User:John J. Bulten/Friends

Friends list (add your name here):

User:Gloriamarie User:Wasted Time R User:Tvoz User:Southern Texas User:Photouploaded User:Metaeducation User:Newsroom hierarchies User:Apartcents User:MZMcBride User:tqbf User:Duchamps comb

User:Burzmali User:Orangemike User:Devil's Advocate User:Dougie WII User:LakeOswego User:98.224.242.164 User:Iamunknown User:Cbenton2679 User:Thegoodlocust User:Slp1 User:PHG

User:MZMcBride User:Colin MacLaurin User:Buspar User:Sharkface217 User:Will Beback User:Dank55 User:SteveSims User:Onorem User:YixilTesiphon User:Pmanderson User:JayJasper

I saw that piece of garbage you got earlier. Here's a real barnstar:

		The Current Events Barnstar
		I am giving you this barnstar for all your work on updating the straw polls article and for all the work you have done on election articles. Great job. STX 21:57, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		For tireless work. Going above and beyond in editing the Presidential Campaign, 2008. December 2007--Duchamps_comb MFA

		The Socratic Barnstar
		For the many insightful and helpful contributions you've made to the discussions of election articles and templates, I award you this barnstar. JayJasper (talk) 15:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Ron Paul talk page

Hey John, thanks for helping out and welcome to Wikipedia. Could you not move things around on talk pages? It makes it very difficult for editors who have been following all along to follow the discussion, and it's pretty confusing. Thanks a lot! --Gloriamarie 16:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words and for wanting to help. I'll take a look at your article soon and let you know-- it's a good idea for an article! The big POV issue atm is probably the abortion thing; a few editors seem to want to make the entire article focus on abortion for some reason... it's odd. There are also some sourcing issues, which I saw you pointed out with the list of federal agencies given. Thanks for noticing that and helping to sort it out.--Gloriamarie 06:59, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

FAC comments

FAC comments belong on the FAC page, not Talk pages, as far as I can tell. And no comments too small - just wait until User:BQZip01 gets at you with the non-breaking spaces et al. Wasted Time R 20:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Wasted, response is here. JJB 02:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Tvoz

From WP:MOS: "The word to, rather than an en dash, is used when a number range involves a negative value or might be misconstrued as a subtraction (−3 to 1, not −3–1), or when the nearby wording demands it (he served from 1939 to 1941, not he served from 1939–1941)." Please leave the wording as we had it - from, to - on Hillary Rodham Clinton. Should be that way on Ron Paul as well. Further - you don't have to follow MOS slavishly even if it didn't say this: common sense should prevail, and common sense prefers narrative to en dashes here. As for HRC - your rewrite was too extreme and introduced error (e.g., she has long been considered a polarizing figure in politics, not a polarizing politician - those two are not equivalent). At this stage, coming in and doing a wholesale rewrite is not the best way to go - and it's not a matter of "favorite phrases", which, again, is a bit insulting. You've just arrived here and might want to spend some time in the archives so you have a better idea of how we got to the place we are on articles - this goes for Ron Paul too in my opinion - it's not always the best approach to come in and just wholesale rewrite. By doing so at this point on HRC, you make it more difficult to respond to the comments made in the FAC, having the effect of derailing the process. I wouldn't want to think that this is your goal. Tvoz |talk 04:20, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

The only reason I made one good-faith edit to this article, as I adverted, was to demonstrate that my concerns were well-grounded and that there was much room for improvement. I am sorry Tvoz considered this edit to introduce error, as I don't split hairs between "figure in politics" and "politician". And I did apologize in advance for any unaccepted condensation of favorite phrases, and my edit was in fact in response to my and others' FAC comments. JJB 02:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

edits

I'll try to look at it tomorrow, but I'm kind of knee-deep in a couple of things and may not have a chance. Will do my best. Tvoz |talk 05:03, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you!! JJB 15:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Straw polls

I didn't realize there was already a straw poll article. I agree that we should merge them together and create a new article with just the Democratic results.--Southern Texas 01:36, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I didn't realize you were working on it.--Southern Texas 02:50, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to your help, articles are now humming along: Dem, Rep, both. JJB 02:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello

Hello John J. Bulten, I've been editing very little in the past few months and I haven't kept track of what's going on with the straw polls article. I'll change the maps if you give me a list of everything that needs to be changed, thank you in advance. On a side note, is JayJasper not your friend?--Southern Texas (talk) 03:26, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Problematic edit summary

I found your comment in this diff's edit summary to be problematic. The policy of WP:CIVIL makes it clear that judgmental comments in edit summaries are not permitted.

Please view references numbers 113 and 116 in the References section of this diff. This is the version that existed just before I removed two defunct citations; there is a bright-red error message in each of these references. All I did was convert these empty references to requests for citations. I did not have the time or inclination to figure out which refs were intended by the defunct titles "insideradv" and "gallup92007". Citation requests are an improvement over statements which have nothing but a defunct label as a reference.

