User talk:THF

This user may have left Wikipedia. THF has not edited Wikipedia since August 2018. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

This user is busy in real life due to several multi-million-dollar class action hearings and briefings between now and February 25 and may not respond swiftly to queries.

To jog my own memory:

{{collapse top}} {{collapse bottom}}

Thanks for reverting the vandal's edit. Kai A. Simon 22:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Ted, for your vigilant reversion of two edits by 68.6.209.141 - you marked your own edit as minor, but had the previous edits stayed, they would have effected a major loss. -- Jmc 06:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is your grandfather the reporter Nelson Frank? Just curious and you don't have to tell me if he was. Vassyana 02:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Why? --THF 11:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spurred by the AFD discussion, I looked out of curiousity. It seems he actually is notable. ;o) He was quite an active figure during the Red Scare, often cited by commentators and government officials of the time. It was actually interesting reading. Also, I found that I admire his rhetorical talent. As a writer, I really enjoyed reading his skillful use of language.You've got some excellant literary genes in you. o:-) Be well!! Vassyana 12:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have to get back to library to find some of the references, but I'll gladly send you what I could find. Give me a day or two to compile some notes. If I neglect this (that is you don't receive a mail from me by Thursday), please drop me a reminder on my talk page. Sorry for the delay, I just researched it out of my own curiousity, not intending to keep notes. Cheers! Vassyana 17:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing the noticeboard. I was about to start doing the same thing, after seeing the edit that annihilated 8 days of threads: these kinds of repairs are difficult and fraught with edit conflicts because the place is so active. There is a bug that sometimes causes previous threads to disappear (it's happened to me on ANI) but I'm not sure that's what happened here. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 18:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out; it was a wretched way to say "tort reform". For whatever it's worth, I think you've done an excellent job editing. Few editors announce their potential biases so clearly as you do on the talk page, and I find that admirable.

Incidentally, I happen to be a student at the University of Chicago Law School. Cool Hand Luke 06:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just make any edits you see fit; you seem to have a good grasp of WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. I'll keep an eye on tort reform though. I just spent over an hour reading it and checking citations, and you're right that it's POV. It's not even formatted very well. I support any improvements you can make. Cool Hand Luke 21:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article requires a complete teardown. I'll finish a rewrite in my sandbox (where I'm working off an older version of the article that also has problems, but not as many), and run it by you and the talk page before I do the change. -- THF 21:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I deeply apologize for my April 3 personal attack on you on the talk page of the Israel Shahak article. I particularly regret having written: "If you feel you can't be objective about this article, move somewhere else. There's plenty of work to be done in Wikipedia." You were right to refer to this outburst as an act of bullying, seeking to chase you from the page. You have written: "I hope admins don't reward that sort of bullying". You will not be petty to seek administrative sanctions on me for this statement.

Again, i'm very sorry for my part of that altercation. It's no secret, that my opinions about the way the Shahak article should appear is vastly different from yours. I also disagree with you on a number of other substantial issues. But that's no excuse for me to treat you aggressively, as i did. I believe our joint collaboration on this article, along with the many other fine editors, may actually benefit the article, by promoting, in the course of time, the article's balance, as per Wikipedia's NPOV ideal. Itayb 16:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apology accepted. Thank you. I am all for a balanced article. For example, I recognize that there are reliably sourced defenders of Shahak that Wikipedia requires be cited, even though I find their views abhorrent and bigoted. I hope that we can reach a consensus on an NPOV article, and I appreciate the apology. I have no intention of seeking administrative sanctions. -- THF 22:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your selfless and gentlemanly reply. :) Itayb 22:21, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't even notice this [1] until I looked at that users history. I give you a big smile :-). ~AFA ^{Imagine I swore.} 22:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

and all socks have been blocked indefinitely. If this user posts further rants on your talk page or elsewhere, you can post a notice to WP:AIV for immediate blocking. Thanks for your patience, OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, When you get a chance, please take a look at the last few edits I made to Andijan massacre. The only controversial thing I did was merging the press section into the May 13 section. I felt it was not important/long enough to merit a separate section. Is that alright? KazakhPol 20:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look this weekend. //THF 12:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank for your input on this article's entry at WP:COIN. I don't know enough about the college game to know who or what is notable. Can you place a delete tag on the article? Bearian 02:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to stop by to thank you for your help in undoing many of those vandalism edits! That was about a days-worth of my WikiLife.... Thank you, thank you, thank you.... —  MusicMaker 18:30, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm leaving you a note out of good will and in good faith, in the hope that we can work together to resolve the unbalanced tag dispute. —Viriditas | Talk 21:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've mostly worked on expanding and cleaning up the synopsis section. At this time, it is 839 words in length, which is acceptable according to WP:FILMS guidelines. If there are any outstanding issues with the synopsis, or areas you would like to see developed/expanded/corrected, please do not hesitate to contact me on my talk page. —Viriditas | Talk 05:29, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The guidelines actually say between 400 and 700 words, and my version was at the high end of that, but in the interests of compromise, I'm not going to make a fuss over an extra 100 words. I'm stepping away from WP for a few days, and I hope the broad strokes of that consensus are retained by other editors in my absence. Thanks for your patience, good-faith efforts, and willingness to compromise. THF 06:16, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kind words. The guidelines are speaking of an average plot length, and plot lengths for films just under 900 words are very common and rarely controversial. Take a look at Category:FA-Class film articles. A random sample of five out of 51 featured film articles gives the following plot lengths:Casablanca, 697; Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope, 761; V for Vendetta, 812; Borat, 838; and Jaws, 886. As of this post, Sicko has 834 words in the plot section. If you have any interest in getting further clarification on this matter on the film project discussion page, I'll join you. —Viriditas | Talk 11:23, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI...There's a discussion in progress at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Films#Plot_synopses_too_long.3F. —Viriditas | Talk 11:41, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for helping keep the NPOV. I know we can't wander over to pure SPOV, but science certainly isn't supportive of this diagnosis. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't stirring the pot or making personal attacks. His inability to take responsibility for his own actions is childish, and should be brought to his attention for the good of the community. I'm not going to add my comment on his page back, as long as he's read it that's all I can do and it's up to him to grow.►Chris Nelson 22:10, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your edits to the above page. You may be aware that the freemason reference was the subject of dispute (albeit not directly through the article talk page). Your edit seems to have assuaged the disputor, as it has not been further reverted. I am also happy with the edit, as the other party in the dispute, so I thank you for your input on this. Best wishes. Ref ^(chew)(do) 09:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You don't know me; at least I don't think you do. I have been watching Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents‎ and noticed the comments about you and Michael Moore. I made a comment there and I hope I didn't make a fool out of myself there. But I am strongly against outing of editors like Moore has done with you. If you have any problems with what I have said then please by all mean tell me on my talk page and I will make corrections or delete it. I am not sensitive to criticism at all and I am just trying to help stop this kind of stuff. Oh by the way, I like the movies that he makes thought I haven't seen Sicko yet but I do look foreward to seeing it. :) --CrohnieGal^Talk 21:31, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been looking over your attempts to get to NPOV on the page -- nice job. But I disagree with (a) cutting down the "plot summary" section, and (b) cutting down the criticism from an article to a mere section of the movie. The movie got millions of people to think about health-care, which many have said is the No. 1 domestic issue in the presidential campaign so far (I'm not sure about that but it's certainly one of the top issues). The movie also generated quite a debate over the points that it made. There's an interesting consensus on some points: Critics of Moore agreeing that the U.S. healthcare system is a mess; people on the left criticizing Moore's lack of balance.

