|
User talk:Bobblehead/Archive 2
I love this comment on across wikipediaUser:Mobile 01 wrote: TravB has singled the two of us out and also another user Bobblehead because we are the only 3 who are trying to stop him from completely hijacking the Firestone Tire and Rubber Company article and turning it into his own political agenda of anti firestone."[1] On the discussion page he has been repeatedly told about not putting POV content on the page and several users including myself, LucaZ and Bobblehead have tried to explain to him about the NPOV policy of wiki articles. User Travb reverted the Firestone Tire and Rubber Company back to his POV version and replaced much ancient content already discussed by other editors. [2] Please stop your relentless attempt at persecution of myself and users LucaZ and Bobblehead plus numerous anons which you are attacking in your "Personal Page" User:Travb/m. [3] You also try to imply that Bobblehead is also a sock of mine because he made comment about the americans spelling Tyre as Tire.[4] Best wishes, Travb (talk) 18:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC) Grunge music in Seattle's historyHi, I didn't realize this was such a contenteous issue. I can certainly understand your position, though. I live in Seattle, love my home city, and can't stand grunge music. ( I'm a hip hop fan. ) On the other hand, we're extremely well associated with the trend, and as I said, a Nirvana album was printed on the cover of a NY Times Finance section, so I thought I was doing something positive by pointing these associations out on the Seattle page. I'll defer to your experience here, as you have eons more than I do on Wikipedia. Just please understand I made these changes trying to help. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SeattleChronic (talk • contribs) 23:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC). Criticism of Quebec societyHi, Bob, I've responded to your suggestions at Criticism of Quebec Society or whatever the hell it's called these days. I hope I've been able to clarify that I'm not rejecting your opinions out of hand (I go on about this at some length). I noticed you're from Seattle, so I'll add here that you might expect a little testiness on this issue from a petit gars de Saint-Henri émigré. From Canadians, generally, actually. The only thing that keeps us together is that every part of the country hates some other part, and everybody hates Toronto. John FitzGerald 23:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
InvitationDiscussion has commenced on the Firestone Tire and Rubber Company article. As you were an editor of that article, I would like to invite you to join in this discussion so as to promote not only an informative and usefull article for wiki, but also one that covers all points of view. Please give us your thoughts and comments for format and content for this article on the discussion page. Thanks. Mobile 01Talk 00:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC) A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Firestone Tire and Rubber Company, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible. Request for Mediation
This message delivered: 08:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC).
Lets try this againA request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Firestone Tire and Rubber Company2.0, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible. Needs another haircut? --HailFire 11:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC) ScarboroughThank you for requesting a source over on Scarborough. I've added a reference (and a Refs section, which I'm not entirely pleased with on a dab page, but there you go). Scarborough, North Yorkshire was founded in the tenth century and comfortably predates all of the New World Scarboroughs. Thanks again. — mholland 00:51, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Request for Mediation
This message delivered: 08:16, 11 February 2007 (UTC).
SorryI wasn't aware of that rule, I'll keep it in mind next time. As for the editing, I was just trying to help, but I guess I was hurting more than I was helping. I am pretty sure that Seattle has a Mediterranean climate by definition, because for an oceanic or maritime climate (Cfb or Cwb), there has to be little to no difference between seasons. A Mediterranean climate (Csa or Csb) specifically has a driest month with less than 1/3 of the precipitation of the wettest month, in addition to hot (or warm in Seattle's case), dry summers, and cool, wet winters. As for the temperatures, I've heard a lot of different averages, and it veries from place to place, so those are just the averages I felt were most accurate, though I could be wrong. Anyway, sorry again to case trouble, but thanks for welcoming me nonetheless. GS121389 01:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC) SeattleHi Bobblehead; I looked at Seattle this morning to see if there was a consensus for the change that I proposed, expecting to make whatever changes to the article that seemed appropriate. I was delighted to see that you had already made the changes. I proofread them and found no errors. Good work! Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC) ORHi, Bobblehead, Discussion about OR at talk:Controversy over criticism of Quebec society seems to have died out, unfortunately. However, you have converted me into a devotee of NOR. Although I still think the criteria are too broad, it's obvious there are many articles here which really are original research and consequently unencyclopedic (I was heartened to see that one of the worst transgressors, Canadian English, has been flagged). Anyway, I was just wondering if there are any fields on Wikipedia which you think may require special attention because of the prevalence of OR; I've been thinking of going on a tear among the articles about entertainers, many of which read like press releases (which most probably are). John FitzGerald 14:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC) Sorry about that!Yeah, just noticed, apologies. We can remove:
If you consent, too. Italiavivi 00:39, 22 February 2007 (UTC) Hi Bobblehead. You have got me curious. Did the anti-abortion groups get together and chant out the statement about Obama in unison? Just kidding. Keep up the good work here. :-) Steve Dufour 04:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC) Mediation for FirestoneIve agreed to take on mediation. We can get started now at the mediation talk page, as there are multiple articles involved. Thanks -Ste|vertigo 00:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Request for clarification of 'link spam'Hello Bobblehead. You reverted an edit of mine adding what I thought were relevant links to the Seattle page, labelling them as "link spam". I put them there because I honestly thought they were relevant--they are sites to which I send friends and family who are visiting town--so I'd be most grateful if you could clarify what distinguishes those links as spam and the others in the same section as appropriate. Thanks - Eldang 01:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
HelloThanks for the welcome, and I'm sorry about the talk page edit, won't happen again. 777fortytwo 05:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC) Appropriate way to provide or link to useful information?In some articles on public transportation, I recently added some information and links about route planners based on text messaging. Reading the strict policy on external links, I see that some of these additions were in a gray area. It is not my intent to spam but to provide useful information, so please let me know how Wikipedia can provide this information appropriately. Riders of public transportation in particular cities want to know about two types of services, but information is nonexistant on Wikipedia. One type of service is web-based trip planners. The other type of service is similar but based on text messaging from mobile phones. The transit authorities typically provide the web-based service but merely encourage use of the text messaging services of other companies. If a rider of a particular transit authority's buses or trains needs information on the text messaging services, what is an acceptable way for Wikipedia to satisfy their need for such information? --rcauvin Wikistalker AlertPlease stop wikistalking me. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Billywatson (talk • contribs) Personal attack warningI suggest you revert this edit and the subsequent ones in which you reformatted your comments and apologize to Travb for the personal attacks. Comments like these are completely unproductive during mediation and continued references to other editors as "vandals" and making unsupported accusations of sock puppetry can result in involuntary wikibreaks. Travb can be a little touchy at times and egging him on isn't going to help anything. Thanks. --Bobblehead 07:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
The RfD for Bostonhello, someone edited the link so that the notice was no visible to ordinary people typing in Boston. This had the effect of removing the notice from view. The RFD was still there, but effectively invisible, since ordinary people would never see it unless they did a diff. What I've done is reverted this edit and made a note on the discussion page about it. Although I may have a difefreing view about what should be done than you do, I feel it is not a good idea to effectively reduce the opportunity of people to comment on the proposal whilst the dicussion is still ongoing. I'll be happy to see the discussion process come to a proper end and a decison reached and implemented, no matter what that particular decision is. As the proposer of the RfD, I thought I should alert you to this, and I hope I have not breached any guidelines in doing the reversion, as it has been my intention to act in good faith here. DDStretch (talk) 14:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC) If you don't mind a suggestion...Comparing your comment on my talk page to your comment at the move request, maybe in future you should make your public comment a little more like the talk page comment instead of giving the impression that I'm doing something underhanded. I'm getting more than a little tired of people making disparaging public comments about my actions based on assumptions with no basis in reality. Otto4711 00:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC) Chicago & Philadelphia style consensusHowdy, I'm doing an analysis of the votes on the Chicago and Philadelphia page moves at User:Agne27/City, State convention/Chicago & Philadelphia style "Consensus" with a discussion on the talk page about what this means about the page move process. You did not participate in either move though you have seemed to voice opposition to these types of moves in the past. I would like to confirm if I am correct in my assumption that you would have opposed these moves if you were aware. I would also like your general input on the discussion page about these moves. AgneCheese/Wine 19:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC) Dear Bobblehead, please see my comments on Template talk:Oldafdfull#Merge?. Regards, --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 21:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC) please don't edit war on ObamaThere was neutrally worded, non-inflammatory info regarding his law career that you deleted and replaced with less specific, somewhat inaccurate info. For example, he did continue to work for that firm part time after he became a state senator (but you deleted that...if Obama did it and applied for a job, he could get fired for hiding a job he had). If you are going to change thing, you should discuss it on talk page first as this is a featured article....this was what I was told and was banned for 2 days because of this....please don't do stuff that would cause you to be banned. As far as the 1 letter typo, look again....that's all I did. Maybe you looked at the entry below that, which was different.Dereks1x 18:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Where are we?A lot has transpired on this discussion so far and I am wondering if we are actually getting anywhere with the mediation. Could the mediator give a response of his opinions of just where we are at and what if any decisions/suggestions/agreements have been agreed so far. Thanks.
I believe we have decided that the Liberian article ramains seperate and that we do not merge Firestone with Bridgestone. I think we have also covered what is POV and NPOV. I have made some changes to the article last night and today, adding a few images and cleaning up some of the duplicated statements. Please everyone have a look at the current article and offer your opinions. If everyone is happy then we can close this out and let the mediator get on with other issues.
