Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jsn9333 (talk | contribs) at 12:23, 12 April 2008. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome!

Hello, Jsn9333, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! 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 Misplaced Pages
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! --Neo-Jay (talk) 15:13, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Regarding reversions made on March 30 2008 to Fox News Channel

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-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 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. - auburnpilot talk 15:49, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I have discussed all my changes in detail in the POV section of the Fox News entry's talk page. I am open to more discussion, but the other party has stopped discussing. If discussion with the other party seeking to bias the entry does not solve the problem then we'll have to turn to another request for comment or a survey (most likely even arbitration since supposedly a consensus was already built around the biased treatment of the opening section of the entry).

I think you make some valid points. I have attempted to remove the POV from the lead in the past as well, but there is a strong belief by some editors that FNC is the embodiment of all that is evil and wrong with media, neutral treatment is therefore a victim. Arzel (talk) 14:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Misplaced Pages pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should 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! --SineBot (talk) 22:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

FNC

Please read our policies/guidelines on dead links and edit warring. Dead links should not be remove unless replaced by another link, and an editor can be blocked for edit warring without violating the three revert rule. Your edits are becoming disruptive. Please also note that if your "friends" who are also interested in the debate continue to edit war, you may be blocked for meatpuppetry. Maybe consider the fact that you are the only editor reverting to your version, and that it might be an indication you are not editing productively. - auburnpilot talk 13:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe consider the fact that there is a lot of controversy surrounding the allegations that wikipedia editors tend to be biased to the "left", and it might be an indication that I am editing in a manner productive toward making wikipedia a source of information that presents all relevant facts and *both sides* of critical analysis when neither side has "undue weight". The talk page speaks for itself. If you will read it you will plainly see that the editors who are changing the wording back to the one-sided treatment are literally claiming that the position the New York Times reports about (the position that "others turn to Fox News for balanced news reporting"... actually "a lot" of others according to the NYT) is has "undue weight", comparing it to the position that the earth is flat! That is their reason for only presenting the "Fox is biased to the right" critique in the article lead! . . . I am participating in the talk concerning my changes, and have not seen anywhere in the archives leading up to the consensus where my ideas were considered. You can create allegations of "friends" and warn me all you want... my points are valid. It is the edits of those who wish to keep the current, one-sided wording that are becoming disruptive to wikipedia, not mine. I thank you for the dead link information, and I have added it to my changes. Jsn9333 (talk) 05:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Jsn9333 for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page.Template:Do not delete Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry? Right-wing bias, perhaps, but who is he or she a sockpuppet of? TheNobleSith (talk) 21:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC) 21:50, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Please explain where you see right-wing bias in my changes. You also say me edits are "dripping with POV". If one were to look behind this baseless accusation he would see the only change I have suggested is changing, "Critics and some observers of the channel say that Fox News promotes conservative political positions. Fox News denies allegations of bias in its news reporting.", so that it instead says, "Critics and some observers of the channel say that Fox News promotes conservative political positions. Other observers see Fox News as a relatively balanced source for news. Fox News denies allegations of bias in its news reporting." If anything I am trying to make the lead seem less POV biased by giving both sides of a critical analysis instead of only one side. The cite I have included is a New York Times article that concludes "a lot of people" are turning to Fox News for more balanced reporting. Yet editors on Fox News are saying my addition is "fringe", has "undue weight", and is "dripping with POV". This is a witch hunt against me. Jsn9333 (talk) 13:22, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

You are giving one NYT source as much weight in the lead of FNC as the many other sources claiming that FNC has a bias. That is undue weight. The NYT source should be mentioned in the section on criticism, or not at all. TheNobleSith (talk) 14:49, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

