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)

To reach a consensus on Jesse Jackson.

Hello! Please, try to come on to the Jesse Jackson talk page again so we can try to form some kind of consensus with 72.0.180.2 (aka "Fancy Cats") over the disputed content on the article. I have tried my best to explain my position, but i am only one person. I cannot keep doing this on my own. I need you and others to come to the page so a consensus may be reached. Thanks! dposse (talk) 15:17, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

reliability of the New York Times

If the article does not accurately describe ACORN's relationship, why did ACORN decide to put it up on their website? They obviously read it, since they introduce it as "The voter registration campaigns of ACORN and Project Vote have been so effective that they have gained national attention – including a front-page article in this Sunday’s New York Times, included below."

I'd also like to see the magician's trick that saws Project Vote's current Executive Director in half:

This report was compiled by:

Mike Slater

Election Administration

Program Director

Project Vote/ACORN

Bdell555 (talk) 21:41, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

And perhaps some others; - from an article titled "Will the GOP election theft machine do it again in 2008?": "Bush's interim US attorney in Kansas City issued indictments against four ACORN workers under contract with Project Vote."Bdell555 (talk) 22:52, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

In any case, apparently the shock troops have been deployed!Bdell555 (talk) 23:23, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey

If it seems like I'm un-neccessarily flippant about Solomon's piece, that's because I've known about it for a couple weeks, because folks who claimed they were "run off" of Wikipedia by WMC tried inserting it as evidence into the Geogre/WMC ArbCom case (of course, they wouldn't tell us who they had been, so we could judge for ourselves). This is nothing more then someone who couldn't slant their pet articles their way on wikipedia (see User Talk:Lawrence Solomon) using their platform elsewhere to take potshots at folks on-WP. I'm all for fixing problems when I see them, but in this case, the problem isn't with WMC. SirFozzie (talk) 00:59, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

No problem, man. It wasn't personal :) I was just explaining where I'm coming from. Trust me I know the "Wait, how did I get neck deep in this sitation" feeling.. sometime I'll have to show you "The Troubles", that has led to more burnout then I could ever believe :) SirFozzie (talk) 01:16, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Agree with your comment

This is dead on. People who defend their position too arrogantly don't realize that they play precisely into the stereotypes that their opponents set up for them. I had this very debate with WMC recently (see my talk). Speaking as someone who largely (though not universally) agrees with many of these editors, I find it frustrating that they act so much like the people they criticise. ATren (talk) 02:39, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Do you know, I could have sworn there was a Wikipedia:Be humble page, but I see it's a redlink. I did find m:How to build Wikipedia#Be in Charge and Be Humble though (which is old enough to be on the nostalgia server). --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 17:38, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I have long pondered a Wikipedia:Be assertive page, because assertiveness implies civility without weakness and making your point without aggression. Another possibility, Wikipedia:Be professional or (for a different take altogether) Wikipedia:Don't demonize the opposition - that would also apply to those who have branded anyone who posts to WR as implicitly evil. ATren (talk) 16:26, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Mediation

I would like to invite you to participate in mediation with Scjessey, LotLE and I concerning content in the Barack Obama biography. WorkerBee74 (talk) 16:21, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Boy2Boy

Re this [4] why would it be prudent to remove this portion of a talk page? DuncanHill (talk) 09:42, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Bill Ayers election controversy

An article that you have been involved in editing, Bill Ayers election controversy, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bill Ayers election controversy. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? -- Scjessey (talk) 21:46, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Heap paradox

I don't recall mentioning this to you but what you are talking about is the Sorites paradox. I don't have any non-wiki reference off the top of my head (and unfortunately the wiki article isn't in very good shape). JoshuaZ (talk) 03:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes. I see why you might have thought it was me. I'm not too happy about what has occurred in this regard, but I'm confident that the community will eventually come to its senses. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:29, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Noroton

You know all those action movies where one guy says to the other guy, "I got your back," or "I'll cover you"? I do not have your back, and I will not cover you. Kossack4Truth (talk) 14:42, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

This isn't an action movie. It's not supposed to be a WP:BATTLEGROUND. It's not even a debate/vote model. It's a consensus system. I'm not going to consider people I disagree with, or even people I think are doing objectionable things, to be my enemies. I'm not interested in forming ideological alliances but in getting to a consensus that reflects the facts. To get there, we should be avoiding saying and doing things that anger people who disagree with us (whenever we can avoid it and still edit in a way that reflects the facts). The point isn't to win an argument but to win over enough editors by getting their agreement on what the facts are. That's extremely difficult when people bring their political hopes and ideologies to the table instead of trying to check them at the door (and everyone's always pointing out the other guy's political baggage even as they have to strain to peek over their own). I think cabals work for a time in controlling certain articles, but ultimately they hurt the encyclopedia. I think some of your past behavior was hurting the encyclopedia and not doing you any good, either -- but I've already told you that. I've taken a break from even looking at the Talk:Barack Obama page, so if there's something in particular you're obliquely referring to, I don't know what it is. Noroton (talk) 17:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

New email address

I've recently changed my email address to a g-mail account at Google. Other than the "@gmail.com" it's the same as the old one. Noroton (talk) 18:09, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Noroton, after a review of the archives of the Talk:Barack Obama page, you seem especially adept at providing a "background section" such as you've requested. I think you could just cut and paste the admirable evidence gathering that you've already done, and I encourage you to do so. It would help tremendously with the RfC, which will hopefully continue for several days. Best regards — Curious bystander (talk) 16:32, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee report

You have been named as a party in a report seeking a hearing by the Arbitration Committee concerning events at Talk:Barack Obama and WP:ANI. I have posted the report at the Talk Page for WP:RFAR since the main page is semi-protected. Feel free to add your statement, and please transfer the report to the main RFAR page if you see fit to do so. Thanks. 74.94.99.17 (talk) 18:54, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

What do you have against me?

