User talk:Unitanode

---

I edit some political articles; please read this before accusing me of bias.

My votes in the last four presidential elections: Clinton, Bush, Bush, Obama. I do not have a bias for (or against) any political party.

---

Notification of arbcom discussion

Your actions have been discussed here as relevant to an ongoing arbitration case. You may wish to comment. I have linked a prior version of the page because the person who added this material reverted it and then incorporated the material by reference to the reversion, so as to make it impossible for you simply to search for your name. (Hope that's not too confusing.) Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:46, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for the notification, but I do believe I'll be sitting this one out. Content issues are providing enough headaches for me right now! :) Unitanode 12:55, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Letterman redux

While I am in disagreement with you with in regards to the Palin incident, I do appreciate your efforts in keeping that disagreement tidy. Your improvements in regards to the straw poll have done much to beautify a messy situation. I also appreciate the passion you have for the Letterman Show. I hope we can come to something you will regard as an amicable settlement.Datacharge (talk) 04:12, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

• For the record, I don't even personally care for the show. I can't even remember how I stumbled upon the disagreement. My sole aim is to see the encyclopedia be the best it can be. (Personally, the only late night guy I really like is Craig Ferguson.) Unitanode 04:14, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I am more of a Jon Stewart man, myself. You have to understand I am coming at this from the viewpoint of an inclusionist, to me this has met all the criteria for notability.Datacharge (talk) 04:18, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

First, as has been pointed out at the talkpage, notability guidelines don't hold sway as far as content goes. Second, as you have labeled yourself an inclusionist, this material already is included, at a Sarah Palin-related page. The material is not being excluded from the encyclopedia. Unitanode 04:26, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Your right of course with regards to notability as a Wikipedia concept, however I meant the word in it's more general usage. In my mind inclusion in one page does not mean exclusion in others. I think leaving this material out of the Letterman article would raise POV issues especially when taken in the context of the notable episodes that are included.Datacharge (talk) 04:58, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't want to get too political here, but I saw what you posted at the top of your page and I have to ask. You voted for Bush twice, not because of ideology but based on his personal merits? How is that possible? Datacharge (talk) 17:25, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

• Because not everyone considers Bush to be an evil jerk, and because my party (I'm officially a Democrat) put two men whom I didn't like at all up against him. Unitanode 17:28, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I suppose I can see your point with Kerry, and to a lesser degree with Gore. To be honest though I have trouble seeing how a forth of the population still approves of how Bush led this country. What I wonder is what you see as Bush's upside. BTW I've been wondering what does Unitanode mean? Datacharge (talk) 17:33, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to delve into this any further, except to say this: even today, there's much more heat than light about Bush's presidency. Are there people who will always hate him? Sure. Are there people who will defend every action he took as president? Sure. I'm not in either camp, but I think that in 20 years or so (once there's more light, and less heat), the camps won't be nearly as far apart as they are today.

As for my username, I'm sorry to disappoint you, but my username means nothing -- at least to me. It was simply the random word that is required to type in when a new account is created. Unitanode 17:41, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

While I have to disagree with you about Bush in general, I think a lot of the points you've just made are valid. Have a good day Unitanode.Datacharge (talk) 17:51, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Elections Again

On the subject of the election-related articles: it seems to me that the Peter Hoyt Brown article has the properties of a wp:Coatrack article in that it selectively picks things that, though true, unduly promote the subject. If I didn't have some interest in the subject I would be more persistent in dealing with such things myself, but because I do have an interest in the subject, I'd prefer that someone tell me whether or not it's just me or if there actually are some bias issues. Does the article seem to have coatrack/resume-type issues to you? --Nogburt (talk) 04:06, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

• I'm not sure how to approach this one, and I'm going to bed for the evening, so I'll try to get to this tomorrow or the next day. Unitanode 04:58, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Forgive me for making something of a fuss again, but in my very partial opinion the changes to the Houston_mayoral_election,_2009 from user:Conti's last changes are less than fair. I removed the polls previously, but they seem to have been put back up. The polls don't seem fair because they aren't scientific. One comes from the readers of a particular periodical and the other is referenced from a page contesting its validity. They are also both pre-election season polls, which would have little encyclopedic value even if they were scientific. It appears to me as though folks are trying to use the Wikipedia page on the election to show that their candidate is going to win (so that folks will want to vote for them via the Bandwagon effect). I'd propose removing the polls (again), and possibly the endorsement lists. --Nogburt (talk) 22:58, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• I'll take a look. Unitanode 23:04, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

