User talk:Bobblehead

Picture of the day

X-rays are a form of high-energy electromagnetic radiation, with wavelengths shorter than those of ultraviolet rays and longer than those of gamma rays – roughly in the range of 0.01 to 10 nanometres. X-rays were discovered by German scientist Wilhelm Röntgen in 1895, who named them X-radiation to signify an unknown type of radiation. X-rays can penetrate many solid substances such as construction materials and living tissue, and X-ray radiography is widely used in medical diagnostics. This medical significance was noticed by Röntgen shortly after he discovered X-rays; this print, titled Hand mit Ringen (Hand with Rings), is a print of his first medical X-ray, taken of his wife Anna Bertha Ludwig's hand in December 1895.Print credit: Wilhelm Röntgen; restored by Yann Forget

Your same rationale as before would make for a Delete here

Some believe edits making Wikipedia's navigation among political articles user friendly should be deleted due to its being a form of political campaigning. Other hyper Delicíonistas such as yourself have a pet peeve against multiple navigational pathways through your analogizing it with unnecessary redundancies in written text. Thus, you argued, when there appear two varying templates, editors efforts should have instead been dedicated to making one template or another a catch all; then when both should contain the same links, one or the other should be decided to be deleted. And last time, since all articles already have the the bottom nav bars, it was decided too keep only those and not supplement them with alternate ones at the top right (while I, of course, had pointed to the loads of WP articles that do have both placement of nav boxes with varying assortments of links between them, to absolutely zero avail!) In any case, to give the Delicíonista argument in this case its cogent (or conceivably even not-cogent??) due, shouldn't we cut and paste your and the rest's thought and your chorus of thoughts to Delete from the instance before to the talkpage at Template:JohnMcCainSegmentsUnderInfoBox, in order for all of our arguments to get a fuller hearing? --Justmeherenow (talk) 00:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

First you pasted links I had in the side bar that were missing from the bottom one. then you said,

Both Template:Romney and Template:Giuliani were created today and added to articles related to the two people resulting in situations where both templates exist on the same page. I've contacted the creator of the two templates and suggested they update the existing templates, but they have continued to work on the templates and place them on articles. I'm not particularly attached to either navigation box format, but there isn't a reason to have two navigation boxes for the same person that do the same thing, just different locations. So, just to be clear, this is not a nomination to delete all four templates, but rather to delete one of each set. I'm leaving it up to this discussion to decide which set to delete.

Do reprise your argument, should you still support it. --Justmeherenow (talk) 00:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I have never said that making navigation on political articles user friendly should be deleted for being a form of political campaign and referring to me as a delicionista is, frankly, a steaming pile of crap that you should really apologize for. Throwing strawmen and blatant falsehoods around makes a person sound bitter and unintelligent and is really something one should try to avoid in intelligent discussions. If you feel that your templates were incorrectly deleted, you may take your complaints to deletion review. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 01:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

"If you feel that your templates were incorrectly deleted, you may take your complaints to deletion review."

Thx for the advice! As, believe it or don't, that is actually what I was asking you for.

Part of what you are telling me is based on misunderstanding something I said, however. It's true I find the "politicking" argument unintelligent (although my comment didn't characterize it as such); however I do well remember it wasn't you who had made it. Note that I specifically said "some"...and I did NOT say you...believe nav boxes among political articles to be politicking. Still, I correctly note that you believe (believed?) more than a single nav box redundant. Hency my query. Do you still hold to this argument or not?

