User talk:Noroton

• User talk:Noroton/Archive to June 2007
• User talk:Noroton/Archive June 2007 to August 2007
• User talk:Noroton/Archive August 2007 to November 2007
• User talk:Noroton/Archive December 2007 to early April 2008
• User talk:Noroton/Archive early April 2008 to early June 2008

Friendly reminder

It would serve you better to keep it cool. Shem^(talk) 01:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Canvassing again

Thanks for the note Noroton. I trust the other comments, already archived, were sufficient to fix in your mind that "canvassing" of any kind should always be performed very intentionally and thoughtfully and that talk comments should be as neutral as possible toward the choices available. I'd only add that, as an example of neutrality, not all editors like to have the man's picture on their talk pages. Thanks again for your consideration! JJB 16:17, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Feedback

Thanks for your comments and feedback regarding the situation at Barack Obama. I noticed your earlier attempt to channel Andyvphil toward a more productive method of addressing his concerns, and I appreciate your effort there. Like I said, I don't think that Andyvphil or Kossack4Truth are wrong across the board on content issues, but the behavior was just too counterproductive and intransigent to continue. Like I said, I see this as a starting point and I recognize that those two were not the sole issue at the page, nor were they operating in a vacuum. Anyhow, I hope your efforts to move the page back toward a constructive discussion of the real, underlying content issues is successful. MastCell ^Talk 20:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Ayers article

Regarding your edits to the Bill Ayers article, good work. You've significantly improved the article by dedicated, thoughtful, unglamorous editing. Although you and I have disagreed from time to time there and elsewhere on some matters of weight and balance, I can see you're a good editor doing a lot to help out. Thanks, Wikidemo (talk) 02:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Toxic combustion chamber of editors behaving badly

Just saw that. Well put. Shem^(talk) 19:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: Barack Obama

I am taking a voluntary 30-day Wikibreak from this entire topic. I am confident that you will be able to argue the inclusionist side in a non-combative and constructive manner. Some sort of compromise has to be made. Please see my messages on other users' Talk pages, especially User:Bigtimepeace, where I have written in detail about where I'd like the article to go. You are one of the more level headed and respected, and I look forward to peeking at your work during the next 30 days. I'd like to continue the dialogue on this page if I may. Cheers Kossack4Truth (talk) 11:55, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

*laugh* That was hardly uncivil. Leave the civility patrolling to uninvolved admins. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 15:51, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I completely understand your intentions for removing the comment, but as an involved editor, you really need to leave the removal of such things to an uninvolved admin, or leave a note on the discussion page for the user that made the comment asking them to modify it. Outright removal of comments by involved editors is only called for on blatantly uncivil and offensive comments because the removal of marginal comments by involved editors have a tendency to erupt into edit wars over the comment and can increase the discord on the talk page as editors start to go into each other's comments and remove anything they find potentially offensive/uncivil. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 16:40, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Changing comments

I didn't. I highlighted it so that I could comment. See my reply, and don't leave BS messages on my talk page. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:42, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Ideally, it may have been more appropriate to create a new sort of section (like in the current version of the talk page) for such a long list of quotes so that they could be discussed separately - but that's been done now.

Beyond that, if he wanted to respond to your list of suggestions (content-wise), he should've responded either the normal way like he did the second time [1] or he could've asked you to make it into a separate header so he could respond (or if he was bold and did it himself in an objective manner, then there probably would not have been any objections, and he could've responded in the usual manner). I've told him something to that effect on his talk page.

It's resolved for now (I think he'll get the message, but let me know if otherwise), so there may not be a need to dwell on it any longer. Hope that helps so more progress can probably be made on consensus-based discussions. Cheers for letting me know. Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:07, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Rezko at Talk:Barack Obama

Please transclude the following statements of support/opposition at Talk:Barack Obama for the three versions of the Rezko paragraph currently under discussion.

Version 1: Strongly Oppose. Kossack4Truth (talk) 23:39, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Version 2: Support if a sentence is added that briefly describes the January 2006 sale of a portion of Rezko's land to Obama. Obama admits that this was done after he knew that Rezko was under investigation, so I believe it is significant. Kossack4Truth (talk) 23:39, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Version 3: Strongly Support. Kossack4Truth (talk) 23:39, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Can we...yes?

I've caught back up with the recent discussion on the Rezko issue at the B. Obama talk page after a bit of an absence. One issue I think we need to think about over there is talk-page functionality. You have recently posted an enormous number of sentences on that page. A couple of days ago, my eyes glazed over when I started to read one of your comments which did, to be honest, put me off the discussion a bit longer than I otherwise would have been (and I'm hardly one to talk, I have a strong tendency to write overly lengthy comments myself). More than anyone else on the talk page right now you're bringing a lot of good links and citations to bear on the issue, but I think it might be helpful if you stuck a lot of that type of material in your userspace and just linked to it from the Obama talk page, thus allowing interested parties to look at your research without eating up too much talk page space (obviously talk page space is fairly limitless, but attention spans are not unfortunately).

Also it seems the conversation between you and Scjessey has grown particularly intense (you'll notice I left a note for that editor before you). I don't know the exact history between the two of you on this article and I don't necessarily care right now, but a bit of disengagement (in terms of direct back and forth) seems in order, even if only for a couple of days. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 10:16, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:StateDinnerProgramWhiteHouseKuwaitAmir1968.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:StateDinnerProgramWhiteHouseKuwaitAmir1968.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 20:09, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

canvassing

I noted with interest that you have been warned regarding canvassing on wikipedia more than once in the past. I also noted with interest that you have been leaving messages on user talk pages regarding the niggardly article.

I consider this to be in direct violation of wikipedia guidelines, if you want to discuss the niggardly article, do so on the relevant talk page.

If your canvassing results in any votes/false consensus/reverts then I will be reporting you for canvassing, citing the previous cases and requesting a lengthy block from editing. Sennen goroshi (talk) 17:46, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Best American Poetry series

hello....the basis of my rationale is that the title of the series is not Best American Poetry series, it is Best American Poetry. in most of the renderings i've seen thus far, the word 'series' is used as an adjective. even when searching the worldcat nothing comes up with 'series' appended. it follows that if 'series' is to be used in the naming of the article, the word should actually rendered as a 'qualifier' thus: Best American Poetry (series). however, since there's no other article with the same name, there's really no reason to add the qualifier....your thoughts? --emerson7 22:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

per wp:name#Books - literary works, the qualifier should be parenthetic. with regard the neutral point of view, well, it's not really a problem when it's just a name. it's a bit like 'holy roman empire', neither holy, roman nor an empire. cheers! --emerson7 16:27, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

as before, a qualifier is unnecessary unless another article exists with the same name. in which case, the subsequent article would require the disambiguation, e.g. 1st article: Best American Poetry, 2nd article: Best American Poetry (film), 3rd article: Best American Poetry (2008 film)....etc. a perfect example of this progression can be found here. cheers! --emerson7 04:33, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Rezko

Hi - So as not to clutter the Obama talk page I thought I'd respond here. I've read enough of the references to come to the conclusion that this is primarily a campaign issue and that it's in the news because (perhaps only because) Obama is running for president. That's what I get out of the references. Suggesting no one else understands what's going on is not advancing your case. Greta Van Susteren works for Fox News which is about as neutral a source as Pravda (you're citing Fox News? seriously? what's next - quotes from Rush Limbaugh?). Judgment is clearly a campaign issue, advanced by the Obama crowd as a strength and being knocked (what about Rezko? what about Wright? what about Ayers?) at every opportunity by the Republicans and their sympathizers. Wikipedia can't be used by either camp to advance their cause. Your absolute insistence about this issue makes your neutrality questionable. Would anyone other than a McCain supporter argue this much for this long about this? How would your behavior be different if you were a paid McCain operative? I haven't spent a lot of time examining your edit history, but at a casual glance I don't have any particular reason to believe you're anything other than a passionate editor. Passion is fine. Tendentious editing is not.

