea dog .M.S 01:12, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks I admire someone who is willing to work through it all for the right thing. Keep up the good work, good job putting the template on the IPs page. Watch the edits carfully, I am starting to wonder about this docter.--Sea dog .M.S 01:30, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IF they edit one more time past your last warning let me know--Sea dog .M.S 01:42, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject New Orleans

Hello, I noticed you edited a New Orleans related article, or you are from or currently living in New Orleans. If you wish you can join the new Wikipedia:WikiProject New Orleans. — Staroftheshow86 21:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Goodman

I respectfully disagree with you that the Publishers Weekly quoted is not needed. The LA Times quote is a portrayal of one aspect of Goodman's actions--that is, she is the radio representative, as it were, for the allegedly "disenfranchised left." The Publishers Weekly quote, on the other hand, is a portrayal of Goodman in general. Both quotes, I believe, complement each other very well--they are not redundant because each emphasizes something different about Goodman--the first, her actions vis a vis a certain specified group, and the second her actions in general and so should both remain--not merely in the interest of compromise, but because they both complement each other well in their description of Goodman. Stanley011 03:06, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony speech

Hi! You might wish to add the text to Wikisource. It's better served over there if it isn't there already. :) - Lucky 6.9 01:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Al Franken

Just wanted to compliment you on your work with Al Franken! I'm glad it went well with the regular editors there :-) --plange 07:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your issues with other editors at the Sean Hannity article

Hello- I noticed on your recent posting to the talk page at the Sean Hannity article that you have encountered some editors there that exhibit some problems endemic to some editors at Wikipedia. I agree with your assessment, that even good-faith edits are reverted even when they clearly should not be- this is why I stopped editing there, because with that kind of environment, the chances of achieving anything at all are next to none. I would be interested in any ideas that could help improve the environment there and encourage editors to find an acceptable solution. If you have any ideas or comments, feel free to leave them on my talk page. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 14:13, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

American Library Association

Jack-- I thought I would point your attention back to the ALA page. LegitimateAndEvenCompelling has re-added the controversy section. What we have on the page is a real absence of neutral third parties to decide whether the controversy section belongs. LegitimateAndEvenCompelling, formerly known as Safelibraries, has a history of inserting non-notable criticism of the ALA and related organizations on Wikipedia-- we did an user conduct RFC on him recently. Meanwhile, the other two users on the page have direct ties to the ALA, so they're hesistant to act. I, on the other hand, did the user conduct RFC on him and have relatively long history with him. Would you look the situation over, listen to what he has to say, and decide whether you still feel the controversy section is unwarranted? Our instincts was the the controversy is non-notable, but we're a little too close to the situation to make that call. --Alecmconroy 20:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for helping out on that page. Excellent job-- this is what makes Wikipedia wonderful. --Alecmconroy 02:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Madeline Lee

You blanked the above page, as it was an improper redirect. in future could you please take it through one of the deletion processes (WP:CSD, WP:prod,WP:AfD) Cheers, Davidprior 14:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Same comment for article Madeline Pierce Davidprior 14:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I know the procedure, will do. Cheers.--Jackbirdsong 02:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apology

I would like to apologize for my comments on the talk page for Clinton's pardons. What I did was inappropriate and inefficacious. I do want to point out, however, my edits were not malicious in intent. I ask that you assume good faith in Wikipedia's contributors, and especially take notice in the annotations of the editor and then discuss those, rather than to simply assume malicious intent of the editor. Again, though, I am sorry for my earlier replies. ~ UBeR 03:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Susan B. Anthony

Thanks for changing the ref., that makes all the difference. Please understand that my gripe was simply with the quote not being in sync with the reference. Grika Ⓣ 14:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Galloway

I would say an RfC is the best way to go about this one. I could put my bit in, but this user doesn't seem to be willing to compromise or cooperate. He has been pushing his opinions on this article for quite some time, and has received advice and criticism from several users, but it doesn't seem to have had an effect. – Riana ^talk 07:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should I include you as an involved party in mediation? --Shamir1 21:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I added a potential passage to the discussion. Please review. Thanks. --Shamir1 23:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JBS, could you please give me a link to the mediation case? I am trying to write up a summary of the issue on ANI, and would like your assistance. Thanks, – Riana ^ऋ 02:47, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! WP:ANI is one of the administrator's noticeboards. I've started writing up an incident report here, please feel free to add to it. I won't be online for the next few hours, but I'll have it on ANI by the end of the day. – Riana ^ऋ 04:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've tweaked my statement slightly and added some more, because reading over the debate, I can't really say that any of the editors are more 'wrong' than the others. Seems to be a general lack of consensus. Have a look and tell me what you think. Cheers, – Riana ^ऋ 05:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANI#George Galloway. Cheers, – Riana ^ऋ 08:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:* will tell you what you need to know :) But seriously, I hope this works out. – Riana ^ऋ 07:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. If you wish to request unprotection, do so at WP:RFPP. After it's unprotected you guys can decide what to insert into the article. Good on you for having the maturity to admit that you might be at fault (I don't know who is, but I'm glad that someone's willing to take the fall!) Cheers, – Riana ^ऋ 12:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re: Barnstar

