User talk:67eldorado

Welcome...

Hello, 67eldorado. Here's a belated welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like this place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! CWC 22:07, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

January 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Anti-Americanism, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. JForget 01:54, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: Joseph L. Kennedy

Hello 67eldorado. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Joseph L. Kennedy, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Google News links to more than 3,000 news articles about the "non-Kennedy" Kennedy who's running for the Senate in Mass. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:27, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Astroturfing?

Does anyone agree with me that the Coffee Party is astroturfng? I think it is because it meets the definition, first, someone below in another section was talking about how it's donations go to a George Soros foundation, and second, it claims to be a grassroots movement, let's be honest, it is not. Also, let me just mention how biased the wikipedia page on astroturfing is: they claim that the real, genuine, honest movement -the Tea Party Movement is astroturfing. Once again, wikipedia is wrong. 67eldorado (talk) 17:38, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, 67eldorado. We build articles by adding content already published in reliable secondary sources. As editors, it really doesn't matter what we think, or what our personal opinions are. If "Wikipedia is wrong" - it is because the cited reliable sources are wrong, or because an editor isn't following Wikipedia policies. I hope that helps, Xenophrenic (talk) 18:02, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, would you consider putting a section on the Coffee Party page about allegations of Astroturfing? 67eldorado (talk) 18:20, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would consider putting in a section on how the Coffee Party is run by aliens from Mars, if the content was cited to reliable sources. As for "allegations" (which means just speculation that isn't proven), there would need to be significant coverage of those "allegations" by independent, reputable news sources before they could be put into articles. What sources were you thinking of? Xenophrenic (talk) 20:00, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not report things that its editors know, but rather things that WP:Reliable Sources have said. This is something that surprises many (if not most) of us when we start editing here. For more information, see the recommended reading list in the welcome message I just added above.

If you can find good sources saying Coffee Party USA is astroturf, we will put them in the article. Personally, I don't think you will find such sources ... even though I'm very skeptical about the CP, I'm quite sure they're not astroturf.

(There is another "Coffee Party" which really is astroturf: "The Real Coffee Party" was created by Alex Jones (radio host), a prominent truther, about 6 weeks ago.)

Cheers, CWC 22:07, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]