(Finally, Delecionista is simply Spanish for Deletionist---with no stigma attached. We all delete. Yes, it's also a play on Peronista, et cetera. Remember "Perotista"? lol. I came up with it 'cause I started to edit a bit on the Obama compaign article with some contributions that ended up quite appropriately removed---delecionista-ed, if you will---that contained info about the Che-flag controversy. Because, uh---Che Guevara was---Hispanic......) --Justmeherenow (talk) 02:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

You do not require my permission to go to DRV. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 02:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I meant to say, Thanks for the link and the suggestion. Seriously. Oh and thanks for telling me I wouldn't need your permission. (Less seriously, but still with a smile on my face and my eyes twinkling, good naturedly, 'cause I take your rhetorical fun at my expense through its means in this instance simply as, I guess---sparring.)--Justmeherenow (talk) 02:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

One more question. I went to Template:Giuliani---and there is no history! Still, can I just upload there yet again---and see if Delecionistas delete it, along with McCain's side nav bar? I mean, I know I don't need your permission. But it seems that Wikipedia is designed for me to be able to do just that, right? (If you just are irritated I'm continuing to pepper you with questions, though, rather than the fun, sarcastic sparring, just ignore my question. Thanks.) --Justmeherenow (talk) 03:01, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Okey-dokey, here's the McCain side nav box template's discussion page. I've put in my pro argument and invite you to reprise your neg one there, if you'd like. Thx. --Justmeherenow (talk) 03:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

When a page on Wikipedia is deleted the history is deleted along with it. If you want the templates to be undeleted, you need to go to WP:DRV and submit a request to have it undeleted. If you recreate the template, it will be speedied as a recreation of a previously deleted template. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 05:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Scrollboxes

I hadn't noticed. Last time I checked, the featured article, New York City, uses scroll boxes for references. It makes the page shorter, thus easier to navigate. But I'm too lazy to read another huge debate, so I'll listen to what you say and you can go check out the New York City article. --haha169 (talk) 23:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Update It was removed. Thanks for telling me that, but I'd like to point out that the time I added the scroll box was likely before the time the consensus was made. If I am wrong, correct me. Thanks! --haha169 (talk) 23:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Yes, I think there was a mix-up with the images possibly caused by the recent database slowness. Thanks. Ronnotel (talk) 17:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring

I can see that you are an experienced user, but please take care to avoid engaging in edit warring as per WP:3RR. Ronnotel (talk) 19:04, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

This is going to be a hot issue all year long. I am trying to help revert the vandalism as much as possible. Corey Salzano (talk) 20:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

for engaging in civil debate at Tony Rezko. At this point, I feel so insulted that I am reconsidering the use of my real name on this website. Corey Salzano (talk) 04:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

There is indeed some protection in the anonymity of using a screen name rather than a real name. As far as the comments on Tony Rezko, try not to let it get to you too much. I've been accused of being an Obama staffer, a Clinton staffer, a McCain staffer, and a Romney staffer so far.. Unfortunately the accusations come with editing "controversial" articles, so the sooner you learn to just point and laugh at the accusers, the better things will get for you. All that matters is that you're editing neutrally and try not to let your own biases influence your opinions too much. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 05:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Obama protection

Feel free to interject if you consider my request to lift protection premature. I've basically run out of threads around which to weave further discussion, so thought it might make good sense for the active editors to crawl out of our bunkers and see if the hostile/friendly fire may have calmed just a bit. I've also learned a lesson or two from this myself. Won't know unless we try. If the edit warring resumes, then I think the next step ought to be a third FAR, but if you have an alternate suggestion, I'd welcome it. I've also posted notices to Bellwether BC[1] and Andyvphil.[2] Thanks. --HailFire (talk) 17:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• I think Andy will pick right back up where he left off, if his contributions at talk during protection are any indication, but I don't object. He's going to try to put non-relevant material that casts Obama in a negative light in whenever the protection is lifted, so why not now? Bellwether ^B_C 18:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I left my thoughts on Avraham's page.[3] --Bobblehead ^(rants) 18:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Invite

Century Tower

As a current or past contributor to a related article, I thought I'd let you know about WikiProject University of Florida, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of University of Florida. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks and related articles. Thanks!

