|READ THIS! IMPORTANT! Please discuss content issues at the article in question.|
|If you are here about specific edits to an article that you disagree with (or any type of content dispute), please discuss them at the talk page of that article, NOT here on my talk page. I will do my best to join the discussion. Keeping discussion in one place lets other editors stay involved and it makes it easier for non-involved editors to wade into the fray and settle things if there are conflicts. Also note that I am very part-time these days and edit sporadically so I may not be able to respond right away (which is all the more reason to keep other editors involved). Thanks! --Loonymonkey (talk) 17:26, 26 February 2012 (UTC)|
- 1 Re. death threats
- 2 Vandalism?
- 3 "Hoax" in relation to the Duke case
- 4 Comments from William Jockusch
- 5 Thanks for your support
- 6 Obama category
- 7 You've made a mistake.
- 8 Keith and Bill
- 9 Media matters reversion -- I'm requesting that you self revert, as you must not have noticed my asking you if you had a new objection, now that RS has been knocked down.
- 10 Politico has an article which mentions you.
- 11 Why are you posting lies about Sheriff Arpaio on Wikipedia?
- 12 Talk: Solyndra
- 13 Uhh...
- 14 Ellen Tauscher
- 15 Stanley Kurtz National Review article about Obama and the New Party
- 16 reliable sources at common cause
- 17 Common Cause
Re. death threats
I see a few every month. The best place to take them is firstname.lastname@example.org, which exists for this sort of thing. Don't worry if you get an "out of office" reply - the e-mail goes to a dozen people or more and if one of them is on vacation you'll get that, but the message will still be handled by someone else on the list.
The emergency address is quicker, more effective, and lets the Foundation make a decision as to whether the threat warrants calling authorities in. (Usually doesn't, but the decision's above our pay grade.) It also denies the death threatener any additional notoriety - some do it to get on ANI. --NellieBly (talk) 23:26, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks, yeah, it's pretty clearly just trolling in this case, but still not anything I want to respond to or get involved with myself. --Loonymonkey (talk) 00:55, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
- Don't play coy. You're an experienced editor, so you clearly know that proposing replacing an official portrait of the President with a grotesque caricature is a needless April Fool's joke at best. And initiating an RfC for your joke is just an abuse of process and a waste of other editors' time. As a well-established editor, you know where this will lead if you continue. --Loonymonkey (talk) 03:17, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
"Hoax" in relation to the Duke case
First of all, thank you for your cleanups.
But I don't understand how you can object to the use of the word "hoax". For example, the case was put on this list of hoaxes back in 2009, and it appears to be entirely uncontroversial. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Hoaxes_in_the_United_States. Additionally, the top-rated review to KC Johnson's book uses the word "hoax", and again it appears to be entirely uncontroversial. http://www.amazon.com/Until-Proven-Innocent-Correctness-Injustices/dp/0312369123 William Jockusch (talk) 19:33, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Comments from William Jockusch
- Moved from your User Page by Blaxthos
Hello there. I appreciate your desire to improve Wikipedia. However, I see you are doing a lot of reverts. Your stated reason for one recent revert on the Obama 2008 campaign page seemed particularly weak. I had increased a list of his campaign promises from three to five. With five promises, a bulleted list seemed appropriate to me. You reverted stating that there was no need for a bulleted list. I find this curious, as there are two three-point bulleted lists elsewhere in the article. Additionally, the article on the Bush 2004 campaign has a bulleted list of promises. Additionally, if your only issue with my edit was the bulleted list, it would have been more appropriate and productive to change it back to a paragraph, while retaining the added content. Additionally, the original list was biased towards promises Obama had kept. Like all politicians, he keeps some promises and breaks others. It is therefore more reasonable to include some unkept promises. William Jockusch (talk) 12:46 am, Today (UTC−4)
- (please discuss this at the article in question, as I say above). That said, on the style question, MOS is pretty clear. Paragraphs are preferred over bulleted lists (and the fact that there are already other lists in the article is an argument against making another one. The edit had nothing to do with content it was a style issue. Fee free to propose (correctly reformatted) additions on the talk page. --Loonymonkey (talk) 15:32, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your support
- No problem! It was a bad situation that obviously couldn't stand, one of the worst blocks I've ever seen (and it was nice to get unanimous agreement at AI/I). It would have had a chilling effect on editing if it had been allowed. --Loonymonkey (talk) 18:12, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Barack Obama article does not conform to NPOV". Thank you.William Jockusch (talk) 15:09, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
I saw you reverted an edit to the Obama category. I considered doing that earlier, but after thinking about it for a minute I decided to leave it because it seemed appropriate to me. Just thought I'd mention it. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:44, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- It's actually incorrect. It's a continual misunderstanding. The liberalism category (like other such political spectrum categories) are for articles related to the subject of liberalism (that is, from a political science angle). They're not for editors to just arbitrarily decide "that guy's liberal, this newspaper is conservative, etc." Since category additions aren't referenced, this is especially important.--Loonymonkey (talk) 18:31, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
You've made a mistake.
