User talk:Manticore55

Welcome!

Hello, Manticore55, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! -- Scientizzle 18:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Bridges (game designer)[edit]

If you feel that your edits have made the tag not applicable any longer, you may remove it yourself. A note on the talk page as to why you have done this would be appreciated. Personally, I do not see any reason why the tag has been placed on the article. It's obviously not a great article, but the subject seems notable enough. Remove the tag yourself and note it, there is no need to ask the tagger to "reconsider" his tagging (I was watching Stoic atarian's talk page and so caught your comment). Lexicon (talk) 23:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BYU[edit]

I hope you haven't left for awhile. I agree now that we should keep the Recent Events section. Please just try not to be so fiery about it. I was pretty surprised by your reaction since you seemed to have acknowledged earlier that it might need to be removed as the History section was shortened. I wouldn't have removed it otherwise. I'm also curious as to what exactly I took out that is non-LDS in nature? Is the article biased now, in your view? I basically just did a lot of ruthless chopping of all but the bare bones of history. It wasn't intended to be a final draft at all. Wrad (talk) 01:53, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recent Events about to be deleted at BYU[edit]

A consensus is developing to remove this section. I thought I'd let you know since you're the one who wanted to keep it most. Basically, now that Mitt Romney is long gone everything seems to have blown over and it may be time to remove it from the main article and let it stay in the History subarticle only. Wrad (talk) 02:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Palin Mine Road[edit]

Help me out here. Where on the talk page is the discussion of the mine road? And why do you think it's remarkable? (Compared to the ebay jet or the bridges to nowhere or the chef, it's gotten very little attention. I never hear her or McCain or her opponents or even many Alaskan newspapers mention it.) Not that I think there's anything wrong with including it in the Governor article, it's certainly true. Just want to know why you think it's important enough to be in the main article. (Incidentally, I did not remove it again. I notice it's not in the main article now, but I didn't take it out.)GreekParadise (talk) 19:42, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Manticore55 (talk) 19:50, 9 September 2008 (UTC) ....I think we had crossed wires here....I was concerned about making the Mayor's article a sub article because it didn't mention anything about Library censorship. The mine road does seem rather obscure.[reply]

Your opinion on NPOV Sarah Palin? TAKE TWO[edit]

Please post at talk, thanks. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 03:41, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy note[edit]

Hi, just to let you know that I mentioned you in this thread. Writegeist (talk) 17:13, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ITN for Cuban relations with the Organization of American States[edit]

On 3 June, 2009, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article Cuban relations with the Organization of American States, which you substantially updated. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the In the news candidates page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 23:21, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Dull Boy (novel)[edit]

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Dull Boy (novel), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

Non-notable book.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. ttonyb1 (talk) 01:07, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Manticore55 (talk) 14:24, 18 June 2009 (UTC)When a book is published by a major New York publishing company, I do not consider that 'non notable.'[reply]

Dull Boy (novel)[edit]

I saw you reasoning for removing the Prod form the article. Unfortunately having a publisher does not denote Notability. Please read Notability (books) for the specific criteria. Thanks and my best to you. ttonyb1 (talk) 15:07, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like history bore me out about its notability. And I still think that the notability test for books is WAY WAY WAY too high. Manticore55 (talk) 16:16, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

December 2009[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Your test on the page Talk:Sarah Palin worked, and has been removed. If you would like to experiment further, please use the sandbox. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing and its related help page for more information. Thank you. 柳 Raidon Kane 21:51, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The issue was to prove a point. If it is notable enough for Obama and Bill Clinton, its notable enough for the Palin article. I notice that the same crowd of pro Palin commentators showing up in the talk pages on the Obama page. Manticore55 (talk) 21:53, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I left a few comments on the Palin feud - living in northern Europe I'm not in-depth familiar with all the controversies around her, but your argument for inclusion is perfectly sound -I'm thinking both of the drug use admission and the referencing of what Palin had written and signed as governor of Alaska (primary sources). The way the referencing of criticism and "embarrassing news" were quickly washed out of the article by her supporters & cronies of theirs who don't understand how reference works are written, is all too familiar from other WP articles on controversial people with fan clubs.Strausszek (talk) 01:50, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3O on GW[edit]

I've removed your 3O tag. It is definitely inappropriate: as WP:3O says Third opinion is a means to request an outside opinion in a dispute between two editors. When two editors cannot agree, either editor may list a dispute here to seek a third opinion. It is not appropriate for heavily watched pages. Nor is there any real clue on the talk page what your problem is. Please begin by adding a section there clearly stating why you want the article tagged. We'll then patiently explain why you're wrong, and you won't listen, but at least we'll all have followed the proper processes William M. Connolley (talk) 19:18, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have commented on the talk page. I feel that the 'dominant faction' on the talk page is utterly ignoring any and all comments to the contrary of Pro AGM and that the article must exlusively be about science, when there is clearly a large number of editors who have opinions that it also has large political ramifications. If 3rd Option is inappropriate since there are more than two editors involved, I shall escalate accordingly. Manticore55 (talk) 20:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MedCab[edit]

There's no way any sane Wikipedian would mediate this article. Try MedCom, if anywhere. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 11:06, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well.....you've got a point there. Manticore55 (talk) 02:21, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Palin[edit]

Sarah Palin is under article probation. After reviewing your edits, I am banning you for one week from making any edits to Sarah Palin and all related topics, owing to disruption and edit warring (not 3rr). After one week, please use the article talk page before deleting any sourced content and please gather consensus for any edits which you believe might further a neutral outlook on the topic, before making them. You can appeal this short topic ban at WP:ANI or to arbcom. If you make any edits to Sarah Palin or a related article in the next week, you may be blocked from editing for one week. You may edit the talk pages. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:34, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree with your assessment though I will abide by it. I shall instead begin a series of monitoring the talk page and documenting what I believe is systemic abuse of Wiki Policy by certain individuals in question. I do not consider my edits unreasaonable nor do I consider them edit warring. The section in question is extremely POV, it violates NPOV and the standards on the acceptable use of Primary sources seems to largely be whether or not it is pro palin. Consensus is invalidated temporarly since those who edit on the page are blatantly pro Palin as compared to the hard work that was originally used in good faith on both sides to achieve a significant portion of the wording earlier which Malke is systemically removing. The fact that you put me on probation after such a limited time shows little forethought given to the subject, but since accusations of irrationality are the first tactic in such cases, I shall simply take the long view and begin documenting the obvious pattern.

