User talk:MattJanovic
Page contents not supported in other languages.
Welcome!
Hello, MattJanovic, andwelcome to Wikipedia! Thank you foryour contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being aWikipedian! Pleasesign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check outWikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place{{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! ←BenB418:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When is the last time anyone has been convicted of adultery in D.C.? Not since the 50s I bet. I don't like Vitter either, but people are going to think you're a nut. ←BenB418:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, there. In case you didn't know, when you add content totalk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you shouldsign your posts by typing fourtildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding theShift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot18:05, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your edits toDavid Vitter violate at least a couple of Wikipedia guidelines or norms, includingWP:LEAD andWP:OR. A lead (intro) section should summarize the article in a balanced way, while your version dwells on the prostitution scandal. Additionally, Wikipedia articles must not engage inoriginal research, which is "unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories" as well as "unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position." So for instance, this:
Specifically, since the evening of July 9th of 2007, the public has been aware of his five calls to Pamela Martin & Associates spanning 1999-2001, which could have been repeated 'Master 9 severity' violations under District of Columbia prostitution statutes. It's unclear whether this could impair his ability to continue serving as a ranking minority member on the Subcommittee on International Operations and Organizations, Democracy and Human Rights. This is a subcommitte of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
...probably violates the policy againstoriginal research.
One way to avoid original research is to post information that have been published inreliable sources and to cite them. --Proper tea is theft22:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're being partisan and your own objectivity is questionable regarding the removals--the research is published at www.yardbird.com, by Bill Keisling. However, all of the basic information is searchable and verifiable. Until you can disprove it, I'm reposting it. Look at the talk page--the scandal is what he's known for nationally. There is a comment in talk that also highlights that the other thing he's known for nationally was a controversial remark during the immediate aftermath of Katrina. Best to let the board decide, frankly, the majority of editors can decide. I wouldn't leave it to you. There's nothing in the additions that has a POV. Where's the POV exactly? He's on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee--this is a commonly known fact. He has oversight over USAID and the State Deptartment--also a fact. DC prostitution statutes describe seeing a prostitute as a "Master 9 severity" offense. That's the one part that could be interpreted as speculative, though only because Ms. Palfrey hasn't had her trial yet. If it helps you, you might know that I neither like or care for either the DNC or the GOP, I'm a Socialist. There's nothing in there that isn't factual. --MattJanovic7:00 PM, EST, 09.23.2007
I know, I've dwelt too much on the fact that Ms. Palfrey is involved in her own predicament. How silly of me. Insofar as the Vitter information, it's verifiable. You know, I've looked through your records, and I'm certain that Mr. Keisling has been published numerous times by third-party imprints. There shouldn't be a problem with his credibility. An example would be his work his work on Three Mile Island ("Three Mile Island: Turning Point," Seattle, Wash.: Veritas Books, 1980.)MattJanovic 10:02 PM EST, 24 September, 2007[1]
You should be aware thatmaking more than three reversions to an article within 24 hours is grounds for blocking. As you have now made your third reversion toDavid Vitter in 24 hours, you may wish to review this policy. --Proper tea is theft19:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You currently appear to be engaged in anedit war according to the reverts you have made onDavid Vitter. Note that thethree-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute 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 thethree-revert rule. If you continue, you may beblocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains aconsensus among editors. --Proper tea is theft02:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]You are the only one that I know of who has a problem with the additions. You might consider the irony of your statements. I'm using the talk page to no avail, and we're having a circular-discussion. A complaint is being filed this week.MattJanovic[MattJanovic|MattJanovic]] 11:49 PM EST, 24 September, 2007
-Penwhale |Blast him /Follow his steps04:33, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Matt -- please seediscussion about resolving disputes. First, discuss. Then, disengage. If you still feel frustrated, then I would encourage you to request aa third party assessment of the dispute. This is the usual avenue vs. making complaints about another editor. If your request for comments falls to your favor (by consensus), then you will be free to add in your suggestions.∴ Therefore |talk04:38, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I welcome other editors to come forward to challenge the other disputants in this, but I stand behind the additions. The information is factual and verifiable and should become protected. I would ask that we examine the IPs of disputants and those who have removed the article in-general, that could tell us more about the nature of the dispute--or not. Wiki has a history of articles being compromised by individuals connected to the living persons being written about, and even employees of business establishments that are being bio'd in an article. I am unaffiliated with anyone.MattJanovic15:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[[User:MattJanovic|MattJanovic] 11:56 AM EST, 25 September, 2007.[reply]
{{cite web}}:Check date values in:|date= (help)