Jccort (talk) 02:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Givemepink

So how do we block User:Givemepink? Here are his useful contributions: [4]. --DerRichter (talk) 21:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Please see {{User_warning_set}}. Once they've worked their way through all the levels of warning, you report them on WP:AIV. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 21:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

thank you.

i don't no how you knew the information, but you wrote some info on Paddy Waters. i am most grateful for this as he is my grandfather. i just want to say a huge thank you x —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.188.40 (talk) 00:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Johnpseudo's edit

Yes, I see that. My edit that immediately followed John's was aimed as a peace offering/experiment to see if that section can gain some measure of stability while the Wright stuff continues to get sorted out elsewhere in the article. Desperate times. --HailFire (talk) 04:14, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

On a related note, I wanted to share this with you. Wishing you a nice holiday weekend. --HailFire (talk) 16:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

My opinions of wright previous background

I argue that that the treatment of wright in that section is fairly one-sided. It is deifinitely an attempt to marginalize wright and add implied POV to his biography. I think considering one of the major lines of attack is that wright said "god damn america" - it is totally notable to make clear that this comes from some one who served his country in two separate branches of the armed forces. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 22:26, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Martin quote on BO 2008

I am sending this message to user:Paisan30 and user:Bobblehead. I noticed your use of the quote from martin, which obviously works better with the new cite from NYT. I don't know how much of the BLP discussion you have been following, but in short, while its clearly more of a simple content issue than a bLP vio at this point, I would like your comments on this quote from wp:words to avoid and if you think it applies to that section of text. Thanks in advance guys...

"It's often a good idea to avoid terms that appear biased or may be perceived so by some notable group, even if technically they aren't. A more neutral wording is preferable and can be found by careful thought. Often an easy way to do this is to describe rather than label" 72.0.180.2 (talk) 05:39, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Wiki Woman

How come that article is dated April 9th? -- Scjessey (talk) 17:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

TNR is a bi-weekly mag, so they use the published date of the magazine, rather than when it was put out on the web. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 17:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Ahhh, I see. She contacted me last week and I replied, but she didn't ever get back to me. I'm included for my "retort" to Andy LOL -- Scjessey (talk) 17:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, at least you got named. You could be the nameless editor that "fully scrubbed" her edit on the Obama article.[5] --Bobblehead ^(rants) 17:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Ha! I wondered about that scrubber. I was supposed to be interviewed for the piece but we played a few rounds of tag and I was otherwise occupied with family illness so by the time I reached her, the article was in. C'est la vie... Tvoz |talk 21:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

PoliticalFamilyTree.com

Have you got proof it's not a reliable source, or is this just a gut feeling? -- Zsero (talk) 08:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe it is up to you to prove that PFT is a reliable source. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 14:17, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Where do you get that? And how exactly does one prove that a source is reliable? If you're accusing the source of making stuff up, surely you need to substantiate that by something. -- Zsero (talk) 15:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps by starting with WP:V and WP:RS and identifying a criteria that PFT meets. I see several that it fails. It's a WP:SPS with no evidence of being an expert in the related field and not having been published in reliable third-party publications. It doesn't have a reputation of publishing reliable information (It doesn't have any reputation at all because it appears to be new). Not to mention the information it is being used to add is not notable to the person to which it is being added. That being said, if you feel that my assessment is incorrect, you're more than welcome to start a topic on WP:RS/N and get the opinion of others. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 15:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Tool

Wow - never saw that one before. Now I just have to translate the instructions into comprehensible English. I glaze over when I see "monobook"........ Thanks Tvoz |talk 21:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually I'm a Firefox kinda gal... and you are a sweetheart. Thanks so much - I will try it out. Tvoz |talk 21:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Dumb question: do I paste this under tje other stuff I have on monobook? (I have a script there that gives me an "unwatch" option on every line of my watchlist.) Thanks. Tvoz |talk 21:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Hot damn! It works! Thanks a million. Tvoz |talk 21:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[out] That makes sense, but what??? Something logical on Wikipedia? Hard to believe. But, it works like a charm. Almost as cool as the pipe trick that I am eternally grateful to Tonywalton for ... when I remember to use it. Tvoz |talk 22:23, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the fix, and the step-by-step. I have been known to be instructionally challenged from time to time.... Tvoz |talk 16:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

