User talk:JoanneB/Archive2007/March

Reverts

I'm so sorry about the reversion problems I just had about 30 seconds ago... I'm new to WP:VPRF and clicked the revert button too quickly to notice. Sorry again... ThePurpleMonkey_{(talk•portal•contribs)} 21:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem! I figured as much, see your talk page :) Don't worry about it, programs like that take time getting used to. --JoanneB 21:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Survey Invitation

Hi there, I am a research student from the National University of Singapore and I wish to invite you to do an online survey about Wikipedia. To compensate you for your time, I am offering a reward of USD$10, either to you or as a donation to the Wikimedia Foundation. For more information, please go to the research home page. Thank you. --WikiInquirer 02:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)^{talk to me}

Happy Spread-the-funny and-slighty-random-love day!

:) pschemp (talk) 00:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the revert

Thanks for the revert on my talk page. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 15:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Concerning your Admin Coaching assignments

Your name is still listed at Wikipedia:Admin coaching/Volunteers. The department is heavily backlogged with student's requests for coaches, and we need your help!

Note that the instructions may have changed since the last time you checked, and the department now follows a self-help process...

If you don't currently have a student, or if you believe you can handle another one, please select a student from the request list at Wikipedia:Admin coaching/Requests and contact them. See the instructions on Wikipedia:Admin coaching. Good luck.

If you are no longer available to coach, , please remove yourself from the volunteers list.

Thank you. The Transhumanist    03:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

i have given you an award

having looked over your edits i think you are more than deserving... keep up the good work.--Jamesmh2006User talk:Jamesmh2006 14:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! --JoanneB 20:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Southwestern Company

Could you roll that back farther, because that guy has just been adding negative stuff about the company, that does not belong in an encyclopedia? BlackBear 20:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I rolled it back to your version, what version should it be rolled back to? --JoanneB 20:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

BlackBear and JoanneB: I made the big edits to the SW page...I want to make sure the information is posted to not be an ad but effectively display the proper information. I'm new to the Wikipedia thing so I want to make sure I'm doing it right. If the information is unbiased, then there should be no reason to change/erase it right? You both obviously have some more knowledge and it seems like BlackBear is familiar with the program too. DarkHorse10 23:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Unbiased information is a good start, yes! :) But it really helps if you can, for all or most sentences that might be seen like controversial, or that people have removed in the past, provide some sources, using some kind of footnote system. There are several pages that might help with that: Wikipedia:Footnotes. Ask me any question you like, I don't have a lot of time to work on the article myself, but if there's anything I can help with let me know. --JoanneB 17:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

(Hi Joanne! Hope you don't mind if I throw in my two cents worth.)

When a topic is controversial, it is very difficult to assert that an assertion is unbiased because the existence of controversy suggests that there is more than one point of view (POV). Thus, only the most unobjectionable material will be considered by all sides to be unbiased.

In the case of the Southwestern Company, facts like the name, location and history of the company are likely to be accepted as unbiased. Assertions about their integrity, fairness and riskiness are likely to be challenged by one side or another as biased.

The only solution when editors characterize an assertion as biased is to document the assertion with citations to reliable sources. Also, in order to maintain a NPOV stance, it may be necessary to accept the inclusion of assertions which will seem to you to be biased. Your only "defense" against such assertions is to insist that the assertions be sourced. Once an assertion is sourced, the only recourse you have left is to question the reliability of the source or whether undue weight is being given to that POV. I hope this helps. If you have any questions, also feel free to ask me on my Talk Page.

--Richard 17:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course I don't mind, thanks! I fully agree, you've explained it very well and much better than I did :-) Thanks! --JoanneB 17:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)