User talk:QueenofBattle

Welcome to the talk page for the Queen of Battle, where you can leave any messages for me. Please note that I reserve the right to delete any message after I have read it. If you have posted a message for me, and no longer find it on this page, it means I have read it. If I didn't respond here, on your talk page, or on the respective article's talk page, it means I am ignoring the message, which I also reserve the right to do. With that, let's get started.

Please Sign Your Posts

Archives

Archive 10/27/08

Archive 12/24/08

Archive 1/21/09

Archive 1/28/09

My political compass

Another Wikipedian turned me onto this fun website. From The Political Compass, I am Economic Left/Right: 6.75 (much more economically right than Joe Biden, a bit more than Sarah Palin, but slightly less than Margaret Thatcher) and Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 2.41 (about the same as Stephen Harper and the Pope, but only a bit more than Barack Obama). Interesting ideological company I keep, I guess...

Election day 2008

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		This barnstar is for every editor who assisted in accuracy, form, vandalism and POV fighting for Barack Obama for Election Day 2008, and who did it with civility, and just a dash of frustration and coriander. Moni3 (talk) 13:54, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject College football December 2008 Newsletter

The December 2008 issue of the College football WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
Automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:59, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject College football January 2009 Newsletter

The January 2009 issue of the College football WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:59, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject College football February 2009 Newsletter

The February 2009 issue of the College football WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:07, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Civil Air Patrol edits

Hey Newguy, thanks for your help with several Civil Air Patrol articles. Fightin' Phillie (talk) 20:34, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

My pleasure to try my hand at improving the Civil Air Patrol articles. Newguy34 (talk) 21:57, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Obama talk page

Thanks for coming in. I was just pulling out my hair with the "fringe theory" argument. I needed a break, so I am glad you came along. Bytebear (talk) 01:35, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

This tired old liberal, partisan attempt at painting anyone who doesn't agree with them as somehow "fringe" is getting very old. If it's so absurd, why have they spent so much time attempting to refute it? Newguy34 (talk) 02:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

ITN for Madoff Investment Scandal

On 12 March, 2009, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article Madoff Investment Scandal, which you created. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the In the news candidates page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 18:32, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me sir

Excuse me sir, but have I done something to offend you? You have been most unpleasant to me, and there is no reason that you should delete my articles. Furthermore, you have been unwilling to respond to my comments which I have courteously left here, what have I done that offended you so? John Norrison (talk) 20:49, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Newguy, please remember to assume good faith when it comes to other users. It would not have hurt you to simply add a brief reply to John's messages as opposed to quite rudely reverting them as vandalism--Jac16888^Talk 20:57, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I only assume good faith until proven otherwise. The new editor is quickly running into trouble with his WP:TE, WP:Spam, and Stalking. I have suggested that he read the guide at the top of his talk page. Newguy34 (talk) 20:59, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:ANI

Hi. You should be aware that you are the subject of a discussion at WP:ANI#Mr._Newguy34. You may wish to contribute to the discussion there. Mimetic Polyalloy (talk) 21:00, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Please take a look at the recent edits at Weatherman (organization)

There is some POV edits involved on the Weatherman article. I thought you might be interested. Bytebear (talk) 01:49, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Your CSD on Criticism of George W. Bush

Hi, just a heads up that your Attack Speeedy Delete tag on Criticism of George W. Bush was removed. It definitely would not qualify under the rubric of WP:G10 and is too contestable for a prodding. You are welcome to try an AfD but I don't know how sucessful that would be. Valley2city^‽ 22:22, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Yep, saw that. The article most certainly violates Wiki rules on attacks, POV forks, etc. There is a move on the talk page to merge with Public perception of George W. Bush, which I support, so we'll see how that goes. Newguy34 (talk) 22:27, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Presidency of Barack Obama

I reversed you again as I just can't find it in the source unless you did the math by yourself which would be OR. If my eyes are really that bad and giving up on me I apologize if you point out the paragraph in the source that says as you said (since even ctrl-f didn't help me). Just in case I'm right you might want to search for a citation that would back-up this part I reversed. Thanks, --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:36, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Good grief, blasted Yahoo must have changed the article text on me, so I re-cited it, and then added a second cite. Thanks for your patience. Newguy34 (talk) 03:00, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Such can happen. I'll take a look tomorrow since it's getting late here for me but good to know that I'm not as blind as I thought. Regards, --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 03:24, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hi, and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.