Full disclosure - I'm an admin. I'm watching both McCain's and Obama's articles. My agenda is to make sure that neither one is hijacked for partisan purposes. -- Rick Block (talk) 04:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Rick, I don't have a lot of time at this moment, but later today I want to come back to some of the more important things you say. For now, let me just address some of the smaller things:

• I've read enough of the references to come to the conclusion that this is primarily a campaign issue and that it's in the news because (perhaps only because) Obama is running for president. Do you really think the Chicago Tribune and Chicago Sun-Times would not cover this very avidly if Obama were not running for president? I don't see how, given the very long tradition those papers have of holding politicians' feet to the fire. Obama is a U.S. Senator and a figure in Chicago politics for decades. That produces this kind of coverage. Other U.S. Senators also receive lots of coverage when questionable behavior comes to light. One of my senators, Chris Dodd, got a loan from Countrywide Mortgage as part of its VIP program. I think it's fair to say I could find plenty of coverage on it and give it several lines in the Dodd article, maybe even the six that I suggest for the Obama article (granted, no two situations are exactly alike, my point is very general). And Dodd isn't running for president, now. It certainly is a campaign issue now, but that only strengthens its importance. This dual role means that we could really put this information in either section. I personally favor keeping it out of the campaign section because there's a lot more information there and a lot less in the other section, but it's not that important to me.

No need to make it hypothetical. It is being covered. It deserves to be mentioned. I think it belongs in the campaign section. You want it in the "Family and personal life" section because there is a "lot less in the other section" (5 paragraphs vs. 7 paragraphs). I've mentioned on the Obama talk page that I think it might be easier to start with a less brief description (somewhere) and then decide how to abbreviate this on the Obama page. This suggestion seems to be being largely ignored on the talk page. I'll point it out again. -- Rick Block (talk) 02:36, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• Suggesting no one else understands what's going on is not advancing your case. Well, (1) I'm seeing comment after comment indicating that people don't know some of the facts, even after they've been involved in this Rezko discussion for many days. Scjessey is still going on about whether the land purchase actually widened Obama's property when anyone who had read a good number of the articles, especially the long Sun-Times interview I've been nagging everyone to read, would understand that Obama was talking about buying "a 10-foot strip" of land that amounted to "1,500 square feet" and the property line is 150 feet long (for those last two, see the Chicago Tribune's timeline for the square feet -- "2006 Expanding Obama's Lot" section -- and follow the link to the map of the properties at the bottom of that web page). That's the type of thing I'm talking about. Given your post above, I now think it's worth my time to again go back to the sources, so I'm going to go over your statements again and show you the quotes that might change your mind on some points.

I was specifically referring to this response to me, which seems fairly typical of your recent comments to others as well. Your lecturing has become so verbose that I suspect at least some people aren't even reading everything you're writing. Almost always, briefer is better. -- Rick Block (talk) 02:36, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I take back what I said about trying to change your mind with evidence. You've shown your motivations loud and clear. I first looked at your message earlier this evening in a diff and didn't realize you had more than the top comment. Just now, I saw these other comments and I started answering them from the bottom up, so this is my final reply. Conversation's over. Noroton (talk) 05:07, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• Greta Van Susteren works for Fox News which is about as neutral a source as Pravda. Thank you for your opinion. My point in that post didn't depend one bit on whether or not she is fair. My point was that the issue of Obama's judgment is tied by many different, varying sources to his relations with other people -- Wright, Rezko and Ayers. The same point about judgment has been made repeatedly about his associations with all three. My long list of quotes on the Obama talk page shows news reports, news interviews, commentators (both sympathetic to Obama and not sympathetic) and the Republican National Committee and others making the same point. You can put Van Susterin in any category you want to (I don't happen to have an opinion on her; it's just that people I live with have the TV on when I'm typing at my computer in the same room and so I listen to Fox News many evenings). The overall point is and was that this continues to come up.

Continues to come up, but where and why matter. Fox News, in particular, exhibits a clear bias. Questioning Obama's judgment is a tactic that is being used and will be used in the campaign. We need to be very careful about maintaining an NPOV stance on this, doubly so since it is being used as a campaign issue. -- Rick Block (talk) 02:36, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

See my comment just below. Noroton (talk) 05:07, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• Judgment is clearly a "campaign" issue, [...] Your absolute insistence about this issue makes your neutrality questionable. Note the apparent inconsistency, which leads me to believe you just didn't write that clearly enough. We're arguing about how much detail to put into this. I've always argued (as I did when the discussion was about Ayers) that we don't want too much or too little, and the way I judge that ( as I said in the Ayers discussion before the one on Rezko started) that we put in just enough detail so that the reader understands why this matter is supposed to be important and what made it controversial. I think if that can be done in a very short space, then it is whitewashing to make it purposefully vague. All other details should be in other articles that the reader can link to. With Ayers, I thought it was important (because so many sources specifically said it was important) to note that he hadn't made statements publicly regretting that he helped set off bombs. With Rezko, well, you know what I think are the essential details that make the Rezko matter important. And I source it not just to the Republican National Committee (although that source needs to be considered in the mix), but primarily to neutral and even sympathetic observers. Does that sound like POV pushing to you?

Judgment is a campaign issue which you seem to be insisting be added to the section on Obama's family and personal life, with specific wording along the lines of The transaction later raised questions from many quarters about Obama's judgment. In this section, stated this way, it's equivalent to saying Obama has bad judgment. That's a controversial opinion, so can't be said directly but if it appears in the article in this way there's an implied and Wikipedia's editors agree. Insisting on this wording sounds exactly like POV pushing. It is POV pushing. -- Rick Block (talk) 02:36, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Are you aware that WP:NPOV has something to say about reporting on the opinions of others? If you do, your comment doesn't reflect it. Now why would that be, Rick? As you know, because it's glaringly obvious, the Rezko matter is connected to both the campaign and to his life outside the campaign. And if putting it in one section is supposed to imply POV, then that applies just as much to putting it in the campaign section as the other section. So how would you not be POV pushing yourself? Rick, I started at the bottom and I've been going up, answering various comments as I go along, and I see increasingly that you're not really interested in anything other than vituperation. This is wasting my time, since nothing I say is going to change your piss-poor attitude, and you're just trying to goad me. Noroton (talk) 05:07, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• Would anyone other than a McCain supporter argue this much for this long about this? How would your behavior be different if you were a paid McCain operative? I haven't spent a lot of time examining your edit history, but at a casual glance [...] Damn right it's a casual glance. I tend to be "inclusionist" when it comes to putting negative information into articles about major public figures where there is a legitimate interest from readers who are also voters. Look at my two comments at Talk:John McCain presidential campaign, 2008#Merge proposal from John McCain lobbyist controversy. Note the dates on the timestamps. Go to Talk:John McCain/archive9#Equal treatment in candidate biography articles. Go to Bernardine Dohrn and look at the full history of what I added to the article, including the extensive part about her Charles Manson quote.

