User talk:Loonymonkey

The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		I'm awarding you this RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar for your great contributions to protecting and reverting attacks of vandalism on Wikipedia. Wikidudeman (talk) 20:28, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

obama fundraising debate

While i will concede i should have place the body of my text in the bottom fundraising section you nothing i wrote was factually inaccurate or misleading. There is a lack of a criticisms section for this particular candidate. THe article is in its current form misleading because it says that " Obama has said he will not accept donations from federal lobbyists or political action committees during the campaign" yet there is clear evidence to the contrary. In light of the harsh criticism allowed on the hillary clinton page i feel that the bias on the Obama page is i feel that this saying that i am being misleading is unwarranted. Taps Two Worlds To Fill 2008 War Chest By Matthew Mosk and John Solomon Washington Post Staff Writers Sunday, April 15, 2007; Page A01 Obama's supporters get around money limitLance Williams, Chronicle Staff Writer Wednesday, August 8, 2007

I would also like to ask you to characterize how this should be characterized given http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/08/us/politics/08obama.html?ex=1331010000&en=b6cf764c22aba91b&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss.

New Hampshire Results

Hello, the "final" results, with 99.66% of precincts reporting, were 38.99% for Sen. Clinton and 36.39% for Sen. Obama. See those results here.UberCryxic (talk) 06:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

On top of that, as I mentioned in the talk page, every major news organization, from Fox (see Fox's final tally here) to MSNBC to scores of newspapers, have cited 39-36 as the final number. I really don't know why CNN says 39-37. It's just weird, but they're wrong.UberCryxic (talk) 06:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

CNN, the New York Times and several others have a "100% reporting" figure of 36.5%. I favor including the decimal which makes this argument moot. --Loonymonkey (talk) 15:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Official results from the NH Secretary of State say 37%,[1] so that's what we should go with. --Loonymonkey (talk) 16:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Well this really is an odd situation. Apparently there is a disagreement with the sources. The one you give is actually not the NH Secretary of State per se, but the Boston Globe citing the NH Secretary of State. That Boston Globe tally gives Obama's vote count as 105,004 and 37%. The MSNBC tally gives Obama's vote as 104,772 with 100% of precincts reporting. They say Hillary won 39 to 36 (as does Fox). How do you propose we move forward on this? Most news sources say 39-36.UberCryxic (talk) 19:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I should also note that all these organizations are obviously using the NH Secretary of State, so one could make the same claim for all of them that you did for the Boston Globe, using a secondary source and trying to pass it off as a primary one. If you can find the actual NH primary results from state officials, then that would be the final arbiter. Right now, the Boston Globe vote tally for Obama seems...."unique."UberCryxic (talk) 19:08, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok you are right. The official results are here. I also went through the numbers myself and Obama was just above 36.5%.UberCryxic (talk) 19:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Twinkle may have a bug

Hi. I got a speedy deletion note (A7, no asserted notability) for a redirect I created by moving a page, Nick curran (musician) to Nick Curran (musician) (note the capitalization). Since you did not tag the latter for speedy deletion, I saw no reason to leave the tag on the former. My guess is, this is a bug with Twinkle which you should report to its creator. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 02:51, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll look into it. --Loonymonkey (talk) 02:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Warning Vandals Advice

Hi. Thanks for the head's up. Knowing the protocol is important. After the Level 4 warning, besides being reported, should I have continued the reverts, or waited until the block was in place to do all of the reverts at once? If you see me out of step with the normal procedures on anything else, please don't hesitate to clue me in. Thanks again. Igoldste (talk) 20:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Rfc on United States presidential election, 2008 usage

Please see Rfc on this issue. TableManners^C·U·T 23:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

An Incumbent Can't Succeed Herself

Having a Successor section in the Infobox of an Incumbent is meaningless. The Incumbent can't be his or her own successor, so the section serves no purpose. Go to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Infoboxes for a full discussion of this regarding another article. --SMP0328. (talk) 03:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Vysoko (Yulia Savicheva album)

Hi. Just a friendly reminder, you tagged Vysoko (Yulia Savicheva album) for speedy deletion under criterion A7. I have removed the tag from the article because it does not meet the criterion specified, because A7 only applies to real people, organisations and companies, groups, and websites, not albums. The article's subject was an album, not a biography as it was tagged. I advise you to re-read Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion so as to avoid making mistakes like this in the future. Thank you, Spebi 21:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

My mistake. I thought that one fell under the category of band. --Loonymonkey (talk) 21:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment invited

As an occasional past editor at Template:United States presidential election, 2008,
your comment is invited at Template talk:United States presidential election, 2008#Revisited: Proposal on minimum standards for listing on template
-- Yellowdesk (talk) 18:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Fixed warnings

I hope I have cleared up the problem with Pay Per Play. I accidently deleted the tag (then replaced it) when I was removing a portion of the article that was causing an advertisement warning. I'm am seriously committed to trying to write the article appropriately, so please help me, so it does not get deleted. Thanks.

