User talk:Die4Dixie

As requested, my argument for ACORN sentence, organized

This is a form message I'm cross posting on various user talk pages: As requested, I wrote up my argument in one spot, consolidating what I'd said before and adding just a bit. Please take a look at it at User:Noroton/The case for including ACORN and comment at Talk:Barack Obama#Case for ACORN proposed language, restated. Thanks, Noroton (talk) 03:01, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

re Salon

I checked out your user edits but I couldn't find what you were referencing. It probably was staring me right in the face ;) Can you point me to what it is? Trilemma (talk) 21:59, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barack_Obama_presidential_primary_campaign%2C_2008&diff=prev&oldid=225719164

i think that the whole salon thing is over the top vand every reference needs to be removed. My edit should highlight the inappropriateness of the source. I know WP point, but when I tried to touch it the folks climbed out of the wood work to revert.--Die4Dixie (talk) 01:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to Talk:Barack Obama

Let's keep it simple and civil. You know they will try to bait us and provoke us into something and then get us blocked for it. You have described this as the disagree/ provoke/ report cycle. Don't let them do it. When they start baiting you, report them. WorkerBee74 (talk) 16:36, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

July 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at WP:ANI, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. [1] Cailil ^talk 19:24, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Your welcome is passive- agressive. I have been here long enough that a welcome can only serve one purpose. I see that you are involved now, and that you , by claiming the mention of my name to be legitimate in that context, you condone the attack. I will leave this to see if there is any more behavior on your part that is questionable. Please leave me and my talk page alone after this.Die4Dixie (talk) 19:29, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Per policy, editing other user's comments has few exceptions -- none of which is applicable in this case. Please cease this behavior, and assume good faith. seicer | talk | contribs 19:32, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

My goodness. a veritable band wagon.-Die4Dixie (talk) 19:33, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

"Removing personal attacks and incivility. This is controversial, and many editors do not feel it is acceptable; please read WP:ATTACK#Removal of text and WP:CIVIL#Removal of uncivil comments before removing anything." this falls under the policy of acceptable practice.Die4Dixie (talk) 19:34, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Removing personal attacks may be acceptable, although as noted it is controversial. If you must do so, you should remove the entire comment and indicate clearly in the text that the personal attack has been removed. Changing someone's words without any indication of this on the page is not acceptable. -- SCZenz (talk) 06:26, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I did note that I removed the attack in the summary. Next time I will be less ambiguous. Thank you for your moderate tone. Other Administrators could learn from you.Die4Dixie (talk) 01:01, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Words in precise senses

Could you maybe talk to lulu and scjessy? LuLu is an atheist, which is ok, but I question his labeling a member of the clergy a mere orator and perhaps he is not familiar with naming conventions within Christian sects[2]. Judging from his statements on the talk page, he mistakenly believes that a visiting pastor from another denomination cannot give a sermon in a differently denominated house of worship[3], and that this was merely a speech. He then edited the page ignoring our working towards consensus. If you can talk to them and reign them in , I will try and contact Worker bee and do the same. I'm sick of the constant bickering about the pettiest of things. This appears to be one.Die4Dixie (talk) 23:28, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I stumbled across this comment of yours. It seems as if you are operating under a certain misunderstanding about my comments and edits. Specifically, you seem to think I believe the word "oratory" is somehow a pejorative or dismissive word. It really isn't. I happen to know something about the history of terms (and of rhetoric), and about the history of religious practices, and I think "oratory" is, if anything, rather a term of praise or exaltation. Of course, I'm also admittedly slightly curmudgeonly about newfangled misunderstanding of fine classical words with precise meanings. For example, in a Protestant denomination, I would cringe at a pastor being described as a deacon (or vice versa), but not because the one role is better than the other, rather entirely because the words mean different things (even if some people confuse them). LotLE×talk 00:58, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

As I stated before, oratory robs the action of its religious context. This would seem to substantiate this[4]. Sermon is unambiguous. I do appreciate your cordial response.Die4Dixie (talk) 00:58, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Funny. "Oratory" is usually used in its religious context. Enough so that the first listed sense in many dictionaries is this historically secondary specifically Catholic meaning:

oratory 1 |ˈôrəˌtôrē; ˈär-|
noun ( pl. -ries)
1 a small chapel, esp. for private worship. 
[ORIGIN: Middle English : from Anglo-Norman French oratorie, from  
ecclesiastical Latin oratorium, based on Latin orare ‘pray, speak.’ ]
2 ( Oratory) (in the Roman Catholic Church) a religious society of secular 
priests founded in Rome in 1564 to provide plain preaching and popular 
services and established in various countries. [ORIGIN: from Congregation 
of the Fathers of the Oratory.]

