User talk:Scjessey

Please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~). Place comments that start a new topic at the bottom of the page and give them ==A descriptive header==. If you're new to Wikipedia, please see Welcome to Wikipedia and frequently asked questions. Please note this is not a forum for discussing the topic generally.

Talk page guidelines Please respect etiquette and assume good faith. Also be nice and remain civil.

kinda funny

you're in the national media bitching out Andy for POV. hi-larious... 72.0.180.2 (talk) 06:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Blogs as sources

FYI in general, MSM blog entries are sometimes allowed as sources, see WP:V footnote 5. This has become common in this presidential election, e.g. MSNBC's FirstRead, the NY Times' The Caucus, and others of that ilk are okay to use. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:01, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Look at something like this. It's a straight NYT news story, not an opinion piece, but it happens to be filed under their politics blog. Same with this. There's no reason these can't be used as WP:RS. That's the trend that footnote 5 is covering. I'm not saying this with respect to any particular edit you've made, just as a general FYI, because some editors are under the impression that nothing ever associated with a blog is allowed. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Review of Barack Obama's status as a featured article

Barack 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. Stifle (talk) 17:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I like how we get no answer to this. Pathetic. Grsz 11 18:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you mean...

"when God created the Big Bang" (lol) 72.0.180.2 (talk) 21:39, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

well it's common sense that if God created Nascar then He (definitely a he) must have also invented the big bang. but I know thats a little pov. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 21:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Socks

I think I'm gonna head to Wal-Mart and look for socks, wanna help? Grsz11 16:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Innocent until proven guilty

Is that the standard we are using for rezko, as far as descriptive words like tainted or now-indicted? 72.0.180.2 (talk) 21:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Obama concerns

Hi there. As an editor who seems to watch the page closely, I wonder if I can get your comments on some of the issues I left on the talk page; I know that you have commented on some of them and I thank you.

I just find it appauling that not many of the concerns are even considered "concerns" by some editors. Thanks for your time. Best, Happyme22 (talk) 02:51, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I'm a non-admin helper at the 3RR noticeboard. I've posted a comment there noting that the 3RR policy says that multiple reverts may not constitute a breach of the policy if they are "reverts to remove clearly libelous material, or unsourced or poorly sourced controversial material about living persons (see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons);". This seems to me to apply in this case, although that's just my opinion. Thanks for keeping unsourced and poorly-sourced statements out of the article. You might want to consider listing the article at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard to get more people helping. --Coppertwig (talk) 23:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Re your message at the 3RR page: I wouldn't worry too much about that 3RR report, because you have both BLP exemption and the fact that quite a bit of time has passed since your last revert, each of which would probably be a reason in itself for admins not to block you. However, as a point of information for future reference – and I'm just giving you this information in an attempt to be helpful – note that the 3RR rule applies per editor per page: you might be reverting 4 different things from 4 different other editors and it would still be a violation if it's within a 24-hour period.

Also, the fact that you hadn't received a recent warning is generally not considered an excuse either. It's considered courteous to warn a user, but not necessary unless they're a new user who might never have heard of the 3RR. Once you've been warned once, you're supposed to monitor your own reverts and can be blocked without warning -- though in some cases some admins might not block if there had been no warning in the specific situation, I suppose. 3RR warnings from a long time in the past are sometimes referred to to demonstrate that the user has knowledge of the 3RR, and I think these are generally accepted (or even other evidence of knowledge, such as you mentioning the 3RR yourself.) The WP:3RR policy doesn't say there has to be a warning.

Hmm. In the example report at the bottom of the 3RR noticeboard page, it used to say that the diff of 3RR warning was required for new users; now it doesn't say that. But I assume that's still the case. Or perhaps each admin has their own way of taking into account whether there was a warning or not.

