User talk:ObjectivityAlways

Welcome!

Hello, ObjectivityAlways, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! - Jersyko·talk 02:05, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tucker Carlson[edit]

Criticism is defined as "a serious examination and judgment of something" or "disapproval expressed by pointing out faults or shortcomings." Comparing Canada to a retarded person does neither; it is a polemic remark intended to spark controversy. --M @r ē ino 22:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When he describes Canada as something like your "retarded cousin", I think most thinking people would know he is saying that critically. No matter, though. I'm ok with your revision. Thanks for the note. ObjectivityAlways 21:14, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trinity College degree for Tucker Carlson[edit]

Hi there, referring to your edit of [1]:

Despite the comment, however, Carlson finished his degree at Trinity in 1992, earning a Bachelors of Science degree, with a major in History.

Do you have a reference for this, as it was added without citation or discussion. Thanks. -- Fuzheado | Talk 04:45, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think there was an initial link, but it's not there now, so I've removed the sentence. ObjectivityAlways 18:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

December 2007[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, we must insist that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not on Charlie Wilson's War. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. The section the editor removed contained information not directly related to the film, and while you're perfectly within your rights to disagree, it was obviously not vandalism. I tend to agree with the other editor on the matter; that much detail would be more appropriate in another article. Best regards, Liquidfinale ^{(Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ)} 08:41, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your input, but the wholesale removal of relevant paragraphs without discussion is more vandalism than constructive editing. ObjectivityAlways (talk) 12:08, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adding an inappropriate external link to Blog[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion[edit]

Hi. I've proposed deleting an article you've edited, about the book 101 People Who Are Really Screwing America by Jack Huberman. At present there's no sign from the article that the book is notable. I'm hoping to ...um... prod someone into providing evidence for the book's notability; can you help? Cheers, CWC 14:07, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links[edit]

Hi there. Thank you for your contributions to William F. Buckley, Jr., but I would like to remind you that Wikipedia is not a collection of external links. Thanks, Happyme22 (talk) 18:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting problems[edit]

Please go back and review your edits to the pages re: Heritage board members. You are cutting and pasting (I'm presuming) using incorrect Wiki code. Start the reference with <ref> and end with </ref>. You have been in error starting with </ref>. This is screwing up the formatting of the pages. I fixed Kay Cole James. Thanks! ∴ Therefore | talk 18:40, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem at all. I had noticed that you made a similar error at Midge Decter but didn't take the time to notice that you had already corrected it. Just wanted to give you a heads up in case this was a problem. Thanks! ∴ Therefore | talk 19:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NNDB[edit]

NNDB is probably not a suitable site for links from Wikipedia. Per WP:EL, it doesn't appear to be a high quality site. It'd be best if you didn't make a practice of adding those links. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:33, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any facts you find in a short bio like that should already be in the WP article. If it isn't then it'd be worth finding a reliable source and adding it. External links are really just for materials that we wouldn't add to Wikiepdia, for whatever reason. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:40, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reagan edits[edit]

The reason why your material was reverted, and why it still needs improvement 'ere it be removed again is twofold. First, its a current Featured article; a higher standard for inclusion applies. Secondly, you may have noticed that the article is subtly biased, and there is little that can be done about it without rock-solid citations to help whittle away at the tree of Ronnie Love. Your material is good - just cite everything, so no one can remove it without triggering a discussion. I can wait until tomorrow before reverting some of the material weakened by the lack of citation. If you can, find additional material to Foreign Affairs; it is good, but you will note that book and newsprint seems to cover the issue rather well. Good luck. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:04, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good governance[edit]

I see that your interested in politics etc. Could you take a look at a couple pages, considering what you have come across in your years of experiance:

Thanks, SADADS (talk) 14:23, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]