User talk:Wikidemon

We're revealed! You fool, what have you done?!?

The Society of Obama Boosters (SOB) is revealed! That you would allow Member Grsz11 to send you email and reveal that hidden communication is near-unthinkable! Now everyone knows for sure we are all either the same person or all employees of Barack Obama's communist party campaign team! Or both! I shall have to inform Our Liberal Masters of this terrible event. (Heh... Just trying to keep your spirits up.) --GoodDamon 03:31, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, nice. Those editors may be sockpuppets. They're definitely acting strange. There has been some suspicious activity of late, and DigitalNinja was recently blocked for sockpuppetry. I'm trying to figure out where that email went. I haven't read it. Most attempts to email me via Wikipedia get lost in space. Wikidemon (talk) 03:35, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

FYI, that "recently blocked for sockpuppetry" was over a year ago. How old are you? You and your disruptive friend will have your own AN/I article soon enough. Digital^Ninja 03:40, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Don't do that. You are likely to get blocked. You really need to calm down and stop stirring up trouble. Wikidemon (talk) 03:46, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Look, please just stay off my talk page and I'll stay off yours. I don't buy that you're just innocently protecting neutrality in that article. You might not be part of Obamas campaign, but you are definitely biased in my opinion. I posted an AN/I link here if you wish to contribute. Regards. Digital^Ninja 03:56, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your support Chairman Wikidemon! Perhaps we should set up a cabal headquarters. Grsz^X 06:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, my edit warrior. A wise wikipedian does not take pleasure in the cabal, but denies its existence. Seriously, if you have fun insulting the trolls go for it, but as your recent block shows, warring against the edit warriors make you one of them. Whereas being a little more cautious about things gets you....editors who vow to squash you.[1] Wikidemon (talk) 06:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Eh, it was a bogus block anyway. Grsz^X 06:20, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Runs into the room There's a secrete Cabal that controls everything? Do they at least serve beer and chips at their meetings? If so can I join! The sad part is that this insanity is going to continue on and get worse right up till November 4th. Brothejr (talk) 12:36, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Further prediction. Someone will file an AN/I report about the cabal of editors who are secret Obama campaign volunteers, someone else will disrupt an AN/I or 3RR report by claiming that the cabal is in a secret plot to harass them, and someone will tell "you guys" to stop fighting and attempt to work it out. Wikidemon (talk) 14:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd give that a 95% chance of happening. Brothejr (talk) 14:36, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

95%? You're aiming too low. I think it has a 95% chance of happening at least three times. --GoodDamon 15:32, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

True. I'm trying to remember how they usually do it: place it in the article, someone removes it, they do it again a couple more times, goes to the talk page to complain, sends a variety of weird and sometimes threatening messages to people's talk pages, and then a 3RR report plus AN/I report. Does that sound about right? Brothejr (talk) 17:40, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Note

• Anyone who reads the two above sections needs to take something away from the conversation: Refrain from editing Wikipedia after listening to 8 hours of Sean Hannity, Neal Boortz, and Mark Levin every day for 6 months. You're likely to find people think you're either insane, a sockpuppet, or malnourished. Digital^Ninja 21:06, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Weatherman (organization)

I've opened a request for mediation, and you are invited to contribute. Thanks. Freedom Fan (talk) 17:16, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

please leave my talk page alone

I lease my IP address and am the only one who can edit from it. For that reason, it is perfectly reasonable that my IP talk page stay under my housekeeping standards. I don't tell you how to keep this page, so please allow me the same courtesy. Or, as an alternative, let's see if ArbCom will make a ruling as to yes or no, do you get to dictate to me how to keep my talk page. 216.153.214.89 (talk) 01:51, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

If you're going to get indignant about things why not make the effort to contribute constructively to the project in the first place? Claiming a right to your private IP account, while trolling, is more than a little incongruous. Arbcom is not going to help you here, and I doubt anyone else would come to your defense. If you don't want notices on your talk page, please behave. Wikidemon (talk) 04:15, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Fair use image question

Hi Wikidemon. Sorry for the disturbance but I remember we had discussed these issues in the past so I would like to ask you a question regarding fair use. I had a few back and forth edit reversals with user Aspects regarding a few albums, a representative specimen of which is this edit here. I maintain the commentary I provided for the album in the Vicky Leandros article is critical enough and covers the fair use criteria for the album, he disagrees here. What could I possibly do to keep this album in the article? Any comments would be very much appreciated. Thanks. Dr.K. (talk) 05:11, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Sarah: How a Hockey Mom Turned Alaska's Political Establishment Upside Down

I have nominated Sarah: How a Hockey Mom Turned Alaska's Political Establishment Upside Down, an article you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarah: How a Hockey Mom Turned Alaska's Political Establishment Upside Down. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Protonk (talk) 20:39, 26 October 2008 (UTC) Protonk (talk) 20:39, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

My sources are reliable

How are the sources posted now anymore reliable than mine? I would like to know. Thank you Xrxty (talk) 00:19, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Read WP:RS. The existing sources are some of the nation's most prominent mainstream news publications, operating in journalistic mode. The sources you wish to replace them with are partisan and editorials. No single reliable source has ever concluded that Ayers and Obama were close. Also read WP:3RR, WP:EW, and the article probation notice I left. Even if your argument were valid you are not supposed to edit war against consensus on it, particularly not on a page subject to article probation. Wikidemon (talk) 00:26, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I feel fox news is reliable, plus there are a lot more reliable sources that say the same thing . [[2]] Xrxty (talk) 00:32, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Your feelings are not the point. WP:RS is. Fox is sometimes reliable, sometimes not. The citation you gave does not support the claim you make - it does not say there was a close relationship. I have given you a warning about 3RR, and cited relevant policies and guidelines. Revert your edit now or you will be blocked.Wikidemon (talk) 00:33, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Again you are wrong, the current cnn source is from a blog, this source [3] is not a blog and is also from your beloved cnn and it backs up my claim, can I add this? Xrxty (talk) 01:01, 28 October 2008 (UTC) I have not reverted since I was given the notice, thanks for telling me though. Does that rule apply to me removing a source and replacing it with a newer one? Xrxty (talk) 01:10, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

The CNN source here[4] is not a blog. If you're still confused about that, review footnote 5 at WP:V. The CNN source you propose does not support the claim you repeatedly inserted that "Investigations by the Fox News, National Review, Newsmax and other reliable news organizations have concluded that Obama has had a close social and political relationship Bill Ayers." You will find no reliable source to support it. I have no "beloved" anything. Please review WP:CIVIL. 3RR applies to all substantive reverts other than fighting vandalism, copyright violations, BLP violations, and a few things like htat. I asked you to revert your 4RR / 6RR violation and you chose to argue instead. It is too late now, because another editor has reverted, so I filed the report. They might refrain from blocking, or unblock, if you promise to not make uncivil accusations or edit war.Wikidemon (talk) 01:19, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Uh... It has blog in the url. I asked on IRC and they said my new one was better. "But the relationship between Obama and Ayers went deeper, ran longer and was more political than Obama -- and his surrogates -- have revealed, documents and interviews show." From the cnn article. I am sorry if I said something uncivil.Xrxty (talk) 01:28, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Consensus is made on article talk pages; IRS has no bearing. If you want to propose a change to the article you can use the talk page. However, I doubt you will find any support to change the lead from a statement that news publications found that there was no significant relationship to the opposite conclusion.Wikidemon (talk) 01:33, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

xrxty

Check the contributions list of Special:Contributions/72.192.216.42

Although I realize you'll argue "Keep"

Heads up to this AfD I nommed -- here!....  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 06:37, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, yes...I'm an inclusionist too so I did my bit. I doubt consensus will favor a keep and it's no great loss....Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 17:22, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Paris Hilton, "the Rodney Dangerfield of political comedy"

(And -- should ya desire to stand against the gale of force blowing against Wikipedial inclusion of po li'l Paris's spoof ad, Suntag's nomination of the same, to which you'd substantially contributed, is here.)  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 06:52, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Your blantant NPOV edits to Barack Obama

All my right-wing partisan viewpoints aside, you've done an excellent job keeping these high profile political articles balanced, especially Barack Obama. I know I've been a pain in the ass (I try not to be), and you've proved to be civil, tolerant, open-minded, and policy spirited during the entire debacle.