CohibAA (talk) 18:40, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Swirlitrash

Thats not my article...I don't know why you are telling me thats its goning to get (and already is) deleted. --Thebluesharpdude (talk) 23:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Possibly a bug with Twinkle. I didn't leave the message personally, it was automatically added by the CSD script.--Loonymonkey (talk) 23:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

For some reason, it notified you because you placed the AFD tag on that article (should have been speedily deleted, AfD is a waste of time in cases such as that).--Loonymonkey (talk) 00:15, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Political controversies

Hello. Since the regrettable biting incident when I was a newby and which still scars me I've tried to avoid controversy so I won't be entering a revert war over this. In the case of the Barak Obama article the lack of a controversy subsection is a major deficit. All politicians have controversy and so it is best to address it in a productive, proactive and orderly manner. It seems that a section or subsection is customary in these articles. Regards.Trilobitealive (talk) 22:47, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, no, controversy sections are strongly discouraged. They are poor encyclopedic style and in practice tend to simply become POV magnets where anyone opposed to the subject will dump any editorial or attack piece they can find. Most importantly, they give undue weight to subjects which may not be at all noteworthy. It is much better (albeit harder) to weave notable controversies into the relevant sections of the article. In this particular case, a lot of work was spent by a number of much better and more experienced editors than myself specifically dismantling these attack sections in the presidential candidate articles and integrating anything notable into the body of the article. Please note that there are no criticism sections in the John McCain or Hillary Clinton articles either. This is by design. Unilaterally adding sections and reverting other editors (without first reading through the discussion archives to see if this has been addressed) is not the way to go about this. --Loonymonkey (talk) 00:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Fine with me. I do agree with your point about unilaterally reverting other editors...Regards.Trilobitealive (talk) 00:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Glad to see you quoting Gzkn's excellent point - I quote it too when people ask about controversy sections. Bobblehead also has some good observations on this that I've quoted. But Gzkn really hit it. Tvoz |talk 08:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

RPI Players

Hello, Loonymonkey. {{db-repost}} is used on re-created articles that were deleted from an AFD discussion. Thanks. JetLover (talk) (Report a mistake) 23:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake. So articles that were deleted by CSD just need to be renominated for the same reason? --Loonymonkey (talk) 23:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes. It's kind of confusing. JetLover (talk) (Report a mistake) 23:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Yep

Probably did. Sorry... Two One Six Five Five ^τ _ʃ 21:19, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

If you're talking about the Michelle Obama revert, where does it say that she belongs to the Church of Satan? Where's the source? Two One Six Five Five ^τ _ʃ 21:22, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Template discussion

As an occasional editor to the discussion at Template:United States presidential election, 2008 your input would be appreciated at Template talk:United States presidential election, 2008#Proposal: A return to the old standards. Thank you.--STX 04:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

colons in category links

Hi Loonymonkey -- when you're talking about a category, you should add a colon before the category name. That way it displays the category name, rather than adding the category to that talk page. [[Category:Harvard Law School alumni]] would add the category to the page (and make the text invisible); [[:Category:Harvard Law School alumni]] would just add the text, a la Category:Harvard Law School alumni. Cheers, Lquilter (talk) 15:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Oops. I knew that. Sorry. Chalk it up to sloppy proof-reading. (I assume you're referring to talk:Barack Obama which is the only category discussion I've had recently). --Loonymonkey (talk) 15:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Right, of course -- Barack Obama. Sorry for my vagueness. I thought you probably knew it, but on the off chance that you didn't, thought it might be helpful. The colon trick was darned annoying for me, back in the day, until I figured it out! Cheers, Lquilter (talk) 19:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for the posting on my talk page. I do think I crossed the line and I am sorry for that. Also, I appreciate your civil tone. I really don't like edit warring although I have been doing it so much lately. I think I hit the breaking point yesterday and now I will try to completely avoid edit warring altogether.--STX 22:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

removing talk page content

As per WP:RPA, it's usually better to report objectionable talk page content and let someone else deal with it than simply removing it yourself. I think the comment was probably borderline as an attack and a better route might have been to politely ask the poster to focus on content, not commentator. Ronnotel (talk) 16:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