To adequately describe the controversy, a separate article is needed. Thanks for being polite, but if you disagree that the controversy article is not worthwhile, I'd rather hear your reasons for that instead of a suggestion to just summarize it. Don't patronize.

Also, the critical response section (film reviewers) in the article as it stands now simply gives one-liner, drive-by blurbs when critical analysis is more useful to the reader. We don't need 19 critics saying the same thing, each in one line (I'm exaggerating, but not much); we need to show consensus opinion among critics, particularly major critics, and that gives the reader some insight, even in a relatively short space. Since the critical response blends in with the political response, it is best presented in the "Controversy about" article. The details in the "plot summary" section, which I had added and which have since been deleted, were useful for anyone actually interested in understanding (or perhaps trying to remember) the many, many, many details that Moore piled on in the movie. How anyone (you?) thinks a shorter summary is more valuable is something I don't understand. I can see a three-paragraph summary version with subsections, but not the vague summary that exists now.

You talk about smb's "invitation" to add to the article. I've dealt with smb. He's proven himself or herself to be a total partisan. I have not seen one edit by him or comment by him that didn't attempt to show Moore in the best light. For all I know, he is Michael Moore. He's shown himself to be a propagandist. I'm an editor who's added positive and negative information because I want to get at the truth. What are you?

Sorry if I sound angry. I am. I'm not walking it off. Noroton 03:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikipedia is not a quote farm" Now you're talking. I guess I could exaggerate in the same way you just have ... but it's not worth it. When quotes work, they're worth using. If you have a more exact criticism, that might be useful. My mind is open. Noroton 03:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand your quote farm comment or what you think I exaggerated.

As for your desire for what the article should include, I agree that the drive-by criticism in the article is inadequate. That's why I keep suggesting you merge the articles. Not summarize. Merge, so no content is lost: after all, there was a consensus to merge the pages, and Smb keeps telling you that's what he wants. If stuff gets deleted from the merged Sicko page that you think should stay, then people can discuss that.

But maybe what you're looking for is a Debate over United States healthcare policy in the 2008 election article? Or a Sicko and the United States healthcare policy debate article? I can't promise you if you create either of those they won't be deleted. For all I know, an article with a similar but different name on the same subject already exists.

I've found smb to be partisan, also. But he eventually accedes to consensus when WP:DR disagrees with him. There is a consensus that the plot summary should be under 900 words, and a consensus that there shouldn't be a separate article. (Though, given the history of the Fahrenheit 9/11, I suspect if you add enough reliably sourced material about the movie, Moore partisans will be asking to move it back to the separate article.) The problem with the latter consensus, is that the agreement was to merge the articles, and then the articles didn't get merged. You should be bold and do that.

Please don't ask accusatory questions like "I'm an editor who's added positive and negative information because I want to get at the truth. What are you?" It's not civil and implies that you are not assuming good faith. I'm trying to help you. We both want an NPOV article, right?

If you're angry, WP:COOL. It's Wikipedia and not worth getting angry over. Moreover, getting angry is always always always counterproductive to whatever it is you are trying to accomplish. Here, you're about to alienate an editor who could be on your side.

If you think Smb is acting in bad faith, don't make personal attacks; make edits that conform to consensus and to policy. Then, if Smb reverts, he will demonstrate bad faith. If Smb is actually POV-pushing, and you have the diffs to prove it, then WP:RFC will solve the problem. But right now, if a third party were to look at what is happening, they would see Smb protecting the talk-page consensus, and you edit-warring and being uncivil about it. And if Smb is the one that's actually in the wrong, then your edit-warring only makes it easier for Smb to be wrong. Adhere to WP:BRD and no one can legitimately question you. THF 03:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you didn't like the YouTube links, you could have put the CNN links... BTW, why is a $400/hr attorney editing Wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by GaryLambda (talk • contribs) 19:43, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

		The Resilient Barnstar
		Okay, you melted my heart. Let's bury it (the hatchet, not my heart). David Shankbone 03:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Cool Hand Luke 03:11, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You think that's a wow, check out WP:AN/I. THF 03:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. Of all the alleged corporate evil, including "censorship" on Wikipedia, you're apparently the most pressing threat to the working men served by Michael Moore's homepage. Congratulations. Cool Hand Luke 03:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What amazes me are the number of hate emails I get calling me fat. (That's what I get for skipping the opportunity for a photo reshoot after I lost forty pounds.) If fat is a relevant issue for them, why are they reading Michael Moore? Seriously: not a single cogent or coherent email. And it amazes me that the only consequence from all of this is that User:Noroton ended up with a 24-hour block from making the mistake of believing that Wikipedia rules meant what they said. THF 03:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Noroton has been unblocked. - Crockspot 04:28, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't believe the BS with MM.com, i've just spent days clearing up after Amnesty and the CIA and now MM brings his sicko project to battle on wikipedia. Wikipedia does need to start to defend itself in the real world from the threats it faces now and those in the future. The funniest thing is being threatened with a short bit on the Colbert Report OOOOHHHHH!!! ^{(Hypnosadist)} 04:25, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[[

It seems to me that AfD is probably not the way to go. I've posted on the Sicko talk page, going through the motions which I doubt will get any kind of a fair hearing at all. Would you recommend an RFC or any particular way of going about an RFC? Noroton 19:38, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I've said several times, why not try to merge the pages? I think the act of merger would demonstrate your point of the need of a legitimate content fork than skipping that intermediate step would. Don't forget to add John Stossel's criticism.[2], [3] If you run into trouble with the merger, and Swatjester can't help you, then you can go to the RFC process. Because Wikipedia policies against harassment and canvassing aren't being enforced, I'm going to focus on other pages. THF 19:50, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't a merge lose a lot of content? Or are you suggesting I retain all or the vast majority of the content? If I'm going to lose three fourths of it, I'd rather not succeed in a merger. Noroton 20:02, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retain the vast majority of the substantive notable sourced content, to the extent doing so is defensible. THF 20:20, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A no-answer answer. Noroton 14:30, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not in the slightest. I am merely telling you that you need to comply with WP:N, WP:V, and WP:WEIGHT. THF 14:32, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

THF: If I were in your position, I might consider officially abandoning this account and starting a new anonymous user. Your openness about your POV and associations is admirable, but unfortunately, such openness only subjects you to ad-hominem attacks. One of the great things about Wikipedia is that anonymity eliminates ad-hominems and allows for a purely intellectual exchange without all the background noise of false COI allegations.

You could retire this account and disclose that you'll be back eventually with a new anonymous account. I don't see any problem with doing this if you disclose that fact beforehand and never edit as THF again. You might also want to avoid articles you've edited previously as THF, but there's plenty to do here so I'm sure you could find articles to work on. :-)

(You might want to run it by an admin to be sure it's OK first, if you decide to do it. I have some experience here, but others know more and could better advise you should you go that route)

Just my $0.02.