You wrote this at RFAR: "I think this level of unprovoked, minor incivility..."

I'm not even addressing a user, so how can it be called "incivility" exactly? I do not understand why you single me out for personal attention, when all I am doing is ensuring Barack Obama reflects a neutral point of view by a fair application of Wikipedia policies. Please stop attacking me, and direct your efforts to reasoned debate and consensus-building. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:14, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

From the Obama Talk page as it stands right now. All of these are violations of WP:CIVIL. I could find none that were the result of someone else baiting/goading/provoking you, in fact, much of it took place when WorkerBee74 was arguing very politely with several different people at once, which can be pretty intimidating for some people. What I have against you, largely, is your ongoing incivility (but we can add to that your complete lack of respect for different points of view, your tendency to constantly comment and object while simultaneously not reading the sources cited by others and the evidence of your lying that I uncovered at the George Stephanopolous page and reported to AN/I). At AN/I I've asked admins to keep close watch on you. I think this evidence of ongoing incivility is one of the biggest remaining problems on the Obama talk page:

• You keep on mentioning WP:WELLKNOWN as if it's some kind of magic wand that makes your points valid, but that simply isn't the case. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:20, 21 July 2008

• The "relationship" was briefly notable when it came up in a TV debate, but beyond that it is all but non-existent (apart from by the right-wing propaganda machine, of course). -- same post

• Oh come now, WB74, [...] Let's drop this smear campaign now, shall we? -- Scjessey (talk) 16:22, 21 July 2008

• And since lame arguments are popular at the moment -- in reply to WorkerBee74 and pretty obviously referring to him -- Scjessey (talk) 12:58, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• Enough of this agenda-based activism already! -- Scjessey (talk) 14:42, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• Actually, no. That is complete nonsense. Wikipedia is littered with poorly-sourced articles, and all you have done is identified a few which use your preferred source and used them as justification for your proposed inclusion. You are advocating lowering the standard of this BLP to bring it into line with shoddily-written BLPs. Awesome plan, that. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:16, 22 July 2008

The above were all directed at WorkerBee74. The one below seems directed at anybody who favors adding mention of Ayers to the article:

• the only reason I can see for wanting to include it in this article is to try to hope some of Ayers' alleged guilt will rub off on Obama. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:26, 26 July 2008

This is just from the current Obama talk page, but from what I recall the archives would show a similar pattern. You've built up quite a record, Scjessey. I suggest you review WP:CIVIL and WP:TALK and stop violating them. Noroton (talk) 00:46, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

If you find any of this stuff to be in violation of WP:CIVIL then let me add to your growing list of my "crimes" by saying that you are overly sensitive to such things. This forms your most ludicrous accusation to date, and if these are the best examples of "evidence" you can come up with then I comfortably predict you will receive nothing but laughter from any administrators who bother to waste their valuable time on it. All the good karma you have built up with other editors is being uselessly pissed away by your apparent devotion to WorkerBee74's agenda. I strongly recommend you take a step back and look at your actions over the past few weeks with a critical eye, so that you can see where you are going wrong. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:02, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

warning

Please do not use talk pages such as Barack Obama for general discussion of the topic. They are for discussion related to improving the article. They are not to be used as a forum or chat room. See here for more information. I've posted this on Wikidemo's page as well. -- Rick Block (talk) 02:17, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

BLP

For the record:

1. [5]

2. [6]

3. [7]

Finis

Noroton, would you mind doing that on my Talk page? I see from ANI (now archived abruptly) that MastCell instructed you to take down your template, but what about mine? Curious bystander (talk) 22:42, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for comment

I've had differences with LotLE in the past, he resolved them, and he's a good editor. Anyone without a personal bias doesn't have a personal heartbeat. He tries to promote WP:NPOV as all good editors do, and there are differences of opinion about NPOV among good editors. His opinion here is wrong, but I have no reason to doubt his sincerity, or that of anyone else involved. Noroton (talk) 03:52, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate these very considerate and measured words. Whatever disagreement I've had with you, and indeed with WB, my hope in the current request is absolutely not about trying to seek any sanction against any editor who has made comments that I believe constitute libel. I honestly and simply do not believe those comments should remain on WP for exactly the reasons I have stated.

I recognize that in a sense of urgency to make the case that Ayers is such an awful associate for Obama to have had, a cycle of increasingly hyperbolic and rhetorical claims has escalated. I see the fairly gentle path from criticizing Ayers to crossing that line to actual libel, but I am certain that line has genuinely been crossed by comments of you and other editors. I acknowledge and believe that it is at most an extremely remote possibility that the Foundation would actually be sued over this, but I am confident that if the comments remain, they are, in fact, actionable.

