User talk:Ramsquire

Archives
1,2,3,4,5,6

Workspace

Notification

I have decided to go ahead and implement the remedy as outlined at ANI concerning Jsn9333. Assuming Jsn9333 chooses not to comment further concerning this dispute,, I expect that other involved parties also let the issues/hard feelings go, specifically by not making any other comments. I am serious about the "poking" issues, and I want to re-iterate that everyone is cautioned to not attack each other's biases, not to speculate as to motivations, or basically do anything other than comment on the edits, not the editor. I hope this will close the book on the current dispute at the FNC talk page. Please go the extra mile to treat each other with respect. Thank-you, R. Baley (talk) 00:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, but I have two questions. One, I have no idea what "poking" is. Can you explain what it means? Two, I'm assuming this is a general note sent to all who commented at ANI, so I appreciate the conclusion of the matter. But as I have not attacked anyone nor have I been accused of doing so, do I have permission to delete your notification, lest someone reads my talk page and think it was personally directed to me. Heck, I ignored the guy to avoid wading into the sewer. Plus, I've been around here long enough to be accused of all sorts of things, and just want to head this off if I can. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 00:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• Hi Ramsquire, it is a general note. I left the same message to everyone who participated at ANI (except for the one self-designated uninvolved editor). "Poking" is just a term to describe edits people make, which can have the intended effect of provoking an unacceptable response from another editor (esp. one under stress. . .kinda like "baiting"). The threshold for poking is lower when someone feels (justified or not) like they're not being treated fairly. Thank-you, btw for your input there, and no one should construe the above notice as an indication of any problem behavior on your part. Hope this helps, R. Baley (talk) 01:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Video Music Box.jpg}

Thank you for uploading Image:Video Music Box.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check:

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 18:40, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

He's Back

This time as Raulman. Big surprise, eh? Joegoodfriend (talk) 19:57, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Steve Harvey

Do you have a source for Steve's birthname? I remember there used to be one, but I can't find it in the history of the article. Since his name is not well known, I think it should be sourced, to stop people from reverting it. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 22:46, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Quick search of IMDB comes up with reference. See here. When I get a chance I plan to do a good scrub of the article and update/add references for all of his stuff. Thanks. -- Absolon S. Kent (talk) 12:58, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

JFK Film idea

I really like your idea about how to include historical inaccuracies in JFK (film). Being general like that makes it easy to source, and readers can explore if they like. Tell me whether or not you will do this. If you can't, I'll be happy to do it for you —Preceding unsigned comment added by JakeH07 (talk • contribs) 19:42, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

FAQ

Hey man... I probably did not read the addition closely enough. I think my major concern is that the previous wording suggested facts not in evidence. Specifically:

Is there any proof that Fox News is biased as the lead implies?

As written, the question states an objective fact ("the lead implies Fox News is biased") and the answer implicitly agrees ("yes, the lead does seem to imply proof, but here's why it's not"). Though I think it's important to make the distinction between the controversy and the allegation, the previous wording is unquestionably a case of petitio principii. I tried to reword the question and the response with respect to those concerns without losing the underlying truths. It seemed to make more sense to address the issue in the context of the entire article rather than just the introduction, though the precedent is that the FAQ has only dealt directly with the intro in the past. If you have any opinions or ideas I'd love to hear em. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:32, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

That makes sense. I was trying to state the question the way a detractor would ask it. But if you thought it was begging the question and needed to be cleared up, I don't have a problem with it. I also don't have an issue with making the FAQ about the article in general, but it may be one of those things where a consensus should be formed. If no one objects, then that'll be good enough for me. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 17:30, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey there--Criticism of Bill o'reilly question

You said on the talk page that "consensus can change" and i agree, but in this instance, there was ZERO opposition/no talk objection to the subsection before it was deleted. So there was no consensus for deletion; in fact, deletion was not discussed, nor was any edit at all. So, again, what gives with the sudden deletion of a subsection that head been in the article for two months w/o any objection?Jimintheatl (talk) 02:26, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't know the history of the specific edit. But the policy reads that if a change is made and there is no objection, re-edit or anything, then you can take that as a consensus for your edit. But if someone later removes it, then you can take it that consensus may have changed. There doesn't have to be discussion first. There's a whole flow chart on consensus that bears this out. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 22:05, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

A brief history: the section was added mid-July. It was never deleted, no one objected to it. Several edits/expansions were made. Then, boom, outta here, gone. I found it odd.Jimintheatl (talk) 03:58, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Yo