FAQ

Nicely done. Tvoz |talk 22:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Good Idea

Thanks for the heads up. Okiefromokla ^questions? 00:46, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I wont mention his name any more. But shouldn't something be done about him now that we know who it is? Aren't there rules? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.234.48.174 (talk) 04:55, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I've known who he is for almost a year now and only just recently warned him against letting his interests bias his editing, but since then he's been on good behavior. If you feel that his editing is contrary to WP:COI, then you are welcome to report him at WP:COI/N. Just be prepared to provide evidence of him acting in a manner that conflicts with the COI policies and don't reveal his real name or position with SOS. The large banner on his user page should be enough to identify his opinion on the Sonics. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 05:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Request resolved.

I've taken care of it; since this seems to be a recurring problem, I've set the semi-protection for two weeks. If the culprit comes back after that, or targets new pages, let me know (if I'm around). —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:36, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Brilliant. thanks!--Bobblehead ^(rants) 05:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello. I'm one of the ones who was doing the "out"ing of the said user, and wanted to tell you that I'll stop now that I see how seriously everyone is reacting to it. My IP address actually changes every time I log off the internet, so I didn't see the warnings you and others gave until just now. Anyway, I just wanted to let you know that I will stop doing what I've been doing. I know you have no reason to take my word on that, but I'll really stop. Maybe I'll even think about getting an account so my IP doesn't change all the time. And again, I'm sorry; I generally thought I was doing everyone a favor by letting them know. You wont see it again —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.234.128.73 (talk) 05:37, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Not being able to see the warnings might make sense because of your dynamic IP address, except you responded to my warning the other day.[warning[6]--Bobblehead ^(rants) 05:45, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I did see one of your warnings. I guess I just didn't realize how serious it was until I looked at the history just now and saw the other warnings I got. Anyway, I've created an account so my actions on Wikipedia can be tracked and stay in one place. If you want to have this account blocked for a while because of what I did, then I don't blame you. I'll honor it. I'm sorry again. Chris for Wikis (talk) 05:51, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Obama dispute

Yes, there can come a time in the consensus-gathering process when a vocal outlier can be ignored. I'm not sure that that time has come yet in the Barack Obama dispute, but it's probably close. (I've probably got more patience than some because I came in on the argument fairly recently.) I've got a few thoughts about how to proceed that I'm going to put up on the talk page soon, and I think there's still some room for compromise, but if the editor in question remains obstreperous, a time may come for stronger measures. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I just saw your comment on Tvoz's talk page, and I think an RFCU might be a good thing. I don't have time to do it right now, but I'd support it if you wanted to submit one. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't have time either, unfortunately. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 21:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I just shortcutted the RFCU and went to Thatcher.[7] Thatcher was the checkuser that was involved in squashing the Dereks1x's Archtransit sockfarm. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 21:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

You know what they say about magic pixie dust ... but this bears watching, for sure. And the arb request was actually comical, in its own way. Greatest hits, indeed. And I feel so left out. Tvoz |talk 01:08, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I don't know what they say about magic pixie dust (except that it can make you fly if you think lovely thoughts, of course). —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

See here.  :) Tvoz |talk 07:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah — thanks for the explanation. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[out]Sent you email, BobbleTvoz |talk 13:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, thanks for letting me know that. And thanks for contributing to all the discussions. Best, Happyme22 (talk) 03:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

BLP Warning

Bobblehead, I have appreciated your edits, even when they do not comport with mine. Please let me know what you believe was untrue in any post, as you mentioned just now on my talk page. I did not intend to place anything that was. ~~ jwvoiland —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwvoiland (talk • contribs) 17:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Please remove this warning tag from my talk page. It regards the Senator's statement about being "punished with a baby." Here is video of the statement by Senator Obama: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rtmcefei9EE ~~jwvoiland