To be called "disingenuous" after I made this small improvement to the article is not very nice. If you have anything else to say on such matters, please do it in the proper places, not in edit summaries. Please try to AGF; I want the article to be good too. Thanks. Photouploaded 20:52, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I do apologize, Photo, I did look at that diff when I tried to source the dereference, but I misread it, came to the wrong conclusion about what was edited, and accused too hastily. The actual dereference was done by TechnoGuyRob, and it was clearly a mistake while adding the new 5% poll. Thank you for pointing this out civilly. I will watch my edit summaries. JJB 21:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, John. Apology accepted, no harm done. See you on the slopes! Photouploaded 00:20, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppets

I hereby apologize to those editors who have been cleared by an administrator of my charges that they were suspected sockpuppets. In each case I believed at the time that I had probable cause to make the accusation, but in at least one case I agree with the consensus that I did not actually have sufficient cause. I believe pride also contributed, resulting in overzeal and several mistakes in understanding the graduated levels of accepted protocols. I'd like to explain how the mistakes arose, not to defend, but only to illustrate.

• I relied on WP:BOLD and its principle that "any changes you make that turn out badly can be reverted, often quite painlessly". I recognize that accusations cannot be withdrawn, so I did not accuse recklessly; but a finding of not guilty is a vindication of the innocent in accord with this principle.
• I relied on input from other editors which I found credible, such as User:TDC, User:Life, Liberty, Property, User:Starkrm. I recognize this input is now also subject to invalidation by admin findings, and although I did not credit it recklessly, the irony of the parallel to Bush's reliance on British intelligence is not lost.
• I relied on the community consensus of banning James Salsman, partly out of agreement, but partly out of overzeal.
• I oversimplified the established processes, partly out of newness, but partly out of pride.
• As a forum moderator, I have experience spotting sockpuppets and abusive accounts, but am still learning how to put that experience to use given this larger community and its different standards.
• In each of the cases I made or joined (1of3, Acct4, Eric Shalov, Squee23), I believe the admin findings are or will be that there was in fact misbehavior. I believe I did not always take the proper response in reporting the misbehavior, and thereby contributed to it to some degree.
• I don't believe I am editing out of conflict of interest any more than anyone else; technically, every edit is made because of some degree of interest in making the change to its subject article. But I affirm WP:COI.
• I don't believe my edits are an abuse of a single-purpose account. I chose to start with a difficult subject area, Ron Paul and the election, and chose to restrict my watchlist to that area until I am comfortable expanding it, which I hope to do in the future.

I will be more careful: for instance, I can discuss charges with more experienced editors rather than send them immediately to admins. Also, having made these mistakes, I will impose a 24-hour timeout on myself, and refrain from edits immediately after linking this note to the appropriate case pages. See you soon, happy Reformation Day. JJB 15:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm still not "In the clear" since User:TDC is hell bent on reverting my DU edits, (and ignoring their content) but I appreciate these words. Thank you. Starkrm 15:55, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I think your reaction to the feedback here shows good intent. I only suggest that your inner meditative mantra can migrate from no harm, no foul with the accusations toward something much more Wiki-like, such as "Assume Good Faith"! Sockpuppets and vandals are pests which automation will probably increasingly deal with, but reliable flesh and blood editors—(moods and attitudes notwithstanding)—will give up if not treated decently. So it helps to be very circumspect when differentiating poor edits from vandalism.

If you've come from forums, I think you can relax a bit about sockpuppets—Wikipedia isn't ruled by numbers. I know election windows are narrow and it may seem critically important if the Ron Paul Wikipedia page doesn't look perfect to your eyes every minute of the day. But Ron Paul advocates absolutely should not be pointing anyone to the Wiki article—they should direct people to an official campaign page that represents his platform directly. (And if there's one thing that needs to be doggedly defended and reverted if corrupted here, its the link to the official campaign site!)

I can understand that you would be hurried to guard the page if you are passionate about the campaign, but that's precisely why your determination might be more appropriate for a non-wiki you can control. If we had to be paranoid about edits moments after they happen we really would spend all our time in sockpuppet debates. All wiki readership must be prepared to dig into the history and talk page to form an opinion about the subject; it is the very nature of the medium. I'm personally glad people are being trained to take Wikipedia with a grain of salt, because that supports the consensus methodology. (And it will get easier...there's innovation in the works here with Meta:Article validation feature and the likes of Wikipedia Trust Coloring which will hopefully evolve to make things even more laid back.)