A few features that you might find helpful:

• Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
• The announcement and open task box is updated very frequently. You can watchlist it if you are interested, or you can add it directly to your user page by copying the following: {{WPMILHIST Announcements}}.
• Important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you watchlist it.
• The project has several departments, which handle article quality assessment, detailed article and content review, writing contests, and article logistics.
• We have a number of task forces that focus on specific topics, nations, periods, and conflicts.
• We've developed a style guide that covers article structure and content, template use, categorization, and many other issues of interest.
• If you're looking for something to work on, there are many articles that need attention, as well as a number of review alerts and copy-editing alerts.
• The project has a stress hotline available for your use.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask any of the project coordinators or any other experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome, and we are looking forward to seeing you around! Kirill ^[pf] 00:04, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Barack Obama

I've reverted you 2 recent edits at Barack Obama. The lede is a summary of the article, and the article is written in summary style. The lede is intentionally uncited, and the information can be find in the body of the article, and in the many sub-articles. Please seek consensus on the talk page before making any potentially contentious edit, due to the article probation. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:49, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

But, the problem being, of course, is that the information cited borders on POV and does not appear in the article's main body (at least not that I can find). Can you help point me to where a reliable source says that Obama was an underdog or that his primary victory "surprised campaign watchers"? QueenofBattle (talk) 20:57, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I have not personally been involved in the debate, but there has been a long discussion about this very section at Talk:Barack Obama#Unexpected. You should discuss any changes you wish to make in that thread and build a consensus for them before making any further changes. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

After reading that l-o-n-g discussion that appeared to be getting nowhere, and in the absense of reliable sources for the information I removed anywhere in the article (or subarticles) that I can find, I was bold and edited the sentence. You claimed that "the information can be find in the body of the article, and in the many sub-articles" and cited that as the justification for reverting my edits, but that doesn't appear to be the case. So, maybe a bit of purposeful reverting rather than knee-jerk reverting is in order here? QueenofBattle (talk) 21:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVII (March 2009)

The March 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:31, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Marinate

Someone needed to call out CoM for the large slice of bullshit pie he helped himself to. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:58, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you feel that it's your place to do so, or even that it actually needed to be done. But, everyone needs to simmer down. One man's POV is another's NPOV. QueenofBattle (talk) 02:01, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't feel the need to justify myself here. Even the most cursory glance at CoM's edit history will reveal the scope of the problem. It doesn't surprise me one little bit that you saw fit to single me out and not CoM, the person who deleted the comments and precipitated the argument in the first place. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:11, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm sorry you feel that way. And, please don't compound the matter's complicated nature by also accusing me of, well, I'm not even sure what you are attempting to accuse me of doing. But, at any rate, there is no excuse for your actions given Wiki's core principle of civility. QueenofBattle (talk) 02:34, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

AN/I report

Courtesy notice: I have filed an AN/I report here in attempt to deal with a discussion at Talk:Barack Obama, in which you have been involved, that I believe needs some administrative intervention. Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 06:53, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Please don't put words in my mouth.

Please do not misquote me, claiming I allowed my edit was POV. This misquote is not gentlemanly behaviour. The additions are factual or report correctly charges that were made in the source material. All are documented in the source material. You should desist from this improper behavior. --Zeamays (talk) 00:52, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Let me try to explain my point again. You claim that your proposed additions are needed to "make the point that Bush was unqualified..." Again, it is not our place to be "sensational" or to "make the point". Also, per BLP rules, material that is controversial requires more than a single source (i.e., one book is not enough). The additions represent a single author's POV when NPOV is what is called for in a BLP. Sourcing or not, the information in contentious, and you really need to discuss these types of edits on the talk page, and attempt to gain consensus, before re-inserting them. One other editor has already reverted your edits citing essentially the same basis as me, so please heed our warnings and seek discussion before insisting on these edits. Otherwise, I'm afraid, we have little option but to open an entry on the BLP noticeboard or AN/I. Let's decrease the rhetoric and work through this, shall we? QueenofBattle (talk) 01:55, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I would like to put my two cents in here. If I (w/o even checking the sources) am blinded by POV... I guess it was written in POV (language).--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 03:43, 6 April 2009 (UTC)