The polls are back up and there seems to be something of a brewing edit war over them.--Nogburt (talk) 06:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Knock knock

Hi Unitanode - you've helped me previously with BLP issues and I'm hoping you can add a fresh set of eyes to a strange situation unfolding with User:Jewish Marley, specifically her edits to the Bob Marley article (example here). Although the article is clearly not covered by BLP, I'm wondering whether I should just let it play out, or whether to bring it up at a noticeboard (at the very least there may be copywrite issues) - I guess what I'm looking for is a trusted second opinion. Cheers, --ponyo (talk) 19:32, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. I've been working through the 'TA' section of the Living People category for weeks now and then these bizzarre Bob Marley edits popped up on my watchlist. I wasn't sure whether I was over-sensitized to unreferenced material due to my heavy BLP editing, or if there may actually be an issue. I'll pop on over to WP:RS and ask them to take a look. Thanks again, ponyo (talk) 19:56, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

No problem -- glad to help! Unitanode 19:59, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Sam Fuld

Hey there. Just to clarify my BLP concern on Sam Fuld: my concern chiefly was that the sourcing of the second paragraph, which says flatly he is Jewish, is contradicted by better sourced text in the "personal section." Given contradictory sourcing, my feeling is that BLP mandates we act conservatively and not mention his religion. I've clarified on the BLP noticeboard, as this really hasn't been resolved. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 15:32, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

• I'll have another look. Thanks for the note. Unitanode 15:33, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Much appreciated. Definitely resolved now (assuming your fixes are not reverted.) Thanks. I trust now that the Jewish categories are removed? This actually was how I became interested in this article, as it arose during a discussion elsewhere of possible overcategorization and overuse of ethnic labeling. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 15:47, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I left a note at WP:BLP/N regarding this. Also, I didn't remove the categories, as the source where he states that his father is Jewish might be enough to leave the Jewish category on there. I have no real opinion on removal/retention of the categories themselves. Unitanode 15:50, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

OK. Actually the categories aren't there. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 15:51, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, please see WP:BLPCAT. If his religion isn't central to his notability, it's not an appropriate category anyway.  Frank  |  talk  17:40, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for the note. I wasn't aware of that portion of BLP policy. There are lots of nooks and crannies there, I guess! :) Unitanode 17:42, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Me neither. Thanks to you both. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 18:32, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Request for help in merging accounts

{{helpme}}

I am trying to do a unified account, but I can't, because this account -- which I did not start, and know nothing about -- is out there. I don't know how to proceed here. The name I chose is a random combination that was generated as a security code when I created this account, and has no meaning at all. I have no idea how this foreign language user also ended up with the same name. Unitanode 17:12, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi there.

I'm really sorry, but I can't help. Because that account has contributions (ja:特別:投稿記録/Unitanode ), it is not possible to usurp the account. You could ask the user to please rename, but as their contribs are from 2008, I think it unlikely that they will respond. I'm sorry.

If you want the same name on EN and JA, my only other suggestion would be to rename your English account to something that is definitely available on JA.

Sorry I couldn't help more. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  20:46, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

• Oh, I don't want an account on JA. But, because there's a user who (oddly) has the same name as me there, it forever says my account is "in migration". I simply want to know how to say, basically, "That account isn't mine; stop trying to migrate it." Can you help me with that? Unitanode 22:06, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

According to the SUL Utility, you have a global account, and JA was simply unattached. Are you sure you are unable to complete the process? The Earwig (Talk | Contribs) 22:17, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

• Here's what it says when I click on "my preferences":

  "Global account status: In migration

  Your account is active on 7 project sites.

  Unconfirmed accounts with your name remain on 1 project.