Mediation Page
Firestone Tire and Rubber Company
section removedIn May 2006, the United Nations Mission in Liberia (UNMIL) released a report detailing the state of human rights on Liberia's rubber plantations. According to the report, Firestone managers in Liberia admitted that the company does not effectively monitor its own policy prohibiting child labor. UNMIL found that several factors contribute to the occurrence of child labor on Firestone plantations: pressure to meet company quotas, incentive to support the family financially, and lack of access to basic education. The report also noted that workers' housing provided by Firestone has not been renovated since the houses were constructed in the 1920s and 1930s [5]
SSPWikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Dereks1x. Any comments would be appreciated. · j e r s y k o talk · 20:23, 25 March 2007 (UTC) Intentionally or not, you are poisoning the atmosphere. When you attack me in the sockpuppetry case, does that make me want to compromise in articles? It would make most people angry and militant. Consider withdrawing putting a note asking that the matter be dropped and forgotten. In the past, both of us have stopped edit warring and let our level heads prevail. Let's do it this time. Dereks1x 01:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
RFCU done (I got the same advice at AN/I). We'll see, hopefully. · j e r s y k o talk · 03:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC) heyWelcome back - you missed all the "fun". Hope you had a good vacation. Quick question - I'm on the way out the door so can't look at it closely now so maybe I'm misreading- but the Illinois legislature graf about those non-votes doesn't make sense to me as far aswho wanted him to vote yes and who no. (I also think these "present" votes may be getting more attention than they're worth, but I'd have to read more about it.) If you're there, can you read the graf, though, and see if it is following logically? I'll look at it again later thanksTvoz |talk 18:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Plame affairthanks for making me aware of the problem with my edit. i've read the WP:move page and still can't quite figure out how to properly make the change. i've never made an edit like this so maybe you could talk me through it. Plame affair was redirected to CIA Leak Scandal, which was then redirected to CIA Leak Scandal (2003). how do i redirect back to the original name (Plame affair)? thanks!Anthonymendoza 22:56, 8 April 2007 (UTC) hello, Mr. B. HeadI got your warning message. I didn't know about the rule but I think I did not violate it. I am giving it a rest for today. I'm not trying to say Obama is a bad man. It's just that while checking references I thought that the editing of the article was not balanced after I read the reference cited.KMCtoday 03:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC) Please quit being a dick."Warning" someone for reverting the sockpuppet of a community banned user [6] hours after they've logged out is pretty silly. No, I will not allow someone flying in the face of consensus to have their version stand while Talk is ongoing. The consensus version can stand while discussion takes place, and changes can be made after consensus is measured. Please keep flippant, baseless warnings off of my talk page, thanks. Italiavivi 21:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the infoIt really is amazing how cowardly some people can be. --Coz 04:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC) License tagging for Image:Excursion on the SLS&E RR (c 1887), 1201, 1202.jpgThanks for uploading Image:Excursion on the SLS&E RR (c 1887), 1201, 1202.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images. For more information on using images, see the following pages: This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 02:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC) I ran across some interesting trivia.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dover%2C_Pennsylvania#Intelligent_design_controversy shows an incident where a city got on the news because a religious leader predicted that something bad could happen. http://www.ldsces.org/inst_manuals/dc-in/dc-in-081.htm is of a similar vein, but on Boston, Albany and New York. If you have a better way to make reference to these predictions of religious zealots on various towns in their Wikipedia references then please do so. But please don't remove them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Alex71va (talk • contribs) 17:48, 15 April 2007 (UTC). RE: Edit to OlbermannThank you for your concern, however I believe I cited six seperate sources, one being a transcript from his show and five other audio sources coming directly from the horse's mouth. Are they not supportive of this entry? I don't think this does not fall under a synthesis because of the simplicity of this issue with the number of sources provided. Objectively speaking, I feel this is a controversial issue needing to be brought to light due to his subjectivity. I could probably write it more objectively. What is it about my sources did you not find to be objective? Look, if Americans don't stand up to smear merchants for what they are, then the further our country will go down the toilet bowl of subjectivity and lies. Cobrapete 00:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC) Jersyko did the blockAs I said, "yawn". Tvoz |talk 21:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC) More Hong Tran deletionsBobblehead, I would appreciate it if, given your previous errors regarding deletions on this page, you would take extra care beforehand in ensuring that any deletions are actually justified and meet a community standard. I would also ask that you reconsider whether you can objectively work on this page and retain a NPOV. Emcee 15:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC) By being "up on the ebbs and flows of such things," do you mean conforming to the opinions expressed within the past few days on the flagcruft essay? I am well aware of your opinions on Hong Tran's notability, but these were not upheld by the community. Is the answer then to delete any little thing that you can possibly find some kind of grayish support to delete? That certainly wasn't your approach to the Cantwell page. I do have remaining questions about your ability to remain neutral on this piece (bias is not always necessarily intentional, so you don't have to regard this as an accusation of bad faith). Acting "within the bounds of Wiki-policy" is a hazy (and low) bar -- shouldn't we be striving for consensus, and an evenhanded approach to all articles, regardless of our personal feelings about the subjects or other editors? Shouldn't we also be working towards a higher level of civility? It seems that you took offense to my comments above, but I think most readers would regard your response (especially the last couple of lines) as hostile and condescending. Emcee 00:01, 28 April 2007 (UTC) Interesting. And why should I continue to assume good faith, if you are fine with being intentionally hostile and condescending? Emcee 08:25, 28 April 2007 (UTC) Let's keep this focused on the issue here, rather than the "I'm rubber you're glue" thing... which is your hostile and condescending response to my recent comments on your talk page. Even should you choose to interpret my comments as lacking an assumption of good faith (which they do not), why is it OK for you to respond in a hostile and condescending manner? Wouldn't that just tend to escalate any problem that might exist? Emcee 23:26, 29 April 2007 (UTC) SocksYeah, that's a good idea, though for some reason I have a faint memory of someone already trying that . . . ehh, I guess no one did. It could be an open proxy or it could be a meatpuppet. I dunno. Obviously, though, he's using a non-static range of IPs. · jersyko talk 18:58, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Formula One (Sega video game)Hi, the debate on should the article be moved to a new title has come up again. As you participated in it last time, thought you might want to know. AlexJ 16:40, 9 May 2007 (UTC) Checkuser case completedHi, A checkuser IP Check case you filled has been completed by a CheckUser, and archived. You can find the results for 7 days at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/IP check/Archive. -- lucasbfr talk, checkuser clerk, 20:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC).
Re: Tanninglamp's editsI have been meaning to tell you for a number of days how much I appreciate your vigilance in reverting this individual's vandalism to the Keith Olbermann article. It is astonishing to me---though, I do not know why it continues to astonish me---the lengths to which some people will go in their attempts to smear someone and push a POV. At any rate, looking at the edit history [[8]] of the anonymous user 72.79.115.175, I suspect that these two are one and the same. It would behoove us to keep an eye on this IP. Methinks he is not done yet. Thanks again for your time and efforts. ---Charles 22:38, 10 May 2007 (UTC) BoredI got bored so I fixed one of your userboxes that no longer worked due to the userbox migration. I hope you don't mind. :)--Mbc362 01:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
IP checkHave the stomach for another IP check? Whatever IP range Dereks1x is currently editing from this user is most certainly editing from it. · jersyko talk 03:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC) FYI - Wikipedia talk:Requests for checkuser/Case/Dereks1x. WP:BAN prevents Dereks1x and his socks from editing at all. I strongly object to the reinsertion of his edits at checkuser. Please comment if you have anything to say. · jersyko talk 15:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
ThanksThank you for cleaning up List of television shows cancelled after 2006 season. I haven't quite figured out the ref thing yet so it was a bit flabby. Plus, good news about Scrubs. --Wordbuilder 14:36, 24 May 2007 (UTC) thanksFor fixing the tag on Astronauts HoF - you're right, I meant the whole article. It needs a cmplete overhaul if it's to stay, I think. Tvoz |talk 01:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
edit to jericho -refsHi, I am leaving a note here to ask that you reconsider your removal of the NYT cite from Jericho (TV series) diff here I know that 3 refs might seem excessive, however, info becomes harder to verify as time goes by, and frankly the NYT source seems the most reliable of the three. Sometimes websites don't keep their articles accessible online. In the future someone may be more able to verify the info if the sourcing is in multiple places. Thanks. R. Baley 18:34, 28 May 2007 (UTC) Thanks for adding the extra ref. link for Ender's comment, as I forgot to do that when I rearranged the section. Cheers. --Ckatzchatspy 18:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC) thanksThanks for your work on the article that I began, Astronaut Hall of Fame or U.S. Astronaut Hall of Fame, whatever the name. Is there a definite wording say, on the Hall of Fame's charter documents or the like?Feddhicks 02:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC) "Flagcruft"I hate those little flag icons! —Gaff ταλκ 03:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Re: Infobox JTA Skyway stationThank you for taking the time to replace the infoboxes and notifying me after its completion. –Dream out loud (talk) 21:45, 16 June 2007 (UTC) CommasThis issue has been discussed before, actually. Commas are actually needed (even if the software formalises the date). A scenario for you to consider: if the software fixed incorrect spellings in the article output itself, do you think it would be acceptable to have have them in the editing box? I personally don't -- just like we shouldn't encourage grammatically incorrect dates. Also remember that Wikipedia is forked by many websites, not always using the same setup as Wikipedia... thus giving them grammatically incorrect dates. Also a point is not including the comma sets a bad example, e.g. when a person adds a non-wikified date the comma won't be auto-added. Matthew 18:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
(UTC) Clinton/Obama TicketYou are right, there is no ticket yet. I will bet you a steak dinner that there will be one! Cr8tiv 21:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC) Cr8tiv 21:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC) And by that I mean Mannhattans and Martinis with Crab Cakes for starters Followed by salad with blue cheese dressing and Sam Adams to drink with buttery rolls that are so fresh that "hot" comes out when you break them open. Then a New York Strip steak the size of a toilet seat with Baked Potato ALL the way, creamed spinach washed down with a good Australian Shiraz. Then when we cannot take anymore Key Lime Pie, gourmet coffee Cuban Cigars and Brandy. I am THAT confident in the future Clinton/Obama ticket!!!!!Cr8tiv 17:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
I think that even if Hillary gets the second seat VP in the Clinton/Obama ticket or Obama/Clinton ticket she will be only slightly uphappy AS SHE ALREADY was covert VICE-PRESIDENT from January 1993-January 2001...Cr8tiv 19:56, 24 June 2007 (UTC) Edwards changesI think the article was better after my changes; subsections help keep track of things as time goes by. I just went back to add more and was surprised to see my changes reverted with no discussion. It will get more and more difficult to keep track of information as time goes by without subsections, and it's discouraging for an editor to have their changes reverted with no discussion.--Gloriamarie 03:05, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thanks...for fixing the vandalism on my talk page - weird vandalism, that. Tvoz |talk 06:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC) 3RRHey, I redid it using the template, but I'm not confident with it. Would you mind checking to see if it's done right? Thanks! Murderbike 00:26, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
