User talk:Bobblehead/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

I love this comment on across wikipedia

User:Mobile 01 wrote:

TravB has singled the two of us out and also another user Bobblehead because we are the only 3 who are trying to stop him from completely hijacking the Firestone Tire and Rubber Company article and turning it into his own political agenda of anti firestone."[1]

On the discussion page he has been repeatedly told about not putting POV content on the page and several users including myself, LucaZ and Bobblehead have tried to explain to him about the NPOV policy of wiki articles. User Travb reverted the Firestone Tire and Rubber Company back to his POV version and replaced much ancient content already discussed by other editors. [2]

Please stop your relentless attempt at persecution of myself and users LucaZ and Bobblehead plus numerous anons which you are attacking in your "Personal Page" User:Travb/m. [3]

You also try to imply that Bobblehead is also a sock of mine because he made comment about the americans spelling Tyre as Tire.[4]

Best wishes, Travb (talk) 18:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Grunge music in Seattle's history

Hi, I didn't realize this was such a contenteous issue. I can certainly understand your position, though. I live in Seattle, love my home city, and can't stand grunge music. ( I'm a hip hop fan. ) On the other hand, we're extremely well associated with the trend, and as I said, a Nirvana album was printed on the cover of a NY Times Finance section, so I thought I was doing something positive by pointing these associations out on the Seattle page. I'll defer to your experience here, as you have eons more than I do on Wikipedia. Just please understand I made these changes trying to help. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SeattleChronic (talk • contribs) 23:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC).

Criticism of Quebec society

Hi, Bob,

I've responded to your suggestions at Criticism of Quebec Society or whatever the hell it's called these days. I hope I've been able to clarify that I'm not rejecting your opinions out of hand (I go on about this at some length). I noticed you're from Seattle, so I'll add here that you might expect a little testiness on this issue from a petit gars de Saint-Henri émigré. From Canadians, generally, actually. The only thing that keeps us together is that every part of the country hates some other part, and everybody hates Toronto. John FitzGerald 23:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, we're still disagreeing about Quebec, but I would like to thank you for alerting me to the grey areas in WP:NOR. I agree the policy's intentions are good, but as I've said on the talk page there, further specification of what constitutes inappropriate inference is required.

I have always agreed with the policy in general. For example, i seem to recall Conductive education and related articles being extensively modified by their original poster after I pointed out some NOR-related issues. And I put an NOR tag on an article just the other day.

Anyway, although progress seems to be glacial, i think the discussion about criticism of Quebec society has helped clarify issues. John FitzGerald 13:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Invitation

Discussion has commenced on the Firestone Tire and Rubber Company article. As you were an editor of that article, I would like to invite you to join in this discussion so as to promote not only an informative and usefull article for wiki, but also one that covers all points of view. Please give us your thoughts and comments for format and content for this article on the discussion page. Thanks.

Mobile 01^Talk 00:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Firestone Tire and Rubber Company, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Firestone Tire and Rubber Company. For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk) This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

This message delivered: 08:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC).

Lets try this again

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Firestone Tire and Rubber Company2.0, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.

Talk:Barack Obama

Needs another haircut? --HailFire 11:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Scarborough

Thank you for requesting a source over on Scarborough. I've added a reference (and a Refs section, which I'm not entirely pleased with on a dab page, but there you go). Scarborough, North Yorkshire was founded in the tenth century and comfortably predates all of the New World Scarboroughs. Thanks again. — mholland 00:51, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Firestone Tire and Rubber Company2.0. For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk) This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to open new mediation cases. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

This message delivered: 08:16, 11 February 2007 (UTC).