I still haven't spent any time looking at your edit history, but in the McCain lobbyist case weren't you arguing against merging the critical material into the campaign article (let along the main McCain article)? Here you're arguing for a condensed version (that several folks have suggested comes across as biased) to be included in the main Obama article before a full explanation exists elsewhere. In the McCain case the critical material is two articles away from the main article on McCain. In the Obama case you're arguing it needs to be in the main article. If this is not partisan behavior it's a pretty good imitation of it. -- Rick Block (talk) 02:36, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Now you're simply trying to misread the record. Material in independent articles coexists with summaries in broader articles. But you know that, and I don't have to explain that to you. You also know that nothing I said was an argument against including summary material in the broader article. So the purpose of your comment is just to try to annoy me. If this is not partisan behavior it's a pretty good imitation of it. That's pretty strained, Rick. You revealed a lot about yourself in that sentence. Noroton (talk) 05:07, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• How would your behavior be different if you were a paid McCain operative? Well, if you've read the articles as I have, you wouldn't ask that question. You'd note the links I gave to the Chicago Tribune editorial, David Corn, Richard Cohen, some Chicago newspaper columnists who have supported Obama and have made some of the exact same points that I made. Are they paid McCain operatives? Is the Chicago media and national media that I've cited all McCain operatives? Passion is fine. Tendentious editing is not. Well one way of measuring that is comparing what I'm suggesting to what all those sources are doing. It's not an exact comparison, but it damn well insulates me from charges of POV pushing. Noroton (talk) 16:59, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

This was a rhetorical question. I'm merely suggesting that you might want to think about how it looks to be insisting on including what several folks have said reads like a biased account. Your response has not been "oh, I don't mean it to sound biased, what sounds biased?" but to try to beat anyone with this opinion into submission. -- Rick Block (talk) 02:36, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

What's to beat? Where has there been an actual argument against it? People disagreed; I made my case; I'm still waiting for a case to be made or even a discernable response. Noroton (talk) 05:07, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I actually suspect that what's really going on here is your writing doesn't come across the way you mean it to (this is just a guess). If you truly mean to be even handedly critical of all politicians and aren't simply POV pushing, please listen when folks say you're not coming across that way. I've suggested Scjessey read WP:COOL. Have you read this? -- Rick Block (talk) 02:36, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

your writing doesn't come across the way you mean it to Oh, I get it. You're just mad and you want to get back at me for saying something similar. I hadn't realized that before. That isn't helpful. Nobody keeps cool all the time, and you well know this has been a difficult discussion. You're not really commenting here as a way to reach agreement, are you? You're just blowing off steam. OK. I'm not going to waste my time when you're just trying to dial up the heat. Noroton (talk) 05:07, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• Rick makes an interesting comment here: Questioning Obama's judgment is a tactic that is being used and will be used in the campaign. We need to be very careful about maintaining an NPOV stance on this, doubly so since it is being used as a campaign issue. Actually, just because it's an issue in the campaign doesn't make it an unfair issue (just a "tactic"). People legitimately look at the character of every candidate for president. Rick is trying to equate "negative" with "unfair", denying that people who question something about a candidate can be sincere when they do so. Noroton (talk) 05:32, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

AN/I notice

Scjessey's false accusations, snide remarks and deliberate provocation of a renewed edit war have been reported here. Kossack4Truth (talk) 12:03, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

NOTE: I created a new section for this in order to be able to easily refer to it later and to keep it separate from what I think may be a constructive discussion with Rick Block. Noroton (talk) 16:02, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Barack Obama

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors in the consensus discussion at Talk:Barack Obama. If we keep wasting time questioning the motives and actions of other editors, we will be right back were we were on the first round of discussion. In the interest of reaching consensus, please reread the proposed ground rules, and focus your comments on improving the content from the baseline version rather than on questioning the motives or actions of your fellow editors. As mediator, I'll worry about reminding editors to stay focused (as I have to Shem on his page, to WorkerBee74 on his page, and to you here). Thanks. --Clubjuggle ^T/C 17:31, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

• • That's a fair criticism, and I do appreciate the feedback. In my haste to keep the discussion from spiraling further out of control I was probably less precise in my language than I should have been, and for that I apologize. My goal, as you have correctly concluded, is to keep the discussion focused and avoid the meta-discussions that dominated the last attemot at consensus. --Clubjuggle ^T/C 17:48, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Be civil

These edits displayed a complete lack of civility. We had a relatively constructive process going there for a second, and then you threw that out at me. Please stop adopting the WB74 tactics and focus on the article, not the editor. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:09, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Dude, based on this comment, you really need to step away from the computer for a few hours and try to calm down. I understand that discussions on the Obama article can get heated, but your last few comments seem to indicate that a bit of non-Wiki-time may be in order. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 00:03, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I see a couple of other folks've already stopped by, but these talk page comments really cross the line, man. I've taken Wikivacations in the past to cool off, and reckon you might could use one now. Shem^(talk) 18:13, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Related response

I am not at all sure how to respond to the comment you left on my talk page, and I even debated not saying anything at all. You have completely misread my intentions, and you have completely discounted all the personal research I have been doing to learn the facts about this relationship.

You say I have "carpeted" the talk page with comments, but I will put it to you that you have "carpet bombed" the talk page with your own. You clearly have a personal belief that the Obama/Rezko relationship is a big deal, so you have searched for evidence and sprayed it all over the talk page, yet you have utterly failed to take in the bigger picture of national and international coverage, of which there is almost nothing. You have countered this statement by saturating the page still further with more and more and more references, and 1000-word essays talking it all up as much as you possibly can. But still you refuse to see the bigger picture.

I put it to you that it is you who is wasting everyone's time. You are the one who has failed to calculate the true weight of the issue. When all those established editors came in and supported my proposed Rezko text and rejected yours, it should have been a warning sign to you that you had misjudged things. Instead, you pressed ahead with what is now your personal obsession. Take a step back and cool off. Listen to what others are saying. Relax. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:04, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

Can you tell me who requested the arbitrary section break, and where they made the request? Thanks, --Clubjuggle ^T/C 01:55, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Compromise

I'll do you the courtesy of being upfront: I'm worried about the appearance of a filibuster, Noroton. Your fellow editors've made their cases at length several times already, and demanding further debate on additions which clearly don't have a semblance of consensus (while describing your fellow editors' cases as "inadequate") isn't doing anything to help your own case.

Should this new compromise (Rick Block's version) face objection much longer, especially with the entry of HailFire's new call for most of the material to be moved to a footnote, I fear the entire discussion's going to default to yet another "no consensus" resolution. I don't think that's what you want, nor have I seen any objection from you against the substance of Rick Block's wording. Regardless of how much more material you'd like added, I wish you'd simply state whether or not you're willing to compromise and accept Rick Block's proposal (which is closer to what you'd like than what's in the article currently). I'd rather not have this lengthy discussion end up all for naught, which can and does happen sometimes, but I fear that's the direction things're now heading barring a concession from either you or HailFire. Shem^(talk) 03:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

HailFire's not a "new editor on the scene," Noroton, he's the editor who near-single-handedly maintained the article's FA status from 2006 onward. I'm sorry you feel people've been dismissive towards you, but I can only repeat what I said earlier (whether you perceive "attitude" or not): this very lengthy discussion is nearing its conclusion, and it's up to you whether or not you want to help steer it towards an accepted new version or a default to "no consensus."