AND speaking of people who should be doing more useful article editing rather than mired in debating, I'm a living example here. Bah. Though secretly I've done most of my editing while not logged in—just to try and put good edits in anon space to make sure the Wiki High Council continues to see value in keeping anonymous editing enabled! Metaeducation 05:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey, no hard feelings, John- I think we both got a little excitable! Things like politics and Wikipedia have that effect on some people! ¡Salud! - Eric 20:26, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

You accuse me of being a Sock Puppet

I'm not exactly sure why. I'm not even exactly sure what that is, or what I can do about it. Could you please explain? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Starkrm (talk • contribs) 19:18, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Probable cause appears here, and at this moment I am awaiting resolution here. JJB 02:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

So I ask you for help, with a sincere question, the day you accuse me of being a sock puppet, and 12 days later you respond linking what you call "probable cause" which is actually a CLOSED case which determined I was not a sock puppet. You also link where you called for my indef banning which you changed to CU after I pointed out how ridiculous your accusations were. I understand your motives, since I am actually fighting the same fight as you and TDC, but your actions are, IMO, deplorable and border on harrasment. Starkrm 14:37, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Try making a case about Dlabtot if you want what I think is a real sock puppet. Starkrm 16:27, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Yawn in response to Sockpuppetry accusation

I encourage you to request checkuser or whatever the process is. I'm nobody's sockpuppet and frankly I find the accusation to be boring and not worthy of a response beyond saying that my name is James Lang, I live in Alberton, MT, and I always post from 12.32.36.103 or 216.166.132.57, I made a couple edits from one or both of those IPs before I registered my username and all of my edits since I registered have been made under this username. Do not expect any further response from me on this non-issue. Dlabtot 00:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:BLP and talk pages

WP:BLP is not a license to edit another editor's comments, whether you or I consider them incorrect or not. Please read this before doing so again. --Orange Mike 01:03, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Mike, I have read that already, I concluded that its reference to "prohibited material" resoundingly includes WP:BLP#Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material. It doesn't matter whether I consider them incorrect, but it does matter if they're unsourced contentious material about a living person. JJB 01:16, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

But WP:BLP refers to mainspace articles, not talk pages about those articles. --Orange Mike 01:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Mike, you may not have noticed that my link says (emphasis in original): "Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see Wikipedia:No original research). The three-revert rule does not apply to such removals if the information is derogatory. Content may be re-inserted only if it conforms to this policy. These principles apply to biographical material about living persons found anywhere in Wikipedia, including user and talk pages. Administrators may enforce the removal of such material with page protection and blocks, even if they have been editing the article themselves. Editors who re-insert the material may be warned and blocked. See the blocking policy and Wikipedia:Libel." Thank you for your consideration. JJB 02:01, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I think I see where the difference is here. I feel that the original editor was not out of bound in feeling that statements which went out over Paul's name were Paul's statements, and that certainly within the confines of a talk page discussion he is entitled to say so without being policed out of existence. You feel that this is a contentious statement, even in a talk page, and should be censored. (I'm sorry, there's no weaker word that expresses my disagreement with you.) I accept that your interpretation is a good-faith one, although I disagree with it. I certainly shan't get into a revert war over it; but I feel that you are wrong in your reading of the guidelines here. --Orange Mike 05:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I think Vidor is not out of bound to feel they were Paul's statements, nor to state that feeling, but is out of bound to state what is felt as if it's an established fact, four times, after being warned twice. The subtleness of how the admitted bias slipped its way into Vidor's comments does not appear to excuse Vidor for treating that bias as NPOV. JJB 15:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your edit summary on Ron Paul (talk): I'm editing from an IP because I feel like it and because Wikipedia policy permits me to do so (don't worry, I'm not Ben/James or whoever). Specifically, I reverted you because I felt your removals of someone else's comments were highly inappropriate. More generally I dislike the ownership you assert over the article, and I intend to revert your removal of other people's comments every time it happens. --68.162.80.156 21:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Another instance of the same debate above with OrangeMike occurred today with Photouploaded. My notice re the first instance is still open at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Ron Paul. JJB 20:50, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes. The quote in question... is it a problem to reprint it? — Photouploaded — continues after insertion below

Why, yes, especially when you can link the diff instead, as you did with the other case below. JJB 17:57, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

What is the problem here? Just today another user reverted your removal of someone else's comment. I find this trend to be questionable. Please explain the above. Photouploaded (talk) 23:20, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

No, that user reverted my removal of the only other comment made by the same IP as the comment you want restored. I think my position is fully explained by the above and its attached links, i.e., relying on Jimmy Wales for deriving the proposition that WP:BLP trumps WP:TALK. Is there any question that the edits are unsourced contentious material about living persons, when they allege racism, sexism, condoning of rape, and incomprehension of the Constitution? I requested admin comment at WP:BLPN the first time I did this and am still awaiting comment. JJB 17:57, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

The Liberty Dollar spammer

The guy stuck identical comments in other talk pages. I feel this falls under "Deleting material not relevant to improving the article"; I gather you do not? --Orange Mike | Talk 00:28, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

In this case I can give benefit of doubt. The author did at least learn to put them in talk instead of article, after all. When there is hope that the author might get to proving relevance, I can wait and not bite. Also the user shows signs of not understanding the system, which can be remediated or rehabilitated. However, overall, I know we may be at loggerheads on occasion, and may continue to be, but I want to applaud you for your patience and hope I can show you the same. JJB 06:07, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Userpages