A funny thing is that a couple years ago, I followed the evolving BLP standards rather closely (as a footnote, I was one of a small number of editors who was threatened with being named as co-defendant with Jimbo Wales for editing a biography, in one of the articles that led to the policy, and spoke with Wales about the matter). At the time, I was a lot like Wikidemo in feeling that First Amendment concerns should categorically trump libel issues. If you dig through old archives, you can see my passionate arguments about jurisdictional differences sabotaging BLP policy, and arguing for Justice Black free-speech absolutism as policy. I was wrong though; the legal standing of WP is really important here, and we live in the legal environment that exists, not the one I would like to exist. As a matter of reality, one well-funded plaintiff, even one with an ultimately unsupportable damage claim, might bring down all of Wikipedia (either temporarily under an injunction, or even permanently if huge punitive damages occurred)... it's not worth having that happen just to get a clever dig in at a living figure you dislike. LotLE×talk 04:21, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again for your comments on my talk page. You're probably right that I should have put something on your talk page quicker. I have a slight excuse about a bad internet connection, but I confess I really wanted the opinions of some uninvolved editors before the ANI turned into yet another endless content dispute. The fact Wikidemo noticed it so quickly is actually something I would have preferred otherwise... of course his/her opinion is important, s/he has every right to contribute, etc. But what I was really hoping to get was some completely fresh eyes on the diffs, editors (especially admins) who had never seen the dispute before, to judge whether my concerns with libel are reasonable. The thing in my mind is that I really do not want sanctions against anyone, I want the comments off Wikipedia. I tried to be as neutral and non-accusatory in my summary as I could, not blaming but even explaining how the comments slid into what I feel is unacceptable.

All the best, and look forward to working together constructively. LotLE×talk 05:17, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I responded to your recent comment at my talk page. LotLE×talk 01:56, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:PostcardHartfordCTOldConnecticutRiverCoveredBridgeCirca1910.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:PostcardHartfordCTOldConnecticutRiverCoveredBridgeCirca1910.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 00:22, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Image:PostcardHartfordCTOldConnecticutRiverCoveredBridgeCirca1910.jpg

A tag has been placed on Image:PostcardHartfordCTOldConnecticutRiverCoveredBridgeCirca1910.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is a redundant copy (all pixels the same or scaled down) of an image in the same file format, which is on Wikipedia (not on Commons), and all inward links have been updated.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on [[ Talk:Image:PostcardHartfordCTOldConnecticutRiverCoveredBridgeCirca1910.jpg|the talk page]] explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Q ^{T C} 13:15, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

ANI report

You have been mentioned in a WP:ANI report here. You may wish to participate in the discussion. Curious bystander (talk) 17:37, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Carolyn Joyce Carty

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Carolyn Joyce Carty, 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. jonathon (talk) 02:23, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

April Fool's Day Did You Know nomination

There are several problems with your proposal. First, you posted it in the archive from 2008's AFMP, instead of 2009, so it is placed in the wrong year. Second, the article is not eligible for DYK. It needs to either be new since the last April Fool's (which it's not) or it needs to have a 5 fold expansion (5 times as large as it was on the last April 1st). The amount of text appears to be just short or very close of the 1500 character minimum (I didn't use a character counter to verify). The DYK articles on April Fool's need to be very funny, and I don't get why this hook is funny. It think your nom should be removed from the 2008 archive since it's an archive of what happened, and you added after the fact. Royalbroil 02:49, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

A Sincere Thank You

		The Current Events Barnstar
		For your thoughtful opinions and expert assistance on a difficult current events topic. Your words were sincerely appreciated. Kelly hi! 13:42, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look at the Edwards article and offering a thoughtful opinion. Yesterday I was a little frustrated, so I turned off the computer and found a comfortable place to sit and read a good Neal Stephenson book that I hadn't taken off the shelf for a while. This morning I see that you, DGG, and GRBerry had provided some real thoughts on the issue. Thank you. The conversation seems to have just died, however - so I guess my only souvenier of about 25 hours of hard work is a big fat warning on my user talk page for writing an attack article. That makes me kind of ill. :(

I've seen the suggestions about Wikinews - I don't know about that. Wikinews is terra incognita to me and I have no idea what they want or look for there. I suppose I could put in even more work to recreate a different version over there, but I have a suspicion it would just be deleted there as well. Besides, with all respect to Wikinews editors, about all I know about them is that not even Wikipedia considers Wikinews to be a valid source, and in all the research I've done into current events topics, I have never even once seen a Wikinews article come up as a search engine hit, unless it's down on page 89 with the MySpace blogs and the Russian Viagra ads. I'm not sure I should throw more time down the hole to write an article that nobody will ever read. Anyway, thanks again for attempting to help - much appreciated! Kelly ^hi! 13:42, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Request for your comment

Here.  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 23:26, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Small note

About this - "out that removing the hook prematurely was no big deal" I took to mean that the hook was removed. I believe the hook was only swapped for an alternative hook that was provided, and that it lasted on the main page for its full six hours. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:50, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the response. I wasn't sure if I missed something. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 21:26, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Image:BarackObamaCertificationOfLiveBirthHawaii.jpg

A tag has been placed on Image:BarackObamaCertificationOfLiveBirthHawaii.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I8 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is available as a bit-for-bit identical copy on the Wikimedia Commons under the same name, or all references to the image on Wikipedia have been updated to point to the title used at Commons.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on [[ Talk:Image:BarackObamaCertificationOfLiveBirthHawaii.jpg|the talk page]] explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Sdrtirs (talk) 21:44, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with the pic being deleted because it's been moved to Wikipedia Commons. Noroton (talk) 23:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

BLP vandal

What's happening on WP:BLP with vandalism? Dreadstar † 04:18, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey, thanks, glad it's gone - the antivandal folks are pretty quick around here...:) Dreadstar † 04:30, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I found this vandalism: [8]. Anon IP user put it on about six different pages: [9]. Dreadstar † 05:28, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

