User talk:Loonymonkey

Archive 1

---

NOTE:

I'm taking a sort-of break for a while. I will be checking in occasionally and patrolling for vandalism on the pages I watch, but I don't have the time to keep up with some of the 10,000+ words per day discussions that are raging. Leave me a note if there's something in particular that you feel I should pay attention to.

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)

Barack Obama

For your information my addition to Barack Obama was neutral and well sourced. For the future please discuss on Wikipedia:WikiProject Political parties which I head. --Megapen (talk) 21:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

No, it was neither neutral nor well-sourced and ignored all discussion and consensus for that article. Plus, as I pointed out, it was very poorly written (you could at least have spelled his name right if you're trying to attack him!) Further, the proper place to discuss changes to an article is on the article's talk page. --Loonymonkey (talk) 21:44, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

While the contribution did not coincide with consensus, it was not vandalism. As a side note, 2+2=4 whether or not people consent to it. Scientists once consented that the Earth was flat, but it was not true. An encyclopedia is not supposed to reflect consensus, it is supposed to reflect fact. Obama has had an inconvenient relationship, of sorts, with Bill Ayers, and it has certainly been a dubious criticism worth adding (when compared to other politicians' articles). Interestingly, this is not the first time that I have noticed a constructive (although imperfect) contribution being regarded as vandalism simply because it does not appeal to the internet masses.Gefreiter (talk) 20:33, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what you're talking about. Looking through the history, I haven't reverted any of your edits as vandalism. Perhaps you have me confused with someone else? --Loonymonkey (talk) 20:44, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

RfC on Weathermen, Ayers, Dohrm, Obama, and "terrorism"

Please note that I have created an RfC to discuss the matter of whether, how, and where we should use and cover the designation "terrorist" describe the Weathermen and their former leaders. It is located here: Talk:Weatherman (organization)/Terrorism RfC. The intent is to decide as a content matter (and not as a behavioral issue regarding the editors involved) how to deal with this question. I am notifying you because you appear to have participated in or commented about this issue before. Feel free to participate. Thank you. Wikidemon (talk) 20:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm new at this so maybe I'm not totally up to speed on the process, but Clarence Thomas shouldn't include statements about allegations made by Angela Wright and Sukari Hardnett if they aren't sourced and substantiated. Thanks! (Wallamoose (talk) 02:26, 14 September 2008 (UTC))

strange form of vandalism

I noticed that a user named Emeraldcityserendipity had been to a page, David Brickner , and wikified the birth date. I looked at his contributions and saw that he had been to the page of someone I know, Carolyn Merchant, I clicked and saw that he had done the same thing there. Lightbot had undone it. I went to the talk page for Emeraldcityserendipity and saw that you and others had warned him against doing so. I'm not sure what the appropriate response it. It's vandalism, but of an unusual type.Elan26 (talk) 13:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)Elan26

The New York Times

Since you are one of the article's primary contributors, if you've got time could you help out by adding references to the article where needed? It is sorely in need of more references before a good article nomination is possible :) Thanks in advance! Gary King (talk) 19:06, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll give it a try (and I've tracked down a number or the refs previously). The problem is that at the moment, I'm pretty pressed for time, so my editing seems to come in twenty minute bursts when I have a few moments free. Thus, I tend to spend my time checking my watchlist for vandalism or blatant POV. Are there specific areas that you feel need the most work? Let me know, thanks! --Loonymonkey (talk) 19:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Specific areas is references, since I didn't add most of the content; whatever you've added, please reference if you can :) Gary King (talk) 19:12, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I haven't added any unreferenced content, but maybe you could tag something that you feel is an unreferenced claim and we'll track it down. Be sure to read the entire paragraph and all of the refs in the paragraph in their entirety first, before taggin. Often verification can be found buried in the ref a couple of sentences later (it's poor style to put a ref after every sentence, of course). --Loonymonkey (talk) 19:18, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Done Gary King (talk) 19:27, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

If some text is cited previously in the paragraph then move the reference to the end; only everything before the reference should be covered by it, not any content after it. Gary King (talk) 19:46, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Biden income edits

See Talk:Joe Biden#Income and contributions to charity for where discussion should go, not your user page as Wallamoose did. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:48, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Please take another look at Weatherman/Terrorism RfC

This is a message sent to a number of editors, and following WP:CANVASS requirements: Please take another look at Talk:Weatherman (organization)/Terrorism RfC and consider new information added near the top of the article and several new proposals at the bottom. If you haven't looked at the RfC in some time, you may find reason in the new information and new proposals to rethink the matter. -- Noroton (talk) 02:31, 22 September 2008 (UTC)