  I have to click "manage my global account" to see the ones that my account is active on. Is that normal? If so, I guess it's problem solved. I just thought that all the projects should come up when I simply click "my preferences", and that the extra click-through was being caused by the unattached JA account with my same name. Unitanode 22:24, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

• Yeah, you have to click on "manage my global account" to see all of the projects you account is active on. It would be very difficult if they were displayed directly on your preferences. For example, my global account is active on 74 projects, and that would take up too much space on the main preferences page. The Earwig (Talk | Contribs) 22:29, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

• Ah, okay. Sorry for the trouble, then. BTW, will it always say "in migration" on the "my preferences"? Unitanode 22:36, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

• Well, I'm not sure. On my preferences page, because there was no such conflict, the it says "All in order!", and not "In migration". However, it shouldn't affect you in terms of actual editing. You can test it out by going to a random wiki: try this one, for example. If you have a global account and everything is working properly, you should see yourself logged in, even though you never created an account there. Regards, The Earwig (Talk | Contribs) 22:47, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

  It worked. I guess I'll just have to get used to seeing "in migration" there! :) Unitanode 22:49, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Barwick's mediation case

Not sure if he ever notified you, but he opened a case at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-07-15/Talk:Early life and career of Barack Obama a few weeks back. Your name is listed as a party, among others. Seems like a waste of time IMO, and if you specifically decline to participate I believe that that effectively short-circuits the process, since it is informal. Just an FYI. Tarc (talk) 20:35, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Sam Fuld(2)

I believe that it is met by all three citations, as is discussed on the talk page ad nauseum. In no way, as discussed there, is it necessary to "combine material from multiple sources to reach a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." The conclusion is expicitly stated. I'm not clear how you are missing that. It is clear as day -- though of course in two of the articles you have to know what "MOT" means or what "Member of the Tribe" means, but if you are not knowledgable in the meaning of the term, that is not what is guarded against by the synthesis prohibition. And the article by the major league baseball reporter doesn't even use that term. I feel that you are, to use a baseball term, way off base. The only synthesis applied was by the editor who mistakenly (and I have shown that he was without a doubt mistaken) suggested that if Fuld had a christmas tree he could not have been Jewish. Far from the case -- that editor was making a personal assumption, perhaps based on personal research, that had no foundation in reality, and was using "synthesis" based on his misconception to try to usurp a brief contrary statement supported by three sources. And I note that this fact is certainly more notable and relevant to the Sam Fuld article than the religions of his parents, which were in the article prior to my deletion of them.--Ethelh (talk) 04:14, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

• In no source does Fuld say "I am Jewish." That is required to categorize him as such. Anything else is pure synthesis and violates WP:BLPCAT. Please review the discussion at WP:BLP/N regarding the article before making any further edits explicitly calling him "Jewish." Unitanode 04:17, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I note that at [1] you warn others that if they removed properly sourced material they may be blocked. I agree with that sentiment.--Ethelh (talk) 04:18, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

"Note" whatever you want. Policy is not on your side here. Adding material about a subject's religion to their article, when it's not central to their notability is against policy. You simply must stop doing it. Unitanode 04:21, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

1) Out of curiosity, are you Betty Logan?

2)MOT and Member of the Tribe are slang for Jewish (e.g., the first article says "Now, it just so happens that two of my favorites are also Members of the Tribe. Sam Fuld and Adam Greenberg fit the mold perfectly", and the second one says "And a “welcome back” to Chicago Cubs outfielder Sam Fuld... That elevates the total of MOT back to 13"; and the third citation of course clearly lists him on the "Jewish Sports Review" 2002 College Baseball All-American [The Jewish Sports Review is the only source for complete and up-to-date information about Jewish Athletes] First Team.).

It does not receive undue treatment, a mere two words. The references are quite central to the articles, which focus specifically on Jewish ballplayers.

The first of the above cited sources that indicate that he is Jewish is written by Jonathan Mayo. If you are an avid baseball fan, you probably recognize the name. He is a senior staff writer for MLB.com, and has been writing for them on baseball and baseball players for a decade (after moving over from the New York Post).