Obviously, I mean that speaking itself in this discussion, rather than the noun for the place Catholics designate for the religious speech. Oh well, I don't really care that much about "sermon" either; I don't know enough about Obama's UCC denomination to know specifically whether they would call a visiting priest's talk a "sermon" or not, but unless there is a specific source indicating it, it's not an inaccuracy we need to worry unduly about. LotLE×talk 01:27, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your patience. I think the three sources that I showed on the talk page make the case for it having been a sermon. A wiki link to oratory here would confuse readers, while one to sermon would edify them.Die4Dixie (talk) 01:32, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean "edify" as in?

ORIGIN Middle English : from Old French edifier, from Latin aedificare 
‘build,’ from aedis ‘dwelling’ + facere ‘make’ (compare with edifice ). 
The word originally meant [construct a building,] also [strengthen,] 
hence to “build up” morally or spiritually.

Just curious. :-). Best wishes, LotLE×talk 01:35, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

(Spanish: Edificio = building/structure) Just to give more input reg. this ;) . Regards from another curious one, --Floridianed (talk) 01:58, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Ops. In context: Spanish: edificar = build on, enhance etc.! That comes closer to Dixi's context. --Floridianed (talk) 02:04, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

[5]

Main Entry:

   ed·i·fy Listen to the pronunciation of edify

Pronunciation:

   \ˈe-də-ˌfī\ 

Function:

   transitive verb 

Inflected Form(s):

   ed·i·fied; ed·i·fy·ing

Etymology:

   Middle English, from Anglo-French edifier, from Late Latin & Latin; Late Latin aedificare to instruct or improve spiritually, from Latin, to erect a house, from aedes temple, house; akin to Old English ād funeral pyre, Latin aestas summer

Date:

   14th century

1archaic a: build b: establish2: to instruct and improve especially in moral and religious knowledge : uplift; also : enlighten, inform.

It is in this sense that I use the word. I attended a public school [6] in the UK, and my mother is a British subject. We often used edify in the sense of instruct. I love language and am seeking a Masters in Spanish linguistics. I enjoy this more than Obama.Die4Dixie (talk) 13:03, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Also from your source on oratory [7]:or·a·to·ry2 • n. the art or practice of formal speaking in public. ∎ exaggerated, eloquent, or highly colored language: learned discussions degenerated into pompous oratory. DERIVATIVES: or·a·tor·i·cal / ˌôrəˈtôrikəl/ adj.

To describe his speech as exaggerated, highly colored, or eloquent, we would need a third party source. We have three that called it a sermon. ;) Die4Dixie (talk) 13:23, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I definitely didn't intend to use the sense of characterizing Pfleger's speech as exaggerated, eloquent or highly-colored. I don't necessarily disagree with any of the characterizations either, but it's not my place to make such WP:OR characterization. I do think the first sense is the one readers are more likely to read. I also wouldn't characterize the speech as Sermon: (informal) a long or tedious piece of admonition or reproof (again, not because I disagree as such, but because it's original research). Those darn words often have multiple meanings :-). LotLE×talk 17:25, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Main Entry:

   ser·mon Listen to the pronunciation of sermon

Pronunciation:

   \ˈsər-mən\ 

Function:

   noun 

Etymology:

   Middle English, from Anglo-French sermun, from Medieval Latin sermon-, sermo, from Latin, speech, conversation, from serere to link together — more at series

Date:

   13th century

1 : a religious discourse delivered in public usually by a clergyman as a part of a worship service 2 : a speech on conduct or duty — ser·mon·ic Listen to the pronunciation of sermonic \ˌsər-ˈmä-nik\ adjective [8] It's hard to see where you get your definitions from. ZI think the only religious context for "oratory" is the part in a church. There is no acceptance for a religious context other than this. I can't imagine anyone trying to use the word for a part of a building for a religious sermon. I imagine that if you use a good dictionary, like the one I'm referencing, it would clear up any misconceptions you might have about le mot juste with oratory and sermon (tongue firmly in cheek :0Die4Dixie (talk) 17:54, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