UNmitigated Left-Wing 'Progresssive' Bias of this EDitorUnbelievable amounts of signs of left-wing leanings by this editor. Examples of this are his outright praise for democratic candidiates for president, labels himself a 'progressive', etc. Has shown incredible amount of protection of articles on people he views as 'untouchable' by negative information that is more than verifiable.69.115.23.71 10:47, 30 June 2007 (UTC) June 30 2007
iPhone criticismWhere are the complaints that aren't about features, such as the AT&T service agreement? hmwith talk 13:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
"Canvassing"I'm not, I'm balancing the equation. All the shows I messaged have episode articles -- the DRV is very relevant to them as it effects their articles. Notifying editors helps us build consensus. In ned's case, he just notified his friends it seems. Matthew 08:28, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Please don't cause troubleI don't give a rat's about Barack Obama. I care more about the Astronaut Hall of Fame, Fedex, and others (which you followed me to edit). When you and others start creating a ruckus over some neutral talk comments, that creates controversy and edit warring. While I don't say anything about your intentions, the end result of Tvoz' and your highly confrontational comments and accusations, is that many people would respond. My advice to you is to AGF and don't fan the flames. How often do I look at the Barack Obama article? Almost never! Yet when you and Tvoz (so far it's only you two) fan the flames and start attacking me, this is bad. Luckily, I can enjoy the 4th of July and walk away. Most others would not be so easy going. In short, not AGF and not being civil is not a good thing to do. This is just advice to help you, not to argue with you. Feddhicks 19:24, 4 July 2007 (UTC) thanks...for the reverts on my talk page. By the way, I don't know who this guy is, but I don't particularly believe in coincidences. Tvoz |talk 04:31, 5 July 2007 (UTC) Exuse me Booblehead, not to be rude, but I was just wondering why you termed my recent edits concerning names and religion to Barack Obama page as "Vandalistic", "Malicious", and threatened to have me blocked. Is not Barack Obama's Middle name "Hussein" and was he not raised with two Muslim fathers and went to Muslim school in Indonesia? Politely I ask you not to attack those who post facts contrary to your self-dubed "Progressive" ideology. If I was a powerful Wikipedian editor like you I would respect facts even if they did not fit neatly into my ideology. Thanks. Senator ObamaThis dispute is not minor as you said when taking down the FAR label. It is highly contentious with allegations of socks, personal attacks, and so forth. If you can help calm things down, this is good. I prefer calm. In fact when that other editor constantly attacks and retorts, it just worsens things. For example, I've kept comments to a minimum and did not re-revert that tiny small print in the footnotes even though I think the effect (not commenting on intent) is that of hiding information away. Feddhicks 18:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC) okHey, maybe a voice of reason? That Tvoz is so aggressive. Sometimes aggressiveness breeds aggressiveness even though I've been intentionally less aggressive. So, I'll give it a rest starting now. I will not notify any more people of the FAR. In fact, I'll not look at Obama for the weekend and hope that Tvoz won't take advantage of the gestureFeddhicks 19:18, 6 July 2007 (UTC) Sir, Barack Obama went to Muslim school in Indonesia and has stated in his own autobiographical works that his favorite thing to do growing up was to visit the mosque and study the Koran. I guess that does not fit with your description of being Muslim.
Hey, Hi. I'm still giving Obama a rest but SandyGeorgia said I need to put tags on more user talk pages which I'll do. See how calm it is when Tvoz doesn't attack? Feddhicks 16:19, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replyI usually try not to make fun of other editors. However, it's an insult (possibly intended?) to be compared with an editor like Derek when you said you'll let it slide. It's like comparing you to User:Dialot. After all, your name has 3 syllables, just like Dialot. Happy editing! VK35 19:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC) JerichoHello... I reverted your talk page change re: the new character. You're right about the forum rules, but in this case I think it is more a case of using the talk page to "store" information that we perhaps can't use right now, but may wish to keep on top of for the future. (I won't object if you revert me, mind you - but would it help if we established a "potential fact" section?) --Ckatzchatspy 02:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
feddSure. It just became more and more obvious that this was a sock as he continued to make familiar statements. I requested review of the block at WP:ANI, in any event, but I don't expect that it will be overturned for any reason. · jersyko talk 20:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC) Breather is irresponsibleYour saying to take a breather is irresponsible. Dragging my name in the mud is wrong. That is lack of AGF and some other things... If you take that attitude, put your name in the RFCU or give me permission to do so (not "feel free to" but "I order you to") VK35 01:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC) Request for Mediation
This message delivered: 08:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC).
Olive branchFor not insisting on harrassment and keep the ongoing defacement of MastCell's RFCU, I will consider this an olive branch. Convince Jersyko and others to do the same and we can merrily restart editing constructively. VK35 15:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Consider asking Tvoz to stop attacking. Also see the exceptions to 3RR [[9]] "reverts to remove content or links to content that harasses". RFCU #1 already done. Resulted considered by Jimbo Wales (along with private exculpatory evidence). RFCU#2 only serves to harrass. VK35 16:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Giuliani - controversies sectionI linked to one of your exegeses on controversy sections here - hope you don't mind. Just doin' my part to make you famous. That page is quite a mess. Tvoz |talk 06:07, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry that you and Tvoz didn't like my reaction to your edit style. I see that you edit sections (which I don't do very often), but to me it looks odd for the same user to have several consecutive edits to the same article within a short time period. No offence was intended. I thought I looked carefully at your edits; apparently I did not. MKoltnow 00:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Since you seem to revel in dealing with these matters, perhaps you might take a look at the recurring vandalism (i.e., Uncited Statments) going on here; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Pfauter And no, unlike with the KNDD fiasco awhile back, I do not know this guy personally. Roz666 01:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC) Need a mop?I saw that you are the one that notified TheFEARgod about a copy and paste move needing fixing. After a year and 8,000+ edits, do you think your editing would be more beneficial as an administrator? I'm not seeing a previous RfA under this name, which frankly surprised me. Let me know, I'd be more than happy to nominate you. Keegantalk 19:37, 20 July 2007 (UTC) Tent City 4 articleWe need to work on a way to revise the section on warrant and sex offender checks. TC4 claims that they run these but testimony under oath before the Redmond City Council has shown that they refuse to allow local police departments to run them and the King County Sheriffs Department shows no evidence that they are running these checks when not ordered by a court to do so. Without a citation from a law enforcement agency confirming that they run the checks the claim is unsubstantiated. --Coz 05:20, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Revert borders on vandalismhttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack_Obama&diff=146347041&oldid=146336568
You reverted an entire section and 3 editor's comments. The section was to alert people that we have to be careful about articles of people running for president because they are suseptible to attacks, like the erection mention in the other person's article. The erection thing wasn't obvious vandalism but written to blend in the with article. I'm not trying to fight with you. It's just that the "executive decision" was bad because it reverted 3 editor's comments. Ok? Don't be argumentative, this is just a note to you. JonnyLate 23:18, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Anna DogonadzeAnaa Dogonadze is not a track and field athlete which is why I have reverted your last edit. She is a gymnastic type athlete. Dabbler 17:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC) ToonamiIndef blocked the vandal and semi-protected the page. If you could clean up the mess they left behind that would be great. Thanks. Raymond Arritt 04:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
wouldn't want you to missthis Tvoz |talk 2:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your note on my talk - I also posted something here.Tvoz |talk 21:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your concernBut I think calling out elitism and exclusivity in the admin only club is important. If an admin only listens to other admins and ignores the common editor, than something is seriously wrong. Turtlescrubber 05:55, 12 August 2007 (UTC) Random Smile! WarthogDemon has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! -WarthogDemon 04:42, 20 August 2007 (UTC) Native American Disambiguation?Where was there such a problem on the Presbyterian Church in Canada article? Bacl-presby 22:13, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks!Bacl-presby 15:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC) Fred Thompson age difference againZsero has resumed his deletion of the age difference between Fred Thompson and Jeri Kehn Thompson. As a participant in previous Talk discussion on this matter, your presence at Talk:Fred Thompson would be appreciated. Italiavivi 14:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC) HidalgoSurely it would be better to just move Hidalgo (Mexico) to Hidalgo? --Ptcamn 23:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC) United Kingdom/Britian CommentsBritain does not exist you are correct but nor does the United Kingdom. What actually exists is a collection of 6 nations, Cornwall Devon England Northern Ireland Scotland and Wales. Also the official name for this collective is "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" --Lucy-marie 12:55, 29 August 2007 (UTC) Poe's "Romance"There is a link for that poem: Poems by Edgar Allan Poe#Romance (1829). I added it to the dab page.--ShelfSkewed Talk 18:55, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
BritainHi Bobblehead, I'd been working through the Britain disambuguation page, took a weeks holiday and came back to find you'd finished it. Great work, you must have spent most of your time on it. By the way, ignore the bit from Lucy-Marie about the United Kingdom being 6 countries, The Cornish are just wierd and probably still eat babies. It's only the chains on the Tamar ferry that stop them floating off into the Atlantic. I should know, I live in Devon. Not that there's any rivalry between the two counties, it's just that we have a tradition of fighting each other if there's no one else available. Pan narrans 19:16, 29 August 2007 (UTC) RFCUDoesn't matter. That's not Italiavivi's job, and the request was unacceptable anyway as per the top of the page. The fact is that he moved it from completed to outstanding, and that is not his place to do that, when a clerk would have fixed it when it went to archive. N/m that Italia is not a clerk, he altered a case he was involved in. RFCU is one of the few places where people can't be messing about, and that's all there is to it. If there was a problem, we have an RFCU talkpage and a clerks talkpage, both of which he could have used if he had read the procedures first. MSJapan 21:59, 29 August 2007 (UTC) You should mentor me.I'd like to be mentored by someone who I have called a dick and who has returned the sentiment in kind. Italiavivi 18:22, 30 August 2007 (UTC) The Immigrant - a new American musicalI am the composer of The Immigrant as well as one of the producers of its CD. As such I am the copyright owner of the artwork and would be happy to make its cover art available for the show's Wikipedia entry and agree to necessary licenses. The image upload procedures and requirements are a little intimidating for me, but it would be a pleasure to provide whatever information I can to the WikiProject Musical Theatre team. Or if someone could walk me through it, with a little more hand-holding than the help pages provide...? I'd like to thank the WikiProject Musical Theatre team for their efforts in creating such an invaluable resource. Best wishes, Phoenix... and a fine job you did with it too. Thanks much. User:Devildevildevil seems to be attracting the wrong kind of attention recently, so I'm grateful that I didn't need to get into it with him/her. Best, --AndrewHowse 01:54, 3 September 2007 (UTC) SecuritizationHello I refer to your recent edit of Securitization. I don't quite understand what you meant by "the diversification is dead". Please explain. Thanks. Your standard disamb edit summaryIn context of Byron Stevenson, a man who died of throat cancer only yesterday, your edit summary to this disambiguation wasn't entirely amusing. Struway2 | Talk 11:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC) ever see this?hey Bob - do you know about this guy: User:Bobbleheadz? But that's not why I came over here... is there a policy statement about the unacceptability of using a source that is actually a mirror of the wikipedia article being edited? Wow, that was clear, try again: if someone uses as a source some article out there that looks like it's an outside source but when you read it all it is is a mirror of the very Wikipedia page that it's being used to verify - in other words, it's verifying itself. Not WP:SELF - that's "An article in Wikipedia says that..." or "This Wikipedia article..". I'm trying to find something to quote when an editor uses what looks like a reliable source to confirm some fact but it's just confirming itself. I am sure I've seen that somewhere. thx Tvoz |talk 01:03, 12 September 2007 (UTC) Removal of contentIs this removal of content ok? I have been having a dispute with the anon and I would really like to have a third opinion. Thanks, Brusegadi 03:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC) Thanks, I replied in my talk if you are interested (to keep things centralized.) Take care, Brusegadi 05:59, 13 September 2007 (UTC) Knight Commander of the British EmpireThanks for pointing that out-- I guess I got too overzealous in removing the title from both his article and Billy Graham because the KBE looked pretty silly :) --Gloriamarie 20:54, 13 September 2007 (UTC) Firestone edits by anonThe outright deletion of the text probably is a bit uncalled for, but on the other hand, I don't think all the text is needed. A summary of the interview is probably more fitting rather than a direct quote. However, I'd probably characterize the undiscussed nature of the removal as vandalism, especially considering the editor is probably User:Mobile 01, who has a history of edit warring over the article in order to remove negative content. --Bobblehead (rants) 05:24, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