The first article by MLB.com's senior writer Jonathan Mayo -- based on an interview with him -- says "Now, it just so happens that two of my favorites are also Members of the Tribe. Sam Fuld and Adam Greenberg ...." And the second one says "And a “welcome back” to Chicago Cubs outfielder Sam Fuld... That elevates the total of MOT back to 13". And the third citation of course clearly lists him on the "Jewish Sports Review" 2002 College Baseball All-American [The Jewish Sports Review is the only source for complete and up-to-date information about Jewish Athletes] First Team.).

I haven't checked, but I would guess that with Moses, Ben Gurion, Elie Wiesel, Benjamin Netanyahu, Golda Meir, Barbara Streisand, Jerry Lewis, Woody Allen, and Ben Gurion most if not all of them likely do not have better sources indicating that they are Jewish (probably not as good as here -- the senior editor to the official publication of the sport), and yet the articles so indicate. Are you going to delete references to them being Jewish?--Ethelh (talk) 04:30, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

• If you are accusing me of sockpuppetry, the proper forum is that way. None of the sources you quote show Fuld stating his religion, nor is his religion anywhere close to central to his notability. I've explained this to you. You've ignored me. I won't be replying further to your erroneous line of reasoning, and if you revert the information back into the article, I will be forced to ask an administrator to block you from editing. Biographies of living persons are taken very seriously here, and violations of the policy will not be tolerated. Additionally, if your "Are you Betty Logan?" comment was intended to attempt to out me, I'd recommend stopping that as well. It's a good way to get, not just blocked, but community-banned. Unitanode 04:35, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I am asking if you are Betty Logan. Sockpuppetry carries with it connotations that of course extend beyong a person using more than one account. I note that Betty Logan has been a difficult editor who has wikistalked me (and was recently warned for related activity), and that the only apparent nexus between us prior to today is Betty Logan, so it seemed to be an appropriate question. If our nexus is not Betty Logan, then I ask how you landed in the middle of this discussion.

BTW, the section that you quoted of course related solely to religious beliefs. Of course Judaism is something that most people are born into, is a nationality/people/ethnicity as well as a religion, and the categorization requirements for those do not require the same as would an article that states "Fuld believes in Judaism." This only states that he is Jewish, which is supported by the cites, and does not violate any Wiki stricture. If you disagree, I urge you to leave it as I put it (it had been stable in that form for some time), and with it as such bring it to an administrator.--Ethelh (talk) 04:48, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Edit Warring Report

Please note that, as despite my entreaties in my last edit summary that you not yet again revert and edit war, but rather that you leave the page Sam Fuld page intact in the form that it existed for a long and stable time until recently, you have reverted me three times within a short period of time I have entered a notice as to your edit warring at [2].--Ethelh (talk) 07:38, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Bon Jovi Vocal Range

I've looked everywhere on the internet and cannot find his EXACT vocal range. I don't believe that for any other musician on Wikipedia, that it's actually sourced to say exactly what their vocal range is. Unless they make a "vocal range test" and some magazine is there to report on it, it's never going to be told. I'm a musician and I know my vocal range. In "Livin' on a Prayer", the highest recorded note in the song is a G#5, which is approximately 893 Hz. The only way any information like this can be verified is if the artist says it publicly or something, and I don't think that's a question people have on their mind. If they ever DO get asked that question (and maybe HAVE been asked), it might not end up being posted on the internet as it's not *that* important. Sometimes you just have to believe that what people say is true. I know Wikipedia has to source everything, but there are simply some things that are impossible to be sourced and should be left for the viewer to decide whether it's credible information or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Extremador (talk • contribs) 08:23, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, I don't believe so. You may want to pose this question at the village pump or the reliable sources noticeboard, though, as the editors there may have some insight as to how you might proceed. I wish I could be more help. Unitanode 14:43, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
  • This may or may not help, but the vocal ranges of David D'Or, Georgia Brown (Brazilian singer), Tim Storms, and Thom Yorke are sourced on Wikipedia ... and that's just at a quick glance.--Ethelh (talk) 06:09, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Because they are pretty much record breakers for having the highest vocal notes on the planet. I'm talking about casual singers. Bon Jovi, Chris Brown, T-Pain, Amy Lee, etc... .--Extremador (talk)
      • Right -- I think it is sometimes mentioned even then, but only when notable (as evidenced by it being reported in the article(s) that are used as cites). Examples: D'Or above, Marvin Gaye, Joan Baez, Mariah Carey, Christina Aguilera.