It's generally not considered acceptable to edit other folks, except to remove vandalism; not even if you are praising them. I'm not reverting your recent edit to Kaz' userpage, in case it was done with his prior approval; but I thought you should know. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:22, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Per WP:USER, "pages in user space still do belong to the community"; what policy are you citing? Both User:John J. Bulten and User:Jimbo Wales encourage "edit this page". JJB 22:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Userpages#Ownership and editing of pages in the user space: "...by convention your user page will usually not be edited by others." --Orange Mike | Talk 22:36, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the clarification. I'll grant that I was nonconventional and presumed on Kazvorpal's approval. Thanks for watching so closely, I think. JJB 22:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I watch the talk and user pages of folks I've interacted with, for better or worse. I even get to revert an occasional vandalism before the user can (common courtesy). I think of it as part of collegiality; and some of these folks get to be friends of a sort, even if we got off on the wrong foot. --Orange Mike | Talk 05:39, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

your changes on Talk:Ron Paul

Please refrain from making changes to other editors' comments. While talk pages are for discussing improvements to articles, we certainly don't "correct" for "shock nature" or POV on them. --Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 20:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the concern, News, but we do correct when BLP is involved. False allegations that Paul is withdrawing are serious enough to be stricken strictly. See WP:BLP#Non-article space, WP:TALK#New topics and headings on talk pages, WP:TALK#Others' comments. JJB 21:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for SoLA Edit

Thanks for dealing with the SoLA edit for me. I'm pretty sure I saw your handle on another page I was looking at to work on too (I've taken a bunch of the candidates to try to put my hand to make the articles better) so hopefully we'll get to work on these things together soon (I hear there's a 4 day rule before I am no longer n00b)! Apartcents (talk) 00:09, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Food Fight

Yeah I agree something is fishy with foofight. It seems he's more interested in pushing some agenda than adding to the quality of the article. SoLA is much more complicated than just 'revert it to the states.' A finding is not completely non-binding, either. And yeah, "calling the LOC" made me lol. Thanks for the help, I'm a fan of Ron Paul too so don't want to see the page vandalized by dummies. Apartcents (talk) 22:27, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: Christine Smith

16:13, 4 December 2007 . . JayJasper (Talk| contribs| block) (40 bytes) (moved Christine Smith (libertarian) to Christine Smith (activist): "Activist" is a more all-encompassing term.)

After the page was moved on December 4, there was an AfD regarding the article here. Article got deleted; I deleted the broken redirect. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Ron Paul and Moneybombs

This discussion is getting contentious (for instance, you replied to one of my posts, "how to respond calmly?"). You seem very attached to this article.

I don't understand why. I know you're an advocate for Paul, and there's nothing wrong with that, not even in WP. What I don't understand is why you want to take an article about the term "moneybomb" and use it as a platform to discuss your candidate; it puts you in the awkward position of having to respond to arguments on two fronts simultaneously:

1. Are you verifiably, neutrally documenting the Paul campaign's progress?
2. Even if you are verifiably, neutrally documenting the Paul campaign, are you doing so in a manner strictly relevant to moneybombing?

More than one editor (myself obviusly among them) believes that there shouldn't even be a "moneybomb" article; that is is a faddish neologism of uncertain notability, which creates a third front on which you're now obligated to deal with arguments.

Why don't we strip the moneybomb article down to a kernel of well-sourced defensible campaign-neutral content, and then add a subhed about Paul that redirects to his campaign article? Then we don't have to debate the successes or failures of his campaign in this article. I do not care about the Paul campaign one whit, and am unlikely to "follow" you into the warren of articles that are genuinely dedicated to his campaign.

--- tqbf 18:07, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Umpiring AfDs

It's unnecessary to tally and judge comments in AfD votes. Like I said in the AfD debate, but should have just said directly --- when you criticize someone else's vote, all you're really doing is begging them to come back with a stronger, more compelling "delete" vote. It's unlikely that the closing admin is going to misread a "per nom". There is also nothing wrong with a per nom; it's just not a particularly compelling argument.

--- tqbf 02:31, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Ron Paul Revolution

On the moneybomb page, thanks for the halp and gentle way of explaining your point. I am new to all of this and want to be helpful as well now I refrence every thing I post.

Thanks again, Duchamps_comb —Preceding unsigned comment added by Duchamps comb (talk • contribs) 19:51, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Ron Paul Revolution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ron_Paul_Revolution#Ron_Paul_Revolution

If you have time I would like to hear your comments on this page. Thanks--Duchamps comb (talk) 19:45, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Ron Paul hasn't gotten a single bill passed?