I use Wikipedia as a source for information, both for professional and entertainment purposes and I'm very thankful for it. Therefore, I have to acknowledge and be thankful for the editors that insist on keeping it a valuable source. So, that's all I had to say. Digital^Ninja 14:11, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

		The Invisible Barnstar
		The Invisible Barnstar is to be awarded to users who make significant and helpful contributions to the project, but keep to the background without seeking recognition or reward for their work. Designed and introduced by Hersfold Your contributions at Talk:Barack Obama/Article probation are very much appreciated. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 22:18, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Good lord, it's getting worse!

Please, just tell me this will all stop after the election. I can barely stand to look at my watchlist now. It's literally like clockwork: Talking point comes out in the morning, by noon someone's trying to get it into an article. Sigh... --GoodDamon 21:31, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I just found it.[5] These things always seem out of left field, but it usually turns out to be someone listening to the very latest breaking blog or talking point source.Wikidemon (talk) 21:33, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Just a warning for WP:3RR at the talk page. Probably better just to let him spew his crap and everybody will tell him to shut up. Grsz^Review! 21:59, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think 3RR applies to dealing with disruption, nor is closing a discussion reversion, but I do try hard to avoid overdoing the edits and I won't revert anymore for a while. This editor is a fringe theorist who sees others response as persecution. He really needs to be blocked or banned. This "spewing" is disruptive and it shuts down the page.Wikidemon (talk) 22:01, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I just checked and I have made two reversions today to the Obama talk page - one to redact a couple BLP violations, and another to re-close the disuprtive discussion Thegoodlocust re-opened. So I am at 0RR, 2RR on routine article patrol by the wildest stretch.Wikidemon (talk) 22:12, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Deleted my post eh for "trolling?" I guess when I say you should be banned it is trolling, but when you express the same sentiment to me then it is okay. TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:31, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

That's harassment - I'll leave it up this time to preserve the record. On to WP:AN/I. Wikidemon (talk) 22:34, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

DYK for Kids Pick the President

On 30 October, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Kids Pick the President, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions. – RyanCross (talk) 07:59, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Wow. I wasn't even aware it was nominated. Wheeee! Wikidemon (talk) 08:04, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Your staying calm and civil—while dealing with the worst talk page trolling, POV pushing, and vandalism I've ever seen in 3 years on Wikipedia—is quite impressive and appreciated. Thanks, ~ priyanath ^talk 17:24, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Please help

I was curious if you could help me improve an article? I would like to place a tag at the top of a section that says "this section does not cite it's sources". It's the largest section in the article, and right now, the article is filled with singular fact tags that is pretty much destroying the readability of the article IMO. this is the article in question. When I get home, I'll try and locate some sources and I'll work on the article to improve it. Digital^Ninja 21:31, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I looked at it and tried to think of a way to help, but it looks like the whole paragraph on the use of that quote in the Hymn of Concord is either essay-style original research / analysis, or is lifted from a source I could not find online. It was very hard to find sources about the meaning of the phrase, perhaps because it is so obvious. The sources I could find were interesting, about the circumstances of Emmerson's writing it, and the battle itself. But there are already articles about the poem, Emmerson, the battle, the towns, etc... so it's not worth getting too much into the bigger picture. There were a few vague statements about how the phrase has become so famous and came after its writing in 1836 to stand for the American revolution, and being memorized by many generations of schoolkids. I think part of the problem is that it gets taught in grade school or high school, not college. So there isn't any scholarly writing or criticism that I could find online devoted to its exact meaning. Obviously the shot was not heard around the world; even if people know who fired the first shot it was probably heard for a mile or two. So it was hyperbole used as a form of metaphor. There were online sources - introductions to poem anthologies, and student guides that said that, probably reliable sources but not very serious sounding. The deeper, but still obvious, meanings was never talked about - that the "shot" is a symbol for democracy and American values, and the reason it was heard was that it was an earthshaking event. I'll bet somewhere, somebody has made a speech, or a paper, or a presentation, a museum guide, a student study guide about this - there are societies and museums devoted to Emmerson and the battle. Also maybe look somewhere in military history. Maybe, if you care enough, you could call up or write a museum curator or professor who has written about the general subject or specializes in Emmerson, and ask if there is any literature...or just a librarian. I would guess 99% that it's out there, just hard for me to find on google. Chances are that the whole paragraph would have to be scrapped and rewritten to match the source, but it would probably say about the same thing. I might try a little more, and I'll update the article if I find anything solid. Wikidemon (talk) 15:26, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your thoughtful response. I called a library close to my work and they have a few biographies devoted to Emmerson, and a few historical documents related to the event. I'll check them out tomorrow and do what I can to clean it up. I think you're right that I'll have to remove the entire section and rewrite according to available sources. I might leave a few more messages regarding citations with books and general formatting. Thanks again for your help. Digital^Ninja 02:27, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Full Protection of Candidate's Bios

Hi Wikidemon, I noticed your comment regarding full protection of candidate's bios. It seemed to me like you were requesting additional help and would only support full protection as a last resort. Your comments were interpreted as supporting full protection and you have been included in that group. Could you please clarify at "Should the election bios stay fully protected through the election": [[6]] Thanks, IP75 (talk) 09:01, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

edit-war

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now. 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 a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution.

Please don't continue reverting. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:03, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, for goodness sake. I'm not edit warring. I'm dealing with a disruptive editor by returning a disputed section of an article to a pre edit war state, and would not consider going beyond 2RR in such a situation (1RR normally, 2RR because I was reversing clear disruption). Wikidemon (talk) 19:09, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

It only takes a couple of editors, doing a couple of reverts each, to cause considerable disruption to an article. I don't mean to lecture you. I've handed out several warnings and I hope you can appreciate that I don't want to be seen to be taking sides here. FYI, since writing these warnings, I've decided to protect the article. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:14, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I understand. I would have done the same if I were an admin reviewing an article I had not edited. Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 19:17, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Black liberation theology

Since you have more experience than I in edit-warring...please see the history and Talk page on Black liberation theology. This article has already been called a fork, and I see no reason to duplicate a long series of Cone quotes which are already in his own article (and I've suggested Wikiquote instead). How is this usually handled in Wikipedia? Flatterworld (talk) 14:04, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Um.....I try to make that not edit warring. I'll take a look, but when an article is more disparaging on a concept or philosophy than it is on a person or organization, the policies tend to favor consensus, even when that consensus is to have a bad, COATRACK of an article. You just have to wait until the short timers move on their way, then hopefully the more serious editors win out. Wikidemon (talk) 15:15, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

DYK for Nataska

On 2 November, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Nataska, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 08:20, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

edit-war

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now. 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 a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution.