Talkback

Hello, Unitanode. You have new messages at A More Perfect Onion's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

A More Perfect Onion (talk) 00:27, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Fuld (again)

I was wondering if in this edit[3] you intended to remove any reference to the father and mother? It's fine with me, but seems to contradict the edit summary. Personally I think the faith of the parents is irrelevant, though it can be added if needed to resolve the religion issue.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 14:41, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

• I did intend to remove the mention. Ethelh expressed concern that if calling Fuld "Jewish" was inappropriate then so was mentioning his parents religions, sourced only to his statement. I agreed, and removed it. Sorry for the confusing edit summary. Unitanode 14:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

  No problem. I agree 100% that the religion of his parents is irrelevant, and would be unless this were a major public figure like Winston Churchill. I imagine we can put in the job his parents had. But my main concern at present is that this does not become a BLP 100 Years War.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 14:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

  As inserting a person's religion without a self-identification is a clear BLP violation (this was made clear to Ethelh when she reported me for "edit-warring"), simple reversions of attempts to add the information are all that's required. I'm not going to let myself get too stressed out over this issue. Unitanode 14:55, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

  Agreed. This has been exceptionally wearisome. I get the impression intentionally so. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 03:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

  I get that impression as well. Unitanode 03:16, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

MJJ bookwriting

what do you mean by "text lift??" (LonerXL (talk) 23:01, 4 August 2009 (UTC))

• I mean that the text you placed in the article is directly lifted from the Rolling Stone article. Additionally, the text was parenthetical, and certainly not nearly notable enough to merit inclusion in the article, text lift or not. UnitAnode 00:03, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• Not notable enough? Even though he himself wrote the book?! So many "upper-level wikipedian guys" are VERY stiff and unreasonable. I don't get your point and judgement, Mr Anode.(LonerXL (talk) 00:22, 5 August 2009 (UTC))

Michael Jackson

Hi Unita, thanks for your note. I disengaged from there a couple of weeks ago too, also because working on it was very frustrating. It was a case of one step forward, three steps back. I will take a look, but I doubt I'll be ready to get involved again. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 18:36, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• No worries. I just knew you'd done a lot of work on it, so I wanted to let you know. If the POV-pushing isn't stopped, it will need to go up for FAR very soon. UnitAnode 18:37, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree about FAR. I was intending to do it at some point, but I thought I'd wait until he's less in the news, though that could be longer than we're willing to wait. I actually have some issues with the way it was written before the death too. I feel it's too music-oriented, not enough bio. Also, so much more information is available now than used to be, and that's likely to increase over the next few months, so our ideas about what should be in it could end up changing quite significantly. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 18:46, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree somewhat about the music-oriented side of things. A larger problem right now, though, seems to be with the POV-pushing regarding rumors about Jackson not being the biological father of his children, which is causing some massive instability. Let me know if you do decide to take it to FAR. UnitAnode 20:22, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

My edit to Barack Obama

Thanks for notifying me, however I am right at this moment using Huggle, the revert was meant for a different page, I saw it trying to revert Barack Obama and was readying to undo my own edit, however HG notified me that it was unable to revert the page anyway so I let the page be. Just so you know I undid my last edit to the page, I don't have any issues with User:Jessedow24's edit and at the time didn't even get to read the edit as the page only displayed a "diff=1" error. Thanks for letting me know of that revert though. Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 20:02, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

• No worries. I didn't notice it was Huggle (I don't personally use HG), and thought it was use of your rollbacker tool. Apologies for any confusion. UnitAnode 20:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

While you're on

Do you happen to know what Wiki's policy(if they have a policy) is against users or IP's removing warnings from their own talk pages? Thanks. Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 20:30, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