That didn't come out of the blue. Unfortunately, that user has been stalking me lately...any comment I post on any talk page will be followed by a long string of (often nasty) personal attacks. --Loonymonkey (talk) 16:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)comment moved from my talk to here for clarity, (let's keep this in one thread) Ronnotel (talk) 16:23, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

If someone is stalking you all the more reason to ask for a friendly admin to help out. I will be happy to take a look. But please review the policy I cited and try to avoid removing talk page comments in all but the most egregious cases. Ronnotel (talk) 16:23, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that would be great if you could take a look at it. I've left warnings, but I doubt it's going to stop. In particular, take a look at this whole series of edits from yesterday. [2]Honestly, I've looked over the edit history and I'm not even sure what the guy's beef is. I don't seem to have had any dealings with him previously.

OK, I'm a bit wrapped up at the moment but I'll take a look later today. Ronnotel (talk) 16:39, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Re accolade as Hillary caption

"Unhelpful"? Even the Weekly Standard, of all places, awarded it to the progressive candidate:

Even Hillary Clinton, the Lioness of Tuzla, can't compete with McCain in this area.

---Surprisingly counterintuitive, I know, for such a conservative rag. (But unsurprising, really, in light of the bonefides she's engendered through her recent speech, I would guess! lol) — Justmeherenow (   ) 22:45, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Obama POVs

Would you mind warning User:Thegoodlocust for his POV. You've been involved only for a short time, and it would be probably more appropriate that way. Thanks, Grsz11 00:38, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

"NPOV" Warning on Nancy Pelosi

My contribution toward Nancy Pelosi regarding her trip to Syria was done trying to make the article more neutral, not more biased as you claim. The article is full of information regarding the trip, but there was no information regarding the criticism she received, which would be necessary in order to maintain the NPOV. Otherwise, the article would clearly be slanted to the left. I do not appreciate being threatened for trying to improve the article and I would politely ask that you remove the warning from my page. Thank you. 192.77.143.167 (talk) 20:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

You should probably re-read the policies to learn what neutral point of view actually is. You are saying that if you are not allowed to add your point of view for "balance" then an article will not be NPOV. That is completely incorrect. The goal is to keep all POV out of the article, not to add POV from both sides. As for the edits you made, no reasonable editor would consider it NPOV to refer to Nancy Pelosi as the "Damascus Diva" and a "terrorist sympathizer" as you did. Those sort of inflammatory POV statements (whether yours or Sean Hannity's) do not have a place in a biography of a living person. --Loonymonkey (talk) 00:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Funny! I have seen tons of criticism sections on pages for people with conservative political views, yet I have seen very few on those for people with liberal political views. Example: there is a whole page dedicated to the comments Rick Santorum made when he was only stating his opinion about homosexuality yet the liberals were up in arms about it. If there is a whole page for that, then there certainly should be room for at least a comment about what someone such as Sean Hannity says as he has a major influence on the political scene. The McDermott edit was a joke, and I had planned to erase it after about half an hour, but someone else got there before me. On the Pelosi article, I am only telling the truth about what conservatives such as Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity thought about the trip, I was not trying to vandalize it. Additionally, Wikipedia's global warming policy clearly promotes a left-wing agenda. I take it that NPOV really means LWPOV (Left Wing Point of View) at Wikipedia. Perhaps someone should undertake an effort to fix the problems with this website before it becomes another version of the New York Times. Thank you. 192.77.143.167 (talk) 02:27, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism is never acceptable, even if it was "a joke" and you "planned to erase after about a half hour." You have a long history of such disruptive edits and that behavior will get you blocked. Ranting about how much you hate Wikipedia for not allowing you to include your extremist opinions in articles doesn't change the fact that you simply do not follow the rules. --Loonymonkey (talk) 16:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

"Extremist opinions." You are probably an elitist from San Francisco who loves to look down on the majority of American opinions. You did not address any of my concerns and instead you claimed that two edits are "a long list." You should know that this IP is shared and others have edited it as well. I pray for you. 192.77.143.167 (talk) 06:27, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I noticed that you have been erasing my edits and I have reported your abuse of your administrator position. Please stop before this goes further. 192.77.143.167 (talk) 22:04, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

