User talk:Morphh: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Line 89: Line 89:


:Thanks, I'm aware of the rule and will not break it. I just happen to be watching the article at the time. [[User:Morphh|<span style="color:green">Morphh</span>]] <sup>[[user talk:Morphh|<span style="color:chocolate">(talk)</span>]]</sup> <small><i>12:33, 14 August 2009 (UTC)</i></small>
:Thanks, I'm aware of the rule and will not break it. I just happen to be watching the article at the time. [[User:Morphh|<span style="color:green">Morphh</span>]] <sup>[[user talk:Morphh|<span style="color:chocolate">(talk)</span>]]</sup> <small><i>12:33, 14 August 2009 (UTC)</i></small>

== You censoring jackass ==

Your political ideology has no place here. Glenn Beck is a racist asshole and anyone that comes to his wiki page should be made aware of this fact. You are a lilly-livered chicken shit. If you don't like that your heroes are morons, then get better heroes and stop trying to hide the truth about them from people.

Revision as of 13:15, 14 August 2009


Archive
Archives
  1. Archive 1: Prior to Jun. 14th, 2006
  2. Archive 2: Jun. 2006 to Dec. 2006
  3. Archive 3: Jan. 2007 to Jun. 2007
  4. Archive 4: Jul. 2007 to Oct. 2007
  5. Archive 5: Oct. 2007 to Jul. 2008
  6. Archive 6: Jul. 2008 to May. 2009

Economics sidebar

Thank you for finishing the job on above, Morphh (way beyond my pay grede ; ). --Thomasmeeks (talk) 13:26, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, M. I have ttried to formuate a response but wanted to give it a little rest for now (like 18 hrs.). Hope you'll keep an open mind, as I have attempted in trying to in meet your concern. --Thomasmeeks (talk)

Thanks, look forward to the response. I'm open to the idea but just not convinced at this point that it makes it better. :-) I posted a quick notice at the Economics WikiProject to get a few more people to offer their thoughts. Morphh (talk) 12:35, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I've done some more more moodling around and hope that it will be non-issue per changes indicated. Wish I had taken action on that earlier. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 15:21, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Low-importance Economics articles

You may want to check your bot. You listed this as empty along with several others and they are not empty. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:49, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They contain no articles, only sub-categories, which we're trying to get rid of as well. I think the bot for the quality/importance intersect is seeing the importance category and not moving them properly to the priority cat. Morphh (talk) 11:52, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, Morphh! Thought you might be interested in Motto of the Day, a collaborative (and totally voluntary) effort by a group of Wikipedians to create original, inspirational mottos. Have a good motto idea? Share it here, comment on some of the mottos there or just pass this message onto your friends.

MOTD Needs Your Help!

Delivered By –pjoef (talkcontribs) 07:52, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What are your ideas for compromise on the Glen Beck article? Personally, I see the whole "Media persona and commentary" as a POV section just to throw in negative incidents about Beck. None of it is noteworthy. Comments? Bytebear (talk) 17:57, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think his style and critical positions are part of his notability. So, while no one particular incident is notable, I think we should put together something that describes these aspects. I'm completely against listing or bulleting incidents like how it was presented earlier. I don't think the details are all that important, but I think we need to properly portray his media persona. I think part of the compromise is adding examples of that controversial personality. He's an opinionated person and he's going to (and likely wants to) create waves. So long we follow NPOV policy and Beck's view is not misrepresented by the critical statements, I think we should include something. It needs to stay summarized and brief (NPOV undue weight policy), and be related to the notability (BLP). I think a couple paragraphs would be fine that included both points of view on criticized statements. We also have to consider that Beck may not get the type of attention that we would usually require for something to be properly notable to him (Beck's controversial views might not be big news).
On another note though, there are many other aspects of the article that could use a good bit of expanding (like his NYT bestselling books that get one sentence each). Morphh (talk) 2:07, 03 August 2009 (UTC)

Intellectually dishonest horseshit, Morphh, and you know it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.164.157.106 (talk) 01:42, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will have the time to do more on the Glenn Beck talk page next week. Thank you for participating. --Hardindr (talk) 19:14, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Making a Wikipedia user page

Hi Morphh,

I love your page. Can you please show me how to put up cool graphics like yours? Thanks,Malke 2010 (talk) 01:09, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on your talk page. Morphh (talk) 1:20, 07 August 2009 (UTC)

Cool. . .thanks Morphh. Also any tips on editing would be most appreciated. I'm trying to clean up Karl Rove's article. It's a mess. I want to make it neutral and accurate with real references and not the references that refer to someone who knew someone who once said, blah blah blah about Karl Rove. ThanksMalke 2010 (talk) 01:27, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please Help

Hi Morphh:

Do you have any suggestions for editing an article? I'm trying to neutralize the article on Karl Rove. I made changes but they were all reversed immediately. I understand that this is a hot topic for some, but the article is so badly written and truly one-sided that I feel it violates the spirit of Wikipedia.

Also, how do you avoid editing wars and do people ever enlist the aid of an administrator? Thanks, Malke 2010 (talk) 09:43, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How do I flag an article?

Hi Morphh

I want to put up a flag on an article citing the intricate detail.

How do I do that? Thanks, Malke 2010 (talk) 01:07, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

August 2009

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Glenn Beck. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Nja247 07:07, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'm aware of the rule and will not break it. I just happen to be watching the article at the time. Morphh (talk) 12:33, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You censoring jackass

Your political ideology has no place here. Glenn Beck is a racist asshole and anyone that comes to his wiki page should be made aware of this fact. You are a lilly-livered chicken shit. If you don't like that your heroes are morons, then get better heroes and stop trying to hide the truth about them from people.