As before it's obvious that your still full of shit and dont actually read what people say before adding another of your holier than thou tirades. I wasnt chastised, I was cautioned that I was becoming too emotive, as for your comments I just ignored them, after all you are just an editor like me and I frankly didn't give a rats what you had to say that was not ralated to the article content. It was the mediators job to talk to me about my wording and certainly not yours. You were just interfering with his function and trying to bignote yourself again as the mighty superman of editors who can do no wrong and knows everything and doesnt let anyone else forget it. Wrong once again on your other comments too, Travb made his revisions to the page and then had it protected. Up until that point there was no edit war between anyone. If you read his comments he was quite happy with everything until one day he just went crazy and made heaps of changes and had the protection placed. Thats what started the war. The sockpuppet case was dismissed; so dont even go there. I watch the Firestone article and saw your entries on that day, I tracked them back and found the other users talk page comments, nothing sinister there and certainly no smoking gun as you try to imply. So once again you shoot from the LIP and we find you only have blanks. I said originally that I did not want to get into this again and you could have just left well enough alone. Instead you have started harrasing me here with your half truths and twisted version of events and then butted in to another issue about images which had nothing to do with you. Obviously you want to start something so take your best shot, I can be just as annoying as you are. Last warning, stay out of my face and I will do like wise.
YeehahThank the wiki god someone can do a hi ho hio on an awb edit for spelling corrns - there is hope yet despite the dark side taking over wikipedia with violent mad scientist death squads in multiple heads :) SatuSuro 01:46, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Another award
Don't worry ...I won't forget the little people who helped me along the way..... Thanks for putting it onto Freddie's talk page - I'm of course too modest to have done it myself. Next stop WP:PRESS? Tvoz |talk 05:13, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
The playing field isn't exactly huge, if you know what I mean. Tvoz |talk 21:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC) Do monkeys like cookies? Have a wikicookie for spreading the love through your edit summaries. A couple of these popped up in my watchlist and it made me smile!! (Although the fact that more than one popped up in my watchlist says i need to check some pages for dab links) Thanks making me smile. Woodym555 02:59, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
iPhoneThanks (from another Seattle-area editor) for cleaning up my edits on the iPhone page, my goal was just to integrate the missing features in with the rest of the section, and it looks better after your changes. -- Atamasama 19:36, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
CheersHeyheyhey. thanks for cleaning up some link on mi NZ-US relations page. Just wanted to thank you for no apparent reason. so..... thanks. (♠Murchy♠) 22:44, 22 September 2007 (UTC) feel free to move this to userspace...
Natonal FlagsHi, hope you don't mind, but I thought I'd reply to you here. Yeah you're right I was getting a bit wound up, silly really :) I might put a message on the village pump tomorrow, if I can face it. Many thanks. Sue Wallace 03:39, 27 September 2007 (UTC) FAR noticeSeattle, Washington has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. LaraLove 17:30, 27 September 2007 (UTC) RE: User:SueBrewerPlease see: Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets#User:HarveyCarter Please leave input there. Thanks, IP4240207xx 20:55, 29 September 2007 (UTC) Talk:iPhone archive sizesYou just changed the default size for archive pages on Talk:iPhone to 250k. This seems massively too high. Is there a reason for archiving pages in completely unreadable sizes? Chris Cunningham 13:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
List of Japanese N64 gamesI noticed your one of the people that wished there to be a list of Japanese games online for Wikipedia which I tried to make for the Nintendo 64 a few months ago, but just like when they where added to the orginal List of Nintendo 64 games they are trying to delete the new page List of Japanese Nintendo 64 games here's a link Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Japanese Nintendo 64 games to the discussion, how about giving your view. (Floppydog66 16:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)) WowHot damn! That would have taken me a week, and I would have missed a few (as I did in the earlier sections). OK, is AWB hard to figure out? I am convinced. Tvoz |talk 05:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
--Bobblehead (rants) 14:51, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
congratulationsYou do get around. Tvoz |talk 22:13, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
removing external urlsif u want to remove my external urls them remove all urls, lets be fair —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.11.164.207 (talk) 04:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC) "Fix dab link Feet using AWB"You're pointing to a redirect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.106.229.118 (talk) 17:39, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
I Heart IronyPerhaps you did it on purpose, regardless, I love the irony of it all! You have a link on your user page for Progressive, which is of course to a disam page, and not (presumably) to the politically affialiation. I see your name frequently in the disam project, and find it quite humorous that your own userpage contains a link to a disam. Great laugh! Keeper | 76 22:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Controversies articles for political figuresHi ... since you recently were involved at Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton in discussion of whether political figures should have Controversies articles, and I stated that the one for Rudy Giuliani had recently been dismantled, I should say that I spoke a bit too soon — the dismantling is being contested by an editor, and that controversies article is now up for AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Controversies of Rudy Giuliani. Your input welcome if you wish. Wasted Time R 23:46, 10 November 2007 (UTC) Love your sense of humorLove your sense of humor as shown on the Nan Kelley edit. Chris 23:26, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
saved you the trouble. Tvoz |talk 02:24, 17 November 2007 (UTC) Thank youThanks for cleaning up my work on the article Steve Hill. I'm still trying to figure out a lot of the innerworkings of Wikipedia and it's nice to have helpful users like yourself watching over my shoulder. Thanks! Vayne (talk) 05:53, 21 November 2007 (UTC) Deleting , Maya Soetoro-NgHiya, I noticed that you blanked and redirected the page Maya Soetoro-Ng. Isn't it usual to have a discussion before doing that? I believe she may be notable, as I've seen her on TV and in magazines before. --lk (talk) 05:36, 23 November 2007 (UTC) Obama fundraisingBetter? --HailFire 23:15, 2 December 2007 (UTC) Obama discussion pageI would like to explain to you that this is not a forum for the selling of products or the electioneering of political candidates. Wikipedia is a neutral place, and the discussion section is not the place to call folk names, and not for quashing discussion, I am going to report you for vandalism. John5Russell3Finley (talk) 00:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC) Disam of EvangelistHow many of these did you do? I find it hard to believe anyone could confuse the Four Evangelists and Evangelism, but you have managed it. Please check your contribution & correct the mistakes. Johnbod (talk) 02:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Talk:Media coverage of anti-Obama whisper campaignsThat's certainly a better way to handle it. Thanks. --HailFire (talk) 01:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Mike Huckabee Merge ProposalPlease comment on merging Mike Huckabee controversies into Mike Huckabee here [[13]] Jmegill (talk) 09:54, 9 December 2007 (UTC) Lou D'AThanks. Never seen that before (but can never say that again). Cheers --AndrewHowse (talk) 18:43, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Is it possible?I know Wikipedia is uncensored, and I personally have thick skin, but do you think it's possible that you could make your point without saying Jesus fucking Christ? If it was about any other religion, say, "Mohammed fucking Islam", you could easily be blocked for racism, or at the very least insensitivity. Please consider toning it down. I've never edited Mitt Romney, I don't have a problem with you, or the article, or your contribs, I simply stumbled into your comment and was struck by your irreverance. Cool it, dude. This is a volunteer project after all, no need for the added drama. Lay off the "goddamns" , etc... Keeper | 76 22:17, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
re: Comments on Talk:Hillary ClintonMactographer, I would also suggest that you apologize to the editors of the Hillary Rodham Clinton article for your rather uneducated comment about them being sockpuppets of the Clinton campaign.[14] If you take a look at the edit history for the Giuliani and McCain articles you will find that many of the editors on the Clinton article and talk page were also the ones (particularly Wasted Time R) that were in large part responsible for the dismantling of the Criticism section and/or articles in those articles. What you see reflected on the Clinton article and on many other politician articles, is a general dislike of criticism sections that has been applied across party lines and without regard to a person's political beliefs and/or practices. --Bobblehead (rants) 23:57, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
TfD Romney GiulianiI agree with your TfDs of the redundant Romney and Giuliani templates, but I don't think you got the formatting right on the TfD nom. I'v done it before and there is some automated code somewhere (like AfDs) that formatts it so the names are clearly separated. I'd try and do it, but 1. I'd probably screw it up, 2. I don't know if you meant to do it the way you did. If you'd want me to restart it, preserving yours and Justmeherenow's comments, I'd give it a shot. Mbisanz (talk) 06:46, 16 December 2007 (UTC) OKJustmeherenow (talk) 22:16, 17 December 2007 (UTC) John EdwardsI was not stating the article as fact - I was simply stating that the Enquirer reported it. It is up to the user to decide if the article is true or not, I was simply stating the fact that it was reported. 5minutes (talk) 22:53, 19 December 2007 (UTC) Actually, according to Wikipedia Guidelines, "Material about living persons available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all in biographies of living people, either as sources or via external links". As I made no claim as to the article being true or false, the simple report of the report cannot be considered derogatory. Besides, I don't see "The National Enquirer" on any list of "not allowed" sources. Could you point me to a list of sources not considered "OK" so I know in the future? 5minutes (talk) 23:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Your accusations
Bobblehead, at my talk page, you made a lengthy accusation against me, including this: “Your first three edits on the article were clear BLP violations for using an unreliable source that heavily edited a reliable source to advance a position.”[15] I would like to kindly ask you to reconsider and withdraw your accusation, please. The so-called “unreliable source” that you accuse me of using is an Associated Press article here (including an attribution to the San Jose Mercury News at the bottom). This so-called unreliable source is verbatim identical to the same article published in USA Today. Do you really want to accuse me of deliberately using an unreliable corrupted version of an article? While you've been somewhat uncivil to me in the past,[16] I hope we can have a fresh start.Ferrylodge (talk) 07:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