Sorry

I wasn't aware of that rule, I'll keep it in mind next time. As for the editing, I was just trying to help, but I guess I was hurting more than I was helping. I am pretty sure that Seattle has a Mediterranean climate by definition, because for an oceanic or maritime climate (Cfb or Cwb), there has to be little to no difference between seasons. A Mediterranean climate (Csa or Csb) specifically has a driest month with less than 1/3 of the precipitation of the wettest month, in addition to hot (or warm in Seattle's case), dry summers, and cool, wet winters. As for the temperatures, I've heard a lot of different averages, and it veries from place to place, so those are just the averages I felt were most accurate, though I could be wrong. Anyway, sorry again to case trouble, but thanks for welcoming me nonetheless. GS121389 01:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Seattle

Hi Bobblehead; I looked at Seattle this morning to see if there was a consensus for the change that I proposed, expecting to make whatever changes to the article that seemed appropriate. I was delighted to see that you had already made the changes. I proofread them and found no errors. Good work! Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

OR

Hi, Bobblehead,

Discussion about OR at talk:Controversy over criticism of Quebec society seems to have died out, unfortunately. However, you have converted me into a devotee of NOR. Although I still think the criteria are too broad, it's obvious there are many articles here which really are original research and consequently unencyclopedic (I was heartened to see that one of the worst transgressors, Canadian English, has been flagged). Anyway, I was just wondering if there are any fields on Wikipedia which you think may require special attention because of the prevalence of OR; I've been thinking of going on a tear among the articles about entertainers, many of which read like press releases (which most probably are). John FitzGerald 14:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that!

Yeah, just noticed, apologies. We can remove:

"Don't you mean Eisenmond wrote, Italiavivi? --Bobblehead 00:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Corrected, apologies. Italiavivi 00:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

If you consent, too. Italiavivi 00:39, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Barack Obama

Hi Bobblehead. You have got me curious. Did the anti-abortion groups get together and chant out the statement about Obama in unison? Just kidding. Keep up the good work here. :-) Steve Dufour 04:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Mediation for Firestone

Ive agreed to take on mediation. We can get started now at the mediation talk page, as there are multiple articles involved. Thanks -Ste|vertigo 00:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Mediation takes place on the discussion page Mediation Discussion

Request for clarification of 'link spam'

Hello Bobblehead. You reverted an edit of mine adding what I thought were relevant links to the Seattle page, labelling them as "link spam". I put them there because I honestly thought they were relevant--they are sites to which I send friends and family who are visiting town--so I'd be most grateful if you could clarify what distinguishes those links as spam and the others in the same section as appropriate. Thanks - Eldang 01:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

This makes sense to me now. I appreciate the explanation. Eldang 03:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello

Thanks for the welcome, and I'm sorry about the talk page edit, won't happen again. 777fortytwo 05:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Appropriate way to provide or link to useful information?

In some articles on public transportation, I recently added some information and links about route planners based on text messaging. Reading the strict policy on external links, I see that some of these additions were in a gray area. It is not my intent to spam but to provide useful information, so please let me know how Wikipedia can provide this information appropriately. Riders of public transportation in particular cities want to know about two types of services, but information is nonexistant on Wikipedia. One type of service is web-based trip planners. The other type of service is similar but based on text messaging from mobile phones. The transit authorities typically provide the web-based service but merely encourage use of the text messaging services of other companies. If a rider of a particular transit authority's buses or trains needs information on the text messaging services, what is an acceptable way for Wikipedia to satisfy their need for such information? --rcauvin

Wikistalker Alert

Please stop wikistalking me. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Billywatson (talk • contribs)

Personal attack warning

I suggest you revert this edit and the subsequent ones in which you reformatted your comments and apologize to Travb for the personal attacks. Comments like these are completely unproductive during mediation and continued references to other editors as "vandals" and making unsupported accusations of sock puppetry can result in involuntary wikibreaks. Travb can be a little touchy at times and egging him on isn't going to help anything. Thanks. --Bobblehead 07:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The link you refer to in your revert request points to an old edit and therefor can not be reverted. I have refactored my comments so as to ensure they do not specifically attack anyone and are only comments of my learning experiences on Wikipedia since running into Travb.

My comments were in direct response to Travb's own comments, it is he that refuses to mediate and offered a lame compromise which in itself was not a compromise at all but an offer for me to agree to leave everything the way he has it. My statements are not personal attacks as at no time do I say I am talking about any editor specifically. I only state what I have learnt from Travb since I became an editor. At no time did I accuse anyone of being a sock puppet, my comment simply says that I know how to recognize one. Travb on the other hand continues to refer to me as a sock even though his case found no such evidence and I was vindicated.

As far as I can read there are no personal attacks made towards Travb and therfor nothing to appologize for, if you wish to interpret my comments as negative towards Travb, then I suggest that it is only from your experience of seeing how he operates that you would be lead to such an assumption.