ATren 17:35, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the advice, which has been offered by a number of others. But I disagree that this is the best course of action:

1. I haven't done anything wrong, administrators agree that I haven't done anything wrong, and going away now in response to these attacks would be viewed as a concession that there was something shameful about my behavior.
2. Going away and ceasing editing any of the thousands of different articles I've edited is encouragement to use the same intimidation tactics against other editors, including the hypothetical future anonymous THF account.
3. I simply don't believe that Wikipedia will (or can) protect my anonymity in a new anonymous account. People with far less distinctive styles and public prominence than me have been outed. Too many people with axes to grind and nothing to do will sit down and compare thousands of edits to find the stylistic tics that will naturally be revealed--and then I'll be accused of bad-faith COI and sock-puppetry because I didn't disclose my identity. My legitimate edits are being spun dishonestly by left-wing blogs now--I mean, look at the conspiracy theories that are going on now, such as the theory that Merck hired my law firm in 2004 because they hoped I would quit that job and edit a Wikipedia article about a movie about healthcare in 2007. If I take your tactic, it will be falsely portrayed that I was forced from Wikipedia for bad conduct and tried to sneak back on.
4. If I leave, any new editor who is conservative (including the hypothetical future anonymous THF account) will be accused of being me in disguise, even if they are not. So I get the worst of both worlds: I'll be driven from Wikipedia, but blamed for edits that I am not making.

If Wikipedia would just enforce its policies and guidelines evenly, there would be no problem. Thank you for your suggestion, and for your defense of Wikipedia ideals. THF 18:00, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You make several very good points here - leaving and coming back may indeed create more problems than it solves. It seems you may have thought this out more thoroughly than I did. :-) In any case, you seem to be able to maintain NPOV despite your admitted political leanings, so as long as you keep doing that, this false controversy should subside. Good luck. ATren 18:36, 25 August 2007 (UTC)wi[reply]

Yeah, I agree. I don't think that leaving and starting a new account would be helpful in dealing with your recent problems. But anyway, I was wondering if you would you like me to delete the history of your userpage? Sarah 20:00, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's done. And don't worry, it's in no way a cover-up. Lots of people make the mistake of adding too much information when they're new and then later end up asking to have it deleted. It's also nice to have a clean slate from the vandalism. :) If you want it deleted again when you take down that mm message or have changed any other information, just leave a message on my talk page and I'll do it straight away. Sarah 20:15, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Tetrahydrofuran, although you do not "work for" a pharmaceutical company, is it fair to say that you have, on at least one occasion, acted as a paid advocate for a pharmaceutical company in court?

I'm simply trying to get things straightened out. DS 23:48, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In 2005, when I worked for a different employer, I performed legal work for a pharmaceutical manufacturer who had been falsely accused of violating the law in products-liability litigation. My work mostly involved issues of federal jurisdiction, the scope of protective orders in document discovery, procedural aspects of multi-district litigation, conflicts of laws issues, and class action certification. You are surely not suggesting that I have a conflict of interest with all of the clients and business partners of all of my former employers, because that would suggest that only teenagers and the habitually unemployed can edit Wikipedia articles. Please discuss at WP:COI/N#Sicko if this does not assuage your concerns. Thanks for asking, and have a nice day! THF 23:57, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not making any suggestions about whether you do or do not have a conflict of interest, as I frankly don't know enough about the situation. However, I would point out that the perception of conflict of interest can be significant, since a lawyer is typically paid to champion a particular point of view, rather than neutrality. As such, it is typically wisest for individuals who wish to edit Wikipedia in such circumstances to make full disclosure about their potential conflict.

I would also point out that your statement about "teenagers and the habitually unemployed" strikes me as disingenuous. We have many contributors who are themselves lawyers; at least one such is also an administrator. On more than one occasion, he has (informally) recused himself from editing an article because he felt that there might be a conflict of interest. DS 02:16, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But, he has fully disclosed, and all he's gotten for it is grief! Meanwhile, thousands of other anonymous users hide their POV (because they can) and nobody questions them one bit. Is it just me that is bothered by the fact that we come down hardest on those who happen to be the most forthcoming? Is it any wonder that this editor is attempting to dissociate from his true identity, after all the unfounded accusations he's been subject to solely because of who he is? I've still not seen a single troublesome diff from him.

All I can say is, I'm glad I registered anonymously after seeing the way Wikipedia treats people who are forthcoming about their own identity and beliefs. ATren 02:26, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ATren, while your concern about anonymity and how editors are treated is noted, I have found that Wikipedia is generally quite civil as a whole to those who disclose their identity and beliefs. I have edited with those from all belief systems and philosophies, and almost always with no issues. The problem is when those beliefs or associations affect how one edits, which is why Pastordavid is an administrator and Jason Gastrich is banned. It is why Agapetos angel is banned - and please note Agapetos angel did not reveal her identity, but was nevertheless banned for editing contrary to COI - although I believe this was before COI was written, and the specifics were for edit warring, POV, etc. Agapetos angel was one of those "thousands who hide their POV" and yet was banned. In short, I think that although the concerns you raise are valid, they are misapplied in this case. KillerChihuahua^?!? 02:56, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with what you are saying, and that's why I am still waiting to see one diff that shows problematic editing on the part of THF. I'm not saying there are none - I haven't interacted with THF much so I honestly don't know - but if there are, then the people making the COI accusations should provide those diffs for us to examine. If they don't, then it's hard for me not to assume that this is more about who he is than what he's done. ATren 03:05, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to let you know that you have my sympathy and moral support, even if I've not found the right way to give active support in discussions yet. Even though our politics couldn't be much further apart, I think that the attacks on you are, in many cases, rather hypocritical. Despite being a dirty lefty, I think it's inexcusable that left-wing COI and POV-pushing are tolerated to a much greater extent than right-wing ones. SamBC(talk) 15:34, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to hear that you giving up but you have real life worth much more than your ctitics so you still win in the end. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 20:27, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had some concerns about the merger myself, but admittedly I haven't kept up with it as I was distracted by other issues. If you tell me what the problem is, then perhaps I can help out. Mind you, I don't think every notable person who has a point of view on the subject needs inclusion, but every notable point of view does. --David Shankbone 19:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree on that. It's points of view that are relevant, not individuals.

• Turtlescrubber sanitized the page.
• Ripe restored some of it, but you can see that much content has been lost, relegated to footnotes that Ripe indicates on the talk page that he intends to delete later. Some of the footnotes have nothing to do with the criticisms, and are there for POINTy reasons to encourage others to delete the whole thing.

I'm not endorsing the Noroton version, which I never had a chance to look at. THF 19:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which points of view are not included? You don't have to give long explanations or descriptions, something like, "Nothing about Cuba being crap" kinds of statements will do. --David Shankbone 19:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notable points of view omitted, off the top of my head:

1. The WHO rankings measure whether a country's medical system is socialized, not whether it is good. (Stossel)
2. Inaccurate portrayal of Canada. (Gratzer, Howell, Pipes, others)
3. Inaccurate portrayal of Great Britain. (Reinhoudt, others)
4. Inaccurate portrayal of Cuba. (Lowry, Smith, others)
5. Inaccurate portrayal of France. (Elder, Loder, Reinhoudt, others)
6. Failure to acknowledge any tradeoffs. (Mitchell, others)
7. Stale anecdotes of marginal relevance. (Freudenheim, others)
8. 45 million number misleading. (Elder, Tanner, many many others)
9. Inaccurate portrayal of socialized US services (Stossel)
10. Failure to account for benefits of competition (Tanner)
11. Kaiser inaccurately portrayed. (Kaiser)