By the way, no one's required to respond to every single new proposal you crank out at this point. In my case, my unqualified support clearly rests with the current Rick Block compromise (it best reflects the principles I've laid out previously with a splash of compromise), nor do I (and most of the article's editors) see due weight for additional material, for the reasons we've been stating for weeks now. I left my previous message because I thought it'd be worth extending a hand to avoid a "no consensus" default, but given your semi-hostile response, I'll leave your talk page in peace. Just don't let Talk:Barack Obama make you lose your cool towards other good-faith editors. Shem^(talk) 06:26, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Please transclude the following to Talk:Barack Obama: I support the use of the word "simultaneously." I support the use of the phrase "criticism from political rivals and the media." I support the use of the phrase "questions about his judgment" in addition to the preceding. WorkerBee74 has hit the nail on the head. They are trying to shove through a watered-down version of the Rezko matter and Wikidemo wants approval to be conditioned on and agreement that it will never be considered for more criticism again. They are attempting to present Andy and me with a fait accompli or "accomplished feat" when we return, which is unlikely to be reversed. It's completely unacceptable. Kossack4Truth (talk) 12:11, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

If K4T wants to add his opinion, let him do so himself. He's trying to appear as if he has "taken a break" while still trying to pull strings behind the scenes. If you do transclude his comment, I will say as much on the Obama talk page. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:30, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Your apology / K4T

Your apology

I accept your apology, which I believe is sincere. I believe that the additions/changes you wish for, regarding Rezko, represent undue weight, but I completely support your right to voice your concerns. That being said, I now think the discussion has outlived its usefulness insofar as there is no useful progress being made. I have no intention of reviewing the long and tedious OrangeMarlin account. I am perfectly happy with my own actions and approach to editing, excepting those few times when I have let my frustration get the better of me. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:15, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

K4T

The situation with K4T is different from my own. The bans/blocks proposed for K4T were significantly longer than those proposed for me, because his behavior was way out of line. I took a complete "wikibreak" over a long weekend, and stated that I would be taking a break from Obama and McCain-related articles for 2 weeks. After a few days, it became evident that no bans or blocks would be dished out, so I announced my intention to return to editing at Talk:Barack Obama as long as there were no objections. Well nobody objected, so I returned to editing at Talk:Barack Obama, but indicated I would not be engaging in anything other than restrained editing at Barack Obama itself.

K4T chose his own path. Although his proposed block/ban was much longer than mine, he could have done the same thing as me. He chose not to; however, he has instead used user talk pages and admin noticeboards to "pull the strings" behind the scenes, defending his "surrogates" and attacking those who disagree with his views. This is hardly "taking a break" in my opinion.

Compared to your own, K4T's views can only be regarded as extreme - pretty much in the same vein as WorkerBee74 and Andyvphil. You do your own cause harm by allying yourself with these editors. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:15, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Warning both benches

Please stop. Take a deep breath and reread your recent posts. I understand tensions are high at the moment, not least of which is because a disruptive editor has recently been blocked. Please assume good faith and debate your points on their merits. I do not wish to turn this matter over to ArbCom, in part because I do not wish to subject them to this whole mess, but more importantly because I believe a consensus is still achievable if all parties drop the personal attacks. Thanks, --Clubjuggle ^T/C 16:16, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

1. True enough. I probably should have cited WP:COOL.

2. While on the one hand, I agree, he did make combative posts directed at multiple editors. the suspected sockpuppetry was a factor. The AN/I report was to request an administrator look at the entire pattern of behavior, not only the combative posts.

3. Pointing out his unconstructive behavior "in-band" probably won't help your cause. It's only going to serve to get his back up, and make him even less likely to focus on your substantive points. The best way to focus on the substance of the discussion is to focus on the substance of the discussion. You can't control your counterparts' actions, but you can control your own.

4. I was not a party to the complaint or the discussion that triggered it, so I honestly don't know. Probably best to address that question to the blocking admin. --Clubjuggle ^T/C 21:35, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

4. According to the admin that reviewed Kossack's 3RR report on Scjessey, the edits were exempt from 3RR.[2] --Bobblehead ^(rants) 22:06, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Consensus

You turn the implementation of a clear, well-written consensus/compromise into an edit war at your own risk. The resulting text from Rick Block has full support (you don't even oppose its content, you'd just like more content), and there's no support (no less consensus) for your additional material. There comes a point in editing Wikipedia where one has to bow their personal preferences to consensus, something I'm now concerned you're unwilling to do. Shem^(talk) 19:55, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I see that. That you want to keep advocating your additional material is fine, but it doesn't have a semblance of consensus. Meanwhile, Rick Block's text has seen overwhelming input, review, and support. I'm not "goading" you, I'm pointing out what I'm concerned you can't see -- that our discussion has finally yielded a clear consensus, including a version whose content you've voiced no opposition to. Shem^(talk) 20:10, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

My confidence in implementing the consensus we've reached is secure (though my confidence in your willingness to accept consensus is quite shaken), nor do I reckon someone so prone to losing their cool should advise others on how they appear to other editors (especially when you're now openly threatening to game 3RR). We'll see, won't we? Shem^(talk) 20:48, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me?

[I've interspersed my replies with Scjessey's Noroton (talk) 05:32, 5 July 2008 (UTC)]

And in that edit war between Scjessey and WorkerBee74, why wasn't the equally contentious Scjessey blocked for edit warring as well? I found no difference in his behavior.

I think you will find I didn't engage in any kind of edit war, as you can see from the result of the BS report filed by K4T. Since you weren't a participant in either the editing or the report, it is unclear why you're encouraging sanction by mentioning it on ClubJuggle's talk page. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:41, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Just keep working with me on the Talk Obama page right now. We seem to be making progress. If I can come to an agreement with you on this, then I suspect we can get a consensus on it and be done with it. I looked again at the 3RR report and got the impression that one of the edits cited was not actually a revert on your part. I'd rather spend my time getting to a consensus than either spending it on behavior-sanctioning pages like 3RR and AN/I or edit warring with Shem. The thought of going over your past comments or anybody elses in order to build up some kind of case against someone just nauseates me, and that's why I haven't done that to you or anybody else, and I won't do it unless I think I'm forced to. Let's continue the discussion and see if we can reach agreement. I've asked you just now on the Obama talk page to suggest some language. If you haven't yet, please do so. I've tried to be very flexible, please work with me on this. Noroton (talk) 20:49, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

If it's just edit warring and no content (BLP) issues are involved, then Scjessey's conduct was identical to WorkerBee's, it seems to me. -- your comment on User talk:PhilKnight

Again, that simply isn't true. I made the first edit, which was the removal of text that violated WP:BLP. WB74 reverted my change without discussion. I reverted back to my version. He reverted again with a BS justification, and I reverted (for the 2nd time) that with an explanation of why it was inappropriate. He made his 3rd reversion and then had the audacity to slap a 3RR warning on my talk page (despite having made 3 reversions to my 2). So he got reported for 3 reversions after a clear case of edit warring. Not only did I not break 3RR with my 2 reverts, but those reversions fall under the auspices of reversions permitted under the BLP policy of removing contentious content, which does not fall under 3RR in the first place.

Now it seems as if you are trying to get WB74 "off", despite his history of edit warring and tendentious editing. Furthermore, it seems like you are trying to provoke administrators (first ClubJuggle, then PhilKnight) into giving me some kind of sanction. This is completely unacceptable behavior, to be frank. Is this how you normally foster good relations with opposing-view editors? -- Scjessey (talk) 13:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

You seem to have convinced an administrator or two that you were acting on WP:BLP grounds, but as I explained to PhilKnight, you weren't doing any such thing. Further, you can be expected to have known you weren't following BLP policy because it had been repeatedly explained to you on the Obama talk page. Further, you knew that there was plenty of citable evidence to call Bill Ayers a "supporter" of Obama, so if it wasn't on the page at the very beginning of the edit war, that's no excuse for your conduct at all. You well knew that Ayers was a past supporter of Obama because that, too, had been discussed on the Obama talk page. Yet you referred to BLP and it fooled the administrator who blocked WorkerBee, and you fooled PhilKnight. That was disruptive in a major way.

Why did you tell me you reverted only two times when there is evidence here of three? Here are the three times you reverted without going to the talk page at the Stephanopolous article. After looking it up myself, I found they were already laid out at the 3RR noticeboard:

• 1st revert: 19:25, 30 June 2008
• 2nd revert: 20:33, 30 June 2008
• 3rd revert: 21:37, 30 June 2008

I can see how you might have thought I was looking to get you blocked. Actually, I think this 3RR case has gone too stale for you to be blocked for edit warring. I was suggesting to PhilKnight that WorkerBee74 be unblocked since there is no justification anywhere, that I can find, for WB74 to remain blocked while you get off without even a warning. It's already too late to treat you both the same.