Please don't continue reverting. Please also read the discussing page before reverting.Historicist (talk) 18:34, 2 November 2008 (UTC)Historicist

Is this a tit-for-tat warning after I warned you on BLP and 3RR over this?[7] No - it's a WP:BLP vio. Reverting BLP vios is not edit warring. The matter is already discussed and disputed by several editors on the talk page. Please do not edit war, and in particular do not do so on material challenged as being a BLP violation. Wikidemon (talk) 18:40, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Illegal immigration in the United States

I replied to your post. I -strongly- encourage you to keep an eye on how this dispute resolves because reviewing Terjen's edit history, illegal immigration issues seem to be problematic for him.-66.194.62.5 (talk) 21:56, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Reviewing the history of the article, it is clear that there is an enclave of editors who push their particular politics. To get neutrality, sometimes it is necessary to step out of the article's usual edit base.

I can assure you that if we keep the discussion to the article's discussion page, I will not participate in editing as it will be pointless to do so given that enclave.-66.194.62.5 (talk) 22:01, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Please notice that this particular anonymous editor has a long history mostly on the immigration-related entries, editing and discussing under a variety of IP addresses, which various editors have compiled at user:psychohistorian, a handle no longer used by the editor. This "anonymous" editor is not a neutral outsider "out of the article's usual edit base", as is apparent by matching posts in the Talk pages signed by the various IP addresses used by the editor. Terjen (talk) 22:28, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I am trying to be neutral in my cautions. I am not sure what the IP's comment means, but in any event if there is something to resolve we have to do so. The article talk page is the place to do it. If there's a tendentious / sock editor then we probably ought to get consensus to semi-protect, or ignore / categorically revert / topic ban the editor. Wikidemon (talk) 06:55, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

There is an exploitable loophole in WP:SOCK that appears to allow using multiple IP addresses concurrently as handles, with potential benefits for a disruptive editor. This particular anonymous editor is highly sophisticated and savvy in Wikipedia policies with a history of active concurrent editing using multiple anonymous accounts going back more than two years. I am favorable to semi-protection of the page. Terjen (talk) 07:17, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't that violate the "avoid detection" and possibly the multiple-voting part? And if psychohistorian is blocked or banned, then that's evading a block/ban. In any event, if any of them are flagged / blocked for disruption they all fall. Plus, a community ban could also work. Wikidemon (talk) 07:21, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

There are some archived discussions about these issues as it relates to this particular anonymous editor at:

• Questions about alleged use of multiple anon IP addresses by someone who has an account
• AdAdministrators' noticeboard: Anon edits at Illegal_immigration_to_the_United_States
• Request for semi protection
• Page protection, sockpuppetry etc.
• Multi-IP anon editor — conflict of interest?.
• Administrators' noticeboard:User_talk:71.74.209.82

Terjen (talk) 08:16, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Project Vote

User:Bdell555 has returned to Project Vote to try and use weasel words and conflicting sources to link the organization to ACORN again. Since you have been active on the ACORN page, I thought you'd be interested. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:06, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

You might also be interested in this NYT story from 2 weeks ago which notes that "Until the embezzlement scandal broke last summer, Project Vote’s board was made up entirely of Acorn staff members", and goes on to identify an ACORN person who, according to tax filings, didn't just work for but was a Director of Project Vote, yet did not even know that Project Vote existed at all, never mind as a separate entity.Bdell555 (talk) 04:09, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Election aftermath

Shout out

Wikidemon, you (and others) have really worked your butts off and have put in a great deal of time and text into ensuring NPOV, balance, etc. to some really contentious articles. I've been planning to sincerely thank you for all of this hard work, and I made the decision some weeks ago to thank you on this day. Thank you, WD. It has been a real pleasure getting to work with you. kind regards, --guyzero | talk 22:04, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

If election day is relevant, no thanks from me. We are here to build an encyclopedia that lasts beyond election day UNLIKE A CAMPAIGN.Bdell555 (talk) 06:55, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Reading comprehension FTW, I congratulated him for ensuring NPOV, balance (i.e. building a neutral encyclopedia). I'm going to chaulk your random personal attack up to just plain old trolling. --guyzero | talk 17:18, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

When the New York Times described Project Vote as an "arm" of an another organization, ACORN, Wikidemo joined the team insisting that this clear, unequivocal fact be excluded from the article. The New York Times has since noted 100% overlap in the composition of the two groups' boards and Wikidemo evidently isn't the slightest bit interested in questioning a supposed "consensus" that would exclude that fact as well. That's not neutral to anyone except partisans taking their cues from an Obama campaign trying to minimize connections because Obama's projects and ACORN. It strikes me as pretty shameless that your little cabal can be so self-congratulatory after a certain national election result. What are you people really here for?Bdell555 (talk) 12:08, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Your argument was just as unconvincing on the Project Vote talkpage, where this discussion belongs. Guess what else? I don't have to defend my selection of Nov 4th to give kudos ... you developing this into "shameless" evidence of a cabal (when this is the first time I've ever communicated to WD) sounds like sour milk to me. If you have a real issue, take it to WP:DR. Otherwise, stop trolling. --guyzero | talk 16:35, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

apprecitation

I just wanted to say that doing a decent job for the majority (if not all) of the time can be so difficult, especially with a lot of the political 'backlashes' that seem to go on every 5 minutes between people. You just keep up the good work.. -WK —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.9.87.246 (talk) 00:12, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Wow lots of editors

Doesn't seem like there are now an avalanche of editors on Barack Obama now. It seems like we don't need to be watching it as much as we had to before. Hopefully we don't have to deal with the SPA's as we had to before he was elected! Though I will say it was semi fun, in a masochistic kind of way. It seemed like every day/hour there was someone trying to push one conspiracy then another. I enjoyed working with you and the others and hopefully we'll still get to have some kind of editing fun! (OH, long live the knights who say nee cabal!) Brothejr (talk) 12:56, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

We'll see - a President can be even more of a lightning rod than a nominee, and there are sure to be a lot of issues in the next four years. There is a certain intensity to keeping the peace on Wikipedia during a partisan political contest - and I may drift back to certain other editing hotspots. You'll find a trail of dead sockpuppets, resolved COI issues, etc., behind me even if it's alcoholic beverages,[8] clothing,[9] or public housing projects[10][11][12][13][14]