The definition I copied for "sermon" was from Apple's dictionary. I'm pretty sure they license Merriam-Webster, with various additions, but I can't see that right now in the About screen (it might be interesting to know edition, version, etc). Apple's dictionary is pretty good, but so are lots of others. LotLE×talk 19:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: "Spanish in United States Virgin Islands" and "Userpage"

Hello, Die4Dixie. You have new messages at Floridianed's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

(noticed that one link [regarding the "Virgin Islands" didn't work and changed it. --Floridianed (talk) 02:06, 28 July 2008 (UTC))

"Userpage"

Responce here: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Floridianed#Userpage ]

Derrick O'Brien

Please see Talk:Derrick O'Brien and add a title to the new image. Regards, --Floridianed (talk) 23:52, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Barack Obama/Article probation/Incidents

Aloha. My reply is posted here. Cheers, Arjuna (talk) 06:58, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

User name

I've read through the discussion and looked briefly at your contribution history. I really don't know what to make of both. I personally find your user name to be misleading, promotional, offensive, and disruptive -- which means it violates the four criteria for inappropriate usernames. However, you have impressed enough people with your edits such that they have basically given you a free pass. I'm not going to fight the shitstem, but I will say that I found your user page more offensive than your user name. I get the sense that you are putting people on and this is all an "act", but I doubt I'll be able to prove it. Viriditas (talk) 14:26, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

'WTF?' At any point you would like to discuss any of the above you are welcome to do so. My edits had nothing to do with my username issue. My name is certainly within guidelines. Sorry you find my mixed heritage, of which I'm very proud, offensive. For the record, I also had a federal Indian number courtesy of a Muskogee grandmother.That I'm a five point Calvinist offends you? Sorry again. I would recommend you not view my user page as I will be uploading pictures of busts of John Knox. Also Of Adam Smith. Now if you return to my userpage, then I will ask that you have the same respect for my culture that you would expect me to show Polynesian ones. I doubt you will be back, as it is certainly easier to trow stones as one runs away, than to have a mutually respectful debate on the issues.--Die4Dixie (talk) 17:58, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I have never commented on your "mixed heritage". And, although you conveniently hide behind them in every discussion, culture and heritage are not the issue. On the one hand, Wikipedians have taken issue with your user name. After what happened in October 2007, I find it surprising you haven't tried to fix this problem. Good standing Wikipedians with questionable user names often attempt to assuage editors with a simple explanation on their user page; For some reason, you have avoided the issue. Instead, you use your user page to promote fundamentalist religious beliefs, southern politics, and race, three more controversial topics. Additionally, a userbox of Barack Obama appears with an "X" crossing out his face. This could be construed as "inflammatory or divisive". Userboxes are used "to directly (or even indirectly) help Wikipedians collaborate more effectively on articles." As WP:UBX reminds us, "Wikipedia is not an appropriate place for propaganda, advocacy, or recruitment of any kind, commercial, political, religious, or otherwise, opinion pieces on current affairs or politics, self-promotion, or advertising." Your user page does not conform to these principles. I would also like to note that "fundamentalism" of any kind on any spectrum of belief, from religion to politics, is contrary to and incompatible with the purposes of a free, secular encyclopedia like Wikipedia. Viriditas (talk) 20:24, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that you, Viriditas, are seriously over-reacting to Die4's userpage. Diversity in the Wikipedia project includes fundamentalists of all stripes, if they edit in good faith. I say this as a former Baptist (turned Quaker), a socialist, a descendant of loyal Union Tennesseans who feels that the Confederacy was a contemptible treasonous conspiracy, and an escaped Southerner who thinks that the Republican Party of the South is a disgrace to the once-honorable history of that organization. WP:NPA, WP:AGF and all that; react to the edits, not the userboxes. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:22, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Orangemike. Congrats on your admin status. Long time no see. Fancy meeting you here. I gues us dumb ole hicks are the last people it's ok to disparage because of culture. I don't think I like a world view that says that every world view is ok except the ones I don't like. Sounds Orwellian and generally icky. We did , however , give ya'll hell the first few years;). Just passing through, or been around a while?Die4Dixie (talk) 21:30, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Orangemike, but we will have to agree to disagreee. The userbox I mentioned above does not meet the criteria for WP:U, and the user name does not meet WP:UN. You can hit me over the head with your admin status until the cows come home, but it will not change my position. And, I repeat: Fundamentalist belief systems of any kind are at odds with the goals of this project. Viriditas (talk) 21:36, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely not! there is nothing wrong with his fundamentalist belief system, as long as his edits in the article space are NPOV. There are many contributors to wikipedia with many different beliefs. How is a fundamentalist editor any better or worse than an avowed atheist? The thinking that anyone's belief disqualifies them from the project is wrong, wrong, wrong! I am sure that most of the editors to articles like Sola scriptura or Restoration Movement are people who subscribe to the beliefs that these topics are about. Should we ban all of those people? Delete the articles? I don't think so. --rogerd (talk) 22:30, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. There is everything wrong with a fundamentalist POV and it has no place in a secular encyclopedia. You are welcome to your opinion, however. But this is not the issue under discussion. The issue in question concerns the appropriate use of a user name, which User:ArielGold has accurately summarized: "I hope you can realize that there are many users who may see your name as not appropriate, or inflammatory, especially considering the specific (and possibly controversial) nature of the area you've chosen to contribute to." I suggest that the reason User:Die4Dixie cannot see this problem (and the subsequent user box issue I have brought to his attention) is due to his belief system. Anyone who believes that "science has brought on corruption of society" and all the rest of the junk on his user page cannot be taken seriously, and much more importantly, should not be taken seriously. If it weren't for science, we would not be having this conversation, and the vast majority of us would be dead from some horrible disease. The line has been drawn. Viriditas (talk) 22:45, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