But don't look at this as some kind of exoneration of your conduct. You were extremely lucky that administrators made a mistake. Luck doesn't last if misconduct does. If I had had the time early on to better inform the admins, your luck might've run out. Please keep that in mind. Noroton (talk) 17:17, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

You are quite wrong, and I reject your assessment of my "conduct" as you put it. The first edit you listed on my talk page was not a "revert". It was a removal of information per WP:BLP because it was not supported by a reliable source (a video posted on a conservative blog). This assessment was supported by other editors, and by an administrator. Maybe I didn't make this clear enough before - I respectfully suggest you mind your own business. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't WP:WIKILAWYER with me. Whether it's technically edit warring with three edits or two or four is not the point of WP:3RR. At the time you made that first edit, you knew the information was easily sourceable. You even knew it was true that he was a supporter when you said in your edit summary that it wasn't true. And if you were somehow deluded in that and were somehow acting sincerely, even after the information was put in front of you at Talk:Barack Obama, then your incompetence would be a danger to Wikipedia. Barring a truly dangerous incompetence, there is no possible way that your edits followed the spirit of WP:BLP. You knew you were goading other editors. And you have a history of goading. Continue these behaviors at your own risk. And it is my business when it affects the integrity of the pages I edit, although I would vastly prefer it if some admin paid the attention to your conduct that it deserves. Noroton (talk) 18:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

You can think what you like and claim what you like, but I made the edit in good faith, according to the rules of WP:BLP. It is not my fault you have not made yourself properly familiar with the policy - which is to remove contentious, poorly-sourced material immediately. I do not consider Ayers a "supporter" of Obama. That is the view of the right who wish to exploit their association. Anyway, your threats and condemnations are irrelevant because I did the right thing and my actions were supported by other editors and an administrator. Good day to you. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Both of you need to drop this train of discussion and move on. Scjessey didn't get blocked and it is unlikely that he will be blocked for something that happened 3 days ago. It is also unlikely to get WB74 unblocked prior to the expiration of his block, because "But he did it too!" doesn't work as an excuse for 2-year-olds, so there shouldn't be an expectation that it will work here. WB74 had acquired two edit warring blocks in the month prior to this one and as such, there is a lower bar for him than other editors. I'd really suggest you remove each other's talk pages from your watchlists and try to limit your interactions as much as possible. On occasions where you do interact, try to stay civil with each other, or disengage if civility is not an option. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 18:35, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Repeated accusations of "goading"

Please stop portraying editors who try to touch base with you in good faith as "goading" you. It's counterproductive, and the expectation of being misconstrued in response is making you increasingly difficult to approach. Shem^(talk) 21:43, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Your accusation that other editors are contacting you because "they know what might get you angry" is a pretty clear abandonment of good faith on your part. If you don't want to be contacted on your User_talk page because you find it distracting, you could just request it rather than cast aspersions on peoples' motives. Shem^(talk) 22:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I find your attitude counterproductive, and while you could've simply asked in a civil manner, I'll honor your request. Shem^(talk) 22:34, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

We may have something

When you have a moment, please take a look at my 10:10 post at Talk:Barack Obama#Implicit and Explicit comments. By moving and slightly refactoring the "criticism" statement, I've more directly balanced it on one side against the statement that Obama was not accused of wrongdoing, and on the other against his own acknowledgment that the transactions created an appearance of impropriety. I think this version is eminently fair. Scjessey has offered his "full support", even over versions that do not mention criticism. If you can support (or at least accept) this version we may be able to finally bring this whole matter to a close. Best to reply to this message here if you need to reply; I have your talk page watched and the discussion is easier to follow if we keep it together. Happy 4th! --Clubjuggle ^T/C 11:59, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey, Noroton

Thanks for your note on my Talk page. Yes, it was an injustice. Would you like to hear about a greater injustice? Here it is: Noroton gets K4T blocked for 72 hours, and on a fast track for a long-term topic ban, for posting a warning to LotLE to stop posting personal attacks against Noroton. I suppose no good deed goes unpunished at Wikipedia. He was trying to protect you, Noroton. That was the last straw for me. WorkerBee74 (talk) 11:37, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Please weigh in

While I am looking for supporters, please weigh in however you see fit at

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Abongo_Obama

There is a strong movement to delete articles on Obama's relatives. This is of special concern to me based on the alleged ties between Obama and Islam--which I believe are overblown.--Utahredrock (talk) 17:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I wasn't aware of the canvassing policy, which makes sense. My main motivation is to have a fair debate. So far the delete crowd seems to have the upper-hand and I certainly don't agree with them . . . but I guess discussing my perspective on other user talk pages crosses the canvassing line! Not sure I can win on this one. Cheers,--Utahredrock (talk) 18:11, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Balance

You commented on my talk page:

Thank you for your comment, which I first saw a minute ago. I guess this note is pretty ironic, then. I took another look at your comments about WorkerBee74 on that page (based on Kossak4Truth's unblock request messages) and looked further and found quite a few comments worth apologizing for. I posted them under Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#LotLE's recent behavior. I was asked what should be done about it, and I've just replied I'm not sure but perhaps a civility restriction of some kind, otherwise a topic ban, but I'm totally flexible about what should be done. Please comment there. Noroton (talk) 00:10, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

While I acknowledge (and acknowledged) that some of my talk page comments have been impolite, I still have to wonder whether there was a bit in bad spirit to making the section of the K4T AN/I report discussing me.

You are surely aware that if a similar forensic analysis were made of your contributions to the same discussion (or that of several other editors, quite apart from K4T and WB), it would show a greater number of impolite comments, and many with a more uncivil tone than mine. I'm not going to do that. It would be too laborious, but more importantly, it would be too petty. But I think you must know that such would be possible... and would simply be a "gentile" way of escalating conflict while pretending not to. LotLE×talk 19:44, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not true that other editors had a worse record for incivility than you. Your comments, when they were uncivil, were the most uncivil, although sometimes some other comments were just as bad. Other people commented more, including me, and if you piled up all the uncivil comments of just about anyone active on that page, the pile would be higher than yours, but that's only because you didn't comment much in those controversies. When you do make uncivil comments, they may be fewer, but they're bigger deposits into the bank. My own comments were not nearly as bad as yours, they were in response to some pretty outrageous statements and when I looked back on them and found some were impolite -- which is even less of a problem than incivility -- I went back and apologized. I don't have nearly the problem you do with self-restraint, although I would say that many months ago I came close. I think I've mentioned your behavior three times on AN/I, each time including diffs and restraining my language, which is what I think you're alluding to as "gentle" and "escalating conflict while pretending not to". I wouldn't characterize my reports that way at all. I was clearly pointing out your behavior and also trying to do it in a way that didn't add another layer of drama on it, the way WorkerBee74 has been doing at AN/I. When I thought you were turning away from uncivil behavior I didn't escalate it by mentioning the last attack. If you think I'm making the Talk:Obama page more uncivil, please feel free to report me to admins -- maybe you'll find some horrible comment of mine I've forgotten about. I do think I was pretty snide in some of my first comments responding to you on Talk:Obama (around the time of my posts about the "fat farm" for articles like Harry S. Truman that I suggested could go in it). Please accept this late apology for that. If you find anything else, you could also tell me on my talk page -- I've responded constructively when other editors have done that. I told you why I reported your comments; I didn't like doing it; when you apologized I put your comment on the AN/I page. Don't call my trying to be fair to you, even after you've insulted me (something far worse than sarcasm), as somehow phony. I'm trying to be fair even when I think I'm being treated unfairly. As far as I'm concerned, you're forgiven for any comments you made about me and the slate is wiped clean. I can work with you, agree and civilly disagree with you without any rancor. And if you disagree with anything I've said in this post, feel free to tell me, although I don't think it's worth arguing about. I've said repeatedly that I don't know what sanctions administrators need to impose on editors, and when MastCell pressed me, I gave some ideas on what to do with you, but I said I'd be satisfied with what more experienced editors had to say, and I will. There was nothing phony about that, either. If you're civil, you and I shouldn't have any big problems with each other. I notice that when we stick to specifics we seem to be able to come to agreement. Noroton (talk) 14:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Commented on my talk page. LotLE×talk 17:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

(added by Noroton from LotLE's talk page): Unfortunately, though I'm sure you imagine it the case that your comments were less uncivil, that is certainly not my perception, and I am quite certain it is not the perception of any other editors who read them. It's easy to imagine that your posts were "in response to some pretty outrageous statements", but your own are just responses... it doesn't look that way from the outside.