The Obama Nation

Noroton, please reconsider this talk page edit.[10] I cannot reasonably participate in places where my credibility is under attack. Nor do I want to have to respond to untrue claims about my policy positions or edit history - that would inevitably require me to show these are baseless accusations. In combination with some of the other stuff going on from multiple editors this is enough to invoke a request for enforcement under article probation. I wouldn't target you or anyone else, just point out that things are deteriorating on this article past the point of tolerability, and ask for help. Those are all bad options. You're one of the best editors on these pages and I would hate to see you be the first to run afoul of article probation terms. Please take a moment to reflect, and consider toning it down. I am listening to what you say - every part other than your scolding me. And I'll try harder to listen and take your position to heart. You don't need to be harsh to get through. Thanks, Wikidemo (talk) 03:58, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - I see you've responded....much better way to discuss this. I'll respond to your comments, below. Wikidemo (talk) 04:16, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Your recent revert

Would like to discuss your recent revert at The Obama Nation. The author of the section, Wikilost, effectively admitted that the entire section is a WP:OR violation here. He wrote, "Despite your allegations of me copying it from MMA, which I did not ..." It strongly resembles a list at MMA, but I'll take his word for it since he has fessed up to a major policy violation. I mentioned this confession in my article summary when removing that section. Please revert yourself. Thank you. WorkerBee74 (talk) 02:17, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I'm confused. I don't see how WP:OR is violated if the MMA stuff is removed and instead we have material directly attributed to other, more reliable sources that make claims of inaccuracies. We can also note differences between the Corsi book and reliable sources, as was done in the last paragraph of the section (the one about military expansion). Am I missing something?

I also like the idea of mentioning any major alleged errors in the book, and I think the book's errors have become a big part of the book's notability by now, so they're worth a good amount of space. The content section really needs expanding. I'm going to concentrate my efforts elsewhere very soon now, because I think in the long run, that's a better use of my time. I just got the Freddoso book, The Case Against Barack Obama and that looks like a very good, very reliable source (mostly pointing to other sources, but still ...) -- Noroton (talk) 02:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Question re Media Matters for Wikidemo, Loonymonkey and Gamaliel

Loonymonkey asked why I brought up Media Matters at Talk:The Obama Nation page. Here's why: Because three editors here: You, Gamaliel, and Wikidemo, have opposed removing Steven Colbert's response to Rush Limbaugh's criticism of Media Matters for America. You three want to retain a response to a response on that article but somehow a response to a response to this article must go. Could you please explain the inconsistency? Because not explaining it doesn't help your credibility, and if you can explain it, it would be easier for me and other editors who already know about this to reach consensus with you. Noroton (talk) 04:11, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, you will note that I have supported removing Steven Colbert's response to Limbaugh. I think the issue does bear some similarity, and the analysis would be the same. First, Colbert is not a reliable source on most things... and specifically, that particular comedic performance is not reliable. Second, is it notable and relevant to the Media Matters article? It does not seem so. It just seems like a random opinion. Where you and I disagreed is that I did not consider it a BLP violation against Limbaugh, just a non-notable opinion. It probably has NPOVV and weight concerns to boot. Similarly, I see no POV issues in the various bloggers' criticisms of Obama, just that they don't have the relevance or reliability to be an actual claim about Obama's statements, and they are not sufficiently notable to the article at hand for them to be reportable as opinions. If one of these bloggers got into a big public fight with Obama over the issue or started hitting the book tour circuit with the book author, and their jumping on the bandwagon covered regularly in the New York Times, then I could see their opinion being notable. I try to be fairly consistent about this throughout the encyclopedia, the point of avoiding attacks on the critics and not letting Wikipedia become a forum for rehashing the underlying debate. You are free to call me on it if I ever do support non-notable opinions, but please, in the article where that happens. In this article, I think we have the same problem in the McCain section, where McCain's response to the book is portrayed to look foolish. Wikidemo (talk) 04:25, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

As I noted on the talk page, in my particular case I said I could accept the Tapper quote if used properly. And I never spoken in favor of using the Colbert quote, I just objected to blanket prohibitions that you proposed against using such a quote. Not so much in favor of the quote as against the reasons you want to delete it. Gamaliel (talk) 05:15, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for responding. My response to this is encompassed in my response to Loonymonkey below. Noroton (talk) 21:43, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

That argument has nothing to do with this one and your anger over the whole situation seems to be a departure from your traditional cool-headedness. In the MM article, you were arguing that the Colbert quote was a violation of WP:BLP, an argument which gained no support at the noticeboard, and that Colbert is inherently an unreliable source (even for opinion) because he practices satire (an argument with which I disagree). Neither of those arguments have been raised in this case. Also, the MM situation is not a "response to a response" it's simply a response. National Review criticized MM and many people responded to that criticism (I tend to agree that Colbert said it more succinctly than most, but I'm not going to delve back into that argument).

Frankly, I thought you were coming from a different angle when you initially posted a "warning" for other editors to watch this article. I expected that you would help guard against the inevitable soapboxing that would (and did) occur from both sides. I didn't expect you to fall in line with chronically tendentious WP:SPA editors like WorkerBee (and his self-admitted meatpuppet, CuriousBystander). --Loonymonkey (talk) 20:25, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for responding. Colbert is inherently unreliable not because he practices satire but because he does it as a comedian with a focus is on yucking it up rather than convincing people. If George Will, Rush Limbaugh or The New Republic or someone/something known to be reliable about voicing opinions with the object of convincing others were to do satire, there would be no problem with ascribing the point of view to the person/institution presenting it. That's more a WP:Reliable sources problem. (It's not an absolute distinction, by the way, since both motives are present to some degree, but you can usually draw the distinction.) The WP:BLP problem is that Colbert was mocking another person, which is what Wikipedia is barred from doing. The two problems intersect and are intensified because satire created with the intent of amusing people can be vicious and less serious than satire mostly intended to convince -- and that's very hard to describe on Wikipedia in a way that readers can evaluate.