THF 19:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, just reviewing this casually, #1 appears to be more a criticism of the WHO rankings than Moore. 2, 3, 4, and 5 should be in, but they an be lumped together. I need to consider the others. --David Shankbone 19:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I feel you very substantially improved Oscar Grant article. And some very recent edits of another editor were not right. You know whom I talk about. Thank you very much for taking care of this. Best! BaldPark (talk) 23:09, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You've done good work. The page is looking better every day. Apologies again for my screw ups in the last 24 hours and thanks for putting up with it.Cptnono (talk) 23:22, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also wanted to mention that it has been a pleasure seeing your input. Unfortunately, when we disagree with what certain editors on the other side of the political spectrum force, our persistence can change the tone of an article. This does not always change it for the better.Cptnono (talk) 06:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BaldPark, and Cptnono, unless one of you is willing to open an RFC on Chris, I'm leaving the article. I refuse to keep cleaning up after him. THF (talk) 10:38, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I commented on his page per the RFC guidelines. I think my thoughts are laid out to both of you pretty well there so take a look if you get the chance. There are no worries if you don't feel like dealing with the frustration anymore. Your input was invaluable up to this point while interest from other editor's should be slowing down about now. Thanks for rescuing this article from a biased POV.Cptnono (talk) 21:55, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am interested in getting some feedback on the notablity of a certain article. Could you take a look at Edward Weidenfeld and see what you think? The article reads like a personal advert for this practicing attorney. Many of the sources that were added either did not mention him, mentioned him only in passing, or were from his personal bussiness website. Most of the achievments mentioned in the article don't have any sources to back them up(sources that mention him doing what article says). It seems as if he has not done anything to stand out from his peers. I am thinking about setting the article up for an afd debate, but wanted to get some input first. Thank you!!WackoJacko (talk) 01:27, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, well on one hand other stuff exists. On the other hand, that's not supposed to be a valid reason. Cool Hand Luke 01:32, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am aware that there are other articles about non-notable people. Hopefully, the existence of other non-notable articles won't set a precedent.WackoJacko (talk) 01:36, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know. I just found this one interesting under the circumstances. Cool Hand Luke 02:14, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

True. What do you think about the notability of this particular article?WackoJacko (talk) 03:49, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to suffer from Wikipuffery; without looking at the edit history, I would guess some autobiography going on. If I were drawing notability lines from scratch, he wouldn't make the cut. But I'm relatively deletionist compared to the median Wikipedian, if you were asking me as a descriptive matter whether he's notable by current AFD interpretations of WP:N, I'd say yes because of the Washingtonian profile, which is more than a number of bios that have passed AFD muster have. I'd vote weak delete and eventually lose. But the Wikipedia roster of lawyer biographies is remarkably hit or miss; it's rather silly that some lawyers have lengthy meandering entries while Ted Ullyot and Ted Boutros are red-links (as was Laurie Levenson until last week when I created the article). Somebody really ought to be beefing up the lawyer bios on the site. THF (talk) 04:52, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, do you think it is futile to start an AFD? Also, the person who does most of the editing sometimes goes under IP. The IP geolocates to almost the exact location as Weidenfeld's law office. There was also one instance where Weidenfeld go into trouble with HUD, and when I add it in he keeps whitewashing it. Either way, thank you very much for your input!WackoJacko (talk) 05:01, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If there's an autobiography issue, address the autobiography issue. If there's uncited stuff, tag the uncited stuff. If there's POV-pushing over well-cited material, address the POV-pushing through an RFC tag on the talk page. I wouldn't bet even money on an AFD, given persistent misunderstanding of WP:N, and the fact that I can't even get a deletion of a one-line stub of a fourth-tier Tamil terrorist without so much as a first name or known birthdate, but I cynically note that the COI may draw angry editors out of the woodwork to call for deletion, especially since it's a Republican at issue, which all good-hearted Wikipedians know is far worse than a terrorist. THF (talk) 05:13, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. There are systemic AFD biases about COI. "Autobiographical" corporation articles get deleted all the time, even (sometimes) when the company is quite large. On the other hand, high schools and old college clubs usually don't—even when they're clearly terrible stubs written by students. It seems to depend largely on whether the average Wikipedian likes the imagined motives of the creator; like THF, I think this one might be deleted, but it's not a safe bet. Cool Hand Luke 05:29, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I want to thank you both for your guidance in this matter. I appreciate all of the feedback I have received from you.WackoJacko (talk) 22:30, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I see the wails of outrage over self-promotion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael McDonnell, who has dozens more Google News hits than Weidenfeld (or Beauty Turner for that matter), perhaps I underestimate the odds of a successful AFD nomination. I forget that Wikipedia hates the appearance of conflict of interest more than it likes enforcing its rules even-handedly. THF (talk) 00:08, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just watching the deletion process is fascinating. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conservation Fallout: Nuclear Protest at Diablo Canyon is going to fail because one editor thinks it's notable because it's "in the Princeton library" (which has literally a million different volumes); another thinks the existence of three book reviews means this remaindered book is notable. Meanwhile, at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_January_18#Category:Tamil_terrorists, a series of POV pushers glorifying the Tamil Tigers is going to delete a legitimate category because they constitute a voting bloc to prevent identification of Tamil Tigers as terrorists. And again, the reasoning is completely lawless: despite the existence of Category:Palestinian terrorists and Category:Basque paramilitaries and Category:Kurdish terrorists, the claim is that "Tamil" is not a nationality (even as they have a nationalist terrorist movement) so the category is "racist." THF (talk) 08:27, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest merger as noted above instead of deletion of the material. Bearian (talk) 16:10, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea where you should put this disucssion, but WP:AFD is always good, or Talk:Zaid v. Bush or Talk:Waleed Said Bin Said Zaid. You may cut and paste my comments. BTW, I've merged the articles per WP:BOLD. Bearian (talk) 16:17, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you nominate 5-10 at a time. Or go to WP:AN/I for another suggestion. Bearian (talk) 16:29, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Filing spam. They look like little more than docket reports with form introductions. I can't believe you're the first to notice this. Cool Hand Luke 17:43, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		The Invisible Barnstar
		Thank you for your work on those articles that have been languishing in the backlogs. As someone once told me "Your good work goes unseen unless someone disagrees ;)" --BirgitteSB 01:53, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BTW I stumbled on this comment. I don't know that it makes any real difference but I feel the need to correct a misconception. I don't work on the terrorism articles, but simply muck around the backlogs to a negligible effect. I saw the AN thread and was just frustrated to see an unecessary conflict brewing over those articles when there are so many articles with the same problem minus the conflict. Maybe I also was a little quicker to speak because I once misread a backlog and read some of those editors the riot act over a WP:TERRORISM problem and felt I owed them one.--BirgitteSB 01:53, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, and apologies for the misunderstanding. THF (talk) 02:32, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I am sorry I didn't predict how my comments could seem like such a pile on to you and lead to unnecessary frustration. And frankly I could have done a better job of assuming good faith that your inquiry was as simple as it seemed.--BirgitteSB 02:57, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you tagged Unitary executive theory. If you get a chance, could you please elaborate at the talk page? I don't disagree with the tagging --- just think your explanation would help. Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:09, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent comment. Thanks THF, and please watchlist this article so you can chime in as we try to fix it up. Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:55, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the prod. Please try to stick with reasons that are actually in the guidelines for policies you quote. I searched the page on notability and could find nothing about original research (which should just be removed from articles, not allowed to stand for months and days and prods) or about the timeline for "material improvements." --KP Botany (talk) 11:34, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought my PROD was a reasonable explanation of reasons for deletion (an unreferenced orphan article with a two-year-old notability tag is unlikely to demonstrate notability any time soon), but we'll see what the AFD process says. THF (talk) 11:42, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. I'm tired of all of the missing scientist articles on Wikipedia and the rampant deletionism that never seems to touch minor fake fiction works mentioned once in a Simpson episode but goes for the jugular when academics are concerned. And, god forbid, that someone at a university in a non-English speaking country might be notable. I won't be there for the AfD which is generally used in instances like this to force another editor to do the research and reference the article on the deletionist's time schedule. I'll edit on my own time schedule. --KP Botany (talk) 11:46, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did the research before putting the tag on. You're not missing anything. I'm happy to man the battlefronts with you when you ask for a re-evaluation of the WP:N guidelines to deal with the fancruft and fifth-rate garage bands. The article had a notability tag since 2007 -- this isn't quite a rush to judgment. THF (talk) 11:49, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your efforts to clean up the Scott Horton (lawyer) article, but it seems a little disingenuous to throw around WP:PUFF like it's a Wikipedia-endorsed policy. I think it's neat that you coined a word (though the word itself makes me cringe), but I think it would be easy to be careless and apply it too liberally.Athene cunicularia (talk) 20:37, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't pretend it's an endorsed policy; I use it as a shortcut. "X spoke on the radio and wrote blog posts about a notable case" (where the blog posts are misdescribed as the considerably more prestigious articles in the paper magazine) seems pretty much in the wheelhouse. For anyone really notable in the 21st century, that they once spoke on the radio isn't such a big deal. It's almost a negative pregnant to identify a specific radio interview. THF (talk) 21:09, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, I'm talking more about how WP:PUFF looks like a policy when you use it to justify your revisions. Also, Horton does regularly write for the magazine.Athene cunicularia (talk) 22:35, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's no different than WP:COATRACK or WP:HORSE or WP:STICK in that regard. THF (talk) 22:56, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those three actually help to show the difference—they all have far more than five edits by a single author.Athene cunicularia (talk) 01:30, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