"Question for Andy"

Good luck getting a straight answer with that. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:06, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Well.. Hope springs eternal.;) --Bobblehead ^(rants) 16:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: A Suggestion

I can see what you mean by Obama's divisiveness being caused by his decision to remain in the race. I think it would be good to mention in the article, but I won't push the point considering how whitewashed some of my other additions have been. But yeah, I may have indeed misread the reason. However, I did read the entire article, and I know that the signatures were validated using the older confirmation list. If I recall Obama used the one that came out that very year, or the year before. Most of the people had nearly twice the number of required signatures, but Obama's people invalidated on average around 1500 signatures per candidate to get them knocked off the ballot - while technically legal, it frankly disgusts my sensibilities. I considered adding more information, but I thought if I'd explained the entire situation then someone would've cut out the entire addition with the excuse that it was too lengthy. It really seems like a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation. Also, I thought people could add any details they felt were relevant.

By the way, I am still pretty offended that a bunch of you all decided to check my ip address - it seems like a scam to chase off people with divergent viewpoints (and indeed it seems like people are treating me like a sockpuppet still). Also, I got a 3rr warning for very minor and mostly justified reverts, while other, more aggressive editors, who're pro-Obama, got no warning at all. I've been flat out insulted and those people have gotten no warnings. There is a definite double standard going on in this article.

Today, if I have the time, I want to make Obama's "Political Positions" section more standardized like Hillary Clinton and John McCain's sections are. If you look at them, you'll see they summarize their political positions by showing their rankings from various organizations. The Obama article cherry-picks, from poorly sourced areas, "political positions" that show him in a favorable light (like the cause de jour "Save Darfur"). Unfortunately, last time I checked, my one attempt to remove that section was flatly vetoed by "Ubiq" and no other conversation has ensued on the subject.TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Mediation?

I agree that there's no headway being made right now, and that the edit war shows no signs of letting up. However, I bet that if we take it to AN/I right now, the response from most admins will be, "This is a content dispute, and should be resolved through WP:DR." And they wouldn't be wrong.

I know that RFC has led nowhere, but has there been any discussion of mediation in the past? I mentioned it to Andyvphil once, and he said that he'd be open to it. Do you think that formal mediation would do any good? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't be surprised if your pessimistic predictions come true, but I think we should at least try. I just hope it doesn't end up in ArbCom. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Wright, take 382

I've worked on a slightly tweaked version of the Wright paragraph, and I'd be interested in your thoughts at Talk:Barack Obama#New attempt by Josiah. Thanks. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:15, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

well that paragraph is so merrily ridiculous that I think a semi-ridiculous wiki link shouldn't scare us... my good reason is just that the page is a long page, with lots of sources, which is very clear that they are fringe theories (just like wright lol)... I just think it is the exact subject being discussed, so wiki link is hard for me to avoid putting in... and it furthermore gives context without any additional words in the article. Wright was no where near the first or best educated person making these comments over the past few decades, and rather than say that, we can let the link explain itself. There is in fact a whole 'nother page called AIDS reappraisal which I agree is a better sounding link but seems less related to Wright's comments.

ps I just want to apologize for all the hyperbole over the page yesterday. I'm glad a good compromise was worked out. Its frustrating when we are having to have "proxy" discussions on those issues and guess where third-parties who haven't posted, stand on the issue. It makes us regulars get a bit more involved than we always should be. Glad in the long run it worked out. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 20:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Bracketology

I've changed it again. By moving "the government" out of the quote, I believe we can manage without the square brackets. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:21, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

freerepublic.com

Hi. Please see my response at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#freerepublic.com. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

hide/show

Is there a way to add a "hide/show" button on the FAQ? Tvoz |talk 17:33, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

There isn't a collapsed option and unfortunately my coding ability is next to nil, so can't add it myself. Although, it might be a good idea. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 17:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Ha, if yours is next to nil mine is negative 1000. I left a note on the template talk page - maybe someone will take pity on us. Tvoz |talk 18:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