I'm a little distressed at seeing you and Croc having friction, as I have immense respect for both of you. I think it's just kind of a misunderstanding, in that Arzel's been hit pretty hard because of his long pattern and recent suggestion that the article is an attack page, going through and objecting to all of it. That certainly removes any chance of objectivity, and Croc pointed that out. That certainly doesn't mean Jim's actions are okay, and I'm still not sure how to influence him without pissing him off to the point that he doesn't contribute at all. As I said on talk, the problem lies in allowing the zealots to war and then drawing the line somewhere in the middle of their battlefield. Not sure how to fix. Thinking... //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:54, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

RFC

Well said, makes sense. Thanks for your help. Wikiport (talk) 17:07, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

MSNBC

Please read WP:WEASEL for an explanation of my edits on this article. "Some observers say" is not the sort of prose we want on the encyclopedia. It can be fixed by simply saying who the observers are -- they have names, surely, so let's use them. Warren -talk- 23:02, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Ramsquire - see my replies here and here. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:30, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

O'Reilly & BLP

Thanks for the response. Obviously the editor may have some personal affiliation with the general subject matter, and it shows in his wording. However, removing his post entirely throws the baby out with the bathwater. In essence, there is only one sentence that actually crosses into the gray area surrounding WP:BLP. I will be re-inserting his major points, including the specific references he made, after dinner. We'll remove the offending sentence, to be sure; your help would be most appreciated. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

No prob, and will do. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 23:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Re:Lee Oswald

I didn't upload the picture, but merely copy-pasted it from the Jack Ruby article. Joyson Noel (talk) 04:15, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Criticism of O'reilly page....again.

If you have the time, could you (or maybe Balxthos) take a look at the Media Matters Source Reliability discussion on the CoBR page? The reason is because it is a fair amount of citations at risk, and the fact that MM is one of the critics mentioned in the first line makes me wonder what normal wikipedia procedure is to be used, or if there is to be a exception. I really don't know enough to participate in the discussion. Thank you. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 03:42, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm interested to see that Fru23 made edits to the Osama Bin Laden article, which he/she has not before, suddenly, and agree with another user, who seems to not have made any recent contributions to the article. Also, the edit summary:

'Fine, nobody seems to care about bolp any more. I guess being poorly sourced is not enough of a reason to remove stuff, I will go about this some other way.' seems to indicate that Fru23's been on wikipedia for a substantially longer time than his/her account. I don't know if this has to do with the possible WP:COI, but it seems like either Fru23 was either a really busy anon, or a returning user, if he/she is not a sock. Thanks for correcting the record on his blocks in Wp:BLP. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 06:21, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

JFK Movie Debunking

I've read 2 of the source texts for the JFK movie: On the Trail of Assassins and Crossfire. I believe the movie was true to those books. I have Robert Groden's book around here somewhere. I've followed this investigation since I was 12 (way before it was a movie) ... so I'm curious about claim that the movie has been proven completely fraudulent ... and therefore your justification for campaigning against assassination related articles. Hutcher (talk) 02:20, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about. I've never made the claim that the movie wasn't true to those books. In fact, JFK is one of my all time favorite movies. However, me pointing out that the narrative of the movie stretches some facts, misreads others, and makes up some is not a campaign against the movie or against assassination related articles. I am not going to list everything in that movie that has been debunked but it is easily available on the Internet and even here on Wikipedia. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 22:26, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

So you're saying that movies take dramatic license with their narrative? That's a different then "most of his most damning evidence in the film, is quickly shown to be false". If it's so quick and easy to disprove then enlighten us instead redirecting articles regarding the different subjects involved? A campaign is defined as "a connected series of operations" kind of like "My most inspiring, and tiring, work at Wikipedia has been in the JFK articles". Hutcher (talk) 02:37, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

What I'm saying is exactly what you quoted, "most of his most damning evidence in the film, is quickly shown to be false". It's a great movie but as Stone even admits, it's fiction. If you didn't know this, do a quick Internet search. You'll find a treasure trove of stuff. Here's one example. The "magic bullet" scene in the courtroom-- the only thing accurate in that scene is that Connally and Kennedy was in the same car, and there was a bullet, everything else is completely wrong. Oh and Ferrie never confessed to anything and died of natural causes. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 19:01, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

BOR

Please read the source, nowhere does it say that the settlement was "most likely millions of dollars". Weasel words and OR. Fru23 (talk) 00:58, 10 December 2008 (UTC)