The parallels between these two cases are closer than you realize. In each article, Wikipedia has said the following:

• Media Matters / The Obama Nation criticizes someone -- whether that's mentioned elsewhere in the WP articles on them is irrelevant
• That someone responds
• A response is made to the response

As to the argument over whether a response to a response is worthwhile, the situations are identical. Wikidemo doesn't like responses to responses (although there's no basis in policy for that -- simply an interpretation of WP:WEIGHT, which is the most maleable bit of policy in existence since anyone can give any interpretation to it). I think responses to responses are fine. Gamaliel doesn't object on those grounds. What's your position?

As to your other comments, I already responded to what makes me mad: Wikipedia treating living human beings like dirt always has made me mad and always will. Your support for the mocking of another human being on Wikipedia mainspace doesn't even have the figleaf that Colbert was making some useful point. There was no useful point -- he simply treated Limbaugh and others like dirt, got a laugh out of it and collected his paycheck. No insight at all into the issue at hand was provided, and the comments I've seen to the contrary are not credible. And to wedge in that BLP-violating attack, Media Matters itself had to be cited, and that website is not a reliable source for anything but its own opinions (I'm not even sure it's reliable for that, the more I think about it). So if Wikipedians refuse to have high enough standards to refrain from using Wikipedia to treat subjects this way, this particular passage can still be shown to be violating other Wikipedia policies and guidelines. At some point the multiple ways in which that passage violates Wikipedia standards is going to embarass enough editors to get it removed.

As to guarding against soapboxing: I'm concentrating on WP:CIVIL on the talk page and WP:NPOV on the main page. I don't have time to follow everything on either page, so I'm not sure what you're talking about, but I think I'm doing my part. Feel free to point out the particulars on soapboxing if you think I can help out in that way. Noroton (talk) 21:43, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Book pic

I assume you mean the book picture - I downloaded it from a different online bookstore cover image. I would've Photoshopped it if necessary, but there was no need in this instance. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:55, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

If you look in the bit under File history, you are given the option to "Upload a new version of this file" (very handy). I do not have the book, but I have heard that it is orders of magnitude better than The Obama Nation, with many rave reviews. I can't afford to buy political books at the moment (trying to sell my house). -- Scjessey (talk) 02:05, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm inviting your comment

Here (and also, if possible, here?)  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 05:11, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

August 2008

Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, that an article to which you have recently contributed, Barack Obama, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Talk:Barack Obama/Article probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles.

The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:25, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Ha! Noroton knew that already. Have a good friday :) Wikidemo (talk) 23:07, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Can we please disengage?

Noroton, I have a very good editing relationship overall, and you've been one of the more even-keeled and sensible editors representing some of the positions you have. So I really don't want to see you and me devolving to the level of personal slights. Please accept that I have considered the positions I state. I do my best, and will do my best, to honor you as a serious, productive editor and to discourage anyone from being uncivil to you. I'll try to give you a wider berth for now - if it were not me, someone else would surely say what I said on the content, and someone else would revert the farther afield article edits. I definitely have no plan based on where things stand to complain in any formal way about your editing, and I'll do what I can to tone it down, perhaps take longer periods away from the articles. One way or another, let's not let this get to us. There are far hotter heads than the two of us on Wikipedia. Let's set the best example for them. Cheers, Wikidemo (talk) 03:22, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Notice

You have not disengaged - in fact you have been rather confrontational with me lately, and increasingly strident and uncivil to other editors. Please cease this at once - it is becoming intolerable. I have been patient, encouraged peace, and even defended the integrity of your editing, but patience has limits. Please stop all attempts to belittle, impugn, or accuse other editors on the talk page, and do not direct sarcasm or cursewords to them, or accusations that they do not know policy or are not reading the conversation. This will likely be my last attempt to communicate with you directly on the subject - even now I am asking you here, in relative privacy, rather than seeking administrative remedy. No need to supply diffs - most of your talk page contributions from the past two days would qualify. This cannot continue. Thanks, Wikidemo (talk) 06:29, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Wudja

Consider writing this for me?  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 12:47, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

You are mentioned in an Obama incident report

HereTalk:Barack Obama/Article probation/Incidents#Noroton - courtesy notice. - Wikidemo (talk) 10:33, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Latest Obama / Ayers edits

I'm generally in agreement with your edits - some of the stuff that was added of late and you removed either from the lead or the article as a whole seems to be arguing one side of the position is probably better left out. My main issue is that by removing Scheiber, Hayden, and Cass Sunstein's comments, yet leaving in Freddoso and Corsi, it only tells one side of the pundit reaction. I don't really like the Chapman piece that you did leave in because it's a counter-attack on McCain, which doesn't really have much bearing on things. I don't think the article needs to go into as much detail as it did as to exactly what the Ayers and Obama defenders arguments are, just that there were some commentators who said that the contacts did not matter. I might discuss this on the talk page later, just wanted to give you a heads up - also I'll wait a while, possibly a long while, before inserting this, to make sure you're through and that nobody has any other objections. But again, 90% of the changes look like an improvement to me. Have a good weekend. Wikidemon (talk) 01:47, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Controversy over an Obama–Ayers connection