BLP != wrecking ballRe: "First and only warning" to Ferrylodge: do not use BLP as a wrecking ball in an edit dispute: [19]. Adding that someone filibustered a bill is not a BLP issue; and neither is senate.gov an unreliable site. The Evil Spartan (talk) 09:36, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
2008 Democratic candidatesThanks Bobblehead. After having checked those numbers, Clinton definitely is the 'current' front-runner. GoodDay (talk) 19:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC) Obama's tempateThanks for pointing that out. I'll look through these a bit to sample how others have handled it. If I can't improve on the previous design, I'll self-revert. --HailFire (talk) 20:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
FerrylodgeIs edit warring on the Mitt Romney page again. As part of the consensus agreement I was wondering if you would weigh in? Turtlescrubber (talk) 02:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Reindexing (Mc to Mac)I understood, based on notes such as: "Please index as Mac----, i.e. with an 'a', to assist category sorting"
Ann's PictureOk. But please fix it so that it does not mess up the text. The easiest way is to put it at the bottom but I agree with your point. Can you fix the text so that it moves back up where it should be? Anappealtoheaven (talk) 19:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
ResponseI have decided to outright indefinitely block the user for long-term abuse. I'll alter the comment in just a second. But thank you for your comment.--Jersey Devil (talk) 21:21, 17 January 2008 (UTC) Re: re-revertedI'm confused. The table says that its sources include the New York Times and CNN. CNN does have the South Carolina delegate counts, and the table does not specify which source is for which column yet you think that the particular column in question should only use the New York Times as a source. Why?--Margareta (talk) 05:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the note.And you're right. I shouldn't have replied to him. I got a bit pissed off when he threatened to drag the article into mediation if he doesn't get his way, and felt obliged to respond. But I do realize it didn't accomplish anything, and I won't be responding to him again, unless or until he chooses to disrupt the main article, or drag the thing to mediation. -- Bellwether BC 21:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC) Thanksfor your help fixing my references Corey Salzano (talk) 23:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC) Seattle MLS categoriesI think we should keep
both are relevant categories, even if they are higher level. Oh Snap (talk) 06:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
EdwardsHere is a source saying he ended his campaign. HoosierStateTalk 22:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
mmm good pointbut quoting sources properly is important to the whole 'sourced' thing --<*poof*> 22:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.235.64.30 (talk • contribs) democratic delegate countsput off any decision on removing NYT from sources till tommarrow. Due to different allocations of superdelegates, and other numbers, this template has always had multiple sources. NYT takes more time than other sources to adjust their counts, due to the complex rules of each states delegate calculation. The only reason to move to CNN at this hour would be that they currently give BO higher numbers than HC. All sources will reflect new numbers in the morning.--68.243.140.63 (talk) 04:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC) Michelle Obama GAThanks for contributing to the effort at Michelle Obama. You may want to put this on your user page:
--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 01:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC) Please take the difference of opinion on Hillary Clinton with User:Zzalzzal to the talk page. I've asked Zzalzzal to stop edit warring and go to the talk page, too, warning that he's close to being blocked. --TS 19:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC) Your behavior towards me and others on the Hillary Clinton page violates wikipedia rules and policiesThis is a warning regarding your violations of wikipedia policies and rules on the Hillary Clinton page.
Whaaa?(Although I'm myself left wing...) Shakes head. In any case, Viva la revolution! lol. --Justmeherenow (talk) 23:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
You: Never use self-published sources. Wikipedia: Material from self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources in articles about themselves, so long as: it is relevant to their notability; it is not contentious; it is not unduly self-serving; it does not involve claims about third parties; it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject; there is no reasonable doubt as to who authored it; the article is not based primarily on such sources. --Justmeherenow (talk) 04:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Bobblehead123FYI, I just ran across a new User:Bobblehead123, whose one edit so far was a vandalism. Don't know if this is supposed to be a takeoff on you (which is a violation of some WP policy on usernames) or just a coincidence, but thought I'd let you know. Wasted Time R (talk) 19:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Supersonics discussionHello. There's a new conflict between myself and User:Coz 11 on Talk:Seattle SuperSonics, which is related to the one you participated in several months ago. Care to offer a neutral voice? I would really appreciate it. Okiefromokla questions? 21:17, 22 February 2008 (UTC) You reverted me - why?I am surprised that you reverted my talk page edit at Obama's page. Why would you do that? Are you trying to stifle discussion? I thought talk pages are all about talk and discusssion. I object to you reverting me like that. I have restored my edit. 66.197.129.69 (talk) 04:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC) Hi, can you point to me discussion/info that states this image is copyrighted as it is on Wikimedia Commons which should only contain free licensed images? Thanks Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 02:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Barack imagesHi Bobbble. As you can imagine, I seriously disagree about removing set image sizes. I spent over an hour getting the layout of images on the Obama article to look decent. Different images have different properties and significances that require them to be sized differently to each other. This is the way it is in every single print publication and many major sites. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 03:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Update on the Ohio campaignSo sorry, Bobble, that you deleted everything I added to the Presidential campaign section of Barak Obama, including a photo of Obama I had just taken 3 hours before at the Ohio rally I was trying to document. I was giving the photo of Barak to the Wikipedia viewers for free, and thought,moreover, that my documentation of the event - the first of its kind in the history of Dayton for an African American political candidate, was very important. The event, and the photo, had considerable merit. Probably more than the article that you let pass, about the turban, with sucn undocumented statements such as "The Obama campaign claimed that the Clinton camp intentionally leaked the photo, and that Obama was trying to be a nice guest." - without a footnote. Everything I had written, about Obama's very first visit to Dayton in this very important state, was documented. Somalian garb sub articleHi, Bobble. I'd like to request your help in creating the sub article about the Somalian garb controversy on the Barack Obama page. I also upload the photo below: Thanks for your help: James Luftan contribs 23:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC) Oh, the campaign sub article. I understand what you mean now. Thanks James Luftan contribs 18:01, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Cantwell and MurrayAdded requested citations, simple google news search on "Cantwell Superdelegate" provided four pages of articles. I picked one from Washington that was on topic. If that is insufficient in your opinion please let me know and I'll link another. Additionally, I think the fact that there are four pages of news articles on the subject shows that it is, in fact, worth of inclusion. I've heard it discussed several times on the radio and read articles in national publications on the issue, specifically in Washington State...since both Senators have thrown their support behind Hillary. Agrippina Minor (talk) 22:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Your same rationale as before would make for a Delete hereSome believe edits making Wikipedia's navigation among political articles user friendly should be deleted due to its being a form of political campaigning. Other hyper Delicíonistas such as yourself have a pet peeve against multiple navigational pathways through your analogizing it with unnecessary redundancies in written text. Thus, you argued, when there appear two varying templates, editors efforts should have instead been dedicated to making one template or another a catch all; then when both should contain the same links, one or the other should be decided to be deleted. And last time, since all articles already have the the bottom nav bars, it was decided too keep only those and not supplement them with alternate ones at the top right (while I, of course, had pointed to the loads of WP articles that do have both placement of nav boxes with varying assortments of links between them, to absolutely zero avail!) In any case, to give the Delicíonista argument in this case its cogent (or conceivably even not-cogent??) due, shouldn't we cut and paste your and the rest's thought and your chorus of thoughts to Delete from the instance before to the talkpage at Template:JohnMcCainSegmentsUnderInfoBox, in order for all of our arguments to get a fuller hearing? --Justmeherenow (talk) 00:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC) First you pasted links I had in the side bar that were missing from the bottom one. then you said,
Do reprise your argument, should you still support it. --Justmeherenow (talk) 00:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
ScrollboxesI hadn't noticed. Last time I checked, the featured article, New York City, uses scroll boxes for references. It makes the page shorter, thus easier to navigate. But I'm too lazy to read another huge debate, so I'll listen to what you say and you can go check out the New York City article. --haha169 (talk) 23:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
ThanksYes, I think there was a mix-up with the images possibly caused by the recent database slowness. Thanks. Ronnotel (talk) 17:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC) Edit warringI can see that you are an experienced user, but please take care to avoid engaging in edit warring as per WP:3RR. Ronnotel (talk) 19:04, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank youfor engaging in civil debate at Tony Rezko. At this point, I feel so insulted that I am reconsidering the use of my real name on this website. Corey Salzano (talk) 04:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Obama protectionFeel free to interject if you consider my request to lift protection premature. I've basically run out of threads around which to weave further discussion, so thought it might make good sense for the active editors to crawl out of our bunkers and see if the hostile/friendly fire may have calmed just a bit. I've also learned a lesson or two from this myself. Won't know unless we try. If the edit warring resumes, then I think the next step ought to be a third FAR, but if you have an alternate suggestion, I'd welcome it. I've also posted notices to Bellwether BC[29] and Andyvphil.[30] Thanks. --HailFire (talk) 17:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Invite
Jccort (talk) 02:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC) User:GivemepinkSo how do we block User:Givemepink? Here are his useful contributions: [32]. --DerRichter (talk) 21:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
thank you.i don't no how you knew the information, but you wrote some info on Paddy Waters. i am most grateful for this as he is my grandfather. i just want to say a huge thank you x —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.188.40 (talk) 00:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC) Johnpseudo's editYes, I see that. My edit that immediately followed John's was aimed as a peace offering/experiment to see if that section can gain some measure of stability while the Wright stuff continues to get sorted out elsewhere in the article. Desperate times. --HailFire (talk) 04:14, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
My opinions of wright previous backgroundI argue that that the treatment of wright in that section is fairly one-sided. It is deifinitely an attempt to marginalize wright and add implied POV to his biography. I think considering one of the major lines of attack is that wright said "god damn america" - it is totally notable to make clear that this comes from some one who served his country in two separate branches of the armed forces. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 22:26, 20 March 2008 (UTC) Martin quote on BO 2008I am sending this message to user:Paisan30 and user:Bobblehead. I noticed your use of the quote from martin, which obviously works better with the new cite from NYT. I don't know how much of the BLP discussion you have been following, but in short, while its clearly more of a simple content issue than a bLP vio at this point, I would like your comments on this quote from wp:words to avoid and if you think it applies to that section of text. Thanks in advance guys...