Actually, I'm a bit disappointed that you respond to me here on my talk page by trying to provoke things rather than calm them. Worth noting. LotLE×talk 17:39, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Replied on LotLE's talk page:

Responding to your last comment: Feel free to disabuse me of any misperceptions on my part, but that is the way I see it. I'm not trying to provoke -- I'm responding exactly to what you wrote and stating my disagreements with it where I think they're important. First you said (provocatively?) I was "escalating conflict while pretending not to", which sounded to me as if I were being called a phony, so I gave you a plain-spoken reply, which you tell me is "trying to provoke things", although it included an apology, an offer to listen to complaints and an observation/suggestion about how we best work together. Noroton (talk) 18:27, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Self-revert

You should self-revert your last edit to Barack Obama. I have explained in the clearest terms possible that a consensus exists for everything except your contentious "criticism" phrase. Everyone was waiting for everyone else to perform the necessary edit. Having done what was required, you reverted it with a misleading edit summary and then placed a rather silly threat on my talk page. Please stop your filibuster and let this article move on. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:30, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment re block of WB74

My actions are always open to review, it's one of the things of working on an open encyclopaedia. There's a shortage of people who will act in difficult situations on AN/I, and I acted mainly as it was dragging on and seemed to have a clear resolution. If another admin disagrees with the reasoning I have applied, especially if they have better information than I do or new information has come to light since the action, then they are welcome to review it. Orderinchaos 20:33, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Watermarked Postcard Images

Hello, Noroton --

I believe there is a potential copyright problem with some of the images you have uploaded to Wikipedia.

I noticed these two images in particular:

• Image:DanceCardCoverUSPresidentialCandidatesGroverClevelandEtc1884.jpg
• Image:PostcardTheodoreRooseveltSpeechAtTheAlamo.jpg

Even though the subjects of the images appear to be in the public domain, the images themselves have a visible watermark that reads "VPCTX" -- initials referring to Vintage Paper Collectibles of Texas, the source of the images.

It seems likely that by adding a watermark, Vintage Paper Collectibles desires to prevent unlicensed reproduction of the image. Also, addition of a watermark likely constitutes introduction of sufficient originality so that the resulting image is no longer in the public domain, as it otherwise might have been under Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp..

Could you review these two images, and any other images you've retrieved from eBay sellers, and remove those which are watermarked?

Thank you! -- Peter Kaminski (talk) 00:02, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Noroton! I poked around a little, and found the Wikipedia image use policy, which says, "...user-created images should not be watermarked, distorted, have any credits in the image itself or anything else that would hamper their free use...." That seems to address it, even without delving into copyright concerns. What do you think? -- Peter Kaminski (talk) 01:30, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: ANI and Obama

I replied on my talk page. No worries! :D --Jaysweet (talk) 21:41, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Your comment on AN/I about me

Noroton, I have to say I found your comment on AN/I about me insulting and out of line. I think you know very well that I tried to find compromise wording in that section that in fact went against my true opinion about the section which is that you were adding way too much information on this to the main Obama bio in the first place. For you to characterize that as "only complaining" is insulting. In fact by coming in to support alternate wording that replace a word that you were scrapping about, sidestepping the issue but remaining accurate, was a major compromise with my reading of WP:WEIGHT that I made in the interests of moving things along. I stand by my statement: Seems to me the overwhelming bulk of the problem came from a few editors, most not on Shem's side of the disputes, who either dominated the discussion by inundating the talk page with reams of words repeated ad nauseam and countless polls and new sections to say the same thing again and again making the talkpage almost impossible to work on or keep up with - or outright disruption, nasty sarcasm and unhelpful bullshit by a few. And sure, I'm happier that some of them are no longer on the page and wish others would go away - I find this combination of bullying, drowning, and attacking unhelpful to the goal of editing a featured article, and perhaps a tactic for those people to get their way. But my wanting them gone is not because because I'm trying to write a pro-Obama article as you imply. I am trying to maintain a neutral article, as I have tried to do on Hillary Rodham Clinton and John Edwards and Nancy Reagan and Ron Paul and lots of others, Ask User:John J. Bulten or User:Happyme22, or any of dozens of other editors with whom I have disagreed, about me. I don't really want to debate you on this, Noroton, any more than I want to debate you an anything else, so I tell you up front that I may not respond if you respond, but I felt it was fair enough for me to reply to your sniping AN/I comment. Tvoz/talk 21:11, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't snipe. I stand up and say what I think needs to be said. And I stay stood up and if anyone wants to take shots at me, they're more than welcome to criticize what I say and what I do. I'll even stay and listen, take their words seriously if I possibly can, and consider them. Then I'll do them the courtesy of giving them a serious reply. That's not sniping.

You can't on the one hand complain about "sniping" if on the other you tell me in advance that you're not interested in discussion. It's one or the other, Tvoz. I was worried you hadn't seen the comment before the discussion ended, I thought about leaving a note on your talk page with a link to it, and I'm glad you read it. It was "severe" as another editor has told me about another comment I made on that page, but it was also sincere. I didn't say it to hurt you -- and I regret that it did hurt you -- but because I sharply disagree with the way you went about discussing things on that page and on the AN/I page. I'm willing to have a civil discussion with you about my problems with your approach and your problems with mine.

One of the things that prompted me to make that comment at that spot was what I considered your attack on Clubjuggle, who was the most helpful editor on that Obama talk page in recent weeks. You certainly insulted him with your non-WP:AGF comment that it looked like he was simply trying to get at Shem for disagreeing with him. And your defense of Shem looked like a defense of Shem's horrible conduct on that page and on Clubjuggle's talk page. Go back and read the edits of just Shem in his last week on that Obama talk page (I did, it's pretty easy because "Shem" is in red amid all the blue links on the "history" list). It's absolutely appalling. You talk about "inundating the talk page" with comments "repeated ad nauseum". Look at Shem's attacks on me with his "repetitive comments" alleging that my entire argument was to call "scrutiny" "limp and weak". It was a disgusting, taunting attack and you implicitly endorsed it by defending Shem. You also turned a blind eye to Scjessey, who my many comments were, by far, directed to. Any fair review of that long debate would recognize Scjessey's many, many, many repetitions of the same tired arguments which had already been answered. WorkerBee74, in fact, in one longish section took him through all the arguments I had already made, with Scjessey giving the same response and WB74 countering with the responses I had already given to Scjessey. At the end it came down to Scjessey saying it was a violation of WP:WEIGHT to mention the one word "criticism" in the article. Give. me. a. freakin'. break. In fact, why don't you tell me why or how that argument has any justification at all? Do you know how I feel when I spend time taking Scjessey seriously and that's where the argument ends up? Insulted. (And that is where the argument ended up, because Scjessey -- and you would go no further. You refused to discuss further.)