COATRACK went three months before it picked up a second author; this has been around less than three weeks. They all start somewhere. I think it's a useful concept that isn't covered in any other essay, and reflects a real subculture of Wikipedia behavior, but I've released it to the Wiki-world, so anyone can edit it now. THF (talk) 01:37, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. We don't need to come to a consensus on it. I think WP:PUFF makes a valid point. Hopefully some people will contribute to the essay, and maybe it will help to improve the RfD process—which in many ways encourages people to puff up an article if they want to keep it. However, I think you should be aware that until then, it may look like you're trying to make your opinion seem more official than it is.Athene cunicularia (talk) 01:56, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I'm pretty sure the "appalling Wikipedia omission" is due to the previous version being oversighted. Might want to make backup copies of your work! I had webcitation make one. --Elvey (talk) 20:16, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see this. -- Vision Thing -- 18:21, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re edit summaries: No, I tend to copy and paste what I write on talk pages to make the history easier to read. Cool Hand Luke 20:36, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I used to do the same thing, but then had people take issue with that when there was an acrimonious discussion. So I started just doing the "re" thing and nobody has said anything since. --David Shankbone 17:12, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your nomination at Articles for Creation was a success, and Johanna Hurwitz was created. Please continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. Thank you for helping Wikipedia! TNXMan 15:49, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have been following this discussion, as it relates to a disagreement I've had with another editor at the Middle East Media Research Institute article. My reading of the current state of that discussion is that there is clear consensus among the non-involved editors who have opined on this matter (Protonk, Jayjg, NoCal100 and yourself) that the blog source is to be used sparingly, if at all, and that since the points made in the blog are made more succinctly in reliable sources, there is no need to quote a blog. Accordingly, I have followed you own recommendation and rewritten the section, paraphrasing the arguments made rather than just quoting 4 sources. This was reverted by the same editor who wants to use the blog source. I would like some advice on how to proceed. Canadian Monkey (talk) 18:06, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried a compromise edit. If that gets reverted, we'll use the {RFCpol} template. There isn't quite the consensus for the heavy axe you used, but if you reasonably summarize the quotefarm such that no substance can be claimed to have been lost, editors will see any POV-pushing from reverters for what it is. THF (talk) 18:50, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - you current compromise edit to the article is fine with me. Canadian Monkey (talk) 19:10, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Editors will also be less likely to object to an edit if you're simultaneously trimming the pro-MEMRI stuff at the same time as the anti-MEMRI stuff (you only tackled one of them). Both sections are too long. THF (talk) 19:12, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, there is clearly much to be done on that page. Canadian Monkey (talk) 19:49, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reading on Business Plot -- note also the "campaign" running against me which might be coordinated complete with socks on Fascism, Prescott Bush, Union Banking Corporation etc. <g>. All for the sake of POV pushing, I fear. Collect (talk) 11:42, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info. I was not aware of Yahoo link expiration. I searched for one of McCain's quotes from the article online and found a few different sources. Hopefully CNN's will last longer. If you don't think it will, let me know and I'll put in a different one.Athene cunicularia (talk) 22:31, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for being level headed with your vote in the Save the Netbooks deletion debate - it's about time someone was. I've given a full week to this cause which gives me ZERO benefit and don't appreciate being attacked by other editors, particularly on the grounds of COI when none of them can point to a single instance of NPOV. -- samj _in^out 23:49, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COI is the most misunderstood policy on Wikipedia. Very unfortunate. THF (talk) 00:03, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully my essay will help rather than hinder. Thanks for being reasonable when others aren't. -- samj _in^out 06:15, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heads up -- samj _in^out 04:42, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the supporting edit. The legal council part bothered me for the longest time, but it is hard to link to the section in the guys blog where he actually links to the SaveTheNetbooks.com article that mentions him "supporting them" and actually says "well no, I don't". If I had removed it, it would have got nasty again.

The other edit - yeah, I can see that was a sage one too. I know I have been told that "netbook" is now a "generic" term, but it's still pretty hard to find non blog, not anecdotal evidence. Things began to escalate today, so someone with a level head is much appreciated :-)

You seem like a nice fair guy. I'm glad you're involved. Please feel free to tell me if you believe I have stepped out of line, and please don't let SamJ use the strong arm tactics he seems to resort to when he can't win in a proper discussion.

Hopefully he has finally decided I'm no a sock puppet!