• This page deals with your question. Normally, removal of warnings is taken as a tacit acknowledgement that they've been read, and if the warned-for behavior is repeated, the warning that removed still counts toward any potential blocks that may be levied. Hope that helps. UnitAnode 20:36, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for that, appreciate it. Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 20:41, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

  No problem. I'm glad to help! UnitAnode 20:42, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Adam Lambert

I would like your opinion on the removal of columns from Adam Lambert. User:Benjiboi removed the RfC after it had expired, marked it as resolved and then deleted the columns with "rmv per expired RfC" even though the matter was not resolved and there was no consensus to delete the columns found in the RfC. Since then I have twice added back the columns while discussing on the talk page, but have been reverted. Benjiboi now says I would have to find a consensus to add back the columns even though there was a consensus before the RfC, no outside editors during the RfC adding input and no change during the RfC. If consensus has never changed, why would you need to find the same consensus? Aspects (talk) 19:22, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 Done--I've responded at the talkpage, and restored the columns (for now, at least). UnitAnode 21:16, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Obama daughters

Hi - no, I don't think a separate article about the daughters is needed, as they are well-covered in the article Family of Barack Obama, and they do not have independent notability. When separate articles have been tried for Malia, they were merely repetitions of what we have in the Family article, so the redirect seems to accomplish what we want. If someone comes here to read about the daughters, they are redirected to the article that talks about them, and other family members who similarly don't have independent notability. This is being discussed at Family of Barack Obama#Malia Obama article. Tvoz/talk 21:06, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

• I don't really have an opinion one way or the other on it, I just watch Obama-related articles, had noticed your reversions of the creation of a separate article on M, and was kind of thinking out loud on your talkpage about some ways forward. Honestly, I probably lean in favor of not having separate articles, as both are minors, and the circumstances here aren't much different than when a couple of users tried to create an article on the children of Michael Jackson. If I feel I have anything really substantive to add, I'll post to the discussion you linked above. UnitAnode 21:15, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the fact that they are children certainly figures into it for me - I think we have to be particularly careful for BLP and common decency reasons to tread lightly with kids. I missed the brouhaha over MJ's kids, but I'm sure I'd have said the same thing regarding them. Nice to meet you! Tvoz/talk 21:33, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Nice to meet you as well, Tvoz. The kerfuffle over MJ's kids was quite intense, and lasted for awhile. Be glad you missed it! :) UnitAnode 21:36, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Public image of Barack Obama

He'll stop arguing if we stop responding. Let the fire burn out.--Loodog (talk) 21:53, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

He's really stuck in fingers-in-the-ears mode. "You're not listening." "Oh yeah, what am I not listening to?" Just let him talk - he'll stop if we stop pretending his posts are worth responding to.--Loodog (talk) 12:03, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Do we know each other?

Although we have edited on the same pages, I don't think in the short time since you have been an editor, we have ever come in contact before. Ikip (talk) 04:43, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

• Your interactions with Lar -- whom I know only a little, but respect a lot -- is the first time I've had occasion to notice your presence on the project. Why? Does it matter somehow? UnitAnode 04:45, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
  • No, thanks for your time. Ikip (talk) 04:49, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Hmm... well, this was certainly an odd interaction. UnitAnode 04:51, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Your conduct at WQA

Unitanode, your conduct is becoming more problematic. You are responsible for the ill-considered and disruptive postings you made at the WQA. Ikip (the filing party) seems to have confirmed on my talk page that MBisanz post was insufficient to resolve the tension. Yet, you've tried your hardest to pretend that it has, and that the only problems in this dispute were with the user who filed the WQA, when this was plainly not true. Please refrain from making such misrepresentations again. Instead of stirring the pot further by pointing at my analysis and badgering me about it, consider finding a way to fix the problems with your own approach (maybe, start off with your analysis).