BTW, how do you "promote race"? If you cant play nicer Veriditas, I'm going to tear logical holes in your whole diatribe, line by line. You might want to chill out and find a hick more your speed. I think you are unprepared to pick a fight with me on my userpage with your intemperate, irrational statements. Have a nice cuppa tea, and then you come back when you can act like a guest in my house.Cordially,--Die4Dixie (talk) 21:39, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but you are a guest on Wikipedia, and your account is a privilege, not a right. The issues are your user box and your user name. If you can't address those two things, then I will accept your failure. Viriditas (talk) 21:41, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

We're all guests here, Die4 - you, me and Viriditas; let's strive for the ol' civility, all right? --Orange Mike | Talk 21:44, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry , in a conversation between you and me, Viriditas, it is a right, as you lack the authority and are impotent to circumvent or hinder my exercise of this privilege. My username is not inappropriate, nor are my userboxes. Next please.Die4Dixie (talk) 21:50, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't need any authority, and your user page is a privilege, not a right. This seems to be an ongoing theme. You do not have a right to use an inflammatory user name and user boxes. Many editors expressed concerns with your user name, and you have done nothing to address those concerns on your user page. And, I have also expressed concerns with the use of a user box on your talk page. You have no rights here. Viriditas (talk) 22:15, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

You have the right to shriek and make an ass out of yourself. I would link to WP:DONTBEADICK, But I can't be bothered. You have every right ot ask me civilly about my username, etc. Great leeway is given to userpages and usertalk. You've been around awhile. there are those that will find your harassing and shrill demands for explanations to be over the top. I am not required to answer your concerns about anything. This is a strange world you want me to live in. I can't have a belief system, and I am compelled to answer your questions. You do not have a right to an answer. Please review my responses to questions that are similar to the ones you posed, and be satisfied. Or not. Or ask nicely and I will give you an individual response.--Die4Dixie (talk) 23:33, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Using a user name and user boxes to promote belief systems is against the rules. You know that. You've been told that. You've been pointed to the policies and guidelines. Since you aren't interested in following rules or being respectful of other editors whose beliefs differ from your own, I question your very purpose on this site. If the song remains the same, I suggest that your only purpose on Wikipedia is to promote your belief system. Viriditas (talk) 23:39, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

No attempt to promote, only to inform. Next.Die4Dixie (talk) 23:41, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Orangemike, have I crossed a line in civility with this editor, or am I being provoked? I think I have been very circumspect in my responses, but will defer to your judgment. If I have I will apologize forthwith, and expect a more humble one from my editorial colleague.Die4Dixie (talk) 21:50, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

