User talk:Plastic editor/Archive

Welcome!

Hello, Plastic editor/Archive, 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:

The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
How to edit a page
Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
Picture tutorial
How to write a great article
Naming conventions
Manual of Style
Merging, redirecting, and renaming pages
If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Wikipedia:Topical index.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, please be sure to sign your name on Talk and vote pages using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, or three tildes (~~~) for just your name. 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! Hyacinth 02:00, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No worries[edit]

About O'Reilly....If anything is needed to be changed go ahead. It was getting too redundant. But again, thanks for commenting and make good articles. It's a wiki-editor job to keep it maintained. Although O'Reilly has many enemies and critics. O'Reilly does what he does best. Give the hard nose and keep on pressing on! LILVOKA.

Veganism[edit]

Hi PE, thanks for your note. Answer at Talk:Veganism#Copy_edit. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:56, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nice minor edit on O'Reilly[edit]

Good call. Subtle distinctions but distinctions nonetheless. -- Lawyer2b 15:53, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am a little puzzled why Walter Cronkite and Dan Rather are described as journalists while Bill O'Reilly is not. Can you explain? Fluterst 06:55, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have no aspiration to be a goalie or even an understanding of what you mean by one but I will resist the blanket rejection of all my edits, particular the restoration of spelling and other errors. This whole incident shows the serious cancer eating away at Wikipedia which has provoked class action lawsuits of the kind seen at wikipediaclassaction.org Fluterst 07:12, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am not constantly on Wikipedia at all, just spending Christmas break learning about Wikipedia. I am concerned - very concerned - with what I see. I am a frequent user of the Talk page as any perusal can reveal. On what do you want me to concede? That he's not really a journalist? I mean it's hardly worth discussing to be honest, it is Orwellian doublespeak and an attempt to denigrate him. It's a national scandal what's going on here and I hope more and more people see that. I think the edits I've made stand up to any scrutiny and I will be showing them to those interested in holding Wikipedia to account. Fluterst 07:27, 27 December 2005(UTC)

Jessie Jackson Edit?[edit]

I have no idea why my second version of the information on Jessie Jackson was deleted. I can see why the first version was not acceptable, since it did contain speculation about O'Reilly's motives that could not be verified. However, there is no question that Jessie Jackson was one of O'Reilly's favorite subjects for attack during the early days of the factor. O'Reilly criticised Jackson for everything from his financial dealings, to his personal life, to his political views. This is simply a fact,as regular viewers of "The Factor" will no doubt recall.

I don't understand why the second version was removed.

Oops...[edit]

Sorry about that (blush)! I've done a lot of work on the main article and I still didn't recognize yours as a breakaway. I'll restore it immediately. - Lucky 6.9 08:34, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about Seinfeld thing[edit]

Yeah, Sorry if my grammar was poor. I'll try working on it to make something better. Just out of curiousity, and I respect your opinion, but what things did you find bad about it?

It's just that I actually created the original "Criticism" article and too many people have been changing it. Like when they say things like "Season 7 relaxed it's pace a bit" or " Season 7 was a return to original form" which, if they've seen a Season 7 episode, they would know that their statements are definitly untrue.- Matt91

Natural Cures parlez[edit]

1) I made those edits (and my first comment here on your talk page) without being logged in. You can direct future responses to this username rather than my IP address. (you)

Okay, I notice that a lot on Wiki and it's confusing but I understand now. I hope you don't mind but I made a note on the IP to forward it here to your account. Tyciol 05:13, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2) You shouldn't assume the worst, at least before you've discussed a matter with someone. Your accusing me of 'censorship' on behalf of Trudeau right off the bat is not good Wikipedia etiquette, and not very smart considering the unflattering details I added at the same time.

Sorry for jumping to conclusions, you did not make a biased alteration. Tyciol 05:13, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3) I removed the phrase 'convicted con-man' because it's not encyclopedic. I replaced it with a sentence at the end stating that he has served time in jail for misleading and exploiting consumers, which says the same thing, with less of an obvious axe to grinde. See Wikipedia's NPOV guidelines.

For now I'll defer as I need to brush up on my wiki. While I still feel strongly about the 'convicted' part I'd like to apologize for that Mega Memory bit at the end, that was messy-looking, though I felt that Trudeau's supporters' support of his reformation could be brought up to amend any biasedness perceived in the pointing out of his criminal past. For my future learning, how is it encyclopedic to mention that he is an infomercial pitchman but not a former convict? They both seem like relevant observations as to the person's deeds and character qualities that could affect people's judgement in purchasing the novel. Tyciol 05:13, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I checked out the edit, that looks great! This has actually been a really big misunderstanding, I agree, con-man was untechnical. I guess I overlooked that and focused on the 'convicted' part which was being removed along with it. Of course, I still personally think he's a bit of a con-man, but I s'pose that's up to the readers to judge for themselves, as it would be a biased statement. I wonder if you can even get convicted for 'conmanism'... I'm sure it has some other term and were he in the future that would need to be used rather than 'con man' which is probably sconsidered slang... --Tyciol 05:28, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging Image:Jflansm.jpg[edit]

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Jflansm.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an arguement why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, consider reading fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Shyam ^(T/C) 17:42, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging for Image:Jlinnellm.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Jlinnellm.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see User talk:Carnildo/images. 16:13, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging for Image:Opusmilosteve.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Opusmilosteve.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Image legality questions. 13:05, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bloom County[edit]

I've noticed you've been making quite a few changes to the Bloom County article. I'd feel more comfortable if you'd share what changes you'd like to make on its talk page, so that a general consensus can be reached. --Dynamite Eleven 03:19, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Preview Feature is very useful[edit]

Plastic Editor, I noticed that most of the articles that you've recently edited have 5 - 10 different edits by you, all made over the course of perhaps 10 minutes. In Bloom County, 4 or 5 of those changes were simply moving an image around, apparently to get it in the best-looking place. While it's commendable to fiddle, I find the Preview function very useful when I'm just not sure what I want.

Multiple edits tend to increase the "noise" in the system and make it more difficult to survey edits without paging thru data.

Try the Preview! You'll like it I'm sure. BayBoy 04:31, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]