Wiki WomanHow come that article is dated April 9th? -- Scjessey (talk) 17:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
PoliticalFamilyTree.comHave you got proof it's not a reliable source, or is this just a gut feeling? -- Zsero (talk) 08:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
ToolWow - never saw that one before. Now I just have to translate the instructions into comprehensible English. I glaze over when I see "monobook"........ Thanks Tvoz |talk 21:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
[out] That makes sense, but what??? Something logical on Wikipedia? Hard to believe. But, it works like a charm. Almost as cool as the pipe trick that I am eternally grateful to Tonywalton for ... when I remember to use it. Tvoz |talk 22:23, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
FAQNicely done. Tvoz |talk 22:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC) Good IdeaThanks for the heads up. Okiefromokla questions? 00:46, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Request resolved.I've taken care of it; since this seems to be a recurring problem, I've set the semi-protection for two weeks. If the culprit comes back after that, or targets new pages, let me know (if I'm around). —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:36, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Obama disputeYes, there can come a time in the consensus-gathering process when a vocal outlier can be ignored. I'm not sure that that time has come yet in the Barack Obama dispute, but it's probably close. (I've probably got more patience than some because I came in on the argument fairly recently.) I've got a few thoughts about how to proceed that I'm going to put up on the talk page soon, and I think there's still some room for compromise, but if the editor in question remains obstreperous, a time may come for stronger measures. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
[out]Sent you email, BobbleTvoz |talk 13:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC) Oh, thanks for letting me know that. And thanks for contributing to all the discussions. Best, Happyme22 (talk) 03:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC) BLP WarningBobblehead, I have appreciated your edits, even when they do not comport with mine. Please let me know what you believe was untrue in any post, as you mentioned just now on my talk page. I did not intend to place anything that was. ~~ jwvoiland —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwvoiland (talk • contribs) 17:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC) Please remove this warning tag from my talk page. It regards the Senator's statement about being "punished with a baby." Here is video of the statement by Senator Obama: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rtmcefei9EE [1] ~~jwvoiland "Question for Andy"Good luck getting a straight answer with that. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:06, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Re: A SuggestionI can see what you mean by Obama's divisiveness being caused by his decision to remain in the race. I think it would be good to mention in the article, but I won't push the point considering how whitewashed some of my other additions have been. But yeah, I may have indeed misread the reason. However, I did read the entire article, and I know that the signatures were validated using the older confirmation list. If I recall Obama used the one that came out that very year, or the year before. Most of the people had nearly twice the number of required signatures, but Obama's people invalidated on average around 1500 signatures per candidate to get them knocked off the ballot - while technically legal, it frankly disgusts my sensibilities. I considered adding more information, but I thought if I'd explained the entire situation then someone would've cut out the entire addition with the excuse that it was too lengthy. It really seems like a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation. Also, I thought people could add any details they felt were relevant. By the way, I am still pretty offended that a bunch of you all decided to check my ip address - it seems like a scam to chase off people with divergent viewpoints (and indeed it seems like people are treating me like a sockpuppet still). Also, I got a 3rr warning for very minor and mostly justified reverts, while other, more aggressive editors, who're pro-Obama, got no warning at all. I've been flat out insulted and those people have gotten no warnings. There is a definite double standard going on in this article. Today, if I have the time, I want to make Obama's "Political Positions" section more standardized like Hillary Clinton and John McCain's sections are. If you look at them, you'll see they summarize their political positions by showing their rankings from various organizations. The Obama article cherry-picks, from poorly sourced areas, "political positions" that show him in a favorable light (like the cause de jour "Save Darfur"). Unfortunately, last time I checked, my one attempt to remove that section was flatly vetoed by "Ubiq" and no other conversation has ensued on the subject.TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC) Mediation?I agree that there's no headway being made right now, and that the edit war shows no signs of letting up. However, I bet that if we take it to AN/I right now, the response from most admins will be, "This is a content dispute, and should be resolved through WP:DR." And they wouldn't be wrong. I know that RFC has led nowhere, but has there been any discussion of mediation in the past? I mentioned it to Andyvphil once, and he said that he'd be open to it. Do you think that formal mediation would do any good? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Wright, take 382I've worked on a slightly tweaked version of the Wright paragraph, and I'd be interested in your thoughts at Talk:Barack Obama#New attempt by Josiah. Thanks. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:15, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
BracketologyI've changed it again. By moving "the government" out of the quote, I believe we can manage without the square brackets. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:21, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
freerepublic.comHi. Please see my response at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#freerepublic.com. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 19:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC) hide/showIs there a way to add a "hide/show" button on the FAQ? Tvoz |talk 17:33, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
So apparently there is a way to do hide/show - did you see the change? {{hidden begin}} and {{hidden end}} seems to do it. Live and learn. Tvoz |talk 23:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC) Delinking MLSI understand your point, but why is it so bad that you be able to instantly click on the team if you're looking at the title list? I think its more of an issue in the general articles, because the blue, purple, or red text stands out, but in the table as it is now, with the colors, the links are more disguised. If I'm wrong, please let me know on my talk page. -- Grant.Alpaugh 03:54, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
How exactly...are you able to amass almost 30,000 edits, have a clean blocklog, have contributed a massive amount of quality to this zany encyclopedia, and yet still have not gone to RfA? An honest question. Are you interested? I noticed back in July 07 that you turned down someone else's requests for a nomination. I would like to nominate you if you're interested. I've seen you around (mostly from my days in WP:DPL), and believe you would make a fine administrator. You're obviously dedicated on some level to this website, you're still here!. Do you think you could use the extra tabs? Any skeletons in your closets that I'm not aware of? I'm going offline here in about 2 minutes, think about a nomination until Monday. I look forward to your response. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:36, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Would like to add Farrakhan to the list of presidential endorsements of Barack ObamaHere is the qualifier at the beginning of the article "This is a list of prominent individuals and organizations who have formally endorsed or voiced support for Barack Obama as the Democratic Party's presidential nominee for the 2008 U.S. presidential election. Louis Farrakan is a prominent individual who has endorsed Obama and I cited 3 notable sourcesChicago Tribune[2], MSNBC[3], and ABC[4]). Is this an appropriate reference to add to the list? It is me i think (talk) 18:00, 20 April 2008 (UTC) HRC length discussionThanks for closing, a wise move IMO. You may be interested in WP:ANI#Repeated extreme incivility by User:Ottava Rima if you haven't already seen it. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Deleted commentsThanks for re-adding the comments on the page regarding the Sonics move. I'm not certain how that happened. Chicken Wing (talk) 20:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
i responded on my page 70.234.110.141 (talk) 23:47, 25 April 2008 (UTC) User: QuortyPlease intervene with regard to the user Quorty. What bugs me is the tone he takes in every dispute. Without much investigation, he slams every tool at his disposal at articles and users who work on them. Every user page request is mean-spirited, no one is ever given benefit of the doubt. I post now from my IP so I won't get beat up by him on my registered page -- in an hour or so there will be a marker put on the IP page showing where it's from and implying some kind of misdoing or accusing it outright. Quorty is a very powerful user, and there's really nothing regular joes like me can do about his nonsense. Is there anything a higher end user like you can do? Or somebody, just to get him to dial it back a notch or two? It's not the Spanish Inquisition -- it's a bunch of people working for free on a community encyclopedia project. I know I'm super-discouraged from creating new and notable content just for dread of having to spend my time wrangling with him instead of actually working on Wikipedia. 72.241.98.90 (talk) 20:34, 26 April 2008 (UTC) The blessings of allah
Malia ObamaI'm cool with it being deleted, although I have recommended on the talk page that the redirect (to Barack Obama) be restored instead. If Obama becomes POTUS, the article would probably be resurrected per Chelsea Clinton, Jenna Bush et al. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:15, 1 May 2008 (UTC) Cate Edwards has an article. John Edwards already dropped out but not Obama. Watchingobama (talk) 19:46, 1 May 2008 (UTC) Copy to youThis is a copy of a message to Tvoz. Thank you. (warning/friendly reminder to you) Vandalism warning Please note there is a difference between vandalism and unhelpful or misguided edits made in good faith. If they continue to vandalise after a recent final warning, please re-report it. Thank you! Grsztalk 20:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Watchingobama" Friendly warning. Discuss not blank out the article. Watchingobama (talk) 20:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC) thanks for help and offer to helpWould you help me with Cate Edwards. The templates are too confusing. My opinion is neutral but that for consistency, this is the exact same type of article as Malia Obama. This way, we can also treat white and black people the same and not subject Black peoples' articles to a different result that White people. You'll note that I wrote about Malia and not her younger sister because I think Malia is more notable than Sasha. Malia has opinions and has been featured more than Sasha in other sources. Thanks again for your helpWatchingobama (talk) 23:46, 1 May 2008 (UTC) Happy Holidays MisunderstandingI think you misunderstood what i was trying to say, please see my talk page, ill clarify the talk page edit to avoid confusion. Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 02:10, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Jeremiah Wright controversyHi Bobblehead, I provided you some more backround information on the article talk page regarding the "Comparisons with other candidates" section and the "Academia" section. If you have any questions, please leave a note on my talk page or the article page. I have been involved with this nightmare for sometime now and have tried my best to help Josiah Rowe calm the storm. IP 75 75.31.210.156 (talk) 19:30, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
please reviewplease review and correct the WP:RM and talk page RM tag. Thank you. BVande (talk) 23:15, 10 May 2008 (UTC) iPhoneHeya, I think there should be a criticisms section in the iPhone article. At its current state, it's more of an advertisement than an encyclopedia article, to be honest. HJV (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 15:17, 11 May 2008 (UTC) Hello! I wanted to clear up some confusion about JenningsandRall.com which some users of Wikipedia seem to be propagating. JenningsandRall.com was launched by the game Tom Tooman (just do a search on unfiction or the Jericho boards and you can discover this for yourself). The information that is kept there about its launch being unpromoted or random is false and misleading.