Anyway, that's my understanding of how it works. --Coppertwig (talk) 01:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, Stifle has declined the 3RR report and upheld the BLP interpretation for 2 of your edits. --Coppertwig (talk) 11:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

...although there's continuing discussion there. --Coppertwig (talk) 13:20, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

And I am not taking futher action, but please be very careful when editing a high-visibility page like that one. Stifle (talk) 14:59, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Damn, that was fast

My effort to give proportionate NPOV coverage in the Barack Obama article to the Wright and Obama contgroversies lasted exactly two minutes. There's a very good reason why people like Andyvphil, Happyme22 and TheGoodLocust have accused you of whitewashing the article. That revert is a perfect illustration of the reason. Consider the results of the Featured Article review. Kossack4Truth (talk) 23:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't hate Obama. I hate efforts to elevate him to some sort of sainthood in this article. There is no criticism in it. None whatsoever. Kossack4Truth (talk) 23:28, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Dealing with nuissances

In light of this edit, I propose either one of two options:

1. Some sort of report on him citing his edits and his disruptive behavior on the talk page, so an admin can deal with it, not us.

or

2. We agree simply not to acknowledge any post of his containing any unwarranted negativity/complaints of Obama or his article (and especially any mentions of POV or bias), or any other post from him that detracts from progress on the article or discussion thereof.

2 would be easy to do. The only problem for 1 is that I don't know where to report this to (but would like to know). It certainly wouldn't be hard to compile his edits for a report, that's for sure. --Ubiq (talk) 18:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me he is using a single-purpose account - to be a dick. Hope you don't mind my two cents. Grsz11 18:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Replied at User talk:Ubiq#The Plague of Locust -- Scjessey (talk) 19:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree with some things you said. I'm too against a silencing of him. Ideally, he'd find a way to stop/change his behavior, and start actually contributing to wikipedia as a whole. But somehow I don't see that happening unless something miraculous happens. I see no problem in ceasing from enabling him though in cases where his posts do nothing to contribute to the improvement of the article. No problem on the 3rr support, I'd be utterly shocked to see some sort of punitive action against you for that. --Ubiq (talk) 02:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Barack Obama

Please explain to me in what way this is a silly edit? It better be good.--Dr who1975 (talk) 01:39, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

It didn't warrant discussion on Hillary Clinton, John McCain, Ted Kennedy, Joe Biden, Robert Byrd, Ted Stevens, etc. So why does it warrant discussion There. I don't see why this would be complicated at all. --Dr who1975 (talk) 13:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure user:Johnpseudo reverted it because you called it silly... it's hard to tell because he didn;t give an explanation.--Dr who1975 (talk) 14:38, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I've worked on a new version of the Wright paragraph in Barack Obama, and I'd be interested in your thoughts at Talk:Barack Obama#New attempt by Josiah. Thanks. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Just in case you miss my edit summary of your tweak.[1] --Bobblehead ^(rants) 21:11, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

In answer to your question here[2] and the subsequent one to move "government" outside the quote, that's kind of a "grey area" in that those two words are actually used in the quote and the implication of moving them outside the quotes is that they are not. I understand why you are trying to get rid of the square brackets, but it really is common practice to use the brackets to denote the minor editorial change to the quote and to leave it at that. Heck, the quote they use in WP:QUOTE for when to use a quote does the same thing. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 21:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

And I totally agree with your opinion, btw.[3] --Bobblehead ^(rants) 21:37, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

3RR for Andy

See: [4] --Bobblehead ^(rants) 17:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

thanks on Obama article

yes, i knew the tool had a bug about inserting nbsp into the links but it also changed some of the letters from caps to lower case which you have now reverted. You've got beady eyes, you must really be watching this page closely. After you bringing to my attention, I now know about this other bug and thanks for not reverting the other edits. Tom (talk) 15:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Updating external links

I got told off for not checking each solution when using this on other articles so be careful but it should help if used wisely: [5]. Tom (talk) 13:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Inclusion of Farrakhan endorsement of Obama