There's no condescension, but a logical explanation regarding your unhelpfully problematic approach here; that it is perhaps a direct result of your lack of experience (after all, you've been editing here for merely 6 months - that's really not that long). Regardless, if you continue to employ such an approach on-wiki, then your tenure here is likely to be short indeed. This is my final warning to you: back off. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:56, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Ncmvocalist's view is not uniformly held. While it's important to remain calm and dispassionate, it's also important to be able to speak one's mind as long as one isn't disruptive. Don't let others intimidate you into suppressing your opinion. ++Lar: t/c 12:13, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

• I won't. It's apparent to me that Ncmvocalist isn't at all dispassionate here. I take his posts for what they're worth, which I consider to be a trace amount of NaCl. I think that Ncmv will find I'm not easily intimidated by threats of my "tenure here" being "short indeed." Such threats are ill-considered, unhelpful, and quite empty, given the tenor of Ncmv's own contributions. UnitAnode 15:35, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

My response to Ncmvocalist's final accusations and threats at WQA

As Rd (wisely, in my opinion) archived and closed the discussion at WQA, I thought I'd post the response I was EC-ed out of making there to my talk, which I'm sure that Ncmv is watching:

Whatever you may believe, I was not EC-ed, and had no idea you'd posted below. What you're doing now is the very definition of assuming bad faith. Toward me, you're free to do this, as I'm not one to report people for such things, but I'd not recommend it as a general practice. My approach here hasn't been "problematic" in the least. I proffered my opinion that the problem was not with Lar. Mbisanz noted that perhaps it would be best to let this die. You stirred the pot with a post equating Lar's actions with Ikip's. Also, when you mention "others", I see only you here. Is there something I should know? UnitAnode 16:48, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

BLP Noticboard

Hi UnitAnode - You've been noticeably absent from WP:BLPN lately. Have you moved on to other projects? I'm just curious as I found your input and assistance there very helpful. Cheers, --ponyo (talk) 17:43, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

• I may be coming back to it soon. Thanks for the note. UnitAnode 17:57, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

FYI

A user has initiated a thread mentioning you here. –xeno^talk 18:16, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for the note. It looks like it's fizzed out, so I won't post there. UnitAnode 19:02, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment

Take care Unitanode. I know you disagreed with me at times, but you always came across as a fine fellow. I disagreed with you too at sometimes :) and I think it's a pity that any editor here feels the need to defend their edits by defending their political viewpoints (but actually now that I think about it I've also tried to defend myself that way). And I suppose I'm an idealist and a dreamer thinking that a diversity of viewpoints would be tolerated and encouraged here, the world just isn't perfect. Cheers. Take care and have fun. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:37, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I hope you'll keep active as your schedule permits.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 14:43, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content#Proposed_clarification

FYI. This RFC is based on, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Jack Merridew/Blood and Roses which you participated in. If you already have commented at the RFC, my apologies for contacting you. Ikip (talk) 00:16, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Opening sequence in the House article

I see you undid my quite bold edit on the House article earlier today. That's fair enough. However, I do feel that the section in question should be removed or, if not removed, seriously cut down. Therefore I invite you to discuss it on the talk page if you wish. Planewalker Dave (talk) 22:09, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

The MfD

I hate "smiles promote wikilove" banners, but I was tempted to leave one here. Instead I'll just say that I appreciate your comments at that MfD and elsewhere, and the way you present your views. Thanks and best wishes. ++Lar: t/c 21:25, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

• Well, thank you! As you're someone I really respect, your note means a lot to me. Especially when it often feels I'm spitting into a very stiff wind in some of these discussions. Best, UnitAnode 22:10, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:AN3#User:Arthur Rubin reported by User:Law Lord (Result: )

Can you add anything to clarify this AN3 complaint? I note you are the editor who filed the SPI case about TreadingWater. There are two mutual 3RR complaints open between Arthur Rubin and TreadingWater. You might have some background you could add at the noticeboard. Reblocking of TreadingWater is certainly something to consider. EdJohnston (talk) 17:55, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Bad faith Editing, and Edit Warring by Unitanode

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made related to Generation Jones. 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 several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. — TreadingWater (talk) 23:21, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

As before, you automatically revert without giving reasons on the talk pages for reverting my completely reasonable edits. Again, I ask you to not create edit wars and please start adopting a collaborative approach to editing.TreadingWater (talk) 23:21, 2 October 2009 (UTC)