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Controversy over an Obama–Ayers connection. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:33, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I must say, your unilateral editing of at least three today to promote the characterization of Ayers as a terrorist, despite my objections and attempt to work with you on the subject, suggests you are no longer interested in a discussion and consensus on the matter. Calling Ayers a terrorist is a simple BLP violation, and it simply will not fly in the encyclopedia. I don't feel I can reach out to you on compromise editing solutions if you are going to go off in the middle of the discussion and add the very material I was objecting to most strongly. We're probably done here. You need to give it a rest.Wikidemon (talk) 06:01, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I was working with you at the Weatherman page, but you haven't compromised on anything regarding calling Ayers a terrorist either on his bio page or the controversy page. And I find your objections outlandish. And I find you're not trying to rein in Scjessey's outlandish statements at all. Your position is extreme, so it's hard to compromise with that. WP:WELLKNOWN exists. The sources exist, and they are many and extremely reliable. You basically said you weren't going to allow anything that would embarass your candidate. Well, we're not here to protect a candidate, we're here to try to get readers closer to the truth, and the truth is Ayers is described this way by vast numbers of sources. We'll see what flies and what doesn't. What I'm here to "promote" is an honest description, based on the best sources. When I added better sources, I thought you would come around. Why haven't you? Why do you so often indicate that you're working back from your conclusion that Ayers must not be called a terrorist and then establishing what's acceptable to add to the article under WP:BLP when it works the other way around -- if you can't justify it under WP:BLP, then you must not add it. Not the way it works. Noroton (talk) 06:19, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

You are edit warring to insert BLP violations, wikigaming, etc. You probably need to take a step back from the Obama-related articles at this point. Wikidemon (talk) 06:22, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

You are invited to participate in the dispute mediation regarding POV in the Obama-Ayers Controversy article. Thank you. Freedom Fan (talk) 19:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Seriously.. sweet. =

I followed you from an edit of yours and just wanted to comment. You have a freekin sweet user page.. it's like a meuseum. :) --98.243.129.181 (talk) 05:41, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

I have just dined upon roast duck, and I must say I had some sympathy for the fowl... ;~) LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:55, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Heya

Just noticed your name and your focus of editing. Cool beans (Bridgeport/Stratford guy, here). rootology (C)(T) 16:46, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

It's all good

No apology necessary. It would be pretty hypocritical of me to hold it against you for doing something I'm known to do on a regular basis. (You should have seen me get my head bitten off the first time I made my opinion known regarding a long-running feud over at WR!) Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 20:28, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

BLP warning

Please self-revert this BLP violation now so I do not have to take this to ANI or BLP/N.[11] You are accusing a living person of murder. You have no consensus for this edit. Wikidemon (talk) 03:15, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:FAR for Barack Obama

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.

I have nominated Barack Obama for Featured Article Review. You are welcome to paerticipate in the discussion. Curious bystander (talk) 23:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

WU RfC

Do you think the RfC will ever be resolved? It looks like this has become a merry go round. Might it be a good idea to abandon it and go to Arbitration? The behavior of many of the editors certainly warrants disciplinary actions. CENSEI (talk) 13:42, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: Bill Ayers

Thank you for participating in editing the Bill Ayers article and discussing calmly on the talk page. I'm trying to come to a consensus on various aspects of the lead. In order to keep comments about "violence" in one spot, I consolidated a short section and moved your comment and Scjessey's into Talk:Bill Ayers#Ayers and violence. I'm going to try to ignore all impolite comments on that page and reach a consensus. If you have a problem with my moving your comment, please feel free to move it back. I appreciate the views of any editors, whether or not they agree with mine, as long as they can state them civilly, so thank you. I've also got a proposal at Talk:Weatherman (organization)/Terrorism RfC#Noroton's proposal #1 -- for Bernardine Dohrn which I expect will get more comment. I'll be making a similar proposal about Bill Ayers on that page by tomorrow, and whether you agree or disagree, any civil comments there are welcome, too. -- Noroton (talk) 15:42, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Norton, thanks for the heads up and no, I don't mind if you move my comments. As always, Wikipedia is not about the "truth" but about already established, reliably sourced material. Are there sources that describe Ayers as violent? If so, it would be good to add that citation to the lead paragraph of that article so the revert war can slow. Thank you, --Tom 15:46, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I think we normally don't add citations in a lead, since it's supposed to reflect what's cited already somewhere in the rest of the article, but I'm flexible on that, and with something potentially controversial, it might be a good idea. Isn't all terrorism "violence"? I think "violence" includes destruction of property and would include bombing and the rioting at the Days of Rage protest, which Ayers helped organize. In Talk:Bill Ayers#Ayers and violence I quoted passages that talk about him organizing the bombing of the Detroit Police Officers Association building and a Detroit police precinct building, and at Talk:Weatherman (organization)/Terrorism RfC#Statement: Sourced evidence from Noroton I've got various lists of sources that state he was high up in the Weatherman and was called a "terrorist". This all may be irrelevant if I get support for "terrorist" in the article (I certainly have tons of sourcing on that RfC page for that). But is there anything in those two spots that looks like a good source to you? If nothing else, there's this (from a Google Books Search results page here -- I can't seem to link to a longer passage):

Weatherman - Page 487

by Harold Jacobs - Political Science - 1970 - 519 pages

"When factionalism shattered SDS in 1969, she and Bill Ayers joined the most radical, extreme, violence-prone faction, the Weathermen. [...]"

This page from Terrorism: A Documentary History may also be a good source. [12] How's that? (I probably can't comment for the rest of the day, but I'll be free tomorrow.) -- Noroton (talk) 16:03, 20 September 2008 (UTC) -- added comment, Noroton (talk) 16:16, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Noroton, what the heck is this supposed to be?[13] You are starting to wikistalk now. Very, very bad. Cut it out, now. Wikidemon (talk) 02:17, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Stop the personal attacks. I'm reverting this one.[14] And stop making threats. Wikidemon (talk) 04:10, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

And stop stalking and harassing me[15] This is getting out of hand. Wikidemon (talk) 07:32, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

As you can see, Noroton, and as you said during the Barack Obama FAR, these are not Wikipedia articles. They're Obamapedia articles. I've always tried to look at politics from a strictly neutral and non-partisan view. But my experience on these articles has led me to start rooting for McCain so that these partisan editors might get a comeuppance.