I feel your removal of Louis Farrakhan's endorsement of Barack Obama is not coming from a NPOV perspective. Louis Farrakhan is a longtime national leader of a well-know organization Nation of Islam. Both are noteworthy and have very detailed articles on wikipedia. This is a noteworthy endorsement. Also, Louis Farrakah is a significant well respected figure in his community and his endorsement does carry weight. Farrakhan's endorsement of Obama is more meaningful and will have more impact then the endorsement of ,Wouter Bos, Minister of Finance and deputy prime minister of The Netherlands, Toshio Murakami, Mayor of Obama, Japan, Fredrik Reinfeldt, Prime Minister of Sweden, which are listed under the foreign endorsements section of the Barack Obama presidential endorsements article. If the endorsements of Obama by these foreign leaders is noteworthy, how is Farrakan's endorsement not noteworthy. Fararakn is very much more noteworthy in the context of a US presidential elections and US new outlets have covered this story (as a referenced Chicago Tribune, MSNBC, and ABC. Please let me know. Very much appreciated. It is me i think (talk) 23:01, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

About notability

Hi, Scjessey. I've noticed that you've recently been reverting some editorial additions with the justification "per WP:NN". That's not appropriate — the notability guideline is about whether a topic is of sufficient importance to merit an individual article on Wikipedia, not about whether individual details can be included in an article. See WP:NNC. That's not to say that there aren't other guidelines and policies which may argue against inclusion of the details in question — but the notability guideline isn't one of them. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 16:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that "run-of-the-mill lawyering" isn't particularly noteworthy. Of course, Andy would probably argue that "representing a slumlord against his tenants", as he would describe it, isn't "run-of-the-mill lawyering". I think that there's a bit of spin involved in either description, and the key would be to see how much emphasis reliable sources put on something like that. The answer, as far as I can tell, is that nobody's made a big deal out of that particular case, so it's probably not worth us mentioning in the main article. (It might have a place in Early life and career of Barack Obama, though.) Anyway, I just wanted to make sure you knew about notability. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 23:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for 3RR

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 12 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule . Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Nothing personal — consider this a short shock from the proverbial electric fence. Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 23:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

HRC length

You may be interested in WP:ANI#Repeated extreme incivility by User:Ottava Rima. Apart from this, I'm interested in the comment you've made a couple of times that you think the article's a little too long. What sections do you have in mind, and what specifically do you think could be taken out? Wasted Time R (talk) 14:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I've got several objections to spinning off those early sections: it's a lot of work, it creates a lot of ongoing duplicate work going forward, the readership of those kind of bio subarticles is very low, and most of all, with HRC these were her most controversial years and it means burying either some of her controversies or some of her accomplishments in the subarticles, which is going to mean no end of trouble with pov/whitewash allegations. I've already had a taste of this with the Senate section, and with doing all this for the John McCain articles, but Hillary college-Arkansas-First Lady stretch would be much, much worse. I'd rather try to trim down what's there now some, by finding verbose wordings, a few things that aren't necessary, etc. As for the references, I've got several ideas on how to reduce those and the space they take, which I hope to work on some this weekend. We'll see how it goes. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

If the falloff between main articles and bio subarticles was on the order of 10-to-1, I would be more okay with it. But the falloff is almost always on the order of 100-to-1, which is depressing. Most of the lot of work I did on the McCain main article is now farmed out and being read by ... almost no one. I'm still doing the work on those subarticles, and am trying to figure out clever ways to make them more visible and get more readers. So far, not much progress. Meanwhile, editors object that McCain's temperment and history of blunt/offensive/whatever remarks is buried, and the complaints have some merit. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Peace

With appreciation for your efforts, --HailFire (talk) 21:09, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Malia Obama

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Malia Obama, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Bobblehead ^(rants) 16:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Considering the age the age of Obama's two kids, chances are they'll be offlimits to the press, so it's likely that they won't hit the WP:BIO barrier until they hit 18 or do something stupid.;) Jenna and Barbara Bush were both older than 18 when their father became president and were somewhat notorious for doing stupid things, but Chelsea was pretty much persona non grata until the end of Bill Clinton's second term when People kicked out its cover story on her and then started taking a larger role within the White House. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 17:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

discussion needed

Discussion is needed not just wiping out articles and references. If so, wipe out Barack Obama and redirect to Hillary Clinton, according to that logic. Watchingobama (talk) 19:18, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Discussion for deletion is a valid debate. Throwing the ARTICLE in the trash because of personal opinion is not. Throwing a person in the trash is murder. Watchingobama (talk) 19:19, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Scjessey, I'm jealous. I thought I'd gotten every kind of insult you can get from working on these kinds of articles, but no one's ever likened me to a murderer! ;-) Wasted Time R (talk) 19:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, SC, if you and I are meat puppets, does that make me a murderer too? For the record: REDIRECTING is not the same as BLANKING or VANDALISM. Tvoz/talk 07:47, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