That's excellent - I had lamely tried "compressed=yes" which did exactly nothing. I think it's fine now, and actually better than hide/show because when it's hidden people don't even realize there's stuff in there, especially new folk. Good job. You see? You're way ahead of me in coding. (Which is no accomplishment.) Tvoz |talk 23:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey now, using templates is different than actually knowing how to make those templates. Heh. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 16:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

So apparently there is a way to do hide/show - did you see the change? {{hidden begin}} and {{hidden end}} seems to do it. Live and learn. Tvoz |talk 23:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Delinking MLS

I understand your point, but why is it so bad that you be able to instantly click on the team if you're looking at the title list? I think its more of an issue in the general articles, because the blue, purple, or red text stands out, but in the table as it is now, with the colors, the links are more disguised. If I'm wrong, please let me know on my talk page. -- Grant.Alpaugh 03:54, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. -- Grant.Alpaugh 04:09, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

How exactly...

are you able to amass almost 30,000 edits, have a clean blocklog, have contributed a massive amount of quality to this zany encyclopedia, and yet still have not gone to RfA? An honest question. Are you interested? I noticed back in July 07 that you turned down someone else's requests for a nomination. I would like to nominate you if you're interested. I've seen you around (mostly from my days in WP:DPL), and believe you would make a fine administrator. You're obviously dedicated on some level to this website, you're still here!. Do you think you could use the extra tabs? Any skeletons in your closets that I'm not aware of? I'm going offline here in about 2 minutes, think about a nomination until Monday. I look forward to your response. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:36, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

The edit count is primarily due to me padding my edit count fixing tens of thousands of dab links using AWB and NAVPOP, which unfortunately I've had to stop doing due to my internet connection turning into crap and Comcast refusing to fix it (old building, overbuilt neighborhood, cheap-ass Comcast, etc.). The clean backlog is primarily due to my wikignomish behavior and avoiding conflict. I believe my biggest skeleton is this, something for which you (oddly enough) were the one to warn me about. Heh. I'm sure that and my involvement in Ferrylodge's arbcom case and periodic run-ins with the editor will earn me a few oppose votes. I can also pretty much guarantee a sockpuppet invasion of the RfA from Dereks1x and his sockfarm. That being said, I'll ponder your offer for awhile, but my gnomish tendencies are currently pointing me to a "Thanks for the offer, but no thanks" right now.--Bobblehead ^(rants) 19:04, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd vote for you, Bobblehead! Okiefromokla ^questions? 21:05, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

In all seriousness, that incident on Mitt Romney should have had suffcient time passed after 2 or 3 more months. I think if someone nominates you then, you might have a good chance if you're interested by then. Okiefromokla ^questions? 03:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Would like to add Farrakhan to the list of presidential endorsements of Barack Obama

Here is the qualifier at the beginning of the article "This is a list of prominent individuals and organizations who have formally endorsed or voiced support for Barack Obama as the Democratic Party's presidential nominee for the 2008 U.S. presidential election. Louis Farrakan is a prominent individual who has endorsed Obama and I cited 3 notable sourcesChicago Tribune, MSNBC, and ABC). Is this an appropriate reference to add to the list? It is me i think (talk) 18:00, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

HRC length discussion

Thanks for closing, a wise move IMO. You may be interested in WP:ANI#Repeated extreme incivility by User:Ottava Rima if you haven't already seen it. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Already saw it. Looks like the discussion there was just as "productive" as the discussion on Talk:HRC. Ottava seems to have a rather strong opinion about WP:SIZE and isn't particularly willing to let it go. Even if someone re-opens the discussion, I'd suggest not responding at this point. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 16:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