So after all your insinuations about editors who, according to you, appeared to just be involved in an article because there was a "partisan political contest" in the background, you now admit that that very factor motivated your involvement as well, Wikidemo? It only raises questions about the legitimacy of THEIR arrival at an article, not yours? I'm testing the waters here to see if there the Wiki community is going to be any less partisan (in favour of the political views that are typical of the Wiki-user demographic; i.e. younger, techier, urban) than it was before my Wiki-break and it doesn't appear so!Bdell555 (talk) 11:55, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I would think that if you are hoping for a less partisan environment, then that should at first start with you. There is no need to go onto other people's talk pages to attack them. If anything there is no need to attack anyone on wikipedia. Let it rest. Take a break. Go edit some other articles for a while. Brothejr (talk) 16:52, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Bdell555 is misrepresenting my statement, and I wonder what the agenda is for reading something that is not there because nowhere in the statement do I admit anything. I have helped out in a number of Wikipedia SPTV hotspots - sockpuppetry, POV-pushing, trolling, and vandalism. They occur all over the encyclopedia, but articles about partisan political subjects have been particularly intense this election cycle. My comment here about partisanship, and my comments during the process about partisan issues, are an observation about the nature of the issue, not in most cases a comment about the editor. If someone wants to call Bill Ayers an "unrepentant terrorist" in 2008 for example, this was a Republican talking point and there is no question but that this arose from the 2008 election. Whatever the editor's biases or intentions, or lack of them, even if the editor is coolly and dispassionately transcribing the sources, it is still about an underlying issue that arose out of the election. That's a contrast from the troll/sockpuppeteer that keeps trying to insert into the Constellation Brands article detailed unencyclopedic content about some kind of a business fraud lawsuit in New Zealand. I have no idea where that one comes from - there must be some kind of issue there. My motivation is to do good work and stand firm against those who cause trouble. The bias here is in favor of writing well, supporting what you write, being neutral, and sticking to the sources. Sometimes that does favor one side or the other, and may diverge from the opinions of people wrapped up in elections. When one of the two candidates does not even know that Africa is a content,[15] then no, I do not think Wikipedia represents the demographic of people who do not know where Africa is. Knowing where Africa is, it seems, might make one a leftist.Wikidemon (talk) 17:49, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again

Seeing the ongoing attempts to rewrite the Barack Obama article gives me an even greater appreciation of the efforts of yourself and others to keep it at Featured Article quality through the election. Congratulations! Best, ~ priyanath ^talk 23:55, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Zeituni Onyango re-written

This article has been rewritten. Please visit the AfD discussion to see if your concerns have been addressed. Thank you. -- Banjeboi 22:53, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Admin

Hi Wikidemon, I've taken a quick gander at your edits/talk page and think you might be a great candidate for adminship, is it something you've considered before? Are you interested? If so, then I'll take a closer look at you and potentially nom you. I am one of the tougher reviewers and will only nom ya if I think you will be a good admin AND have a good chance of passing. The two aren't always the same. Let me know... it might take a little longer than normal to review you because of the subject matter that you've worked on.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 03:14, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I will compose my thoughts on this then let you know later today. Regards, Wikidemon (talk) 17:35, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good, if you are interested, I'll take a closer look at your edit history. Based on what I've seen, it looks like you've worked in highly controversial area's and fared fairly well. There is always the chance of drive by opposes... eg people who you expect to oppose because they hold different political views rather than how you handle the issues. (Taht being said, I nommed JBMURRAY a few months ago, and despite his being a firm Republican and pushed the Reagans to FA he passed with flying colors.) Again, this is a preliminary inquiry just to see if you are interested... I won't move forward unless you are... and I won't encourage you to run if I think a nom would fail.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 18:01, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

FYI, I most likely hold a different political view from Wikidemon (e.g. I'm not a flaming liberal, lol) however, I would support his bid for the mop if he so chooses to peruse it. I personally find it amazing how well he handles controversial situations and keeps a cool head. I'm pretty sure the guy has no emotion (in a good way). Digital^Ninja 22:50, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Balloonman, after thinking about it I would be interesting in exploring this and would be interested in your thoughts and frank assessment on how viable I would be. I have avoided seeking adminship in the past because I am mainly a content editor, and because when I have gotten into situations of defending Wikipedia, I have enjoyed the relative autonomy that comes from being a non-administrator. I've also been a bit averse to power and authority, and have at times chastised administrators for being arbitrary, imperious, uncivil, dismissive, wheel warring and getting into admin-on-admin drama, etc.

In terms of my record, I have done a few things and gotten into a few disputes, particularly early in my Wikipedia career, that would be inappropriate for an administrator. I had some drag-out disputes with Betacommand and some of the image people last year. I have been in a number of disputes, mostly with people I believed were sockpuppets, vandals, POV pushers, and trolls - and editors who defended them. There are certainly some editors who have it out for me - mostly the troublemakers I think. I'm usually right, but I do make mistakes. A few of the editors I had written off turned out to be redeemable, or else went away quietly after things were explained to them by a cooler head. I have occasionally simply removed CsD and AfD tags, and applied IAR in dealing with meta-issues I considered bogus. I guess that gets to my comment about the autonomy of being a non-admin. Without the bit, one has to work hard to deal with disruption. With the bit, the tools themselves and the perceived authority give one perhaps a stronger voice, but at the same time that voice has to be used in a much calmer way that gives everyone an assurance of impartiality and judgment. I try, but I have not always been calm or neutral. Having said that, my outlook towards Wikipedia has matured with experience and I no longer see a whole lot of point in getting into disputes, even against problem editors. Moreover, I would make a separation between any administrative actions and my work as an article editor, and carefully avoid administrative participation on matters I have edited, or where there would be an appearance of an agenda.

Let me know what you think. Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 23:10, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Cool, I'll try to take a look at you this weeken... but I expect you to take a little longer than usual. Your editing of contentious materials means that I will have to spend more time checking your history---and possible complaints. I fully expect to see them from somebody who worked on political articles during an election year... but if *I* as a firm McCain supporter can accept your positions, I think I could sell it to the RfA crowd... but I'll have to really look you over first.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 00:16, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. Well, as an editor I've tried to stand for neutrality but that's in the eye of the beholder so you will no doubt disagree with some of my content arguments, and perhaps sympathize with the content positions of some editors I considered tendentious. But being a participant in administrative actions is a different role than being an administrator overseeing them. When you're a party to a process, you are often arguing for a particular outcome or positionn. As an administrator the role is to decide issues fairly, not to advocate for an outcome. If there is a concern about my neutrality on matters of American national politics I would simply have to avoid administering on them except cases of obvious vandalism. Wikidemon (talk) 02:34, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Part of the thing that caught my attention was how people who *I* know are particularly vocal on the opposite subject of politics (for example Die4Dixie) have come to see you as a person who works towards NPOV. Having a political stance doesn't disqualify somebody from working on an article (or even acting administratively on political articles) it just means that they have to check themselves... and my impression is that you at least try to do so... the number of people who come to your talk pages praising you for your efforts to maintain NPOV is what impresses me.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 04:38, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi WD, I've just spent about 4 hours reviewing your contributions, and I don't feel as if I've barely touched the surface. The challenge is tracing down all of the allegations/discussions/debates that you've been involved with. EG any ANI/AN/RFC/ARBCOM/ETC any time somebody has accused you of POV pushing, etc. After about 4 hours of reviewing your edits, I have grown more and more convinced of two things. First, I think you would make a good admin. (There are still some issues I would normally track down.) Second, you would fail an RfA in a painful manner. Here is what would happen, you would get a nom from somebody like me. You would get a number of "Supports." Then the people whom you've debated in the past will crawl out of the wood work. They would point to the RfC/ANI/ARBCOM cases and say that you are a POV pusher. They will then cite some edit or discussion that they says makes you look bad, and rather than investigating further, the RfA voters would accept their position. Before long, some of the critics would convince your supporters that they know something the supporters don't know. Again, I think you are doing a great job, unfortunately, you work in a highly contentious area---which means that you will have an unfair burden to overcome in passing an RfA.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 07:57, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I personally find this ridiculous; you'd make a great admin, but because of that, you'd fail. Critics always find reasons to criticize, it's their nature. However, to discourage someone wholly qualified from accepting to run for more tools to make this project better is utterly counter productive IMO. You're right; he would be a good admin, and the supporting facts will always outweigh the criticism when facts present themselves. Perhaps if editors weren't allowed to counter criticism, you'd be right and there would be no chance of success, but that's what the power of "edit history" and "contribs" is all about. I'd go one step further to say that because Wikidemon is willing to stand up to malicious POV pushers and be firm in his position, that qualifies him even more, not less, to run for admin. Either way, I'd support his decision to run or not to run, but please don't let discouragement you from accepting a position that would ultimately be of greater value to this project. Digital^Ninja 22:49, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: Prop 8