No Country For Old Men

"I'm finished!" Ha, excellent. Grsz^talk 21:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Not just depressing - also thoroughly annoying by not even giving us the "pleasure" of seeing how he got the jump on Brolin. How this movie won the Oscar is beyond me. Tvoz/talk 07:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd expect nothing less from the Cohen brothers. Excellent acting, excellent characters, excellent dialog, utterly unsatisfying lack of resolution and a sense of being mugged in the street. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:35, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Dammit, no wonder my comment didn't make any sense. I always get this and There Will Be Blood confused, and I have no reason why. Grsz^talk 01:31, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

No idea how you can get those two films confused LOL. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:33, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Neither do I, but ever since they came out I always say one and mean the other. Grsz^talk 01:43, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

isn't that a little harsh?

Calling that a misleading edit summary at Sen. Obama is a little harsh. I was clicking on NH and expected to see NH but it's not a link to NH. At first, I changed it back but seconds later I took your opinion in mind and changed it back again to the version of an hour ago. Ok?

To prevent the bad link from catching others, I removed the NH link. DianeFinn (talk) 19:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Never mind, someone else fixed it nicely. DianeFinn (talk) 19:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Well done

I would just like to say, i found your racism comment completely out of line, your a grown man, can you not discuss these issues in a mature manner instead of screaming RACISM. Maybe because i am a person of color it doesnt make me so panicky, i dont know? Anyway ive realised its not worth the haste, i wont be commenting at the talk page anymore. Cheers. --Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 19:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

No it was the "racist original research" comment that i took offence to. Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 19:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Im aware he can get white votes but im on about white WORKING CLASS people, that he cannot do. Its also got harder for him. I never said he cant get white votes, i said a certain section of the white vote. HUGE DIFFERENCE. To which im accused of being a racist original researcher. Please. --Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 20:04, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Barak Obama

I think you reverted a little bit to hard on the Obama page, would you mind putting back the images the way I had moved them? Id revert the change myself, but I don't know much about the other edits that was made and I don't want to revert all the other changes you did. Thank you.
— Apis (talk) 15:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

The changes I made was because it looks really bad when the person on a picture is standing with his back towards the reader/text or looking away from the reader/text. My changes was in line with what wp:mos says about images: Wikipedia:Mos#Images. I noticed now that they also recommend against left aligning a image immediately under a 2nd (===) level heading (as is done now)? I still feel the other images also should be adjusted so that Obama isn't turned/looking away from the text. Regards.
— Apis (talk) 21:24, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I've moved the images back again so they comply better with wp:mos (i.e. people look in towards the text).
— Apis (talk) 23:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Obama/KKK

I thought that I did put that info in the Presidential campaign section. This info needs to be put out, because a very large number of people have heard this flase info and believe it to be true. I number of people have not bothered to check snopes.com or the Brack Obama website to see that this is false. Sf46 (talk) 20:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality on article talk

I got a chuckle from your proposed name origin, Scjessey. However, I'd still be careful to avoid letting too much partisan spin creep into your own comments on talk pages (some other comments by you concern me a little in that regard). It seems like you are pro-Obama from your comments on this talk page; that's fine as your opinion, of course. But really we should discuss what's encyclopedic, not what's politically best. I started the joke on name origins with, I know; but just as we don't want some editors to bash Obama in this article, we should be careful not to bash other candidates or political figures either (obviously, a talk page has a lower standard than an article... but still). LotLE×talk 20:50, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