Hi. This is Grundle2600.
Epowerfan and 18.104.22.168 are NOT me.
I don't want to take credit for someone else's work.
And I don't want someone else to get in trouble because of me.
The other socks that you listed are indeed me.
I have never tried to hide the fact that a sock was me once it was discovered by someone else. I have always been honest about this.
Also, those two that you mistakenly attributed to me were created two months ago, not "yesterday" as you claimed.
Keith and Bill
- Incredibly, the "liberal" discussion is still going on the Olbermann talk page. I'm thinking of moving it to WP:DR. Also thinking of shooting myself in the head. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:33, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Media matters reversion -- I'm requesting that you self revert, as you must not have noticed my asking you if you had a new objection, now that RS has been knocked down.
- I'm sure you reverted in good faith and simply forgot about my post on the Media Matters talk page, asking if you had a new objection, now that RS had been knocked down. However, as you are surely editing in good faith, I'm sure you will realize that you now need to self revert your reversion, as you had 5 days to raise an new objection and did not do so. Thanks!William Jockusch (talk) 20:11, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Politico has an article which mentions you.
Why are you posting lies about Sheriff Arpaio on Wikipedia?
You posted or reposted an erroneous statement, claiming that Sheriff Arpaio has not sent investigators to Hawaii. You or anyone can Google "Sheriff Arpaio investigators Hawaii" and see plenty of articles, including http://www.nowpublic.com/world/sheriff-arpaio-s-detectives-concentrate-investigation-hawaii Please stop posting false statements on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inetcafebooth6 (talk • contribs) 05:57, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
- You must have me confused with someone else. I have no idea what you're talking about.--Loonymonkey (talk) 14:24, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
I will assume good faith that when you made this edit you weren't referring to my response (which was intended to make a small point in a lighthearted way) as a "sock comment". And whether or not the original poster was a sock or not, I found it useful information to know that this discussion had made its way into Politico. I'm not going to revert you, but honestly I didn't see anything there that would have led me to break the usual rule against deleting other editors' talk page comments. --Arxiloxos (talk) 14:59, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
- Very sorry, I was cleaning up the latest Grundle2600 assaults on several different talk pages at once. Honestly, I just removed the section without seeing that there was a comment. I didn't mean to imply you are a sockpuppet, acting in bad faith, or anything of the sort. We try to maintain a strict policy of WP:DENY with him and remove sock comments entirely or, if several responses have occured, to collapse them. If you like, I'll self revert and do the latter. Incidentally, the article is already linked at the top of the page. Grundle was just touting it because he's mentioned in the article. Thanks! --Loonymonkey (talk) 15:31, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
The warning you gave to User talk:Wmackey73 was regarding an edit the user made over a year ago. I've commented on your warning in the user's talk page, and if you decide to remove your warning, you can remove my comment as well. Trinitresque (talk) 23:50, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- Oh, whoops. I was using Twinkle. He made a similar bad edit recently, which was the point. Thanks for the heads up.--Loonymonkey (talk) 14:23, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- I wasn't vandalizing that article or injecting my opinion at all. The link provided specifically identifies Ms. Tauscher as a "Hard-Core Liberal" rather than a "Libertarian-leaning Liberal." See for yourself. -- Evans1982 (talk) 21:40, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Stanley Kurtz National Review article about Obama and the New Party
This discussion may involve you: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&pe=1&#Stanley_Kurtz_National_Review_article_about_Obama_and_the_New_Party William Jockusch (talk) 19:32, 30 July 2012 (UTC)