Then, I shall move to correct the violation of policy and THEN if you initiate this action again in so short a time I shall appeal it, only this time with plenty of evidence to back me up. Manticore55 (talk) 17:12, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This has nothing to do with whether or not the aritcle is PoV, nor is it a comment on your good faith, which is indeed assumed. Use the talk page to gather consensus for your edits, that's why I said "You may edit the talk pages." You are not on probation, the article itself is on probation. This short topic ban is only a warning not to edit the article for a week. Perhaps you can use the time to gather more sources to support your edits. However, if you want to remove sourced material from the article, you'll need consensus. Lastly, WP:NPOV means that many and sundry sourced outlooks on a topic can be carried by an article. You'll not be able to sway the text narrative into carrying any single given outlook. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:22, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't trying to sway it to a specific outlook, rather, prevent it FROM being swayed to a particular outlook, or due to conveniently placed facts, TO a particular outlook, but your point is noted. Manticore55 (talk) 21:49, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Manticore, as another witness to the gradual erosion of any semblance of balance at SP, I rather agree with your observations at SP Talk today. (Does it look almost as if there's been a clean-up crew at work? Goshdarnit, you betcha!) But as any efforts to (re-) introduce balance will be met with the usual responses and penalties, fans of NPOV are probably best advised to wait until nearer 2012---when readership will presumably increase and NPOV will be more important. Risky to push hard for it now IMHO: the tenacious Scribner, for example, was run off and is now lost altogether to WP. Writegeist (talk) 00:56, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry I reverted your edits on the Sara Palin talk page.[edit]

Manticore55 I am sorry I reverted your edits on the Sara Palin talk page but I can't see is why you "warned" me on my talk page. First of all you don't warn some one like that you use templates. Not just the words that the templates say. Also I made a mistake on the Sara Palin talk page and I am sorry. So I am asking for you to take the warning down from my talk page. --Clarince63 (talk) 19:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Templates are never needed for warnings, morevoer, "templating" an experienced editor can sometimes even be taken as unhelpful. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:24, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was taken as unhelpful. Which is why I returned the favor. I get that Wikipedia is not a sandbox, but I did not (and do not) believe the same extends to user pages in the same manner as articles. The point was made, and the apology is accepted. Manticore55 (talk) 21:51, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

m:Global sysops/Vote[edit]

You or someone with your username has voted in m:Global sysops/Vote but you don't have a SUL account. Please merge your accounts or add a link to your Meta user page from your local user page (and viceversa) to confirm your identity, or your vote may be struck. Thank you, Nemo 19:14, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Inre Fox News Channel[edit]

FYI and FWIW, I've no idea just where you're going with this, but mis-spelling "partisan" is not a good start. JakeInJoisey (talk) 17:02, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your excellent spelling skills are so noted. Manticore55 (talk) 19:50, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fox News Channel[edit]

Do not make that addition to the introduction again, you have no consensus for making that change, it clearly violates WP:NPOV. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:11, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your refusal to accept any sources AT ALL, even the possibility, to indicate partisanship indicates a violation of WP:GOODFAITH and I am done discussing the article with you. Please refrain from posting to my page as well in the future. Manticore55 (talk) 19:00, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi[edit]

Hey, Manticore55. I would be interested in understanding your changes to the Fox News Article and your position. We need for editors to work together harmoniously on the talk page and in the article. One way to do this, is to concentrate first on sources, then content. Are there any particular sources you are looking at right now that you believe should be better represented in the article? Viriditas (talk) 20:47, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure here is a good one.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/42745

The fact of the matter is that I don't feel that the present body in the Fox News section represents a cross reference of regular commentators (ie national or international spectrum) but instead a lot of either conservative or independent leans conservative editors. That's fine. But I'm not in the mood to get into a wiki war when those who have an agenda, and may even be from non fox but professional conservative think tanks (I have no idea but they're on there a lot and they wouldn't be violating wikipedia policy if they did so.) Assuming good faith on that article is no longer possible given the parsing of the word "partisan" and the extreme lengths I would have to go to prove that Fox News is, in fact, extremely partisan in any view I consider objective. Manticore55 (talk) 21:01, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello[edit]

I used to contribute to Wikipedia regularly and especially on the FNC page. I have no idea what the actual content of the dispute is this week, but I have to tell you as a uninvolved third party, your edits do appear on their face as trolling, pointy and borderline dickish. I, more than anyone possibly, understand how frustrating editing that article can be, so I'll give you the friendly advice that sometimes it is simply better to disengage than to try to show how faulty the logic can be there. I am not saying if you're right or wrong-- I honestly don't know the issue from looking at the talkpage. Of course, as you probably have no idea who I am, you are free to disregard the friendly advice as well. ;) Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 22:24, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'k. Manticore55 (talk) 18:50, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not done with wikipedia, but done with political articles on here...and this alias. Goodbye Cruel Wikipedia. Manticore55 (talk) 19:36, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

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) 16:37, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]