User talk:Bibliophylax/Archive 1

Welcome!

Hello, Bibliophylax, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Mushroom (Talk) 13:58, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for trying to undo the vandalism to the Mark Foley scandal article. However, I just wanted to mention that you moved it to Mike Foley scandal, not where it belongs at Mark Foley scandal. It's been fixed now. --Saforrest 21:26, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure it's you, but I think it is. I had just put _quite_ a bit of work into fixing up citations and the like. Much of that is now gone. For example, the "media knowledge" section. I had fixed up the citations. I had factually corrected the section. I had the Miami Herald in there. All gone. If it's you, and the edit history is getting complicated. Then please be more careful. I've spent literally hours trying to get those details right, and it's frustrating to see it all get zapped away for no good reason. Thankyou.

If it's not you, my apologies. Can you figure out who it is? Derex 12:38, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I'll try to sort it out. I had just been about to finish incorporating exactly that material in an organized and cited fashion. Frustrating. The article had turned into a _complete_ mess a couple hours ago. Was just horribly organized and redundant and poorly written. Derex 12:44, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see what's happening. I had been working on "Events". I saw your new "Failure to Act" section in the TOC because it's so large. It contains pretty much the same material that I had just been working on in Events, and in the same order. So, I thought you had just overwritten Events. There's quite a bit of redundancy between the two now. But, I apologize, you didn't overwrite me, I just read the page wrong. In turn, I suspect you may have missed my work on Events, which contains just about the same stuff. Derex 12:51, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that we could separate Foley's actions usefully. I'm hesitant to package the rest up as "Failures to act", as that is suggestive. I also don't know that anyone has criticized anyone but the leadership on this. Alexander, for example, hasn't gotten much heat. Nor has Reynolds. They both passed it along. The heat's really on Hastert & Shimkus.

It might be useful to separate this out into a section on public knowledge (media & pages rumors) And a second section on Congress reaction. It's a bit hard to do that while keeping the timelines intact though. Derex 13:06, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's almost midnight here, so I'm checking out. If you sort out "Events" into sections, and I don't object in principle, then be mindful of two things. First, some of the refs are multiply cited, and I think you need the first full cite as the first. Second, try to keep the timeline clear across sections. Thanks. Sorry I got irritated. My bad, I just got so frustrated when it falsely appeared the last few hours had gone for nought. Derex 13:10, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dude or dudette, your recent edit summary was fucking harsh. AGF please. Kyaa the Catlord 17:00, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, no worries man. I'm not making major changes to the article due to realizing that I have a very unorthodox view of the scandal. I'd rather point out possibilities and make minor changes. (I reread the Mel article and was wrong about it. I pulled his name off the list of clinton pardon page and didn't realize that there were two levels of 'pardons' there, pardon and commutation.) My civics classes were much too long ago. Kyaa the Catlord 17:18, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Biblio, in this edit a minute ago you inadvertently removed a citation antecedent. When a reference is named, that mean that citations further down likely depend on that information. Without the prior, those later references will be null. Please be careful to check for that. I'm not sure how to avoid this issue without have an enormously long and redundant reference section. Thanks. Derex 13:15, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, my bad. I didn't see that you had moved that paragraph with the ref down. I assumed it was just cut. Sorry. Derex 13:16, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I left a reply to your comment about OR on Talk:Drudge Report. WP:RS does appear to allow its use as a source for the article Drudge Report, and it makes sense to use it to verify a claim such as "On (date), the Drudge Report published (whatever)." See my comment at the talk page for the quote from WP:RS. - Crockspot 23:52, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		Thank you so much for you contributions to the Eagan High School article. It looks worlds better! Thank you so much! Cephyr 22:41, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:EaganHSLogo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 05:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:EaganHSSeal.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 05:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]