Oh, no, continue your work. I just found a minor thing that I just had to fix. I'm actually turning in right now. Once your done with your work and there are still things left, leave them on my talk page and I'll get to them next time I log on. Cheers! --haha169 (talk) 07:24, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for this. I was having a hard time phrasing that and you did so nicely. Digital^Ninja 21:22, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

No prob. I'm wondering if we should chop off "as a fundamental right." That sounds POV even though it's not meant to be. It's a legal distinction. By recognizing marriage as a "right" under the constitution, the Supreme Court was saying that no laws could be passed denying the right and the only change could come through a constitutional amendment. That differs from the court's other duty figuring out what a law means, something that could be overturned by passing a new law. However, there is so much value loaded on the word "right" and people often use it to mean some kind of natural, inherent right as opposed to a right as a legally recognized rule. There's room to make that clear in the body but maybe too complex for the lead. Wikidemon (talk) 21:26, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I was having a hard time with "fundamental right" as well, in fact that is what sparked this whole lead sentence debate. It's been labeled as such by news souces (e.g. LA Times), however, in this context it does sound rather POV. You'd think that a fundamental right would be a federally protected right, but that's just how I read into it. I would support eliminating the word "fundamental" and just leaving "right", as I think that would help even out the weight a little... Digital^Ninja 22:41, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Stop Deleting My Comment

Why are you deleting my comment in the Obama Discussion page? I have three mainstream sources to back it up. If you don't like the fact, that's your problem. You may respond to it as you'd like. But please respect my freedom of speech and stop removing my comment.

Thank you. Neurolanis (talk) 23:06, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I deleted it because it was an exact duplicate of a comment you made earlier, which somebody archived. If you search for "Brad Pitt" you will find your original comment still there. However, another user has archived it using the "{{hat}}" template, so it is collapsed and has to be expanded to view. Presumably they did this because they consider the matter, even if true and sourced, too trivial to consider seriously. There is no free speech on Wikipedia; it is an encyclopedia, not a free speech forum. Discussions on busy talk pages that have little chance of adoption or repeats of earlier proposals are often archived so that people can concentrate on discussions with a reasonable likelihood of resulting in changes to the article. Wikidemon (talk) 01:39, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

No horsecrap, please. I posted facts as discovered by a professional organization and reported as fact by several mainstream media sources. The issue of Obama, America's next president, being related to several other presidents, as well as Brad Pitt, Madonna, Marilyn Munroe, Celine Deon, Alanis Morriesette, Vlad the Impaler and others is hardly trivial. Maybe if we were talking about 114th or 211th cousins, but we are talking about 5th and 9th cousins here. We are talking about connected bloodlines of power and influence. I made no assumptions, suggested no assumptions. I merely posted it there on the Discussion page for discussion. Neurolanis (talk) 21:39, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Content Dispute

Hi Wikidemon. I was curious if you'd take a look at this and let me know your opinion? It would be very helpful! Since you're very involved in political articles, I'm sure you could contribute as well (unless I'm mistaken). Either way, if you could just let me know your thoughts, I could merge them with my thoughts, and maybe come out ahead with one complete thought :-D Digital^Ninja 14:52, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

And good god man archive your talk page! :) Digital^Ninja 20:55, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed... the guideline is that anything over 100KB should be archived as it can take slower connections forever to download... this is over 300KB. please archive---preferably on 3 or more different pages!---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 08:30, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I've set it to auto archive and it used to work but the bot doesn't seem to love me anymore. Maybe I'll switch bots.Wikidemon (talk) 10:08, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Unprotect Acorn

You're a more experienced editor than I. I would not oppose such a move at this point. If problems crop up (which are less likely now since the, uh, urgency some had in getting material in should be lessened) can be dealt with in the course of normal business (and a return to protection would be possible if things got out of hand). I was going to go ahead and open up a topic advocating this on the talk page (despite my belief that one editor will then inevitably make a series of large edits to shoe-horn in some contested material) but wanted to get your thoughts. BestBali ultimate (talk) 18:32, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

This may seem weird, but i'd like to withdraw my request for your thoughts on this matter. Or, rather, your thoughts are still welcome but i don't support unprotecting now and think it unlikely i could be convinced to change my mind within the next couple of days. I now have the feeling that multiple socks coming off topic and/or outright bans in the next few days may be there quickly. (I was half inclined to just delete my earlier comment above, but not sure of the ettiquette).Bali ultimate (talk) 04:53, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Licuados at DYK

Please respond to the comment at DYK for your Licuados article nomination concerning the copyediting request. Thanks. -- Suntag ☼ 18:08, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I've taken a pass through it. I see it is not listed on the template page now.Wikidemon (talk)

DYK for Licuado

On 8 November, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Licuado, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Victuallers (talk) 20:35, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