Thanks again Memsom (talk) 02:01, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Read it. Your edit is a blatant violation.[4] Completely unsourced contentious, in fact highly derogatory comments, which are entirely your opinion. Insert it again and you will be blocked. Ty 04:21, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am well aware of the BLP policy, as I regularly patrol of the BLPN board. Your interpretation is ridiculous. Noting that a fringe attorney who regularly takes on quixotic meritless cases to make a political point is a fringe attorney who regularly takes on quixotic meritless cases to make a political point does not violate BLP. THF (talk) 04:25, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is exactly what it does: "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." You made a contentious statement, in fact a highly insulting one, about a living person with no source whatsoever, other than your own opinion. To be precise you said that a lawyer had not been "credible in over thirty [years]. The fact that he has taken the case is almost prima facie evidence of its meritlessness." Ty 04:40, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And I stand by that. If Clark wants to bring another frivolous suit against me because I said that, he knows where to find me. THF (talk) 04:44, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome to stand by that anywhere you want, but not on wikipedia. It is a misuse of editing privileges. Ty 04:51, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, your comments show a vast misunderstanding of BLP, and the ability to discuss on talk-pages whether someone is within the mainstream. THF (talk) 04:55, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's an irrelevant discussion. It is the source that we need to examine and represent, which in this case is a reliable one, The New York Times. You seem to have some off-wiki issues with this individual, which are making themselves apparent on-wiki. You might like to step back from this one. Ty 04:59, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are no "off-wiki issues" here. The issue is the on-wiki issue of WP:UNDUE. Clark is holding a publicity stunt, and there's no reason for Wikipedia to honor it. WP:NOT#NEWS here: that the Times fell for a publicity stunt doesn't mean we have to. Wikipedia aspires to be more than the repository of every single New York Times article that crosses the wires. THF (talk) 05:04, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

THF, I have admiration for both your tenacity and intelligence. This is why I am attempting to open up a dialogue with you today. We both have much to offer toward improving the project, and our time better spent doing so is wasted while we argue with each when we could be building articles. To me editing wikipedia is just a hobby.. albeit one I enjoy.

THF, today I found some really disconcerting material Offwiki which may relate to perceptions of your editing behavior onsite.

As you might suppose, I have a successful track record of research, on and offwiki. The 1,368 words example does not even begin to adequately represent my researching capabilities. Research is time consuming and tedious so I would rather avoid looking at years of edit history. I really don't have an interest in tort reform and Michael Moore like you do, but I do worry about your behavior on Business Plot. So, the concerns of other editors that you may have a major conflict of interest in that article, is now becoming my concern, and more so everyday. It is among our greatest policies and guidelines that COI be keft at the door when entering wiki. I sincerely hope that we can close the wiki-etiquette case, and go our separate ways, each to continue improving the project. But as I have seen many times, editors who had thought themselves invincible were just a readily removed from these pages as were those found to be vandals or spammers or puppets. When it comes to protecting the project, there is no quarter given. In an attempt to work out a compromise, out of the public eye, you are welcome to email me, if you like. Ikip (talk) 22:38, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly are you threatening, Ikip? Your e-mail is turned off. THF (talk) 22:41, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're accusing him of having a conflict of interest in Business Plot (!?), or are you threatening to "expose" him if he doesn't walk away from that article? No one seems to think THF's behavior is sanctionable at the Wikiquette heading. Cool Hand Luke 22:56, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, I disabled my email. It is on now. Ikip (talk) 00:12, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would you agree that returning the vote struck by the nom would be the correct step? Or will that just rile up the matter further. My thought is that no matter the "history" between the nom and the voter, the struck vote is just as relevent as anyone's. Opinion? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:58, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've kind of reached my wikidrama quota for the month, and would prefer to avoid getting involved in new incidents, especially in a heated AfD where my !vote was pretty close to neutral; too, I think DreamGuy is mad at me because I stuck up a little bit for SamJ on another page, so my participation would not be prudent. Finally, Tyrenius already addressed this on DG's talk page. THF (talk) 00:02, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Though to ask. And understood. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:10, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject United States courts and judges is now open for business - let's get it organized and outline our tasks! bd2412 T 16:40, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, what do you think of this proposal: Policy proposal to clarify the "directly related" principle? Cheers, Phenylalanine (talk) 12:17, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment. I revised the proposal accordingly to rule out any apparent conflict with WP:SYN. Your thoughts? --Phenylalanine (talk) 11:48, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you close down the User:WebHamster COI section, I was in the middle of providing evidence. I would appreciate it if you would reverse your action and let the evidence continue to be presented. Bluescreenofdef (talk) 05:22, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You made your 21st and 22nd edits without providing the evidence, and it would be a WP:MULTI violation anyway, because there is a pending mediation. THF (talk) 05:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide evidence you have the authority to close down the WebHamster COI issue. Bluescreenofdef (talk) 05:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The {{collapse}} template is available to all. Where WP:MULTI is being violated and it is disrupting a page, it is appropriate to shut down a fruitless discussion--COIN cannot do anything for you that the mediation won't. No, I'm not an admin: if I were, I'd have blocked both of you for ignoring warnings to disengage and resolve matters in the mediation instead of simply making a firm suggestion that you're hurting your argument by your disruption. I'm doing you a favor by shutting down the extraneous discussion before someone else blocks you for WP:HOUND. THF (talk) 05:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've initiated a discussion for clarification of your position here. Bluescreenofdef (talk) 05:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Was it a mistake to start so many articles on attorneys associated with Guantanamo? I now think it was. And I have moved a bunch of them to my user space, where I will work on them, or cannibalize their references.

It is a lot of work properly responding to an {{afd}}. Is it possible you could hold off on further nominations until the {{afd}}s you have already made have run to completion?

If you hold off on further afd I will review all of the guantanamo attorney articles for which I am the sole author, and remove the bulk of them from article space, by the time these {{afd}} run to completion.

This will save the time of a lot of people who won't have to read the {{afd}}s on articles I can now see won't survive {{afd}}. Geo Swan (talk) 08:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was. The whole Guantanamo project seems misguided: you could have had five or twenty featured articles, and instead you have hundreds and hundreds of stubs, most of which aren't notable, most of which aren't formatted correctly, most of which are outdated, and only one of which is up to Good Article standards (and I frankly doubt that Omar Khadr really meets GA, but I won't ask for a reassessment).

I'll hold off on further AFDs and tagging.

I do note that my complaint about 100 or so habeas articles remains valid; I've been focusing on the BLPs, since a bad BLP can be more problematic for the project. THF (talk) 08:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've been going through them too. Geo Swan (talk) 23:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I asked a question about these {{afd}} on Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion -- here. Geo Swan (talk) 06:55, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