2008 US Election controversy article

Please advise. This page was initially created because people kept adding politically motivated information to the Bill Ayers article. USER Wikidemo suggested this new article to allow wiki user to highlight controversies from the election representing both sides. It is a fairly new article and updates are being made. I do understand user comments about the material on Obama. I have encourage other users to add additional information. One user MikeWren provided a helpful addition on McCain. If if users don't add info about McCain or Hillary maybe the article should be changed to Controversies about Barack Obama. Please let me know you thoughts and thank you very much for your input. It is me i think (talk) 18:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

That's my point exactly. There already exists articles about specific controversies which are notable and well referenced. This article is simply a coatrack of attacks against Obama, some notable, some simply blog chatter. The solution is not to add more dirt on Clinton and McCain to make it "balanced." Considering that the reasonable parts of this article are copied verbatim from other articles, this article really doesn't have a reason to exist. --Loonymonkey (talk) 18:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you think have a having a summary of controversies surrounding presidential candidates is helpful and (is it within wiki guidelines). I am thinking along the lines of there is an article about Barack Obama, but also articles on this early life, IL Senate careers, US Presidential bid, and a listing of endorsements his has received for his presidential race. Should there also be an aritcle which summarizes controversies.

Also, while I am asking questions. How notable does someone have to be in order to have there endorsement of Obama listed on his endorsement page. And what if the person and their endorsement be perceived as controversial, such a Jane Fonda? Is is appropriate and acceptable to list endorsement of controversial figures in the article. Also, there is a sections of endorsements by foreign political leaders. What are the qualification for notability and what if the leader is controversial, should their endorsement not be mentioned. Thanks It is me i think (talk) 20:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you so much for letting me know about the photos

How do I find out if photos are copyrighted. There was no list on the websites. For instance MSNBC cites a sources for its photos, many are from the Associated press. thanks again It is me i think (talk) 19:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

If they are from the AP, they are most definitely copyrighted and their use is prohibited. You will find these photos with no copyright information on a thousands of blogs but that doesn't mean they are free. Wikipedia is simply much more stringent about such things than, say, Drudge. --Loonymonkey (talk) 19:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks It is me i think (talk) 20:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Inclusion of Muslim support of political candidates

Where is the appropriate place to list Muslim support of political candidates, while due to pure numbers, Muslims may not have the numbers and political inlfuence as African Americans and Hispanics Americans, but they still are a valid political constituency. It is noteworthy and appropriate to mention endorsement by their leaders of Barack Obama, if other leaders are mentioned. I feel your removal in not coming from a NPOV perspective. Louis Farrakhan is a longtime national leader ofa well-know organization Nation of Islam. Both are noteworthy and have very detailed articles on wikipedia. This is a noteworthy endorsement. Also, Louis Farrakah is a significant well respected figure in his community and his endorsement does carry weight. Farrakhan's endorsement of Obama is more meaningful and will have more impact then the endorsement of ,Wouter Bos, Minister of Finance and deputy prime minister of The Netherlands, Toshio Murakami, Mayor of Obama, Japan, Fredrik Reinfeldt, Prime Minister of Sweden, which are listed under the foreign endorsements section of the Barack Obama presidential endorsements article. If the endorsements of Obama by these foreign leaders is noteworthy, how is Farrakan's endorsement not noteworthy. Fararakn is very much more noteworthy in the context of a US presidential elections and US new outlets have covered this story (as a referenced Chicago Tribune, MSNBC, and ABC. Please let me know. Very much appreciated. Hamas is not as noteworthy as a Farrakan endorsement, if for no other reason than they are a foreign political group, but it is still may be noteworthy, if more reliable sources are identified (for example ABC, CNN, MSNBC, etc.. They are an international known political group with supports in the US. Similarly the IRA are a foreign political groups with supporters in the US. If the Obama endorsement list is an extensive list of noteworthy endorsements, I feel the Hamas endorsement should be included if I can higher profile sources. Overall, I feel support of by well-known Muslim leaders is noteworthy, but as I am a newer user, I do understand, I may not be putting them in the right place. Could I suggest a seperate article on Muslims for Obama? Or any suggestion you have would be appreciated. Thank you so much It is me i think (talk) 03:15, 19 April 2008 (UTC)