To say I am "pro-Obama" would be stretching it. I would like to see a Democrat win, and I think Clinton is now a barrier to that end. Either way, my article space edits strictly adhere to a policy of neutrality, which is what matters to me more than anything else. I also have a distaste for smear tactics, lies and spin (from politicians and Wikipedia editors). -- Scjessey (talk) 20:58, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I hope it's OK to move this to your user talk. It feels like it's too far afield of the article talk, since it's not really about the Obama article. I wasn't trying to suggest any likely political sentiment on your part in a negative way. I think it wouldn't take all that much looking to figure out that I am myself quite a bit to the left of any of the Democrats (and to the left of Ralph Nader as well, for that matter). Morever, I don't disagree with your assessment of the political situation currently.

Nonetheless, I think it's better to avoid disparaging any figures on article talk page (I confess I can get pretty snippy at editors whom I think are editing in bad faith). For example, I won't use a parodic term like "McBush" on article talk pages (even though I also see the humor and point of it). Mostly, this preference is a purely practical thing: I don't want to be the "pro-Obama" editor on that article... I want to be the "pro-Encyclopedia" editor on every article. Maybe I'll go make some neutral edits on the Clinton or McCain articles, for example; I don't want someone trolling against my edits by digging up my comment making fun of their names (nor even making fun of their policies). LotLE×talk 21:16, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

By popular demand -

[6] - :-) Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 16:40, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

I think it’s completely appropriate to point out Sen. Obama is proposing universal healthcare coverage for citizens of the United States, not including undocumented immigrants. That is why I included, “for all Americans”.

I think it’s an improvement, but I won’t change it again. I think it helps him (and Wikipedia’s readers) if people know where Sen. Obama stands. Thanks Scjessey. Improve2009 (talk) 05:59, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: Your note at Administrators' Noticeboard/Incidents

The way I understand it, the AN/I forum won't get into content disputes, just behavioral disputes, although the comments we're leaving there may prompt some editors to get involved in the discussion over at Talk:Barack Obama. I think the only actions that might be taken would be warning people engaged in edit wars (& ultimately blocking editors), and possibly locking the page so no edits can be made for a while. Noroton (talk) 20:37, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Not "redundant"

It’s not “redundant” at all. There are some who believe “universal” healthcare should extend to undocumented (illegal) immigrants. I totally disagree with your removing my edits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Improve2009 (talk • contribs) 03:03, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Reverts

Hey, Andyvphil has just reverted the article back to the massive POV push again. I don't feel like going back to revert it again and risk having these guys slap me with a WP:3RR. What do you want to do about it? They seem to be ignoring the admin's comments and continuing on with their edits? Brothejr (talk) 13:14, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your words. I'm starting to get a little bit tired and burned out by this constant edit pushing of theirs. I know that you said that they are not the same person, but I am not so sure. The way they keep on tag teaming, seems way to coincidental to me. However, as I said, I'm get a little bit burned out over this. Heck, on an another article, I cleaned it up a bit, mainly by removing unrelated images and repeated images but leaving the content, and then I get slapped with a WR:3RR warning and my edits are reverted. I started out having fun editing/reading wikipedia, but this is starting to cause me to loose interest! Brothejr (talk) 13:59, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

On Clinton supporters

Hi Scjessey. Just dropping a note, that is off-topic to the talkpage... Not all Clinton supports have engaged in disgraceful behavior (licking the heals of some special interest). The womans movement has been trumped, but its still has a vital role to play. If you agree that unity is needed, perhaps (?) an olive branch to her supporters by clarifying or refactoring your comment on the Obama article talk? I've really come to appreciate your opinions and steadfast opposition to the abusive soapboxing there. Modocc (talk) 17:29, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

The radical rewrite of Obama's page

After going through all the changes that has been done to push the controversies to the forefront of the article, I'm going to suggest that the article be reduced from Featured Article status to something lower. Maybe something like that might catch the attention of enough people to realize the POV/Undue Weight push that is going on.

Also, on another note, I am also proposing that an admin take a look at Kossack4Truth because of his single mindeness towards the Obama article.