- to thenoblesith, I had multiple sources up at one point, but was told if so many sources are needed then the statement must be a stretch. So I removed all but the most highly respected amongst FNC entry editors. You people cannot have it both ways. If you are going to sit there with a straight face and tell me you believe the New York Times got its facts wrong when it reported that a lot of people are turning to Fox News for balanced hard news reporting in order to get away from news reporting that intertwines liberal editorializing, then I can post more sources. But I can guarantee your going to call those sources fringe if they are not as liberal as the New York Times. (And before you get upset at my calling the Times liberal, see http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9d01e7d8173df936a15754c0a9629c8b63 where the NYT itself acknowledges that it is liberal because it is "urban". The edits I have made have simply eliminated bias and unfair treatment from the lead using an extremely well respected source, and in doing seem to have angered a lot of people including yourself. That is sad, since you claim to "strive to maintain non-bias." If you are going to accuse me of "right wing bias, maybe" you should look in the mirror before leveling such accusations. Jsn9333 (talk) 18:52, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

_GB 19:24, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Jsn9333 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was blocked because I recruited a friend from school, one of the biggest university campuses in North Carolina, to aid in an effort to change consensus in an entry that has been taken over by editors who wish to preserve liberal bias. That was not against any rules that I know of or have been told of. Not only have biased editors taken over the Fox News entry, preventing anyone from adding balance to the points of view they introduce into the lead of the page, but they have also leveled false accusations of "socket puppetry" and succeeded in blocking me somehow. How can this happen? Someone should take a look at that entry and see the bull s*#@ reasons these editors are giving in order to keep their POV one-sided in the Fox News lead. One glance through the talk page and it is so evident what is going on in that entry. They also all team up together and change any edits meant to bring fairness within a few minutes of the edits being made, so no single one of them has to break the three-revert rule. That this can go on, and that these people can block anyone who tries to recruit others to stand up to them is sad. This entire situation has turned me off to wikipedia so much. I'm not a conservative; I'm not a liberal. I'm someone who spots bias when I see it, and apparently wikipedia is most definitely not a place where I am welcome. What am I supposed to do after this block... tell my friend he can no longer edit Fox News!? This is nuts. I had heard wikipedia was biased to the left, but I really didn't believe it until now.

Decline reason:

Meatpuppetry is also prohibited. MaxSem 06:13, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I've asked Unc 2002 to email unblock-en-l using his/her University-issued @unc.edu email address. If you can do the same, it would demonstrate to us that you are in fact two separate individuals. Emails to this address are only accessible by Misplaced Pages administrators so you will continue to remain anonymous to the general public. --  Netsnipe  ►  18:10, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I am a full-time Duke student taking one graduate course at UNC this semester. Duke is literally 15 miles up the road. I did not get an e-mail account when I signed up for a graduate course at UNC. Would my @duke.edu e-mail address suffice? Also, forgive me, but I have not gained the utmost confidence in wikipedia's administrators. If I provided personal information I would be most comfortable if I could be assured it would be deleted immediately after it is verified. Is that possible? Jsn9333 (talk) 11:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

FNC

Is this edit supposed to be some kind of clever joke that I'm just not getting? My username is AuburnPilot, not AutoburnPilot. I corrected the mistake here and you reverted me. What's up? - auburnpilot talk 12:38, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

no, not a clever joke. Stupid mistake actually. I had accidentally referred to you as Auburn, and after I saved the edit I read it later and for some reason I thought your name was autoburn pilot. I don't know why I thought that, but I honestly did. I was like, "Oh f*#k, I called him auburn!" I was so sure your username was actually was autoburn I didn't even check, I just fixed it as fast as I could. Maybe I was editing it at the same time as you or soemthing? I'm not sure. But I apologize. I'm certainly not helping my case in the FNC debate by not paying careful attention to your name. I'm sincerely sorry. I'm honestly not trying to be a jerk though. Jsn9333 (talk) 14:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I just fixed it correctly, again, I'm sorry. Jsn9333 (talk) 14:27, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, no worries. I just wanted to make sure I wasn't being a complete jackass and missing something obvious. I even looked at the page history to make sure I hadn't missed a user named "autoburn". Thanks for the correction. - auburnpilot talk 20:48, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

No, I was the one missing something obvious; totally my bad. I hope you will still respond to the comment though. Jsn9333 (talk) 03:09, 12 April 2008 (UTC)