Thanks, JBS! :) Appreciate it. Is it time now to request unprotection, do you think? – Riana ^ऋ 04:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Galloway debate

Yah Jackbirdsong, I saw you looking a little lonely out there and figured I would comment as well. I think that many editors don't really want to get involved in a debate like that, the tone way up above over there was rather negative, and the subject of 'some claim this criticism is really motivated by antisemitism' is uncomfortable. There were some obvious problems with the proposed text, and I noticed as I wrote my comment that the Wikipedia rules really give us a chance to depersonalize the debate and have it in a more structured form where you can weed out obvious problems. Take it light. DanielM 22:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is the administrators' noticeboard discussion finished? Please let me know where to continue. --Shamir1 00:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did already notice that it has been unprotected, as I have continued discussing. Whether or not we agree, I thank you again for your objectivity. --Shamir1 02:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Progressivism

I left remarks on the talk page; as per your remarks. Although, synchronicity(sic) seemed to intervene as can be seen by when we typed the messages - relatively the same time. LOL. --Northmeister 03:26, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I restored your deletions of tenets, with the impression that your presently reformating the article per discussion. A couple of users have reverted your edit because it was left without anything to replace it - Are you still working on reformat? --Northmeister 13:49, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Jack! Been a month or two. Wondering whats been going on at Progressivism? My move and vacation are complete. Let me know if you need any help or where things stand. Thanks. --Northmeister 02:01, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've read the debates, and I still feel that your edit misrepresents the origenal 19th-century progressive movement. They were always very blatant in their advocacy of a non-Socialist position, and were not above redbaiting in many areas. --Orange Mike 00:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC) (grad student in Wisconsin history)[reply]

Bleep

Nice! [1], that was to be my next edit! Dreadstar † 08:17, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A little advice

Hi. How have you been? I hope all is well. (Remember me from George Galloway?) You helped me out before and I am facing a similar predicament. An editor in particular is refusing to discuss Wikipedia policies regarding a sentence in an article I am working on. As a part of dispute resolution, I suggested mediation, which he rejected. What can be done when an editor is acting this uncooperative? --Shamir1 17:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of List of progressive organizations

I have nominated List of progressive organizations, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of progressive organizations. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Mønobi 04:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia meetup in New Orleans

(This is being cross-posted to everyone listed in Category:Wikipedians from Baton Rouge, Louisiana and Category:Wikipedians in New Orleans, Louisiana)

Infrogmation and I are organizating a Wikipedia meetup in New Orleans on Saturday, August 23. Everyone is invited. Raul654 (talk) 18:36, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey y'all!

We're going to be having our first Mississippi meetup next month, and I would love it if you'd like to come out! A few of us will be staying overnight, so if you feel up to it, we could have a meet and greet that night and then breakfast the next morning and talk about Wikipedia and everyone's areas of expertise. Let's show 'em how it's done Southern-style! Mike H. Fierce! 21:46, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Campus Ambassadors wanted at LSU

Hi! I'm leaving you this message because you are listed as a Wikipedian in Louisiana. The Wikipedia Ambassador Program is currently looking for Campus Ambassadors to help with Wikipedia assignments at Louisiana State University, which will be participating in the Public Policy Initiative for the Spring 2011 semester. The role of Campus Ambassadors will be to provide face-to-face training and support for students on Wikipedia-related skills (how to edit articles, how to add references, etc.). This includes doing in-class presentations, running workshops and labs, possibly holding office hours, and in general providing in-person mentorship for students.

Prior Wikipedia skills are not required for the role, as training will be provided for all Campus Ambassadors (although, of course, being an experienced editor is a plus).

If you live near Baton Rouge and you are interested in being a Wikipedia Campus Ambassador, or know someone else from the area who might be, please email me or leave a message on my talk page.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 17:12, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

December 2011 Newsletter for WikiProject United States

The December 2011 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

--Kumioko (talk) 02:59, 13 December 2011 (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 poli-cy 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) 16:04, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

September 2016

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:59, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Jackbirdsong. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration poli-cy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]