THF, regarding [5], I too would appreciate you opinion on whether Geo Swan should be allowed to userfy these articles, which seem to me to be "almost (but not quite) notable, but in future sources may be arise or be discovered that meet notability tests". Would your answer be different if the subjects were not living persons. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:09, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So long as they weren't being used for mainspace disruption (as PJHaseldine tried to do with the one article userfied so far), I wouldn't bring MFDs. THF (talk) 09:12, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Geo Swan (talk) 09:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Since you are such a great attorney and scholar, can you please help find more cites for this article, so we can get it up to "good article" status? Thanks in advance. I'll get you a cuppa joe at Starbucks next time I'm in DC. Bearian (talk) 17:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know whether you are watching Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kuessner effect, but new sources are available. Cheers. --Edcolins (talk) 22:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are clearly an ethical editor and good lawyer. I'm curious if you find it at all interesting that the Labor Portal, which quotes Confessions of a Union Buster by Martin J. Levitt zillions of times in the Union Busting article and also John Logan yet there are no articles in Wikipedia about either of them? If they are important enough to provide exclusive sourcing for several articles, why aren't they notable enough for the Labor Portal to develop articles about them? Just curious what the criteria is to warrant an article developed by the Labor Portal.--66.92.37.113 (talk) 01:56, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good that you have returned. I suspect we have opposite political alignments, but your presence seems to be helpful. Jehochman ^Talk 05:14, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. THF (talk) 13:51, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did read Killing of U.N. Aide by Israel Bares Rift With Relief Agency. Outside some fairy tales which even the anonymous source admitted were extracted by torture, I didn't see a reliable source. Erik Warmelink (talk) 14:31, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The New York Times is a reliable source, and the article doesn't even mention torture, so your claim to have read it is questionable. If your claim was that the source did not support the claim, you should have used the {{failed verification}} tag. THF (talk) 14:34, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, the New York Times tells us that Iain Hook "was shot in the back by an Israeli soldier ". Why did a member of the IDF shoot him? Erik Warmelink (talk) 22:13, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the UNRWA didn't promote terrorism, there would be fewer gun battles where innocents get accidentally shot in the heat of battle. I fail to see what this has to do with Wikipedia, and I don't have any desire to interact with you beyond what is necessary to collaboratively edit articles. THF (talk) 22:18, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My intent is to be open, friendly, and inviting of conversation with you. I thank you for your comment on the William P. Quigley article. How does this version work for you now ? I guess what I am seeking what is your vision of "Third Party Sources". Thanks, rkmlai (talk) 00:01, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:RS. The issue is one of independent third-party sources, i.e., newspaper articles and books discussing the man. THF (talk) 00:04, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Thanks. I will look for some tomorrow. I appreciate your 'research guidance' collaboration suggestions. Peace, rkmlai (talk) 00:08, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you aware that the closing admin first closed the debate as a redirect (most likely to point readers in the right direction) and later deleted that redirect in defiance of his own closure before finally userfying the article history? - Mgm|^(talk) 09:11, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't what happened. He made the redirect, then deleted the article and recreated the redirect within seconds, presumably because he saw that an editor had previously reverted the earlier redirect. Given what happened to the redirect after he made it, that clearly was the right sequence, since there would be edit-warring rather than DRV. THF (talk) 09:16, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Ill take another look. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:48, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the nice PRODWarning template on my talk page, I appreciate it. I'm not the original author—I merely forked it off of what is now called Criticism of Wal-Mart—so I may hold a different opinion than the one who wrote the original work. Anyways, part of me wants to see the article get deleted because there is already way too much Wal-Mart cruft on here, and another part of me thinks it's ineligible for PROD and should be brought up on AFD instead because it's forked from a controversial article that has already been to AFD once or twice. I thought I would ask you for your opinion before I decided what to do. Tuxide (talk) 02:08, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I see you are a fan of the template. You might want to comment here Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion#Template:History_of_Terrorism. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:55, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Considering your refusal to discuss the issue after your revert two days ago of DGG and accusation of illigitimate canvassing, I've taken William Timmons back to his version, which is the one closer to "consensus" by any fair assessment. Dicklyon (talk) 15:55, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand how a failure to respond to a comment you wrote at 3 am in the morning before 11 am is a "refusal to discuss the issue." I don't have an RSS feed hooked up to my alarm clock. THF (talk) 11:48, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

THF: Off topic, but I have rarely seen truer words than those you wrote on the Cynamon AFD. No one reads these bar magazines. My MSBA (Maryland) magazine gets tossed upon receipt as well, together with everyone else who gets it in my office. Your take is also totally accurate. Solos who actually perform pro bono work never get recognition, it always goes to larger firms who covet judicial approval (which makes me sick) for their perceived community involvement (one case normally, where billing gets exagerated through the roof as a result of no one actually having to pay the bill). Thanks for the refreshing honesty, it made my evening.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 04:13, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I was wondering if you could offer me some advice. I have made some edits to Bradley Simon's article in an attempt to remove the tags from his page and to improve its content. For example, I linked to his article from a few other pages, so how can I get the orphan tag removed? Lakpr (talk) 13:29, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reading a lot of this across the web. How much can this article be simplified without being degraded, so in order to meet understanding by readers who are not themselves attorneys? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:48, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit (Reverted 1 edit by Abd; Use the talk-page; this botches the redirect.. using TW). How did it "botch" the redirect? It still worked, didn't it? I don't mind at all that you reverted, since my purpose was to get that notice into History. I didn't want to use Talk for several reasons, though they are now moot. --Abd (talk) 01:53, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, it didn't. The redirect doesn't work if there's any other text. THF (talk) 02:51, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would have sworn I tried it. Goes to show about swearing. --Abd (talk) 03:07, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand (I do have two hands), see my lovely page, User:Abd/Sandbox. I think you may have made an incorrect assumption. --Abd (talk) 03:14, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Huh. Improvement in the Wikipedia software since 2007. Shows what I know. My bad: I've self-reverted. THF (talk) 03:22, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, the intention is appreciated. I'm not sure that it was ever different, the presence of a redirect at the top of the page should be enough. I'd actually prefer that the text be displayed. In order to see it, one would have to follow the "redirected from" link at the top. I often want to see pages that have been redirected, so I follow that link, then recover it from history. If these pages aren't indexed, this would be a way for someone to see detail on a topic where it's been merged, without having to go into History. There are lots of potential uses. But, in fact, the text isn't displayed. I'm guessing that you may have been thinking about what happens if there is text above the redirect, or maybe on the same line. That does break it. The redirect must be the first line of the page, or else the # is interpreted as a numbered entry.

On the other hand, maybe there really was a change. Nevertheless, your edit summary here said "my bad." No, an action intended to protect the project, even though involving some error, is never bad. Thanks. --Abd (talk) 18:23, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If this poll doesn't work, I'm going to seek James T. Kirk and Star Trek infobox topic ban from ANI. Seems to be an ongoing problem. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Star Trek#Eyeballs. Cool Hand Luke 15:24, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to be the one to officially squelch the mediation, but sometimes debates need to be short-circuited, and mediation wasn't going to be helpful, judging by the number of people recusing themselves rather than get harangued by Arcayne. It's unfair to hobbyist editors when dispute resolution is misused to reward the party willing to be the most persistent in his point of view. I'm facing a similar problem at William Timmons, where a single editor (who has been blocked twice for edit-warring on the article) got a third opinion, then a fourth opinion (mine), then wanted an RFC, and has now insisted on a second RFC because he refuses to compromise in the slightest over an exceedingly minor issue. THF (talk) 15:35, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You two guys are my Wikipedia heroes. If you're ever in Pennsylvania, email me and I'll buy both of you a pint. Erikeltic (talk) 16:19, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, an editor apparently has some questions about consensus in Spock. I have put some notes to this in Kirk since that's where the most recent debate took place. Erikeltic (talk) 21:18, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unhide "Human Achievement Hour" in Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 March 25, and search on the phrase tail wagging the dog. One editor references Wikipedia:Wikipuffery, and another one states they appreciate the concept.

Of interest: the puffery in this case is considered to be the external blogs and self-published sources written by (or quoting) writers who are connected to the event—in a word, astroturf. The phrase tail wagging the dog (meaning astroturfing—number of pseudo-independent sources [6] [7] [8] were connected to a promoter for the HAH event) might be worth a mention in WP:WikiPuffery.