My talk page

It is completely unacceptable for you to reinstate personal attacks on my talk page, or to reinstate anything for that matter. I had been edit warring with him to remove a personal attack and you come along and reinstate it. Editors are even allowed to remove templated warnings from their talk page. There is such a double standard here, he calls me ignorant, idiotic, boy, prick, etc. I dont see you warning him to remain civil. It is sickening how the Obama article is being treated and how the few of you bully other editors. Don't threaten me with blocks, check my edit history. I have never even made a single edit to an Obama related article mainspace. If blocks are put in place for incivility there will be a few of them. Now, leave the personal attack off my talk page. You have no business reinstating it. Landon1980 (talk) 02:27, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I left a second warning for obviously disruptive editing; under the circumstances it made sense to re-instate the first warning of the series. I did replace the inflammatory heading. You do not own your talk page, nor do you have much standing to complain about attempts to deal with your disruption of Talk:Barack Obama. When you call people racist for using the term "African American" you should expect some heated responses. Wikidemon (talk) 05:22, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I called people racist for saying things like "one drop cancels out white" "he is half black hence he is black not white end of story" etc. I never said I owned my talk page, I said I was allowed to remove whatever I wanted. Would you like me to point you to the guideline that says just that? You knew that he was reinstating a personal attack on my talk page, and you were wrong for putting it back. I don't own the page but you do I suppose? I was bullied on that talk page and you know I was, a few others attacked me personally. I never called a person racist, especially not for using the term African American. You conveniently constructed a straw man on the thread at ANI. I, for the most part, stuck to attacking the content. Why is it no one warned others for their personal attacks on me when they were blatant personal attacks? Are they unacceptable only for me? Sure would seem that way. Landon1980 (talk) 08:25, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I could argue with you but if you could, please just hold on a bit and we'll get it sorted out, okay? Tensions are high right now which isn't a great Wikipedia situation. Wikidemon (talk) 11:06, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I do have a question for you. I've went back the past month and tried getting a rough idea of how many different people have raises the same issue. It would be very safe to say that at least 200 people maybe more oppose bi-racial being ignored in the lead. Are there really way more people that say the lead cannot be neutral? The thread was closed prematurely yesterday. Ju8st as many people if not more were agreeing it was not neutral. Many involved parties were not so much as given time to respond. How can you call it consensus when 4,5, or 6 editors at a time make there case to a handful of the same editors several times a week? What about the fact that nearly every thread it is new editors with the same concerns and that the supposed "consensus" is asserted by the exact same editors. I have a sneaking suspicion that if somehow we actually could compare sides that just as many editors if not more have expressed the same concerns I have. Landon1980 (talk) 13:38, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Just my two cents... I think the lead should introduce the fact that he is a multi-racial, and somehow clarify that he self-identifies as African American. Having a family that is multi-racial myself, I think this is a valid point and important position. I don't have a problem with the article referring to him elsewhere as African American, because that is how he self-identifies, but technically speaking he is multi-racial not African American.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 17:21, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with that in substance, and have advocated for that position myself. But as a process matter there seems to be a consensus against it, and for the moment most sources do not use that description. There's probably a neutral way to include it in the lead that doesn't violate the weight concerns. However, any argument to that effect and any change really needs to be done in an orderly way through discussion - not edit warring or accusing editors of things. An RfC may well make sense. It cuts both ways that the subject comes up so often. There is a fine line between "perennial proposals" that keep getting rejected because they are bad ideas even if appealing, and there being a lack of consensus on something. Just to choose a random example, there is a perennial proposal on Wikipedia that we allow copyrighted images as long as the owner gives us permission to use them, and another that we designate trusted expert editors, but they always get rejected. Wikidemon (talk) 17:27, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

November 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Talk:Barack Obama, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Dendodge Talk^Contribs 17:14, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Please stop. Article talk pages are for suggesting improvements in the article, not making accusations against other editors. This particular one is on article probation. The reason I removed the personal attack should be obvious. Wikidemon (talk) 17:16, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

It's not a personal attack. If it is, then so is the whole of WP:ANI - where, coincidentally, most editors agree that it is not a personal attack. Dendodge Talk^Contribs 18:14, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be conflating the purpose of article talk pages with AN/I. AN/I is for discussing editor behavior; article talk pages are for discussing improvements to the article. Discussing actions of specific editors is one of the main purposes of AN/I. Criticism of other editors on the talk pages is one of the things specifically forbidden under the terms of the Obama article probation.Wikidemon (talk) 18:20, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

RE:

You're right that I'm being fairly aggressive, but I mean it when I say that the behavior thus far has been ridiculous. We talk about edits, NOT editors, or at least we should. I'm more than willing to step out of the content discussion, but the behavior such as Tarc's escalates disruption, and I want it to stop. My content bias here is this: I want a compromise.--Tznkai (talk) 19:30, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the behavior is ridiculous, I just try to avoid saying so on the talk page. Also, different people might not agree on just who has been the most ridiculous. Race is such a touchy subject sometimes it's a wonder that things are as orderly as they are. The "let's settle it once and for all" approach may or may not work. Other people have probably thought their discussion would do that. If people do agree, what's to stop a new editor from seeing the section, taking offense, and starting yet another heated thread because they are unaware of the previous ones, or think consensus should change, as they've been doing 4 times a day or more? Also, the real compromise is between reasonable opinions, those who recognize that it is all about sourcing, not TRUTH, and that the sources say both that Obama is biracial and that he is African American. A significant number of the people raising objections that African American is itself a racist term, or incorrect, or that there were actually other presidents of African descent, that we're all multiracial, that Obama is really an Arab, or that we're all from Africa, etc. Those won't stop either. Wikidemon (talk) 19:42, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Toned the bold message down a bit, as I agree with you that saying what I really think isn't needed. As to the rest: it probably won't work, but its better than closing the discussion the way it has been. Its the Wikipedia equivalent of saying to a student in a class room "wow. THAT was a stupid question." In this case, I think there is legitimate ground for discussion, as the compromise you wrote out proved in fact. If Landon proves unable to get it, thats too bad, but its no reason not to try. I don't think this will solve all problems, but if theres even a chance of forward movement on this issue, I'd like to try it, even if I have to make noisy blusters to get people's attention. This thread is already an improvement on the last (nothing is as insipid as a "you're a troll/stop calling me a troll" argument), and if by some small miracle it produces a compromise solution, maybe the next group can be pointed to it as an example of successful wiki decision making.

For what its worth, I think your reasons for closing the previous discussions were correct, but I think the missing element is push forward some sort of civil and productive discourse on the subject.--Tznkai (talk) 19:54, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

ANI

Hello, Wikidemon. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Wikipedia:Ani#Block_needed_for_censor. Thank you. Toddst1 (talk) 21:20, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Obama, what else

Wrt this edit: May I direct your attention to the reasoning I've provided here. Everyme 14:57, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Bali

you might want to speak with Bali. He appears to be accusing me of being a sock of some Bryan on the acorn talk page. He has removed a template that i put on his talkpage about his comments on other users. Please rein him in.Die4Dixie (talk) 18:54, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, sure. If you go to AN/I there's quite some drama there. I suspect people smell blood and may get carried away. Wikidemon (talk) 19:04, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Apology

I feel I owe you and many of the other editors on election-related and Obama-related topics an apology for not more actively dealing with the Kossack4Truth/WorkerBee74 sockfarm. I feel badly that they were allowed to disrupt the pages and poison the editing atmosphere for as long as they did. My only excuse is admin fatigue, which is pretty lame. Anyhow, I don't want to spam this, but hopefully some of the other involved editors watch your talkpage and will see it, as my apology is broadly directed to people who had to put up with this editor/sockfarm. I'll try to nip things in the bud next time; hopefully, this case will provide useful context for the noticeboard crowd the next time around as well. MastCell ^Talk 20:29, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry for all the effort you were required to put in to dealing with those accounts. But now that the truth is out, we can all get back to happy editing, yay! Grsz^{11 →Review!} 21:58, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Meh, I accept your apology, however I'm disappointed you aren't talking multivitamins and popping energy pills to keep up with your administrative duty ;-D Digital^NinjaWTF 19:45, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Shiba Inu Puppy Cam

I have nominated Shiba Inu Puppy Cam, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shiba Inu Puppy Cam. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:55, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