What would you like me to apologize for? I stand by every word. Viriditas (talk) 22:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, so tempting.... But I won't take the bait,thanks.:)Die4Dixie (talk) 12:29, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Intermission. Now the 50 clowns jump out of a tiny car

For your comic delight, I will respond to this: My world view has a question mark after it. The text is what Quizzfarm attributed based on my answers to a survey, cut and pasted from their site. I would recommend the hysterically commenting editor have some fun and take the same quiz, and share the results with us. Might be edifying and instructional ;0.--Die4Dixie (talk) 23:52, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

• I must say, I would link to WP:DONTBEADICK, But I can't be bothered. is one of the funniest things I've read on Wikipedia. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 01:08, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I scored the exact opposite of you with two exceptions - my modernist and existentialist ratings are close to zero too. BTW, the link isn't working. There's an extra ' at the end.Wikidemo (talk) 01:12, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality Tag

Hello,

I have added a tag to the Barack Obama article requesting that it be checked for neutrality. I thought you might be interesting in coming in as a neutral editor and checking the article out. QuirkyAndSuch (talk) 12:02, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Sarah Palin Article

It has come up in discussion that the Sarah Palin article seems biased against the subject. I hope you consider reading the article and consider coming along to help us make it better. :] Sleeping frog (talk) 01:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

True Georgia flag

I found the true Georgia flag's image: Hope that helps.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 22:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I lack the technical skills( please view the state of my userpage) to make the userbox. Feel free to help a compatriot by wikifying my boxes and/or creating the box. Any consideration would be taken as a kindness and be greatly appreciated.:)Die4Dixie (talk) 00:57, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure thing. By the way, I have a new userbox that says "This user supports Sarah Palin for President". Should I add it as well?--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 01:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Please do! Funny how subversives throw around terms like "racist" and "misogynist". Hell, I'd love to have a userbox that says "This user supports Clarence Thomas for any political office" [9] to put next to my anti-Obama and ones showing my multi-ethnic roots. Last time I went to a Sons of Confederate Veterans meeting, I met an obviously African-American member. Funny how the people who claim to be the most tolerant amongst us are the least tolerant of people who don't think as they do or as they feel we ought.Die4Dixie (talk) 14:32, 7 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 participate in the discussion. Curious bystander (talk) 00:09, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: Image deletion

To answer Your question, Yes (see encyclopediadramatica.com/Encyclopedia_Dramatica:Copyright) . feydey (talk) 21:53, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Your Userpage

I love your userboxes -- pretty much all of them. In fact, I think I'm going to have to "barrow" some if thats ok with you.

Oh, and I'm not Wikistalking, I just clicked on your sig just to see what I'd find :-D

Happy editing! Digital^NinjaWTF 04:52, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely. I borrowed most myself, and one was created for me.Die4Dixie (talk) 05:02, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, and I read your message on my talk page. I'm more than willing to listen to others' suggestions. Digital^NinjaWTF 05:29, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Your comment on my talk page

Has been replied to :) Digital^NinjaWTF 05:27, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Your typing skills can't be that bad! I did leave you a reply on my page too. Digital^NinjaWTF 06:05, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

replied...

...to your note on my talk page. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 21:24, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Re:Barack Hussein Obama II

I got bored and made this account. Not sure how it violates policy but could you tell me how to delete it? Thanks. ~electricRush (T C) 07:02, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Acorn Again

This is the last place i want to be. You know the way things work. That tag started with false, unsupported accusations, syntacticus basically started a flare up over it, a sock or two (one immediately blocked, not sure about the other) drifted in, and now you're at the same bone. In none of these cases has any of the tag proposers on talk actually provided a reason, never th eless tried to open a meaningful discussion of why this is needed now (i note that Dixie and Syntacticus began their long back and forth after the "regulars" on Acorn accept for me were well away for the day.) This notice is to ask you to desist.Bali ultimate (talk) 05:46, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Look, the tag really belongs. I have made a good faith effort to have him list his grievances. If he doesnt gome with some links to reliable sources, then I'll back you 100% even though I know that huffington post piece should not be there .( same reason you argued against the WSJ) I can be as reasonable as you want to be, really.Die4Dixie (talk) 05:56, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Stop making allegations against other people dixie. "that's tiresome." (I won't be responding to you on my talk page again; the WSJ conversation taught me it's not fruitful.)Bali ultimate (talk) 05:49, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Tiresome is not an accusation, it's an observation. It is in no way a personal attack.Die4Dixie (talk) 05:56, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