Directions for discovering that: Because the link wasn't easy enough, here are the step-by-step instructions:

1. Go to [http://thomas.loc.gov/bss/d110query.html Thomas].
2. Select box with "Choose House Members" highlighted, it be roughly in the center of the screen.
3. Type "P" and select the entry for "Paul, Ron ..."
4. Click the radio button labeled "Sponsor"
5. Scroll to the bottom of the screen and click the "Search" button
6. On the results page, scroll down and notice how none of the "Latest Major Action" 
for the activities list "Signed by President".
7. Click the Back button on your browser.
8. Select 109 as the Congress to search in the list at the top.
9. Repeat steps 2–7 for Congresses 105–108, 98–96, and 94.
10. Notice that none of his bills have made it to a vote.

Burzmali (talk) 19:08, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Whether or not your conclusion is correct (unverified as such by secondary sources), I note that your detailed process excludes successful cosponsorships, resolutions, amendments, unification with other legislation, etc., all of which are within the scope of the subject article legislation sponsored by Ron Paul. JJB 19:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Notice how the title of the article is "Legislation sponsored by Ron Paul". If it were "Resolutions sponsored or cosponsored by Ron Paul", I wouldn't argue with you, but then the article would have even worse WP:N problems. Burzmali (talk) 19:56, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Edits to American Sovereignty Restoration Act

John, you can put down the bicycle pump, the article's size isn't going to make or break it. Besides, some of your recent additions aren't really adding information about the bill. Burzmali (talk) 20:33, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

And letters to the editor, even in the New York Times, are not evidence of notability. Newspapers like to give cranks a chance now and then, as it makes the corporate media seem more accepting of disagreement. Milwaukee's local neo-Nazi (excuse me, "advocate for Euro-Americans") used to get letters in the moderate Milwaukee Journal every few months, in part so he couldn't pretend he was being supressed. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Stem Cell Controversy

I'm sorry that you considered my response at "Stem Cell Controversy" unreasonable. I am quite sincere in regarding this kind of thing as silly and undignified grasping at straws. I am proud to say that I don't try to edit pages of candidates I support, nor of candidates I consider actively evil, for fear that I will lose my NPOV in my fervor. I genuinely believe that a loss of objectivity on the part of supporters has happened in almost all Ron-Paul-related articles, and it is an embarassment to the decent people who support him (among whom I number yourself). --Orange Mike | Talk 15:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, thank you, and I can agree that the deleted article was insufficient and when no consensus arises to fix its insufficiencies then defending its existence becomes silly and undignified. And your assessment of the zeal from the Paul side is correct. But I am also sincere in holding that, in lieu of such article, seeking out the proper article (stem cell controversy) and adding three new sentences on the bill and the libertarian view is properly encyclopedic; and I think the anti-Paul side often loses objectivity also (yourself reflexively excepted of course). JJB 15:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC) Note also that the article history, as summarized in my AFD argument, completely rules out Ron Paul cruft as the article's provenance, attributing it instead to generic pro-life cruft. JJB 15:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think of myself as anti-Ron-Paul. I don't think he is evil in the way that many of the Bush people clearly are, nor malevolent like so many Randites; but I believe his doctrines, if actually put into place, would open up society for the kind of triumph of evil which would make the 1920s bubble/rise of the KKK/Great Depression sequence look like a "Dow up 40, then down 62" kind of day. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

G. Edward Griffin

Good job bud! I was planning to rewrite the article myself, but I'm glad to see somebody else did and with some really good sources.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 08:43, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Somebody mentioned a cite that simply said something petty like, "G. Edward Griffin speaks at UW-Austin on evils of the Fed" in a community calendar; that's non-substantive and inappropriate for establishing anything except that he speaks in public places (a fact not under dispute). --Orange Mike | Talk 18:21, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

OK thanks. I picked up that cite on an initial salvo of attempting to demonstrate that he does lecture (notably) when his notability itself was in dispute (it still seems to be). Note it's not a blog/forum nor unreliable, just trivial. It's gone now. JJB 18:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Foundation for Rational Economics and Education

This article has been around for a month and has shown no improvement to justify its own page separate from Ron Paul. I would hope you'd see the truth in that and restore the redirect until someone can add enough sourced information to show the organization's notability on its own. Otherwise I guess this has to go to AFD or something. -- Dougie WII (talk) 18:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

My comments appear at the AFD. JJB 22:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

You Are The Man

John J. Bulten Graet article G. Edward Griffin

BJBot Your Opinion is "Your Opinion" keep it for you and have fun. (LakeOswego (talk) 01:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC))

Creature from Jekyll Island (audio)

What do you think about adding Creature from Jekyll Island (audio) SAMPLE

I think Creature from Jekyll Island Work need to be under it own title (==Creature from Jekyll Island==)

(LakeOswego (talk) 23:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC))

in German Edition: 2006 August

What do you think about adding the German Edition of the Creature from Jekyll Island?(LakeOswego (talk) 23:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC))