User:ImNotObama{,2}

I suspect they're not the same person. ImNotObama2's edits certainly don't seem to have been done very carefully nor constructively whereas ImNotObama's seemed saner. I'm disappointed that no one ever gave this user a chance to explain why they knew their way around wikipedia so well, or what motivated them to set up an account on here and become an editor. Prudent questions IMHO. --Rebroad (talk) 12:34, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Rebroad, it was a matter of timing. Several sockpuppet accounts that had evaded detection for a while due to clever use of different IP addresses were finally proven to be socks of User:BryanFromPalatine, a permanently banned puppetmaster. Within a few moments of them being banned, ImNotObama, who had just recently started an editing history remarkably similar to the other socks, appeared at AN/I to protest, despite no previous apparent involvement, and while claiming "I have not reviewed the edits and I also voted for Obama" he preemptively declared "I also disclose that I am not anywhere near Illinois," indicating he had most definitely been watching the AN/I progress and knew that most of the associated IP addresses had been determined to come from ISPs in Chicago. I hope this explanation helps allay some of your concerns. --GoodDamon 16:42, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Award

		The Barnstar of Recovery
		I award Wikidemon The Barnstar of Recovery for rewriting numerous Wikipedia articles slated for deletion.  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 17:07, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

And would canvass for assistance

@ List of notable distant cousins of Barack Obama if it wasn't so untenable an entry  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 17:14, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Purchase Pro

Was looking at your activity because of our recent overlap and saw this article. Cool story. I'm about to copy-edit a bit and break up with headers. If you think i've screwed up, revert away; my intent is just to put a second set of eyes on a fun story. Obviously you don't own it, but this is a story i previously knew nothing about so it's possible i may get something wrong. BestBali ultimate (talk) 01:59, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Sure. Actually I knew next to nothing about the company until I read the headlines today about the CEO being sentenced, so we're on even footing there. I think a little more material about its early history, funding, and business operations, and the CEO's story (he was a tough-talking former college basketball player) would round it out. The outfit that bought them bought quite a few other distressed companies. The other thing I think is interesting/funny is that they made the "online exchange" thing out to be a huge deal, aggregating purchase power, etc. But what they did was very similar to ebay or amazon, and would not be anything to lift an eyebrow at, just selling other people's goods from an e-commerce site without actually having their own distribution, shipping, etc. That might be why they sank, there really wasn't anything there. Wikidemon (talk) 02:14, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm done fiddling with the language (and with the computer more generally) for today. I'll expand a bit on the article tommorrow (in another life i was a business reporter, and tended to focus on stock-market scams, so will enjoy reading up on this). The internet bubble is a fun topic -- basically the model was the Sears catalog dressed up as something new because orders were placed via "the vast connection of tubes" rather than by mail.Bali ultimate (talk) 02:43, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Puppy cam

This puppy is obviously angry and bitter.

So, it looks like the community doesn't agree with me about the non-notability of the puppy cam. What shall I do? I think I'll throw a huge tantrum, insist that everyone but me is wrong, and leave Wikipedia forever because of the hopeless incompetence of everyone but me. No, wait- maybe I'll stew over it, nurture my grudge, and wait for an opportunity to cause trouble for you over every tiny mistake you make for the next five years. No, wait, I've got an idea- I'll accept that I may have been wrong, get over it, and move on with my life. It's a crazy idea, but it just might work. :) -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:50, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

:) - Wikidemon (talk) 03:28, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Archive your talk page?

Hey, Wikidemon-
You have almost 200 sections on this talk page, which means that for users with slow connections or old computers, it could take a long time to load. You might want to consider pruning it occasionally and moving old messages to an archive to keep load times down. Just a friendly note- L'Aquatique[talk] 04:37, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Took so long

Sorry it has taken so long to respond, but to answer your question. If you want to run for admin down the road: 1) make sure that if somebody accuses you of anything on your talk page, that you explain the rationale/reasoning behind your actions. This is particularly true about removing comments from talk pages. Removing comments from talk pages is a major red flag in RfA's... it makes people not trust the candidate. I know that you have reasons, and was appreciative of when you gave those reasons. But it is a red flag for many people. 2) You were very vocal during this past election cycle and earned some enemies. While I think a lot of these are unfounded, I think time is your biggest ally. The challenge that you will have is that (if I remember correctly) you've been taken to ANI/RfC for pushing a POV. Whether or not these allegations are valid doesn't matter, the fact remains that the concerns were raised. Most people during RfA's don't dig deep enough into candidates to discern if the allegations are accurate, but rather follow the adage, "If there's smoke, there's fire." They then oppose because they don't have the time or energy to dig into the veracity of the issue. I am, however, encouraged at Jclemen's recent ongoing RfA. His political views are on the "other side" but his RfA is sailing through the system. It is causing me to rethink my concerns about politically active editors!---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 06:28, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey, just happened to be cruising by and noticed this, so I thought I'd mention that the AN/I and RfC reports on Wikidemon were largely fronted by, as it turns out, POV-pushing sockpuppets of User:BryanFromPalatine. I was on the wrong end of a few of them myself. I think it's safe to conclude that any incident report opened by a sockpuppet of a banned user is pretty much null and void. --GoodDamon 06:50, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

That's good to know... and would go a long way towards alleviating any concerns people might have... I will probably revisit wikidemon after the holidays. Jclemen's RfA is giving me encouragement about people who edited political articles... and I do think wikidemon has the tools to be an admin... my concern was more for the likelihood of passing.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 06:53, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Merci!

Thank you for jumping in at ANI. As I said over there, your advice on the subject is much appreciated. And yr. cool take. (As usual.) — Writegeist (talk) 05:20, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Sure thing. And thanks for being so patient after being called names. Wikidemon (talk) 08:19, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Downzero, Obama, etc.

Thanks for jumping in and explaining things better than I can. I'm getting fed up with that character. It's obvious trolling behavior, or at best it's hard-headed ignorance that words can't seem to penetrate no matter how many times it's explained - the "endless loop" - just as with Zsero, who I'm pretty sure is the same guy, but it doesn't much matter. Come to think of it, a zero (0) in itself is an endless loop. How about that. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:33, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Zsero (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Downzero (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The dead ends to their respective endless loops finally arrive, "and just like that, Poof!, they're gone." Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:55, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

DYK for Jerry Ziesmer

On 26 November, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Jerry Ziesmer, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 08:06, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

BenWoodruff (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I see that guy has had only 4 entries in the last year, 2 of them on the Obama talk page trying to push the birth certificate nonsense. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:53, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Andreas Liveras

I have nominated Andreas Liveras, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andreas Liveras. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 13:50, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Nationality in lead of bios

Hi Wikidemon, I see that you have created a number of bios. That is great, except, please refer to WP:MOSBIO. The person's nationality should be included in the lead and even if you say they are from XY or Z, you still need nationality because that is different and not redundant. Thanks, --Tom 18:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I am not so sure about that, and I am not convinced that is what the MOS says. There are a number of problems with replacing where someone is really from with a statement that they are American. Putting it in the lead sentence often calls undue attention to their nationality, which is unencyclopedic. This edit, for example[16] is unhelpful. Saying that a cabaret singer is "new york-based" says a lot about the cultural, business, and artistic tradition he practices in. There is a very specific New York cabaret scene. Saying instead that he is "American" degrades the lead because it fails to put him in context. Having pointed out that he is a New York performer, saying that he is an American cabaret singer from New York is simply redundant. Everyone knows New York is in America. If they did not then we could qualify New York. To the extent it adds anything it is his citizenship, which has little to do with anything, and frankly, adding citizenship to the opening sentence of everyone's lead is a pointless exercise that could be done far more readily with a category. It also implies that citizenship is a defining feature of the person, which is not entirely neutral either on an article by article basis or across the encyclopedia. My reading of MOS is that the purpose is to give sufficient context to the reader so that articles are universally understandable. That purpose is served by giving the more specific statement of location. Wikidemon (talk) 18:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

The MOS seems pretty clear. Readers get the nationality. After that you can give them smaller details about where they live or are "based" since this is different from nationality. If you disagree, maybe take it up at the MOS board or ask for clarification there? Also, being "from" New York doesn't necessarily mean they have American nationality. --Tom 18:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I have no bones with the MOS. The specific edits, to these specific articles, in some cases degrade the encyclopedic presentation, so I have selectively reverted some of them. Wikidemon (talk) 18:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Barack Obama

The following are the contents of a .DOC file that I have copied and pasted and then uploaded to your specific talk page. The reason for this is not to cause ‘disruption,’ or to perpetuate an ‘urban myth’ or ‘urban legend,’ but rather to set the record straight.