December 2008

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Bstone (talk) 21:18, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Personal remarks

Making personal remarks about other editors is off-topic on article talk pages, which exist only to discuss improvements to articles. Issues with an individual editor may legitimately be brought up on several other pages, including the user's talk page, requests for comments on users, and the administrators noticeboards. I looked at the posting that User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters placed in WP:ANI.[10] It does not appear to contain material that would violate WP:NPA. Rather, it deals mostly with your editing behavior. Rather than objecting to the complaint, it'd be more helpful to address its substance. Your motives may not be relevant (or more to the point, are unknowable) but the edits themselves are important. Most relevant to that ANI thread is the concern that there may be violations of WP:SOCK requiring administrative action. POV and bias issues are off-topic on ANI, except as part of a discussion of actionable policy violations. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:42, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I am certainly not a sock puppet of anyone, and my ip adresses have been revealed several times. Feel free to run any check user account. It is hardly surpriseing that more than one person has problems with the article, hardly a case of socckpuppetry. My problem is with the huff post piece. Please suggest what part specifically that you would like me to address? that I am " a long time problem editor"? how do you answer that? the one link he provided I don't appear in? How the hell does one answer unsubstantiate charges? Please specfically give me something to answer, and I will gladly do so.Die4Dixie (talk) 22:47, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I ever said anything about you being a sock, just that there may be sock issues on that article. As for LOTLE's assertion about you being a "long time problem editor", you can either argue about his right to say that or you can show that your editing hasn't been a problem. I'd recommend focusing on the latter, as the former will tend to come off as "WP:wikilawyering". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:02, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it would be better if the other editor provided diffs. Feel free to say so. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:17, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: Awesome template job

Everyone has been templated. I template without reservation. Bstone (talk) 23:55, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes , but you object to being templated. We are all regulars here, so what's the deal? Please treat others by the same standards that you want. No one likes to be templated, it's passive agressive behaviour.Die4Dixie (talk) 23:58, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I am totally cool with being templated. I even wrote Wikipedia:Do_template_the_regulars. Bstone (talk) 00:00, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Blood libel

Thank you for your refreshingly courteous message. I may have reacted a little more sharply than necessary, particularly due to the deletion of the word "false" from the lead. When that's happened before it's usually been the opening shot in a frustrating, unproductive conflict with a tendentious editor who is not here to help the project. After a few posts, I realized that we had crossed paths briefly before and that, although I suspect we disagree about a wide variety of issues, your editing is both honest and insightful. I'm sure we can amicably resolve whatever disagreements we still have on the page. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 04:07, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I look forward to it. I think that if we get the article polished , it would make an interesting GA. I have something that I need to work on with a deadline of tomorrow, but i'll get back with you and siscuss any edit befoorehand. Deal?Die4Dixie (talk) 04:16, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

history

Yeah - the whole thing was offensive in addition to being irrelevant. But even if I hadn't deleted it, unfortunately your comment would remain in history which is where it is now - I did not archive it, I just removed it. Tvoz/talk 23:51, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Acceptability of Capital Research Center Research

I have started a discussion on the Capital Research Center talk page to hash out the issue of the acceptability of citing the think tank's research in Wikipedia. Please participate in the discussion at [[11]]. Syntacticus (talk) 07:26, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Request for Mediation

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at [[12]], and indicate whether you agree or disagree to mediation. If you are unfamiliar with mediation on Wikipedia, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. Please note there is a seven-day time limit on all parties responding to the request with their agreement or disagreement to mediation. Thanks, Syntacticus (talk) 02:18, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Fixed, I hope. Syntacticus (talk) 02:51, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Responded to your ANI note at my user page, FYI. Syntacticus (talk) 06:30, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Request for mediation not accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now. For the Mediation Committee, Ryan Postlethwaite 10:20, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

WP:ANI

I have taken my concerns about your behavior to the ANI page. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:40, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Barrack Obama Article Probation

Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Barrack Obama, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Talk:Barack Obama/Article probation. editing restrictions seicer | talk | contribs 23:47, 23 December 2008 (UTC)