My "strong" opinion comes from the fact that my computer froze twice attempting to load the page. The MoS was written to cater to all people, and if it cannot be read because of its size, then that is a problem. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Which is a valid concern. The issue at hand is the tact that you are using in order to get a reduction in the article size. Guidelines are suggestions and are not intended to be hard and fast rules. It's also questionable whether or not a reduction in readable prose on the article will actually improve the speed in which the page loads. Even if we use your 65k of readable text as the starting point for the article size, a reduction of 15k of readable text will likely only result in around 17k to 20k reduction in total article size. Unfortunately the article has a total size of 562k (including images, loaded templates, references, etc), so a reduction of 20k will only drop it to 542k and still leave the article unloadable on older PCs. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 16:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes. The underlying problem there is the number of references, the type of references, and the use of the "cite" template, which seems to be inefficiently implemented and generates lots of HTML. I have been, and will continue to, look into ways of dealing with all three parts of this. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

That is all well and true, if this was a normal situation. This, however, was an FA review, and FA articles must meet the MoS guidelines according to two "fail" criteria. One indirectly mentions size, the other directly mentions size. criteria 2 and 4. This is a criteria. That means it must have this to be part of an FA, hence why I told them that if they didn't like the criteria, that there are other Wikis with lower standards for how they feature such articles. The same applies to those who like in-universe based articles.

On the size, yeah, I know that it wont reduce much. Hence why I called for a break on two of the sections and a more concise summary of the sections that are already "main paged", which should reduce the amount of pictures and the amount of references, which help overburden the page. A start is a start, especially with the page needing to be expanded by the nature of politics. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:54, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Deleted comments

Thanks for re-adding the comments on the page regarding the Sonics move. I'm not certain how that happened. Chicken Wing (talk) 20:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia's software does stupid things from time to time. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 20:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

i responded on my page 70.234.110.141 (talk) 23:47, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

User: Quorty

Please intervene with regard to the user Quorty. What bugs me is the tone he takes in every dispute. Without much investigation, he slams every tool at his disposal at articles and users who work on them. Every user page request is mean-spirited, no one is ever given benefit of the doubt. I post now from my IP so I won't get beat up by him on my registered page -- in an hour or so there will be a marker put on the IP page showing where it's from and implying some kind of misdoing or accusing it outright.

Quorty is a very powerful user, and there's really nothing regular joes like me can do about his nonsense. Is there anything a higher end user like you can do? Or somebody, just to get him to dial it back a notch or two? It's not the Spanish Inquisition -- it's a bunch of people working for free on a community encyclopedia project. I know I'm super-discouraged from creating new and notable content just for dread of having to spend my time wrangling with him instead of actually working on Wikipedia. 72.241.98.90 (talk) 20:34, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

The blessings of allah

		The Islamic Barnstar Award
		For being great in everything, I give you the most coveted barnstar of them all! Keep it up. 70.234.110.141 (talk) 01:52, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Malia Obama

I'm cool with it being deleted, although I have recommended on the talk page that the redirect (to Barack Obama) be restored instead. If Obama becomes POTUS, the article would probably be resurrected per Chelsea Clinton, Jenna Bush et al. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:15, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Cate Edwards has an article. John Edwards already dropped out but not Obama. Watchingobama (talk) 19:46, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Copy to you

This is a copy of a message to Tvoz. Thank you. (warning/friendly reminder to you)

Vandalism warning Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Malia Obama. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.

Please note there is a difference between vandalism and unhelpful or misguided edits made in good faith. If they continue to vandalise after a recent final warning, please re-report it. Thank you! Grsztalk 20:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Watchingobama"

Friendly warning. Discuss not blank out the article. Watchingobama (talk) 20:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

thanks for help

Would you help me with Cate Edwards. The templates are too confusing. My opinion is neutral but that for consistency, this is the exact same type of article as Malia Obama.

This way, we can also treat white and black people the same and not subject Black peoples' articles to a different result that White people.

You'll note that I wrote about Malia and not her younger sister because I think Malia is more notable than Sasha. Malia has opinions and has been featured more than Sasha in other sources.

Thanks again for your helpWatchingobama (talk) 23:46, 1 May 2008 (UTC)