Very briefly, primary-source audio is generally frowned on. Mentioning an OCLC or other reliable link to the German edition would be worthwhile; note how I did the Japanese edition. Jekyll once had its own article, which was soundly deleted, so it wouldn't well survive a restart, especially when its content fits well at Griffin's article. JJB 23:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

German Link

The German Books for G. Edward Griffin [1]

(LakeOswego (talk) 00:43, 7 March 2008 (UTC))

dont know how to reply

what's the point of wiki if i can't correct errors? every time i fix it, someone changes it back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.224.242.164 (talk) 23:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Answer is here. Let me know, by editing that page, when you've signed up for a Wikipedia identity, thanks. JJB 15:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: (from my talk page)

Hey John. Sorry I didn't reply earlier. I wanted to let you know that I was impressed by your comment on my talk page. I was expecting to get an earful, but instead I find myself agreeing with your comment. (Especially that a consensus hasn't really been reached (probably partly due to not enough editors).) One of my more general concerns the information might be better managed as a news article (on Wikinews, for example) - particularly because new polls are conducted quite often, so the article seems to require updates often. At least, that is my impression from looking into the material, though I haven't tried editing it, so I don't know for certain.

I am not active as much recently, but if you like, I could try commenting some on the talk page, and hopefully we (and other editors) can get a discussion going. I admit I'm still concerned about the Arizona poll I mentioned on my talk page, so that might be a good topic for an initial discussion.

Anyways, thanks again for the comment on my talk page. Let me know if you are interested in trying to strike up a discussion. :-) Cheers, Iamunknown 04:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Annie Loyd Article

John, thank you so much for steering us in the right direction. That is all that we wanted, and that advice wasn't being offered. I do have some questions about merging. If we do merge, is there still a way to add in her info box if we add in the other candidate's as well? Also I am still very confused about how Wikipedia works. SarcasticIdealist mentioned that it just happened to be "bad luck" for her, but that just doesn't seem quite right. There are 8-9 other campaigning candidates that are "less notable" than Annie Loyd, yet their pages have remained up for quite some time, but as soon as this article went up, it was voted to be deleted. There is also an info box for Congressional Candidates on the info box page, so I just wanted to know why this page cannot stay up and if she doesn't receive more notability, then it be deleted in the future. The article's purpose isn't to campaign. The article's purpose is to teach. If someone happens to stumble upon the article, or searches her name in Google and they find her Wikipedia page, they will learn more about being an Independent, and why being an Independent may be a good option. It's not campaigning, because most of the people that will view the article will not be part of Arizona's 3rd District to vote, but the reason why people posted on the delete page was because people from New York, California, Arizona, Virginia, etc. have heard her voice and think it is important enough to keep this article up. Although she may not be "notable" in Wikipedia's book, and although we cannot assume "future notability", this woman, a homosexual woman, will be the first of her sex to come this far in an Arizona Congressional election and most likely win. That alone is notable enough. I understand your ruling, but I am asking if you could work with me a little bit more, or a little longer so that even if she has to be merged into another article, it will be done properly.--Cbenton2679 (talk) 20:21, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, if there is no reliability in deletion, then how can wikipedia be at all credible if articles, that are seriously lacking, are allowed?--Cbenton2679 (talk) 22:10, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you CB! It would certainly be possible to add multiple infoboxes to the proposed new section, although you might want to experiment in a sandbox to ensure they're not cluttered, and the incumbent would be expected to have priority. Secondly, there is no consistency to WP except what we the editors enforce, which is why it's a general guideline that the fate of one article does not get to reflect the fate of another. Two similarly situated articles getting different fates is presumed in this idea to mean that the deleted one properly deserved it due to consensus expressed in actual activity against it, where the undeleted one came in under the radar because no one bothered to act against it. But whether it's improvidential or malevolent doesn't matter much, the best route is to preserve the content in a safe place (i.e., a section of another article). Anyone who searches WP (or Google) will find the section due to redirect, and it will be neutral enough. For example, if she's homosexual that should appear in the article for neutrality's sake, with a citation of a reliable source. Also, existence of infoboxes does not establish notability for everyone who might qualify; and "why can't it stay up" does not trump notability, especially during a campaign where WP must be nonpartisan; and "we're just getting the word out" does not trump undue weight, regardless of how much we think we're not campaigning. See also several of the arguments to avoid. Also learn how to use template:cite news and template:reflist (see references) and notability will shoot up dramatically in editors' eyes. I don't know if I can do the merge, I expect an admin will (if that's the consensus), but if it's done as I described I believe it will be done properly. I'll get out a merge template for you. JJB 22:38, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• I am a little confused. This debate has gone on for more than a few days now and no conclusion has been reached. We want to continue to work on the page and we cannot do this if it will be deleted, and we cannot work on the merge if it is not approved. When will a decision be made? --160.39.156.239 (talk) 13:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

The 5-day AFD ended with a result favorable to a merge to AZ-3#2008. JJB 16:37, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