Generally speaking, when you point out that they've done something wrong and you don't approve, it's a personal attack against them. Thanks for your note on my talk page on September 22. I don't even look at WP much any more. A great opportunity to create a reliable, neutral online encyclopedia is being squandered for partisan left-wing purposes. It's depressing to watch. WorkerBee74 (talk) 16:56, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Planetree Alliance

I was about to place a speedy tag on this article as G11 promotional, until I saw you has written it. And then I saw the companion article List of Planetree Alliance members, which seems even more promotional. So, in the spirit of not templating the regulars, I want to tell you about them first--maybe you can rescue them. The long list of their principles is pure advertising. I really wonder that it would have been someone as experienced as you who wrote them. DGG (talk) 22:53, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Interesting AFD

I don't think this is canvassing, since it's bound for a clear keep already, but you might be curious in the article (I doubt I'd have time to expand it much): Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blue Laws. rootology (C)(T) 14:42, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Disruption

Please stop being intentionally disruptive at Talk:Barack Obama. Your constant, agenda-based arguing over material that has been excluded by consensus on multiple occasions is highly tendentious. None of this Ayers material you are constantly pushing is even remotely germane to Obama's BLP. I have asked you nicely. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:14, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I ignored most of it, because it seemed to simply be a continuation of your ongoing disruption. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:24, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Regarding your comments on User talk:Scjessey: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:29, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

3RR

Courtesy notice. I have reported your seeming violation of WP:3RR with respect to Talk:Barack Obama on the 3RR notice board (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR). - Wikidemon (talk) 19:29, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Weatherman

I guess you didn't see the section at the bottom of the article. Much of the information you added was already there, so I removed it. Feel free to add some there, but I think that section sufficiently addresses what you wanted. Grsz^X 01:20, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, there went 3RR. Grsz^X 02:18, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Disruption

Stop now. [16][this disruption] You are editing warring to insert controversial content against consensus.Wikidemon (talk) 01:37, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

And stop this harassment - you know better than reverting-in insults on another editor's talk page.[17][18] 01:37, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

FYI, a report has been filed at WP:AN/I about your recent edits. Wikidemon (talk) 01:57, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Blocked

Blocked: You have been blocked from editing for one week for edit-warring on Weatherman (organization), incivility ([19]; [20]; [21]), editing others' comments ([22]; [23]), and this edit to Wikidemon's talkpage. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in hostile editing behavior. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may appeal it by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} to this page. east718 // talk // email // 02:35, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Noroton (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

1First, thank you, TerriersFan. The part about this that hurts me most is realizing that I've inconvenienced editors who mean the best for the encyclopedia, and seeing your note on east 718's talk page brought that home to me. I apologize for the trouble and if unblocked I won't cause you to regret it. I was wrong. I should have kept my temper better under the unrelenting, months-long assault from Wikidemon. Please unblock me so that I can unrelentingly defend the encyclopedia from this POV pusher's polite subversion, and I will follow every jot and tittle of WP:CIV and edit warring policy as I drag that editor through every single dispute resolution forum that has any hope of preventing his continued tendentious subversion of this encyclopedia. What annoys me most is giving that editor the satisfaction of my continued block, so I will be scrupulous in following every Wikipedia behavioral policy that I can as I appeal to other editors to squelch that user's abusive wikilawyering on the Weatherman RfD. Whether I'm unblocked today or a week from today, that is going to be my top priority, and I will not rest until I have exhausted every single proper Wikipedia outlet for it. In two years and more of making 35,000-plus edits, I have never experienced anything like Wikidemon's corrosive activities. That editor will be stopped. My holding my temper is, I realize, a small price for me to pay in unrelentingly pursuing it. You want me to pay more attention to Wikipedia polices while doing it? I pledge to do it. I don't want that to be a distraction to my top priority. That editor will be stopped. Within all Wikipedia polices. I won't go around them. And I won't swear or edit war. But Wikidemon's POV pushing will be stopped. -- Noroton (talk) 03:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Unblock requests that contain accusations or attacks against others are generally not acted upon; see WP:GAB. Given that the main thrust of your unblock request is an announcement that you intend to engage in conflict with another editor, I am not convinced that unblocking you at this stage would ensure that no further disruption occurs. —  Sandstein  07:21, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