IncivilityI dont suppose your going to warn him for that blatantly offensive comment?--Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 19:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Article sizeThe relevant text is at the very bottom of the page "It seems obvious from the above that the change to "readable prose" was made without prior consensus and should be removed. Ottava Rima" Oakwillow (talk) 17:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC) Warning. Do not revert something just to engage in a WP:3RR edit war. Discuss first. Oakwillow (talk) 13:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC) Wikipedia:Article sizePlease stop reverting on Wikipedia:Article size, per the edit warring policy. If a revert is needed, I am sure someone else will do it. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC) I had tagged that "Presumptive Nominee" business with a citations needed tag, wondering if I had missed something - but good call on the removal. I'd also leave a note to the user, if you get the chance. Thanks, UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 21:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC) Hey ThereHey Bobblehead, I've run into a bit of a wall, and being that you are quite knowledgable in regards to the processes etc here I thought I might be able to come to you for assistance. So, during one of my many random wiki searches I ran into an article, which seems to have an exact copy just with a differently spelt name. There is a proposed merger template on the page, but it seems to be from over a year ago with no action on it (the comments on the talk support the merge of course). My problem being, I haven't the slightest clue how to do the merge correctly, even after reading the help page for it. Any chance you could give it a look? International_Fortean_Organization and International_Fortean_Organisation. Thanks in advance! Arkon (talk) 23:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC) Please discuss your proposed edits on the article's Talk page, and demonstrate that you have consensus before reverting. I do not choose to engage in any edit war. Thank you. Kossack4Truth (talk) 22:00, 24 May 2008 (UTC) By popular demand -[36] - :-) ScarianCall me Pat! 16:42, 26 May 2008 (UTC) Request for input ( x 2 )REQUEST, if possible, your
CanvassingThat is why I only alluded to WP:CANVAS in a vague way. It was based more on an objection to his language, than to any suggestion of cross-posting. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC) Sinclair v. Obama casePlease take this to the talk page instead of rudely reverting my edit. Also, what kind of sources do you consider reliable if not newspapers and government documents? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Geremia (talk • contribs) 04:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC) Response to your comment at Talk:ObamaI responded at Talk:Barack Obama#Consensus-building discussion of the options to the comments you made in the vote tally (you were voter #8 there). Specifically at the discussions for Option 7 and Option 8. Please take a look and see what you think. My point, put another way, is that the Weathermen are not as well known as Al Qaeda or the IRA. Broad news coverage can be seen here, and here. Thanks, Noroton (talk) 23:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC) SockYou're right about socks. I guess it was relatively obvious to you all that 199 and Oakwillow were the same character so there was no question of socking. The way the thread ran it looked to go from 199 saying, "I couldn't agree more" to Oakwillow acting in coordination with this. I thought there was some deception there so I called sock. I'm prickly at the moment because there appears to be some alternate identity action going on in my neck of the woods. Mrshaba (talk) 23:58, 6 June 2008 (UTC) Request for your opinion
Other Religious AffiliationsHi Bobblehead, I have removed the "Other Religious Affiliations" section from the Barack Obama presidential campaign article. The citations were from partisan blogs (WP:RS in a BLP) or the citations did not support the text. Both the writing and content were very POV and only Pfleger at TUCC was a real "campaign issue" in the MSM. I am not a regular editor on this article and would appreciate it if you could keep this material from being re-added. Thanks 75.25.30.215 (talk) 10:35, 7 June 2008 (UTC) Please think about thisHi Bobblehead. It hasn't been 24 hours since I opened that tally on the Talk:Barack Obama page, but it doesn't look like we're going to get a consensus without a lot of editors changing their minds. I still have some hope, though. Would you consider moving your vote from the section it's in into the Option 3 section? I did that a little while ago, and I think it might encourage other editors to move their votes as well. It's up to you, of course. Noroton (talk) 20:57, 7 June 2008 (UTC) Yes, Bobblehead, Rezko was convicted of briberyYour edit summary reverting me denied that Rezko was convicted of bribery. He was convicted on two counts of aiding and abetting bribery, two counts of money laundering, and 12 counts of fraud -- a total of 16 felony counts. Here are the Daily Telegraph and the Associated Press. [37] [38] AFP specifies "12 counts of fraud, two of aiding and abetting bribery and two of money laundering[.]" [39] If you'd like, I'll add the AFP link to the article mainspace. Kossack4Truth (talk) 10:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC) Why?Why are you removing my link to WP:DICK? It's a legit redirect to an essay on Wikimedia. Maybe you should read it yourself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.12.114.215 (talk) 01:45, 13 June 2008 (UTC) Sorry to trouble you mate but the above anon (someone who is sore about an outcome at ANI perhaps?) keeps trying to make a wp:point on User talk:Andyvphil. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 02:00, 13 June 2008 (UTC) Scjessey edit historyHmmm. If you actually look at my edit history, you will see that I have only made edits to enforce WP:BLP, except for minor things like formatting and grammar. Perhaps you believe I have been too draconian in enforcing the rules? If that is the case, the rules may need a greater level of specificity, but that would not be a reason to censure me. I do not believe a laissez-faire approach to BLPs is wise. In the case of political candidates, it allows opponents to use WP:NPOV as a tool to apply negative bias under the guise of neutrality. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
SmilePecopteris has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! --Pecopteris (talk) 22:15, 13 June 2008 (UTC) Re: Obama discussion pageI reverted here part of one of your comments. Would you please be very careful to follow WP:CIVIL on the talk page? Let's keep it as polite as possible, even with small things. Thanks. Noroton (talk) 23:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Barnstar
Regarding "the fan"Thank you for the heads-up. I filed the report as you suggested. After looking at the individual's contributions, I am pretty sure it is this guy, so I am sure it will be resolved quickly. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:37, 25 June 2008 (UTC) WB74 sectionsI was finding it hard to follow the thread because was replying to comments in a different section. It's up to him to figure out how to get around his device limitations. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:42, 26 June 2008 (UTC) Yeah, I will take a break.Bobblehead, not even the source you cited agreed with you or Scjessey. Why do I bother to cite sources when they don't matter? I'm doing this old-fashioned thing of gathering evidence and trying to make logical arguments and hoping (less and less) that editors will be embarassed to be shown to be taking positions contrary to the reliable sources -- even contrary to what Obama himself says. And I'm the one being called a "POV pusher" by Scjessey, LotLE and Rick Block? Thanks for the advice. I think I'll take it. Actually, I think I'll go back to Wikipedia and do some editing there. Noroton (talk) 00:36, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
What exactly is the point of my participating if attempting to reflect the reliable sources doesn't really matter? If hardly anybody really cares what the reliable sources actually say? It's beginning to look like a popularity contest, and I'm not interested in that. And if such a large number have no interest in looking at the sources and are actively opposed to the way I think we should write this as reflecting the sources, then it's not only not worth my time, it's not worth wasting anybody else's time. Better to have a lousy article with less wasted time than the same result after wasting a lot of time. I can't believe this is a featured article. I may think differently later about participating, but at this point I can't find an answer to "What's the use?" Noroton (talk) 01:29, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Heads upEmail comin' at ya... Tvoz/talk 02:59, 27 June 2008 (UTC) typo in your post changing its meaningBobble- I think you meant to say "not sure" here as you did in the edit summary. Tvoz/talk 03:17, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Two apologies and a thank-youI was looking at some guidelines recently and came across Wikipedia:CIVIL#Removal of uncivil comments which reminded me of this. I was absolutely in the wrong to remove your comment. I apologize for that. And thank you for your note on my page about keeping cool. You cited this, but Block had been repeatedly goading me with this and then these on my talk page, although he kept cool on the Obama talk page, which I guess meant I was raising the temperature there. That made him look good and me look worse, whether or not it was intentional on his part. Actually, I did need to keep cooler and I also want to apologize for the impolite tone of this, which I could have written without the sarcasm. Thanks for your own cooler head, and I'll try to keep mine cool, too. Noroton (talk) 17:19, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Seattle SonicsI want you to tell me if you agree with what I put on the talk page for the team. Just to make it clear, I am in no way angry at you because it might come across as that. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:59, 3 July 2008 (UTC) Now you're the one who needs to calm downPlease refactor your name calling on the Obama talk page. That was completely unhelpful and it was unlike you. Noroton (talk) 18:56, 9 July 2008 (UTC) GAN for Seattle SuperSonics relocation to Oklahoma CityI went ahead and nominated Seattle SuperSonics relocation to Oklahoma City for Good Article. I think a stumbling block may be that Schultz's lawsuit isn't resolved yet, but I'm hoping the reviewer will recognize that the article qualifies for GA and that the case is proceeding so slow that radical changes will probably not be necessary any time soon. Would you mind looking over the article and doing a little copy editing or anything else you think may be necessary? One thing I am working on right now is a "fan reaction" section, but it's just in the planning stages. It may not been needed for Good Article status, but for a FA Nom (when the Schultz case is finished), a fan reaction section would be very important. I'm thinking something like this:
Let me know what you think or if you'd like to help out at all. Also, if you know of a suitable free picture of a fan holding up a "Save Our Sonics" sign or a pic of a SOS rally, that would be excellent for the new section. I've looked through Flickr, but there are no free images. Thanks. Okiefromokla complaints 17:17, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
My RFAIndeed. Let that be a lesson to you: Never leave the country for more than a week. Just don't do it. :) Okiefromokla questions? 22:14, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