Where did you ever recognize that editors on your side -- let's just call it deletionist -- were acting out? And Scjessey's constant hauling out of specious arguments that nobody but nobody else believed in was surely acting out. LotLE could say damn near anything to me and you never asked him to tone it down. When I said things not one fifth as bad as LotLE's, when I was even impolite I listened to Shem and Brothejr and Wikidemo and others and toned down my language. I also went to WorkerBee74's talk page and Kossack4Truth's to try to get them to tone down their words and actions. And when Shem started acting up you said nothing. When did you ever ask someone on your side to tone it down? You want to be treated as something other than a partisan? Act like something other than a partisan. Uphold Wikipedia civility standards against your own side. I did. You didn't. Why wouldn't I be perturbed at that when you then go on to AN/I and start trashing Clubjuggle? Read over your words on that page. He was at AN/I where he could have been sanctioned by editors not familiar with his history of moderation and attempts to get consensus. You looked like you were trying to make him out to be some vengeful abuser of power. Why wouldn't that also get me perturbed?

I think you know very well that I tried to find compromise wording in that section that in fact went against my true opinion about the section which is that you were adding way too much information on this to the main Obama bio in the first place.

You know, you complain about me making too many comments, then you say you are not very interested in dialogue, then you make a comment like this, which just begs for a response. What's really insulting is saying something and then taking a stance that in effect tries to short-circuit the other person's ability to respond. By the way, I was proposing additions. I never added a thing without consensus. Actually, I think my only edits on the Obama mainspace page itself were a couple of reverts, telling editors to go back to the discussion page while something was still being discussed. You talk about your true opinion but you refused to discuss it with me or others on the page, so you made it impossible for me to possibly convince you to adopt another true opinion. That is incredibly far from the real spirit of WP:CONSENSUS. I both changed my mind on some points and agreed to a compromise on others. And I was open to others changing my mind. When you refuse to discuss something and then roundly blame me for discussing it, you in effect tell me just shut up and go away, which was exactly what I said at AN/I. I don't know any other way of understanding your comments, but feel free to tell me where I'm wrong.

How do you tell the difference between a closed mind and an open mind? How else but by willingness to consider something, and how else can the rest of us see you doing that if you refuse to discuss and show your reasoning? This is pretty fundamental. Long before I ever heard of you I was involved in discussions about the User:Mantanmoreland arbitration case. At the end, arbitrators didn't vote individually but supported, en masse, a statement which kind of came down in the middle. The rest of us, who didn't have access to their private delibarations, didn't know who stood for what and since most of the arbs didn't offer their opinions (hardly any of them did at first) we didn't even know who believed what. That made many of us terribly suspicious about the reasons they decided the way they did (Mantanmoreland was close to editors who were, in turn, close to Jimbo Wales, and the suspicion was that ArbCom members were unfairly deferring to those influential editors). The only way to really get some sense that those arbitrators were themselves trying to act fairly and had good reasons for what they did was to see their reasoning attached to their own individual signatures. Some arbitrators did that, especially after the complaints came pouring in. If you want me to trust you, don't tell me what other editors trust you, show me I can trust you by laying out your reasoning and being open to opposing arguments. You seem to think this is something beneath you, when it's just exactly what WP:CONSENSUS and WP:TALK want you to do. You don't have to. You seem to have a majority that will either form consensus or block it on that page. But tell me which way is really acting like a bully -- discussing or acting without discussion?

If you were actually reading that Obama talk page discussion, you know I pointed out that I've been in favor of including controversial information about McCain on that article's page and I've been in favor of keeping an article about the alleged affair McCain had with a lobbyist, and I've made fair edits to the Bernardine Dohrn article. What negative information on Obama have you ever been in favor of keeping in that article? Why is it that there's not even a line on Bill Ayers in that article when it is indisputable that Obama's association with a former bomber who doesn't renounce his bombings and incitement to riot was someone Obama seems content to have received support from in 1995, including the hosting of a pro-Obama meeting and a $200 contribution? Why is it "guilt by association" to mention Obama's acts of association with someone Obama knew would be found by many of his fellow citizens to be such a morally corrupt individual? Why is that not important enough to be even mentioned in this article? When Obama is roundly criticized from nearly every corner, why is it so impossible for you to see that the simple word "criticism" can't appear in that article? Why is it so difficult to give readers the briefest of descriptions that would at least tell those readers why Obama's associations with Ayers and Wright and Rezko were so controversial? It isn't as if a whole lot of space is taken up by these matters in that long, long article with so much positive information about Obama in it. Since you won't tell me, I have every right to assume you have a bias.

You say you want a "neutral" article, not a pro-Obama article, but look at it. Where's the negative information? When a guy is running for president of the United States everybody knows there will be criticism of him. So where is it? It's in the puny Rezko and Wright sentences, which you would like to see less of and which already don't adequately cover their subjects. It's already a pro-Obama article and it's that way partly because of your support. Now there's a discussion about whether or not ACORN can even be mentioned in the article. Give me a break. Who did Obama work with in community organizing, in that 1994 voter registration campaign and afterward? Give me a break.

Oh, and when multiple editors are trying to reach agreement when they disagree about so much, there's going to be a lot of discussion. That's inevitable.

This is not an attack: It's giving you the reasons why I think you have been acting in the wrong way. It doesn't make me hate you, it makes me want to change your mind. Given your past statements, it would surprise me to no end if you did anything other than gave me a one-line reply telling me you don't want to discuss it, or didn't say anything at all, but I wanted to tell you this anyway. Noroton (talk) 22:29, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if you don't like short replies - and I'm not known for my succintness here, by the way- but this is the best I can do, to avoid spending hours on this which wasn't my intent.