Mobile 01^Talk 02:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The RfD for Boston

hello, someone edited the link so that the notice was no visible to ordinary people typing in Boston. This had the effect of removing the notice from view. The RFD was still there, but effectively invisible, since ordinary people would never see it unless they did a diff. What I've done is reverted this edit and made a note on the discussion page about it. Although I may have a difefreing view about what should be done than you do, I feel it is not a good idea to effectively reduce the opportunity of people to comment on the proposal whilst the dicussion is still ongoing. I'll be happy to see the discussion process come to a proper end and a decison reached and implemented, no matter what that particular decision is. As the proposer of the RfD, I thought I should alert you to this, and I hope I have not breached any guidelines in doing the reversion, as it has been my intention to act in good faith here.  DDStretch  (talk) 14:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

If you don't mind a suggestion...

Comparing your comment on my talk page to your comment at the move request, maybe in future you should make your public comment a little more like the talk page comment instead of giving the impression that I'm doing something underhanded. I'm getting more than a little tired of people making disparaging public comments about my actions based on assumptions with no basis in reality. Otto4711 00:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Chicago & Philadelphia style consensus

Howdy, I'm doing an analysis of the votes on the Chicago and Philadelphia page moves at User:Agne27/City, State convention/Chicago & Philadelphia style "Consensus" with a discussion on the talk page about what this means about the page move process. You did not participate in either move though you have seemed to voice opposition to these types of moves in the past. I would like to confirm if I am correct in my assumption that you would have opposed these moves if you were aware. I would also like your general input on the discussion page about these moves. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 19:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Template talk:Oldafdfull

Dear Bobblehead, please see my comments on Template talk:Oldafdfull#Merge?. Regards, --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 21:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

please don't edit war on Obama

There was neutrally worded, non-inflammatory info regarding his law career that you deleted and replaced with less specific, somewhat inaccurate info. For example, he did continue to work for that firm part time after he became a state senator (but you deleted that...if Obama did it and applied for a job, he could get fired for hiding a job he had). If you are going to change thing, you should discuss it on talk page first as this is a featured article....this was what I was told and was banned for 2 days because of this....please don't do stuff that would cause you to be banned.

As far as the 1 letter typo, look again....that's all I did. Maybe you looked at the entry below that, which was different.Dereks1x 18:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Thought you might be interested in this ongoing discussion with this user. · j e r s y k o talk · 04:10, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Where are we?

A lot has transpired on this discussion so far and I am wondering if we are actually getting anywhere with the mediation. Could the mediator give a response of his opinions of just where we are at and what if any decisions/suggestions/agreements have been agreed so far. Thanks. Mobile 01^Talk 22:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Ive been busy. I'm more interested in your view about where things are at. -Stevertigo 06:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe we have decided that the Liberian article ramains seperate and that we do not merge Firestone with Bridgestone. I think we have also covered what is POV and NPOV. I have made some changes to the article last night and today, adding a few images and cleaning up some of the duplicated statements. Please everyone have a look at the current article and offer your opinions. If everyone is happy then we can close this out and let the mediator get on with other issues. Mediation Page Firestone Tire and Rubber Company Mobile 01^Talk 22:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

section removed

In May 2006, the United Nations Mission in Liberia (UNMIL) released a report detailing the state of human rights on Liberia's rubber plantations. According to the report, Firestone managers in Liberia admitted that the company does not effectively monitor its own policy prohibiting child labor. UNMIL found that several factors contribute to the occurrence of child labor on Firestone plantations: pressure to meet company quotas, incentive to support the family financially, and lack of access to basic education. The report also noted that workers' housing provided by Firestone has not been renovated since the houses were constructed in the 1920s and 1930s [5]

I removed this section because it has no source, this basically quotes from a document but the link provided does not exist. I have found a copy of the same document on StopFirestone.com, however after reading through it, I can not find the statements that this section uses. The report does however say that the housing is being upgraded at the moment and the Bridgestone web site confirms this. The paragraph already exists within the Liberian article and does not need to be in here as well. The way I had it before was fine as it represented both sides equally. Your version has now shifted weight again by introducing statements that have no source and are therefor POV. Mobile 01^Talk 04:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