That user Scjessy

Has a habit of misrepresenting the facts - I was providing the facts. He said there were no criticism sections in several of those articles and I provided the titles of those sections, not only that, I provided an example of the sycophantic praise that is lavished over the article in question as an example of the contrast between it and comparable articles. Please undelete my argument or further discuss the issue. TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:13, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Locust, I did not delete your argument. It appears you accidentally deleted a number of other paragraphs from that page, which I restored, placing your argument in its proper location; it never left the page. JJB 20:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry not sure how I did that. I know my spellchecker has been having problems with such large pieces of text and so I've been trying to use it less. TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Polak

Are you sure it's the right Christian Polak? It doesn't seem very likely to me that we know he has lived in Japan for the last 30 years. --Slp1 (talk) 17:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I held off on responding or building on the sentence you questioned, until the validity of your doubts was vindicated and the situation corrected. As I turns out, the article is about M. Christian P. Polak, the French aeroscience businessman, but my insertion referred improperly to M. Christian C. Polak, the French energy businessman. I trust you understand. I considered that, since CPP has been in France recently, placing him in Algiers and Geneva was not unreasonable. But thanks as always. JJB 16:37, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thank you John for your great, thoughtful and courageous edits! I will answer your question tomorrow if you don't mind. For now, I'm going to bed. Best regards. PHG (talk) 21:22, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

God bless. I understand if it takes some time to get back to this question given the recent admin actions. JJB 16:37, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: Straw polls

Restored. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:06, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi

Hi JJB, thanks for the greeting on my talk page. I read the Hebrew Roots article - interesting. I for one appreciate the recent shift in biblical scholarship towards a greater appreciation for the "Old" Testament - from this perspective, Calvinism has it more correct than Lutheranism, and the New Perspectives on Paul has much to say, I believe. Adventists were far ahead of their time on this issue, even if they have gotten some details wrong (as I believe they have). Methodist scholar Donald Dayton recently affirmed this. I replied to your comment on Talk:Sabbath in Seventh-day Adventism#Rename proposal. I have not kept up with the other Sabbath articles, although I approve of your changes to Sabbath - see comments there. Colin MacLaurin (talk) 07:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Something to remember

Next time an editor like Terrier starts using "Ron Paul fan" or "Paultard" as an epithet at you or others, remember this line from WP:NPA: Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views — regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream. If they do so more than once or twice after being reminded of this, bring them before WP:ANI for personal attacks. I've done it once before and had a user blocked for 24-hours, after which they corrected their behavior. Just thought you might like a similar tool as you work to improve Wikipedia. Buspar (talk) 21:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Not to put a too fine point on it, but this is what people are talking about with WP:GAME. Bringing things that toe the line on NPA to WP:ANI to get a revenge block, while in the middle of a content dispute with them, reeks of gaming the system... Burzmali (talk) 23:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Uh, what? I was telling JJB this so he could use this in the future against people who attack him for no good reason. I fail to see how pointing out an expressly relevant facet of WP:NPA to a person who has BEEN personally attacked is gaming the system. If I'd been telling him to tempt others into insulting them or something, that would be gaming. This is letting another editor aware that those who try to discredit another through their possible affiliations are wrong and that Wiki policy expressly forbids such actions. Please apologize for your unjustified insinuation. Buspar (talk) 02:22, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions, which I will consider appropriately. This particular case commends itself to quite a wide variety of useful options. Someone crossing that line from WP:NPA twice after warning would certainly be ripe for further action, but I see the policy referring me to WP:DR rather than WP:ANI, so I must consider all sides of the question. JJB 05:00, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Ticketman's Absence

I'll give it at least another month before I start filling in for him. He shows up every now and then. He just has a busy life and comes here when he can. He shall return. --Sharkface^T/_C 01:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

:Category:Ron Paul

Thanks for creating Category:Ron Paul. However I notice that you're applying it very liberally. I'm not aware of the supporters of other policitians being added to their categories, or even their hometowns. Perhaps it'd be simpler to add links to the articles on those topics to the article on Ron Paul? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:23, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for watching! I believe all categories should be applied liberally, especially including those of other politicians; please compare my work on Category:Political catch phrases. I agree that in a couple cases, where the links do not exist at Ron Paul, they could usefully be added at some point. However, I made my inclusion decisions responsibly, considering the breadth of material, and knowing that I was accused of COI last year. Also, you might note that the category was created by User:Buspar, and I removed an inapplicable IP-added article from it as well. JJB 20:40, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:V

