User talk:Timjowers

Welcome!

Hello, Timjowers, 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:

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 ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! Luksuh 21:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

JzG, fine with me if you remove the links but you should not remove the link from the summary page of Republican candidate positions until you yourself can provide a better one. Good luck. I believe your action was politically motivated rather than in keeping with accurate information.

I have blocked you from editing to stop the addition of the same external links to numerous articles, which is considered spamming. You may be unblocked once we can be certain that you will not continue this. Guy (Help!) 19:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read this notice? Please respond, several admins are watching this page in the hope of engaging you about this. Thanks, Guy (Help!) 14:29, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You should instead block yourself. The page linked shows the current positions for all candidates. I challenge you to find any even close to as useful page on the Internet. The best you will find is single issue pages. The reason the information cannot be imported into Wikipedia is it is programmatically calculated and not static text. I guess it could be imported daily.

IF, I'll go as far to suggest you are in support of Hillary Clinton. I notice a conscious omission of Ron Paul and other current Republican candidates on the summary page for the positions for Republican candidates. I believe the real, personal reason you blocked the linked website was your personal political preference. I also believe by doing so you are infringing on my freedom of speech and surely hope you are not doing so on behalf of Wikipedia.

Anybody reading this response? This is the way Wikipedia directed me to respond.

LOL! I can't vote for any of them, I don't live in the US! You have precisely two enforceable rights here: the right to fork and the right to leave. Wikipedia is not a free speech zone, and the First Amendment does not apply to this private project - although of course we allow wide latitude. Are you saying that you're not associated with these sites? It was ambiguous, from a Google search. Guy (Help!) 18:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Despite your lack of response to the above I have unblocked you, as several people seem to think there may be an innocent explanation. Apologies for the inconvenience, but please don't add numbers of links in this way again, at least not without discussing on the talk pages beforehand. And do remember that if someone finds fault with your editing, it might be because they find fault with it, rather than because they are a pinko commie subversive. Guy (Help!) 23:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Thanks. I was a bit overzealous but frustrated with the lack of accurate information. If you are the editor, please update this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Republican_candidates%2C_2008 or refer it to another editor. E.g. Brownback and Gingrich haven't been in the race for months. I added some basic info on Paul a while back but am still waiting to see if anyone else is updating the page. I had some trouble understanding how to do the table there.

Thanks, Tim

Linkspam?

I ran across these edits a day or so ago and took a look at the links. My first thought was "linkspam". However, since the links are to factual, useful, neutral information about the candidates, I thought they were useful (I didn't check to see whether or not they were redundant). Frankly, I think a candidate's voting record is pertinent to their biography and should be included in some manner so long as it comes from a reliable and neutral source. What to do? I think we should have a discussion regarding the most appropriate source for voting record information, and then I think we need to include a link to this source in every candidate's biography. Rklawton (talk) 01:50, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dudes, you need to learn from DMOZ. When slapping edits is more important than real content then you become useless. The cited page is so out of date its not funny. Here we have a team of editors but NO ONE IS DOING ANY REAL EDITING. Not me either now. :-)

Wikipropaganda-pedia

Wow, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Project_management. What? Is this comedy? Having someone write about PM and make claims of Agile superiority to Waterfall based on theory is a fad. It seems like every other time I log into Wikipedia I read some mis-information. From lastnames of historical persons being changed to protect a historical myth to basic folderol being slopped around in an article on Project Management. It seems Wikipedia is more focused on donations than facts. It should not be called an encyclopedia but maybe a encyclo-factoidia.