This is the first reference to WP:PUFF I've stumbled over where the essay is cited by someone who didn't participate in writing it. / edg ☺ ☭ 11:56, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to Special:WhatLinksHere/Wikipedia:Wikipuffery, it's spreading pretty quickly -- see, e.g., Talk:Barney Frank, where it was taken seriously by multiple editors as a concept to be adhered to, without anyone complaining "but it's just an essay written by THF." As I said when I first wrote it, it's a useful concept that I was surprised no one had written an essay on. THF (talk) 15:21, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notable? I came across the article while listening to Daft Punk and checking out their article. Seems like there's some sourcing and notability issues with the article. Thoughts? ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 09:29, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notwithstanding WP:NOTINHERITED, WP:MUSIC grants tertiary notability and beyond (a label is notable if it had a notable artist; an artist is notable if he had a notable label; bootstrapping is perfectly okay), and music articles seem to also have pretty loose standards for RS. Because of this consensus for exceptions to the general policy, I don't nominate music articles for deletion any more; this article would probably survive AfD because he has charted in Europe. I briefly dealt with this article because of COIN, and have since left it to others, and won't be offended if it's nominated. I will say that if Mysterio is adding too much Mysterio-related content to the Daft Punk article, that should be dealt with, as he's been warned about those kinds of edits. THF (talk) 13:07, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, not going to nominate, it sounds like it's notable enough, just has other issues. Thanks for the heads up about the COIN entry. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 11:05, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

unfortunately it completely devolved, but hopefully other editors will come back to make sure it stays NPOV. Drsmoo (talk) 15:08, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm taking a wikibreak from disputatious editing where possible. THF (talk) 18:41, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I noticed you've added the {request edit} template to the talk pages of two articles (Talk:Millennium_Ecosystem_Assessment and Talk:Health_effects_arising_from_the_September_11_attacks). This template is supposed to be used by editors who have a conflict of interest with the subject but I can't find any explanation of what your COI is. If you were just requesting a general edit could you remove the templates from the articles? Thanks Smartse (talk) 19:54, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and on Talk:Wal-Mart (I think - it's hard searching the history, apologies if I'm wrong) - I've been reading the discussion but see no mention of any concrete COI issue or in particular a requested edit. I thought I'd check with you before removing the template. Smartse (talk) 20:18, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe I have a COI on Walmart, but my habit is to not contest a good-faith accusation of COI. On both the two other talk-pages, I think I make the COI issue clear: I refer explicitly to "my" testimony. THF (talk) 18:41, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just wanted to make sure you had noticed that Walmart has been nominated for a good article status review. Is work continuing to address the tags? I hope so, as it would be a shame for an article with so much work put into it to not be recognized, but I would have to !vote to delist is it is just going to sit there as is. If COI accusations are keeping you from contributing directly, plenty of editors would be glad to port anything (cited&NPOV etc) you have to offer from the talk page to the article. Thanks!YobMod 09:28, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a while since you edited the William Lerach bio. Anyway, I happened to visit it today, and also the Discussion page. I put a rebuttal in at the bottom of the Discussion page (somebody said the bio was "screaming of one-sidedness". Anyway, I added some background to what Lerach was actually doing, i.e. pocketing all the plaintiff's lead counsel fees at the expense of lawfirms that didn't bribe an in-house stable of bogus clients. Also the point that one of the reasons why the gov't went after Milberg Weiss so forcefully - because Milberg Weiss continued their felony conduct even after they knew the gov't was investigating them. I didn't put these two points in the actual bio but thought that you might be better able to word them since you are an attorney. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.131.246 (talk) 20:38, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've written about Lerach and people get upset with me when I edit pages on subjects I've written about. THF (talk) 18:33, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A bit of excitement, as it turns out that one of the key props upon which much theorizing and agonizing argument stood has been knocked out. The final committee report has been long misquoted at the article to deleterious effect. Take a glance at the talk page when you have time. Capitalismojo (talk) 03:41, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Might benefit from your insights. Collect (talk) 15:22, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello THF. I noticed your {{Request edit}} template at Talk:Millennium Ecosystem Assessment#Request edit. You recommended that an AEI document commenting on this group's report be included in the article. I see no reason not, but it makes more sense for you to compose some text to be included in the article. Adding a bare reference would not be very useful. If you want to propose some text to include, draft some up and include it on the Talk page, and ping me or anyone at WP:COIN if you want it considered for inclusion. EdJohnston (talk) 03:47, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for spamming you, but in light of the impending shift of the Demographics of the Supreme Court of the United States, I'd like to get this article up to FA status within the next few weeks, and ready for the front page by the time the Court starts its fall term. Any help or advice you can provide would be appreciated. Cheers! bd2412 T 01:18, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi THF,

I'm asking Wikipedians who are interested in United States legal articles to take a look at WP:Hornbook, the new "JD curriculum task force".

Our mission is to assimilate into Wikipedia all the insights of an American law school education, by reducing hornbooks to footnotes.

• Each casebook will have a subpage.

• Over the course of a semester, each subpage will shift its focus to track the unfolding curriculum(s) for classes using that casebook around the country.
• It will also feature an extensive, hyperlinked "index" or "outline" to that casebook, pointing to pages, headers, or {{anchors}} in Wikipedia (example).
• Individual law schools can freely adapt our casebook outlines to the idiosyncratic curriculum devised by each individual professor.

• I'm encouraging law students around the country to create local chapters of the club I'm starting at my own law school, "Student WP:Hornbook Editors". Using WP:Hornbook as our headquarters, we're hoping to create a study group so inclusive that nobody will dare not join.

What you can do now:

1. Add WP:Hornbook to your watchlist, {{User Hornbook}} to your userpage, and ~~~~ to Wikipedia:Hornbook/participants.

2. If you're a law student,

• Email http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:Hornbook to your classmates, and tell them to do the same.
• Contact me directly via talk page or email about coordinating a chapter of "Student WP:Hornbook Editors" at your own school.

(You don't have to start the club, or even be involved in it; just help direct me to someone who might.)

3. Introduce yourself to me. Law editors on Wikipedia are a scarce commodity. Do knock on my talk page if there's an article you'd like help on.

Regards, Andrew Gradman ^talk/_WP:Hornbook 04:18, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just though you might want to know that some of the issues appearing in Wikipedia:Tagging pages for problems are currently being discussed in Wikipedia talk:Notability.--RDBury (talk) 12:22, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In its first draft, and I would greatly appeciate your input therein. Thanks! Collect (talk) 11:58, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, thank you very much! I really appreciate the Barnstar. It made me tear up. Bearian (talk) 18:14, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi THF. It is true that I'm involved in the Gerald Posner plagiarism case, insofar as I discovered most of the plagiarism. However, several thoughts. 1. The article currently references Posner's blog (in which he tries to rationalize/explain the plagiarism). Wouldn't this also be a violation of the "no blogs" policy? 2. Much of the beginning of the Posner page appears to just be PR (quotes lauding him) with little or no informational content. Basically, an advertisement. It's not clear to me that this serves a valid purpose in a resource such as Wikipedia. 3. Many of the instances of plagiarism, and the cases of quote tampering, documented in the Cannonfire blog article (which I cited) are documented nowhere else. In every such case, the primary sources (the Posner article and the source article) are fully specified, so these are not undocumented (or poorly documented) allegations.

Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eurytemora (talk • contribs) 03:47, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. It's okay to reference a blog published by the subject of the article for the subject's thoughts; in that case, it's more like a press release.
2. I haven't looked at the Posner article closely, but if there is hagiographic language that isn't well-sourced, discuss it on the talk-page, and you'll likely persuade other editors.
3. All I can suggest is that you get reliable sources to write about it. You've done a pretty good job of it so far. As a blogger who covered certain scams years ahead of the mainstream media, I empathize. THF (talk) 03:54, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the Liberty League info - interesting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eurytemora (talk • contribs) 04:06, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[