The Constitution of the United States of America Article I, Section II states:

“No person except a natural born Citizen, or Citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States.”

Source: http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articleii.html

We know he has gone by the names of Barack Hussein Obama, Barry Soetoro, Barry Obama, Barack Dunham, and Barry Dunham.

Source: http://www.wnd.com/images/ObamaIndonesia.jpg

The image referenced lists Barry Soetoro as an Indonesian Citizen who was born in Honolulu Hawaii on 4-AUG-1961. His religion is listed as Muslim. The AP has confirmed that is a legitimate photo.

But there is a problem with that:

Source: http://www.wethepeoplefoundation.org/UPDATE/misc2008/ChicagoTribune-ObamaLtr-Nov-2008.pdf

“You have posted on the Internet an unsigned, forged and thoroughly discredited, computer-generated birth form created in 2007, a form that lacks vital information found on any original, hand signed Certificate of Live Birth, such as hospital address, signature of attending physician and age of mother.”

“ • Hawaii Dept of Health will not confirm your assertion that you were born in Hawaii. • Legal affidavits state you were born in Kenya. • Your grandmother is recorded on tape saying she attended your birth in Kenya. • U.S. Law in effect in 1961 denied U.S. citizenship to any child born in Kenya if the father was Kenyan and the mother was not yet 19 years of age. • In 1965, your mother legally relinquished whatever Kenyan or U.S. citizenship she and you had by marrying an Indonesian and becoming a naturalized Indonesian citizen.

The most important two points are the last two. According to United States law in 1961, US Citizenship was denied to any child born in Kenya if the father was Kenyan and the mother was not yet 19.

And, in 1965 his mother legally relinquished whatever Kenyan or US Citizenship she (and he) had by marrying an Indonesian and becoming a naturalized Indonesian Citizen.

These are distruptions? These are ‘urban myths?’ These are facts.

However, so as not to be “disruptive,” I have posted these to your talk pages.

Happy Trails! --Dr. Entropy (talk) 03:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. It's always good to be skeptical. I won't bother finding the holes in that argument, but it has not carried weight either with US courts (who arbiter these things), the mainstream press (which covers the courts), or Wikipedia (which follows the press). Nor have any mainstream losing candidates or parties gotten on the bandwagon, and they certainly would have if they though they had a chance. There are plenty of great arguments that never went anywhere, e.g. that the US income tax system is unconstitutional, that the 14th amendment wasn't validly passed, that the courts do not have the power to invalidate legislation, etc., and what we cover isn't the logical truth behind the matter but the version that got accepted and implemented. It seems extremely unlikely that Obama will be disqualified in this way or otherwise prevented from taking office. If he is, it won't start on Wikipedia - we're not the starting place to prove unpopular theories. But if it did happen, then of course WP would cover it. I hope that makes sense. Wikidemon (talk) 03:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

And btw, you shouldn't be surprised if people are exasperated and tired of this argument because it's been going on for a long while now, but if I'm ever rude to you or anyone else on the subject just give me a gentle kick in the butt and I'll try to be more courteous. Wikidemon (talk) 03:32, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring on Khalidi

Wikidemon, I have taken the time to explain, in great detail, how these new sources do not fail any of the issues of BLP or sourcing. At the very least, have the courtesy to explain why these new sources are different. For the record, please refrain from edit warring on the Khalidi page as per wikipedia policy. -- Avi (talk) 02:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

That statement makes no sense, and under no possible interpretation was I edit warring by making a single reversion per WP:BLP and WP:BRD of edits you know to be unacceptable to other editors. I have left a warning on your page, and responded on the article talk page. Wikidemon (talk) 02:51, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Courtesy notice

WP:ANI#Possible slow edit warring and potential deliberate misuse of WP:BLP to suppress cited information -- Avi (talk) 02:49, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:RFC

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RFC#Ending_RfCs

"Ending RfCs: Most RfCs are automatically ended by the RfC bot after thirty days. (The expiration date is listed in the list of RfCs.) If consensus has been reached before then, the RfC nominator(s) can remove the RfC tag, and the bot will remove the discussion from the list on its next run. A request for comment on a user, however, needs to be closed manually. This should be done by an uninvolved editor."

Per above, please do not remove RFC templates. EagleScout18 (talk) 05:42, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, no dice. You are skating on very thin ice with a series of peculiar and unhelpful edits. The RfCs are inappropriate. You should spend your time trying to figure out why, and how to edit around here in a constructive way that does disrupt the project or antagonize other editors. Please, if you want to work on Wikipedia, take a deep breath and try to learn the ropes. Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 06:09, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd say plenty of dice. Please try to remember to adhere to policy, WP:AGF and don't WP:BITE newcomers. Thank you, EagleScout18 (talk) 06:30, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

If you're a legitimate, sincere editor, stop complaining and follow my advice. If you don't or if you're not legit, your account will be gone soon enough. I'm not going to talk to you further here. Stick to your AN/I report. Wikidemon (talk) 07:00, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:BITE does not give you free reign to do whatever the hell you want. In fact, the fact that you are aware of the policy and various other bluelinks means it doesn't apply to you. --Smashville^talk 17:20, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF would be more accurate, then. EagleScout18 (talk) 20:33, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

That was rather clueless. He is not a newbie. That's why we're speaking pig latin on the AN/I now. You're an admin so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on this, but you are completely misreading what's going on if you think I've done anything wrong.Wikidemon (talk) 17:27, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Um, I was talking to him...hence the fact that my indent falls under his response...Not to mention my comment makes absolutely no sense in response to yours...--Smashville^talk 18:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I was being clueless. Sorry for biting the admin. Thanks.... Wikidemon (talk) 18:43, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Quite alright...I was actually following the ANI complaint and looking at his talk page edits and kept seeing him bring up the WP:BITE and your talk page was where it finally bothered me to the point I responded to it. Sorry for not being more clear that I had your back. --Smashville^talk 18:51, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Irony

I find myself in the unusual position of not being able to remove positive spin from the Obama article because of 3RR issues LOL. "Landslide victory" blah blah blah, et al. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:31, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

You and editing buddies must be Sarah Palin campaign volunteers. Fess up! Wikidemon (talk) 18:34, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

You might be interested to know that I blogged about my Wikipedia election experience recently. See si-blog: Catching up - part 2 -- Scjessey (talk) 18:39, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

strange edit

What did you mean here: [17]? Icewedge (talk) 20:17, 3 December 2008 (UTC)