How say you? I won't do anything until I hear from you, but I feel this article has been completely changed for the worse. Brothejr (talk) 22:43, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

OOPS!

Lol, cheers. --— Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 01:22, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Despite our differences of opinion I must state that I think what you have done is very mature and civil, I like your attitude on this and hopefully we can come to something that settles reasonably well with everyone. --— Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 18:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I think we will get a happy medium, its probably going to leave both sides feeling medicre but I think it'l be enough that edit wars stop. I think its important that both sides respect whatever the decision is and try to protect that consensus. I certainly dont want that article to loss its FA states, as hillary lost im guess im gonna have to support the guy lol. --— Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 18:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

It a bit too late for this one but when we go onto the next topic we should have a seperate section for votes and a seperate one for comments. Its a little messy and really had to pic out the votes. Some people havent bolded them either which is a nightmare. The blocked editer cast his vote from his talk page, ive provided links. Cheers. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 23:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Ill take a look, ive only just got onlone and my watchlist is going crazy, everything seemed fine when I went offline last night, ill take a look asap. Cheers. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 16:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, firstly dont let ips vote, they shouldnt. I think we need to let it chill, #3 will be the consensus, its just a matter of when. There is a lot of partisan talk from both sides, both sides need to consider that #3 is the balanced opinon. Ill leave further comments at talk page. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 17:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I would just wait, if these are socks they will be banned, their votes can be removed and a consensus of #3 will push through relatively easily. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 18:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I cant even look at that discussion anymore, too much is going on. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 16:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion

Just a suggestion, don't respond to Andy's comments on his talk page (or other peoples' talk pages) about you for now. He's imploding well enough on his own right now and the last thing that is needed is for someone to accuse you of baiting him. Not that I'm saying you are baiting, but it's best to leave this as a disagreement between Andy and several admins. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 21:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Just as an FYI, people generally only get in trouble with canvasing if that person only contacts contacts people that are more likely to agree with their opinion, not just because they spam multiple article talk pages. So if Noroton had only put his message on the talk pages for Republican articles and user talk pages for people he thinks will agree with him and not on the talk pages for Democratic articles and the user talk pages for people that will not agree with him, then there'd be a case for canvasing. However, he seems to have hit both Dem and Rep articles and several "neutral" locations. I could have done with a better wording of his message, but as far as where he left his messages, I don't think he's in trouble with WP:CANVAS. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 17:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Obama

See my comment on the talk page of the article regarding the archiving issue.--JForget 01:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Image facing

Ah, now I see. Hadn't occurred to me. Thanks. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 20:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Article ban

Hi Simon, I was thinking, perhaps it's best to take a break from editing the Barrack Obama article? I mean, this edit warring business is silly especially with that Andy user. It's completely voluntary, of course. It's up to you, my friend. Regards, Pat. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 15:26, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Request for your opinion

		Please Vote For Change We Can Believe In Or Even No Change at Obama Article
		Requesting your final opinion on the Bill Ayers language You previously !voted (here) on what language to use at the Barack Obama page. We're trying to get a consensus now. Please take another look at how the discussion has progressed (especially here) and consider what option might make the best consensus, then !vote again at Talk:Barack Obama#Call the question after detailed discussion: Option 3 or not?. Please keep in mind the discussion has been long, so if you can accept what seems to be a likely option, please do. This is one of Wikipedia's most prominent articles. Thank you. Noroton (talk) 23:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

3.99 GPA

I must know, what cost you the last hundredth? Shem^(talk) 01:40, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Quartermaster chiming in on Obama article and Rezko edits (as well as other stuff)

You come across as an exquisitely honest editor regarding the Obama article. You're a good shepherd. I will tread lightly per your suggestions. Have a barnstar.

		The Anti-Flame Barnstar
		Thanks, Mom! Quartermaster (talk) 20:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Warning

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you delete or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. Scjessey, you have deleted a substantial amount of material in the Barack Obama article without first establishing consensus on the article's Talk page, despite numerous warnings on the Talk page from administrators. Kossack4Truth (talk) 00:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)