John, I think if you skim over the last 2000 or 3000 edits (which is only a couple of months), you'll see that any dramatic change in the lead section might get a pretty dramatic reaction, possibly losing some of the minor improvements we've achieved over the last month. Let's give it a rest for a little bit so that we can build up data to prove that the changes of the last month have been helpful. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 22:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your interest, thanks! I mentioned WP:BRD at talk and we can continue there, but let me just note my mystification here. My first edit was somewhat dramatic and had no strong reaction, while my most recent edit was very little and drama would not be anticipated. I also (solipsistically) don't know what "minor improvements" or "changes" were made in the lead other than my own, or are at risk of being lost. I considered your partial undo of Brando to indicate some consensus for my first more dramatic edit, and felt emboldened to make a mere improvement to word order. I don't know what you mean by building up data to prove something: do you want to start another RFC or formal community discussion? But at any rate let's work this out under BRD at WT:V and we'll understand each other soon enough. JJB 00:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for adding me as a friend, btw. I guess all I can ask is, read a bit more of this month's discussion. The rest of my reply is on WT:V. I spent a lot of time on the debate all during April, and I really don't have time to re-do it, I need to be working on style guidelines and reviewing articles; the WT:GA debate is at a critical point. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 02:00, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Paulville, Texas

Thanks. It seems interesting, so if I learn more about it then I'll probably contribute to that article. Plus, it'd be good to have some non-Ron Paul supporters like myself edit it. SteveSims (talk) 22:57, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank YOU! Agree wholeheartedly. JJB 01:52, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Heck, John, I couldn't possibly do a fair edit to an article like that. The concepts of "planned community" and "Ron Paul supporters" in the same breath? I'm not as discourteous as Wonkette, but I fear this will end in overt tragedy, instead of low farce with a side of disappointment and disillusionment. (I can foresee no other alternatives.) --Orange Mike | Talk 04:28, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm grateful I can always count on your unique sense of humor Mike. JJB 14:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Mountainsarehigh

You've got to be careful here, JJB. While the guy is clearly in the wrong, a couple of days ago you used the term "vandalism" at least once in what could be argued to be a mere content dispute. I fear your anger might get the best of you.--Orange Mike | Talk 17:10, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, if anyone wonders, I did so here and afterward, referring to adding "racist" to the lead three (eventually five) times, starting here. When user started acting like a sock instead of a vandal, I withdrew the charge here. Had anything else in mind? Your warning is wise. JJB 19:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I've seen nothing that shrieks "Sockpuppet!" in his behavior. He's problematic and borderline incivil, but nothing worth taking to AN:I over. He just thinks we're all Paulistas with a WP:OWN problem. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Re:AfD nomination of Trevor Lyman

Thanks for the notice...although my entire involvement was moving the page because it wasn't capitalized correctly. This adw template is supposed to be subst'd. You may want to check up on that if you've used it elsewhere previously. --Onorem♠Dil 14:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for informing me, Onorem, I did not notice. In answer to your other question, I am disenchanted with the talk archive system and am experimenting with alternatives that reflect better on the value of others' correspondence. JJB 14:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Paulville AfD

Sorry about not notifying you - it's been a long time since I've AfDed anything. I'm posting to assure you that I didn't do it out of any anti-Paul bias - as stated on the AfD, I voted, donated, and volunteered for Paul in two states. The website is still down, and I still believe this to be a notability issue, not a crystal ball issue (though if crystal ball turns out to be the case, it was still worth nominating). --YixilTesiphon ^{Say hello}_{Be shallow} 15:48, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

See your talk. JJB 17:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Another third opinion on Alexander Hamilton?

Would you mind discussing the following paragraph, which AdRem has removed from the article:

Hamilton had revealed this decision in private to George Hammond, the British Minister to the United States, without telling Jay—or anyone else; it was unknown until Hammond's dispatches were read in the 1920s. This "amazing revelation" may have had limited effect on the negotiations; Jay did threaten to join the League at one point, but the British had other reasons not to view the League as a serious threat.<:ref>Samuel Flagg Bemis, Jay's Treaty (quoted); Elkins and McKitrick p.411 f.</ref>

Please note that the sources here include the current standard textbook on the 1790's.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the consideration! I commented, but progress really depends on what develops among all the editors together. JJB 17:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Hammond appears to be resolved. However, there remain serious issues over Newburgh, where AdRem is insisting on saying something his source does not say, and which no one else does. The issues may be clearly enough laid out at Talk:Alexander_Hamilton#Another_PMA_tag_-_.22oblique_rebuke.22_.22suspected.22_etc. for someone who hasn't looked into the matter to follow. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:00, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you; as I said, I agree in principle with your proposal.

I will list my quibbles here:

• Morris and Madison should be introduced in the previous paragraph; Hamilton came into the middle of a long story.
• The maugre letter is Washington to Hamilton, April 4, 1783. (note the difference: suiterings for sufferings) I think the them to whom justice is due must be the Army, given how "they" are described. Your parsing is correct, but I will consult on what authorities think Washington meant; it is not uncommon for letter-writers to lose track of their sentences.
• I would leave out from oblique rebuff to blunt lecture; it doesn't do anything for the reader.
• I read Brant as saying that the 1783 measure was not an amendment, but a law which specified that it must be substantially passed by all the states; I suggest measure. Also, Hamilton voted against it, and we should say so.

Feel free to repeat these on the article talk page. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)