Noroton (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Sandstein wrote: Given that the main thrust of your unblock request is an announcement that you intend to engage in conflict with another editor, I am not convinced that unblocking you at this stage would ensure that no further disruption occurs. I said in my previous unblock request I would follow dispute resolution. I said I wouldn't violate WP:CIV. Sandstein simply replied that he didn't believe me, although I don't recall ever having any communication with him before and I don't know how familiar he is with me. He seemed to base his rejection on a feeling that if I still felt strongly Wikidemon was doing something wrong, then I wouldn't follow policies. Well, I was angry about Wikidemon's actions before, I'm angry now and I'll be angry a week and a month and a year from now if I don't get the sense that admins or arbitrators are listening. But I'll hold my temper while being angry. Look: I've been here for two years. If my word isn't to be trusted, then you need to lengthen the block to indefinite, because I'm not going to be any more trustworthy six days from now than I am today. Would it help if I said I'll be calm in pursuing Wikidemon through dispute resolution? I'm going to do it sooner or later, and it would be easier for me to keep my temper if I'm not treated like some teenage vandal. Don't think you're calming anything down by slamming me or hinting that I need to grovel. -- Noroton (talk) 03:10, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=Sandstein wrote: ''Given that the main thrust of your unblock request is an announcement that you intend to engage in conflict with another editor, I am not convinced that unblocking you at this stage would ensure that no further disruption occurs.'' I said in my previous unblock request I would follow dispute resolution. I said I wouldn't violate WP:CIV. Sandstein simply replied that he didn't believe me, although I don't recall ever having any communication with him before and I don't know how familiar he is with me. He seemed to base his rejection on a feeling that if I still felt strongly Wikidemon was doing something wrong, then I wouldn't follow policies. Well, I was angry about Wikidemon's actions before, I'm angry now and I'll be angry a week and a month and a year from now if I don't get the sense that admins or arbitrators are listening. But I'll hold my temper while being angry. Look: I've been here for two years. If my word isn't to be trusted, then you need to lengthen the block to indefinite, because I'm not going to be any more trustworthy six days from now than I am today. Would it help if I said I'll be calm in pursuing Wikidemon through dispute resolution? I'm going to do it sooner or later, and it would be easier for me to keep my temper if I'm not treated like some teenage vandal. Don't think you're calming anything down by slamming me or hinting that I need to grovel. -- [[User:Noroton|Noroton]] ([[User talk:Noroton#top|talk]]) 03:10, 11 October 2008 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=Sandstein wrote: ''Given that the main thrust of your unblock request is an announcement that you intend to engage in conflict with another editor, I am not convinced that unblocking you at this stage would ensure that no further disruption occurs.'' I said in my previous unblock request I would follow dispute resolution. I said I wouldn't violate WP:CIV. Sandstein simply replied that he didn't believe me, although I don't recall ever having any communication with him before and I don't know how familiar he is with me. He seemed to base his rejection on a feeling that if I still felt strongly Wikidemon was doing something wrong, then I wouldn't follow policies. Well, I was angry about Wikidemon's actions before, I'm angry now and I'll be angry a week and a month and a year from now if I don't get the sense that admins or arbitrators are listening. But I'll hold my temper while being angry. Look: I've been here for two years. If my word isn't to be trusted, then you need to lengthen the block to indefinite, because I'm not going to be any more trustworthy six days from now than I am today. Would it help if I said I'll be calm in pursuing Wikidemon through dispute resolution? I'm going to do it sooner or later, and it would be easier for me to keep my temper if I'm not treated like some teenage vandal. Don't think you're calming anything down by slamming me or hinting that I need to grovel. -- [[User:Noroton|Noroton]] ([[User talk:Noroton#top|talk]]) 03:10, 11 October 2008 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=Sandstein wrote: ''Given that the main thrust of your unblock request is an announcement that you intend to engage in conflict with another editor, I am not convinced that unblocking you at this stage would ensure that no further disruption occurs.'' I said in my previous unblock request I would follow dispute resolution. I said I wouldn't violate WP:CIV. Sandstein simply replied that he didn't believe me, although I don't recall ever having any communication with him before and I don't know how familiar he is with me. He seemed to base his rejection on a feeling that if I still felt strongly Wikidemon was doing something wrong, then I wouldn't follow policies. Well, I was angry about Wikidemon's actions before, I'm angry now and I'll be angry a week and a month and a year from now if I don't get the sense that admins or arbitrators are listening. But I'll hold my temper while being angry. Look: I've been here for two years. If my word isn't to be trusted, then you need to lengthen the block to indefinite, because I'm not going to be any more trustworthy six days from now than I am today. Would it help if I said I'll be calm in pursuing Wikidemon through dispute resolution? I'm going to do it sooner or later, and it would be easier for me to keep my temper if I'm not treated like some teenage vandal. Don't think you're calming anything down by slamming me or hinting that I need to grovel. -- [[User:Noroton|Noroton]] ([[User talk:Noroton#top|talk]]) 03:10, 11 October 2008 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

The above comment - "Unrelenting, months-long assault from Wikidemon", "Wikidemon's POV pushing will be stopped", plus the parallel threat on my talk page[24] suggest that Noroton intends to continue carrying out some kind of vendetta against me for opposing his content warring. What he refers to as some kind of evil plot is simply me being an editor on Wikipedia. He is obviously not ready, so please do not toss him back into the fray. Further, if you could, please make clear that once his block does expire he should cease from the personal attacks, incivilities, edit warring, and increasingly strident battleground mentality. Ending the abusive attacks would definitely be an improvement, but having an editor devoting his entire Wikipedia career to "squelching" my participation here is a bit spooky. Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 04:24, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Your continued taunting won't work, Wikidemon. I'm beyond taking the bait. You have a lot to fear from my following all Wikipedia policies and guidelines to the letter and spirit concerning you. I believe that's the most effective way to deal with you. You don't have to worry about me making personal attacks; you'll have quite enough to worry about when other editors are shown your diffs with scrupulously fair descriptions from me. You really shouldn't have provoked me into revealing your edit history to other editors. As far as you're concerned, it won't matter whether I'm unblocked an hour from now or a week from now. -- Noroton (talk) 05:14, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

If you get unblocked

Then wikidemon, et all, are on the incident repot board here. I don't know much about it, but I gather you've had similar problems with his threatening/bullying manner, and your input would be apprecieated. TheGoodLocust (talk) 04:39, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Thegoodlocust, editors just don't know all the interesting things Wikidemon has done. That's going to change. -- Noroton (talk) 05:23, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Well good luck, he is obviously abusive and has a habit of bullying people with official looking notices and subtle threats. TheGoodLocust (talk) 05:27, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I would strongly suggest that making threats and implying what you will or won't do once unblocked is not likely to put you in good stead with neutral admins. I've been watching this whole thing boil over for weeks on AN/I and I think most admins are sick of the carry-on. Orderinchaos 10:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC)