Hello, Smokingmaenad, 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:
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 place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Mushroom (Talk) 23:08, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for experimenting with the page Bill Clinton on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. Makemi21:23, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your suggestions for improving the Ronald Reagan article are well taken. That article reads like hagiography. However, you're up against a lot of Reagan lovers over there, so good luck. I hope you keep it up. Griot02:09, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're a mighty warrior Smoking, to last that long at the Reagan article. You took on the whole Bonzo Fan Club and almost won. I want to ask your help with something. There is a controversy at the Democratic-Republican Party article. Some people want to rename the article "Republican Party," which the party's original name back in 1790-1820. However, historians have been calling it the "Democratic-Republican Party" for a century to distinguish it from the modern-day Republican party. I hope you will help me keep the article under its present name, Democratic-Republican Party. I think some of the guys who want to change it have a political agenda. Griot22:23, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think you should familiarize yourself with the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy before continuing to edit here. You removed large amounts of content from Bill Clinton for no apparent reason, other than it portrays the subject negatively. And you added negative text to Ronald Reagan using grandiose, unncessary language like "extraordinary", "crimes against their office", "explode to previously unimagined levels", etc. Rhobite21:06, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I removed text from the Clinton article that was not relevant - namely a discussion as to why Bush lost. That text belongs on the Bush page, not the Clinton page. Clinton had no more character issues raised than anyone else - in particular, Reagan and Bush Jr. The page covers in detail the various scandals attached to his administration - those lines were gratuitious.
As for the Reagan edits - they're all factual. Twenty+ of his staffers were convicted of crimes against their office. They weren't convicted of crimes that were unrelated to their job, the were convicted of crimes related to their office, and his administration set the twentieth century record for corruption. For comparison, Nixon had eight staffers convicted of crimes against their office, and Clinton had one. The level of corruption was extraordinary. Also, Reagan's deficits were greater than the entire sum total of all other deficits in this nation's history - it was off the charts and previously unimagined that any president would go that far.
Please familiarize yourself with WP:NPOV. If you find your edits are being reversed by several different editors, you should consider discussing the changes on the relevant talk pages. Wikipedia works by consensus. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆21:51, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't find my edits being reversed by several editors. I find them being reversed by people who are objecting to factual information being inserted and POV information being deleted. It is a fact of history that Reagan had more staffers convicted by far than any other president in the twentieth century. Nixon had eight staffers convicted. Clinton one staffer. Reagan set the record and that should be included.
21:56, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Writing "Reagan had 20 staffers convicted of crimes against their offices", by itself, is original research, in contradiction of Wikipedia policy. The proper way to include the information you're wishing to include is to cite sources and present it in neutral language. You weren't doing this yesterday, and more than one person has reverted you. When multiple people are telling you that you're violating policy, you have a dispute. A dispute is not consensus. Nobody is asking you to have special rules; just to follow the existing ones. -Syberghost18:00, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. -- Rhobite22:07, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, then how does one go about changing blatantly partisan writing when the partisans insist on reinserting POV information and taking factual information out?
There is a netural way to phrase things, and there is an opinionated way. You have chosen to add highly opinionated, evocative language to the lead section of a very visible article, so you have been reverted quickly. I think there is probably a way to work the convictions into the article, although they are already mentioned in the paragraph about the Iran-Contra affair. Comparing Reagan's convictions to other administrations is POV by nature; unless you can cite a notable source which makes this comparison, it's POV. 3RR is a hard and fast rule - even if you believe you are not making POV edits, you will be blocked from editing if you participate in revert wars. Rhobite22:19, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(a) Use the talk pages. (b) Don't assume the people countering your edits are partisans; most of us here have NPOV as their primary interest. (c) Use the talk pages. You'll more likely convince people there of the validity of your edits than you'll be able to do just by repeatedly making the edits. You do need to become familiar with the three revert rule; it has very few exceptions, and disagreement over content is not one of them. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆22:22, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You will be blocked from editing if you continue to make such gross violations of WP:NPOV by edit warring. In the future, please use the article's talk page to explain and discuss your edits.Voice-of-AllT|@|ESP22:27, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, I did use that page. Second of all, the edits are being defended on partisan grounds.
In the bibliography, you'll find listed Haynes Johnson's Sleep Walking Through History. Here's a quote from that book:
"By the end of his term, 138 Reagan administration officials had been convicted, had been indicted, or had been the subject of official investigations for official misconduct and/or criminal violations. In terms of number of officials involved, the record of his administration was the worst ever."
This topic is as essential to the Reagan administration as impeachment is to the Clinton administration. Impeachment makes the opening article - this should as well. It's equally remarkable. And btw, is not one's credibility marred by a conviction on a corruption charges? Lastly, none of the twenty I list are convicted on issued unrelated to their office - drunk driving, stuff like that. Everyone of those twenty plus people are convicted of crimes directly related to their office. It's not only Iran/Contra, it's also the HUD scandal and the bribery and graft convictions there,, and the lobbying scandals. It's a very big deal and it should addressed directly and upfront.
Smokingmaenad22:49, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The millions of words of hagiographic copy uttered and written this week will make scant mention of the scandal epidemic that marred Reagan's presidency (aside from the Iran-contra affair, which few commentators understand well enough to explain accurately). Disabled by historical amnesia, most Americans won't recall -- or be reminded of -- the scores of administration officials indicted, convicted or expelled on ethics charges between 1981 and 1989.
snip
These cases affected the nation's health, security and financial soundness. Consider the example of the EPA, where Reagan's contempt for environmental regulation led to the appointment of dishonest, incompetent people who coddled polluters instead of curbing them. Dozens of them were forced to resign in disgrace, after criminal and congressional investigations, and several went to prison. Or consider the HUD scandal, in which politically connected Republicans criminally exploited the same housing assistance programs they routinely denounced as "wasteful." Billions in EPA Superfund and HUD dollars were indeed wasted because of their corruption.
Reagan's HUD Secretary Sam Pierce took the Fifth Amendment when called to testify about the looting of his agency -- the first Cabinet official to seek that constitutional protection since the Teapot Dome scandal. But he wasn't the only Cabinet official to fall in scandal. So did Attorney General Edwin Meese, in the Wedtech contracting scandal, and so did Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger in the Iran-contra affair (although he was pardoned at the 11th hour by President George H.W. Bush).
The Pentagon procurement scandals, which involved literally dozens of rather unpatriotic schemes to rip off the military, revealed the system of bid-rigging and gift-greasing that accompanied Reagan's defense buildup. Worse, the president had been warned, two years before the scandal broke, about the growing allegations of fraud within the Defense Department by a blue-ribbon commission he had appointed. When the scandal broke with a series of FBI raids in 1988, he was about to leave the White House.
Now, I recognize that there are those who will want to disregard the paragraphs above because they're written Conason. I use them merely to illustrate that the corruption is recognized as being across the board and staggering in its breadth.
And again, no other president in the twentieth century comes close. Not Nixon. Not Clinton. Not Hoover. No one had so many scandals with so many people involved.
Thank you for providing a source. As I said, there is probably a place to mention these convictions further. However, if you can't see the opinion problem in your proposed text, you should really go over the NPOV policy again. Feel free to ask questions about what phrasing would be considered neutral or opinionated. Rhobite22:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please, explain how the use of the word "marred" when describing the amount of corruption is inapppropriate. What word would you use? We aren't talking about unsubstantiated allegations - we're talking about convictions for corruption. I'd be happy to write an entire paragraph that fully explores who was convicted and what they were convicted for. Reagan partisans would hate that even more, because there is no way to write about that in a way that partisans won't find inflammatory.
Reagan set the record. No one else in the twentieth century comes close. To be neutral, that needs to be addressed upfront and forthrightly.
Here's a source that includes the extreme number of people who were forced to step down as well.
Try to provide the same information without attempting to prove a point. For example, "Twenty three Reagan staffers were convicted of crimes including blahblah, twice as many as were convicted in Harding's famously corrupt administration." No "marred", no "extraordinary", no "record number" -- cold facts with most of the "gosh wow" stuff removed. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆23:10, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Smokingmaenad, it looks like you have gone over the three-revert rule by making 5 reverts in the past 24 hours to the Ronald Reagan article. This will probaly result in a 24 hour block by a wikiadmin. It's better to try to reach a consensus with other editors, than to continue to rv your statements over and over.
Well, I have laid out additions that are consistent with how the bios of other presidents are laid out. On my talk page, I've gone into detail on it. The administrations that have the greatest amount of corruption, by objective standards (judging by indictments and convictions - the only black and white standard available) , are the Reagan Administration, the Nixon administration, the Harding administration and the Grant administration. Until I came along, all of those bios, contained an upfront acknowledgement of the corruption within that administration and then an expansion on the corruption farther down the page - all of them, that is, except the Reagan bio. What the other Wikipedians are objecting to is my inclusion of the Reagan admin's corruption in the uptop bio and my expansion on it later. They want Reagan treated differently than other presidents. What they seem to want is to move the reference to corruption to a one sentence explanation down under criticism - that's a completely different standard than all other presidents.
Alright, I apologize. But what is there to debate? I meet all the standards they require of the additions, and they respond by saying that none of that matters, because that isn't what he's known for. Reagan's nicknames are of much more importance than federal crimes.
Stop reverting your deletions from this article. I am no Reagan fan either, but you need to familiarize yourself on how to constructively work in a collaborative environment. This kind of behavior is likely to get you blocked. NTK18:31, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Take a look at the dialogue. They had all sorts of standards for inclusion which i met, and then they 1. started lying, and 2. decided the information was obscure. I have established that all other presidents have their corruption dealt with forthrightly in their opening bio. I have established that the line about historians worldwide agreeing that Reagan was responsible for the downfall of communism is bogus. I moderated the chapter on corruption when they split off the page. What they want is to delete is substantial, substantive and validated information. It's been a one way conversation with all of them. I back up what i say, they don't. In fact, what they're doing is taking out truthful information, and substituting lies. The administration saw way more than ten people convicted and 100% of those convictions were for activities that related to their jobs within the Reagan administration during his term - look at what they're substituting - blatant lies. How do I know they're lies - I provided a chart with links to mainstream validations of every single conviction. They, of course, got rid of that pretty quickly by splitting it off. Now, I don't mind that but the administration that sets the record for investigations and convictions for the twentieth century (and Reagan did) deserves more than four sentences on the subject.
It's not me that's offensive; it's the truth about Reagan they find offensive. Again, look at the dialogue - I respond substantively to all their challenges. They do not respond substantively to me. It's a one way conversation.
Hi! I wanted to alert you to this case involving you. If you'd like to pursue mediation as some sort of helpful thing, please respond at that page. Thank you! --Keitei(talk)18:43, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. The duration of the block is 8 hours for a first offence, and will be lengthened should you repeat. William M. Connolley19:41, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Mediator here. Looks like you've been reported for 3RR. Not so good. Well, I'll level with you on this issue- and please don't interpret this as condescension. Firstly, you should know that subjectively speaking, I agree with you. I think Reagan was a rotten president- totally corrupt- a total extremist. I'm also absolutely convinced that Alzheimer's was affecting him well before it was reported. I hate Reagan. I was a SD Coordinator for John Kerry's campaign. I'm an intern for Hillary Clinton. In short, I am a true-blue liberal. So please don't think that I'm "the enemy." Secondly, I'm not 100% sure what these Reagan disputes are about. No one has really directed me to any specific changes they want made or deleted or whatever, so it's difficult for me to aid in mediation. I could dig through the history and epic "talk page", but I do have a life outside wiki. However, it seems like there is a majority against you. This leads me to come to your talk page to try to "talk" this out with you. Now, the point of Wiki is not to express opinions or original ideas or conclusions. It's a plain old encyclopedia, reporting (as objectively as possible) the commonly accepted "facts" about various topics. If you have a point to make, then believe me, I'm totally supportive. BUT, wiki is NOT the place to do it. I hope that we all continue mediation, but I must tell you honestly that the Reagan page looks pretty clean to me. I doesn't strike me as biased, but as a mediator this is not my call to make. I'm just supposed to help everyone find a consensus resolution. So please, while these disputes continue, DO NOT unilaterally make changes or reverts on the Reagan page. Let us all be civil and discuss any changes on the Reagan article before editing it. No matter how fair or factually accurate you may consider your edits- if there is the slightest possibility that you will inflame other editors, DISCUSS first! Let's try to resolve this, because the last thing anyone wants is to get mired in an unwinnable war. :) Danny Pi01:53, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:Bacchae initiation.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:05, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added to the page Adjustable gastric band do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Versageek 01:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)