1. What have you done but complain -- bitterly -- about the people who are making that effort is sniping in my book. Call it what you like.
2. I was not hurt, I was angry. there's a difference.
3. Your bias is all over this comment - can you find an equivalent one from me? I do want a neutral article. I've worked on having that for over a year and a half which in wiki-years is a long, long time. Despite what you assume, you don't know my politics.
4. I haven't commented on Ayers or Wright in ages. (And the way you rattle off your description of Ayers speaks volumes about your lack of objectivity in determining its importance.) It all depends on how much is being pushed into the main bio vs. how much goes in sub articles. The weight of the matter in terms of how it fits into his life is going to be the determinant. Not politics. And not the volume of comments left on the talk page.
5. Let me say that again. I have consistently, over 18 months, worked to keep the bio as a bio of his whole life, not a tool for politics - not mine, not yours, not anyone's. This is not a political piece. It is an encyclopedia biography. It shouldn't be a whitewash, but it also shouldn't be a place for negative things to be crammed in as if that gives it balance. It's a biography. Something that was relatively minor in a person's life -even if political opponents try to make it into something more - just doesn't belong in the main bio. My position on Rezko has been consistent all along, except when I went along with a too-long addition which I no longer support. It should be one sentence, at most. Rick Block's recent explanation of why is spot on. The Rezko article goes into excruciating detail - ludicrously detailed in fact. If it actually were a campaign issue, it could appear in the presidential campaign article(s). But last I looked it wasn't deemed important enough. The very same process has happened at Hillary Rodham Clinton and loads of others. A bio is a bio, not a political piece.
6. I am not a "deletionist". Not wanting biased material in an article is not deletionism. I don't know much about Acorn, but a quick google tells me enough. Michelle Malkin is not writing this bio, or at least I hope not.
7. I do not have the time to read through page after page after page of argument on a single point. Few do. It is a filibuster, whether you intended it that way or not. I read and comment as I see fit and see no reason to make an argument when someone else has already made it. Perhaps you don't realize how oppressive the volumes you post can be - I commend your dedication, but as I've said I choose not to get embroiled in endless repetition. Your way is not the only way and I don't have to play your game. I am not the only editor who reacted to the incredibly repetitive comments in that way. Some might infer that it was a strategy to drive away regular editors. I don't know if it was deliberate or not, but it had that effect. I see over 150 comments by you, not including "votes", on this one topic. 150. I have maybe 30, and that's a lot. Do you not see the excess here?
8. You are right that you didn't actually add material, just advocated adding it. I should have been more precise. ANd if I could write it again I'd leave out "ad nauseam" which was needlessly provocative, although it does reflect my reaction to the endless repetition. That's the anger speaking.
9. I specifically said I don't endorse every edit or comment that Shem made. But I nonetheless object to someone - anyone - investigating him. I did not see evidence of a similar investigation of, say, Kossack4Truth, or you for that matter.
10. The reason I mentioned John Bulten and Happyme, specifically, is not to give personal references. John was apparently handed K4T's mantle when K left - John and I worked together - disagreed a lot but worked together - on Ron Paul and I think other articles, can't recall now. John has frequently complimented a suggestion I made on Ron Paul about how to include the newsletters without overweighing them. I mention it because it's a similar argument to the one we're having here - it's how I try to approach articles. Happyme nearly single-handedly got Ronald Reagan and Nancy Reagan through very difficult FACs.Those articles couldn't be politically farther from Obama - yet I worked hard to prevent some unnecessary negative material from coming into Nancy's article. So I don't think either of them would say that I edit with bias, and in fact think they'd both say I was reasonable and fair. You can have your opinion, but it's not going to keep me up at night.
11. You highlighted my sentence about my attempt at coming up with a compromise regarding "scrutiny" and "criticism" but then ignored its content. Why am I not surprised. Good to know you don't hate me. I hardly thought this was on that level or even close. Maybe you need to take a long walk or go for a swim if you actually thought in those terms, even to reject them. That's it for me. Tvoz/talk 06:39, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Civil Response:

No problem. Its just people who do not want to see reason and have to find and post every negative little item that pisses me off. That is not to say that there should not be any criticism on the page, but that it seems as if people go out of their way to post as many negative things about him without doing the same to the other candidate.

Also, can I ask you to also respect other people's opinions too? You seem to have a problem trying to understand the other side and have at times come close to name calling along the lines as K4T and WB74. This is not to say I'm accusing you of anything, but that you seem to be rather inflexible in your arguments.

Thanks for your comment. Brothejr (talk) 23:34, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Copy of my response from Brothejr's talk page:

Also, can I ask you to also respect other people's opinions too? Brothejr, since I don't see where I did that, can you point to specific comments I've made? Like Bdell555, I'm trying to focus on edits/comments/arguments rather than people. If I've disparaged you or anyone else as a person, please point out where I've done it and I'll look at it. I think I've shown I'm capable of apologizing and pulling back if someone can show me I've gone too far. Noroton (talk) 23:54, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Here is one comment [3] that is disparaging and can be construed as an attack by those who disagree with you:

Jaysweet, with purely evil intent on my mind, I invite you to go over Shem's contributions on Talk:Barack Obama from the past week, and I also invite you to dive into the cauldron yourself. Participate on that page and experience the joys of making a suggestion for how Tony Rezko, Bill Ayers and Jeremiah Wright should be treated (if at all) in the article. Watch as your ideas and your motives are scoffed at, laughed at and condemned. See how, when you bring up evidence it is ignored, when you bring up policies and guidelines, they are twisted in ways you never thought possible and when you try to reason something out you're misinterpreted in ways you never thought possible.

I'm not saying you're going out of your way to attack others like K4T and WB74, but to others that are monitoring the article, you do seem a little bit inflexible and also seem to attach onto any and every criticism of Obama. I'm not saying that you have to completely change yourself or anything, but please just take my comments on board and relax a bit. I can see you are a great editor and do care for Wikipedia and for what you stand for, but that you seem a little obsessive to me. Brothejr (talk) 00:07, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

timeline of work for ACORN

According to this source, " Barack Obama worked as an organizer for ACORN affiliates in New York and Chicago" "[p]rior to law school", not just in 1992 (and not just in Chicago). If there is to be no mention in the article of the subject's work for ACORN in the 1990s, perhaps a reliably sourced mention of this work in the 1980s may be appropriate. If not notable enough for the main article (presumably unlikely given that the inclusion of praise from Crain's Chicago Business suggests that the notability standard not especially high), then perhaps in Early_life_and_career_of_Barack_Obama (although there appears to be an ongoing relationship in terms of advocacy, e.g. this WSJ piece).Bdell555 (talk) 04:48, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar award

		Barnstar Award
		For your thoughtful contributions to the discussions regarding Abongo and Barack Obama.----Utahredrock (talk) 17:31, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Feel free

Feel free to move your barnstar to your main user page (or do anything else you want with it). It doesn't look like you actually voted on the Abongo page (keep, delete, merge) but you did add thoughtful comments. I've given out a few of these barnstars, to people I thought were deserving--on all sides of the debate. I added "Barack" to your award as that seems to be your primary focus area. Beyond the comments on your talk page, and your admonishing me RE canvassing (if I remember correctly), I have not followed those other discussions closely. I've seen enough though to feel you've earned this award. Best regards,--Utahredrock (talk) 17:31, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

ACORN

It's getting a little more difficult to get a direct mention on the main page... not because our arguments are getting weaker (the opposite, in fact), but because we may appear intransigient when some users are offering up editing of the "early life" article as a concession. With respect to my specific edit, I am rather stymied by their tactic of collapsing ACORN into Project Vote and then having a click thru to ACORN (a connection they then managed to thoroughly dilute by tossing a bunch of other affiliations into their new Project Vote article), so we probably have to go with some variant of your suggested phrasing in any case. It now looks like an easy layup to get such phrasing into the "early life" article. In order to rally my morale in continuing to fight the good fight on the featured page, I'd need to see some more ammo in our corner, e.g. more evidence Obama deployed ACORN shock troops in his political campaigns, another source for his working with them in the 80s, etc.Bdell555 (talk) 00:16, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Allegations of apartheid closure

Hi Noroton - thanks for your comments. I have to say that I found your comments in the AFD itself to be among the most salient and on-point, and I thank you for that. As to the points you raise in my talk page, I'm afraid I can't agree. The U.N. convention is a primary source that no more single-handedly establishes the basis for Allegations of apartheid than would the U.N. convention on the rights of children single-handedly justify Allegations of violations of the rights of children. Besides that, about half the material in the deleted article (or at least half of the material dealing with allegations) deal with non-racial examples of apartheid, which aren't covered by the U.N. convention anyway. I agree with you that there's room in Crime of Apartheid to provide some alleged examples, and I'd say there's room in the various "Human rights in..." articles to place the material from the article there, but I continue to believe that the arguments raised by the delete side made the case quite strongly that the article was a collection of rhetoric linked only by word choice. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 03:06, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Help at Project Vote

I could use some assistance here, if you are able to: Talk:Project_Vote#Editorial opinion of ACORN relationship. LotLE×talk 23:59, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Early life and career

I just wanted to commend you for your excellent work on Early life and career of Barack Obama. My only concern is that you might be relying rather heavily on a couple of sources, but that is no big deal (I wouldn't want the opinions of only one or two journalists to dominate an article whenever possible). Other than that small detail, I think the fleshing-out you have been doing has been coming along nicely. Good job! -- Scjessey (talk) 14:33, 17 July 2008 (UTC)