TabloidsWelcome home. I tried making that point too - here, but it wasn't too well received... glad to see some rational thought on the subject. Tvoz/talk 04:20, 29 July 2008 (UTC) Request for your commentHere. Justmeherenow ( ) 23:13, 6 August 2008 (UTC) John EdwardsYou're right, the IPs had already started - done, thanks. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC) comin' your way Tvoz/talk 06:56, 25 August 2008 (UTC) [ding dong] so do you Tvoz/talk 19:53, 25 August 2008 (UTC) Per your input, I've started using the {{cite news}} template in all newspaper references. I would appreciate it if you would review my recent additions to this article and ensure they are neutral, informative and concise. I would also appreciate it if you would make recommendations about material that could be added to the article and leave those on the talk page. Likewise for material that could be pruned out. Thanks for your help, Cumulus Clouds (talk) 15:45, 27 August 2008 (UTC) WA gub. el.OK, I guess that works. Makes the table a little wide but it fits I suppose. And gee, those numbers were accurate as of my edit time. Maybe instead of just "as of" date we need to add time of day as well. :) - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 04:05, 28 August 2008 (UTC) Re: Block of CENSEI and CroctothefaceReplied on my talk page. CIreland (talk) 05:47, 29 August 2008 (UTC) Speech was on the 28th, not 29thI think the user who first added it was from across the pond, given that they used BBC News as a reference. From their perspective, it was the 29th. Obviously the US date takes precedence in this article, but you might want to use a softer tone in your edit summary in case like this. I've been guilty of similar stuff, so you can very much refer to me as "The Pot" if you wish. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:54, 29 August 2008 (UTC) Wiki-linking Birth datesI've noticed most Biography articles do this. Therefore, I assumed that's the norm on Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 17:16, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
re: summary of political positionsThe thing is the material
does not appear anywhere else in the article. This shows what she thinks is her best achievement, and thus says something about her political philosophy. If you want to re-add the sentence detailing that she hasn't always followed this principle, I'm fine with that. (That sentence wasn't a part of the original though.) However, please don't throw out the useful material, just because Kelly edited out the negative part.--ThaddeusB (talk) 21:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Probably not appropriate...especially since I'm hoping the theory gets picked up on Daily Kos. A.J.A. (talk) 22:04, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Palin Wasilla Section ChangesWe have a final draft (#8). Could you please take a moment to review and let us know if we finally have consensus and can publish it? Thanks.--Paul (talk) 20:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC) re: library sectionHi Bobblehead - You seem to have a good eye for copy editing. Could you read through the 8th draft of the Wasilla section on the Sarah Palin page again and review for punctuation, grammar etc. I've read it through a few times but I think a few more editors need to review it before it goes live. Thanks, -Classicfilms (talk) 21:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Just a quick thank youFor fixing the references on my additions to the Bridge to Nowhere section of the Palin article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GreekParadise (talk • contribs) 04:35, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
PalinFor clarification I wanted to react to the edit by the red linked user and his summary, who replaced the text with long text inserted from the subarticle, instead of a summary [40]. Hobartimus (talk) 02:44, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Duplicate commentDid you mean to do this?Ferrylodge (talk) 20:32, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Edit warring
I am sure you have noticed that some editors are consistently trying to eradicate anything critical of Palin. It is not irresponsible to revert relevant, properly referenced material. --Zeamays (talk) 18:09, 9 September 2008 (UTC) Barnstar
WP:FAR for Barack ObamaBarack Obama has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. I have nominated Barack Obama for Featured Article Review. You are welcome to participate in the discussion. Curious bystander (talk) 23:48, 18 September 2008 (UTC) PalinBobblehead, I do not understand this edit of yours. Where is it already mentioned in the article that those two opposed her election?Ferrylodge (talk) 02:24, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Bobblehead, if the argument against the bridge is being presented, then the argument in favor of the bridge must also be presented. Sneaking in the argument against the bridge as an "explanation" of how the project became known as the "Bridge to Nowhere" (a name applied, strangely enough, by people making arguments against the bridge) is a Trojan horse. Kossack4Truth (talk) 23:51, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
tense bridgesThe discussion about whether Palin "continues" or "continued" to support the bridge until June was thorough. As you will note, your source is as of June 10, and is weak evidence for using the present tense on Palin's support. Kindly use Talk: Sarah Palin if you wish to discuss this. Thanks. Collect (talk) 21:59, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
CheckuserBobblehead, can you have a look at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Help needed with Aaron Sorkin and then examine the edits in question? There's an Obama connection in there somehow, and the edits seem politically motivated, and I'm wondering if you are able to generate evidence sufficient for a checkuser. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:46, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Palin - 'Politicle Positions' sectionHi Bobblehead- Nice work on the Palin 'reception' section. I would appreciate your opinion on my comments on the 'Political Positions' section: [[42]] Thanks, IP75 75.25.28.167 (talk) 18:40, 2 October 2008 (UTC) If you're interested...I began to redo the Pike Place Market article with User:Jmabel in my user space at User:Rootology/Pike Place Market. My thinking was to tear it apart there first (thats underway) and then rebuild it for a Featured Article run. Doing it there lets us leave the live page alone and intact meanwhile. If you'd be interested, feel free to dive in. rootology (C)(T) 22:07, 2 October 2008 (UTC) Poking your memorySee your email - I'm trying to remember something. Thx Tvoz/talk 05:11, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Image copyrightsRegarding the Obama image that you claim is a copyright violation on Talk:Barack Obama. Is there any way, Bobblehead, that other editors can find out stuff like this call to the senate office, who "originally" removed the image, or any other information related to any of this?! Looking at it, the image has been at the commons since April 2008... it is, of course, conceivable that it had previously been deleted, but then restored by someone else. As I mentioned, I'm resistant to just assuming "everything is a violation" given my previous failed attempts to release self-created PD images to WP because of overzealous deletionists. LotLE×talk 22:13, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
no problemHi! I think WP:REF addresses my real concerns about multipe cites for the same poll in Joe the Plumber. CC made a big issue some time back seeking to prevent any new information being placed in the article, and some of his multiple sourcing using sources he fought against seems odd, I suppose. Anyway -- if you feel the claim needs 3 references which duplicate each other fine. Thanks! Collect (talk) 22:15, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Obama's Birth HospitalThere are some reports that he was born in Kapiolani Hospital and some that he was born in Queen's Hospital. How do you reconcile these contradictory reports?--Filll (talk | wpc) 17:09, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Olbermann articleI'm not sure how changing the category from Category:American tax evaders to Category:American Tax Evaders resolves the BLP issue that you're identifying in this edit: [43] --Bobblehead (rants) 18:14, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Date of COLBWhy is it important to have the date the birth certificate was printed? It carries no significance, and it is non-relevant personal information (which WP:BLP says should not be included). -- Scjessey (talk) 21:02, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Seattle FARI have nominated Seattle for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Best, epicAdam(talk) 05:27, 11 December 2008 (UTC) Seattle/VancouverYes, I just saw the sentence was about Metro area. Somebody had changed Vancouver article to say 2nd largest city in PNW & set me back & forth. Cheers --JimWae (talk) 19:39, 13 December 2008 (UTC) Not News news of the dayPlease check out: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John McCain lobbyist controversy, February 2008 Borock (talk) 09:45, 3 January 2009 (UTC) Reverting edits that avoid redirectsNo, the reversion makes the source easier to read and edit. See WP:R#NOTBROKEN: "unnecessary invisible text makes the article more difficult to read in page source form." TJRC (talk) 22:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)  You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. Nice catch...Inre this diff... thanks. I should have caught it myself. Good looking out. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 02:46, 19 January 2009 (UTC) I see you have been a significant contributor to Spokane, Washington, which is now a "good article". Thanks for your work on behalf of the project. Will Beback talk 04:29, 24 January 2009 (UTC) phelps discussion pagethanks loads for deleting my legitimate discussion beginning on the phelps cannabis issue, you delete my starting the conversation, instead of acutally having a discussion, which is really lame of you... of course soon afterwards the same discussion came up again (haha too bad for you) and thankfully enough people got involved so your facist editing couldn't erase it again.... people like you ruin these discussion pages... the purpose is to discuss the potential additions to the main articles, but with your overcensoring of discussions many people with legitimate ideas will give up. I feel proud that I initiated a discussion that ended up making the main page, even if it had to be reintroduced by someone else after you deleted me thanks for nothing —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nustran (talk • contribs) 11:42, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
discussion is discussion, not the main page, instead of working with it and seeking more sources, you just deleted, which was very wrong of you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nustran (talk • contribs) 10:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
bit of helpI was wondering if u could be kinda like a friend. I'm new to this and i want to get involved in stuff but i dont know where to start. Friends? CallMeAndrew (talk) 05:30, 8 February 2009 (UTC) I object to your hasty deletion of my talk entry on Barack Obama's articleYou polled but only for 10 minutes. You got one vote in favor of keeping the discussion open and compromising. The reason you gave for deletion was "TL:DR" which evidently is "Too Long: did not read." Therefore the deletion was at a minimum hasty and from an self admittedly ignorant perspective. Several points that I and others remain, including constructive criticisms of the main article from more than one person, remain unaddressed. This is shoddy and with all due respect does not avoid the appearance of impropriety. My previous edit was to a San Francisco butterfly 3 years ago and was accepted (it is still there today, February 9, 2009). I am not a vandal or a spammer, and you have no shred of evidence given your justification "TL:DR" for asserting otherwise or that the constructive talk on the Barack Obama main article I initiated is other than in good faith. Please restore the talk article immediately. Eclectix (talk) 23:43, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
|
.svg){kind=small}
.jpg)
.jpg)
,_1201,_1202.jpg){kind=link}