SSP

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Dereks1x. Any comments would be appreciated. · j e r s y k o talk · 20:23, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Intentionally or not, you are poisoning the atmosphere. When you attack me in the sockpuppetry case, does that make me want to compromise in articles? It would make most people angry and militant. Consider withdrawing putting a note asking that the matter be dropped and forgotten. In the past, both of us have stopped edit warring and let our level heads prevail. Let's do it this time. Dereks1x 01:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't take it personal, Dereks1x, these things happen on Wikipedia. It may be completely coincidental that your edits are similar to the other users and the result of the SSP may completely exonerate you. The best thing you could do at this point is try to keep a level head, work out some compromise wording on the talk pages, and wait for a result. --Bobblehead 02:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

RFCU done (I got the same advice at AN/I). We'll see, hopefully. · j e r s y k o talk · 03:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

hey

Welcome back - you missed all the "fun". Hope you had a good vacation. Quick question - I'm on the way out the door so can't look at it closely now so maybe I'm misreading- but the Illinois legislature graf about those non-votes doesn't make sense to me as far aswho wanted him to vote yes and who no. (I also think these "present" votes may be getting more attention than they're worth, but I'd have to read more about it.) If you're there, can you read the graf, though, and see if it is following logically? I'll look at it again later thanksTvoz |talk 18:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

The vacation wasn't nearly long enough, alas. I saw that Dereks1x got escorted out the door, glad to see that's out of the way. As for the state legislature stuff, Pic82101 seems to want to represent Obama's actions in the most negative light and the bills in the most positive with Jiffypopmetaltop wanting it out completely. I'm in the process of re-writing it right now, but I tend to be more of an inclusionist until consensus develops one way or another. --Bobblehead 18:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Plame affair

thanks for making me aware of the problem with my edit. i've read the WP:move page and still can't quite figure out how to properly make the change. i've never made an edit like this so maybe you could talk me through it. Plame affair was redirected to CIA Leak Scandal, which was then redirected to CIA Leak Scandal (2003). how do i redirect back to the original name (Plame affair)? thanks!Anthonymendoza 22:56, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

hello, Mr. B. Head

I got your warning message. I didn't know about the rule but I think I did not violate it. I am giving it a rest for today. I'm not trying to say Obama is a bad man. It's just that while checking references I thought that the editing of the article was not balanced after I read the reference cited.KMCtoday 03:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Please quit being a dick.

"Warning" someone for reverting the sockpuppet of a community banned user [6] hours after they've logged out is pretty silly. No, I will not allow someone flying in the face of consensus to have their version stand while Talk is ongoing. The consensus version can stand while discussion takes place, and changes can be made after consensus is measured. Please keep flippant, baseless warnings off of my talk page, thanks. Italiavivi 21:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

KMCtoday wasn't known to be a sockpuppet when I gave you the warning, the block log clearly shows he was banned 9 hours after I left you the warning, the warning was given an hour after your last edit, there's no way to know when someone is logged in or out on Wikipedia, and you're more than welcome to revert as many times as you want. "Consensus" version or not if you're reported you'll be given a 24 hour involuntary wikibreak. ;)--Bobblehead 22:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Quit being a dick, Bobblehead. I know Wikipedia's guidelines plenty well (including 3RR; you having seen my warning of others users elsewhere, you're well aware of this [7]), and I won't be reported. Again, spare my Talk page of empty posturing and baseless warnings, please. :) Italiavivi 22:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Kettle.. I'd like you to meet, Pot. I prefer to warn for 3RR violations rather than report, but I'll just go ahead and run you up next time. :) It also seemed unfair to warn KMCtoday and not the other person in the edit war. --Bobblehead 01:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey, if you want to keep being a snarky dick, that's your business. You can't "run someone up" who's done nothing wrong; I know what I'm doing when it comes to reverting bad-faith/non-consensus changes, as do you. When an extremely new user refers to restoring the consensus version as "vandalism," they're clearly the sockpuppet of an experienced editor, which should be reverted and investigated. Italiavivi 22:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

*yawn* WP:NPA, blah, blah, blah.--Bobblehead 23:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

If you don't like being "attacked" for acting a dick, quit acting one? Italiavivi 21:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

*yawn* Wake me when you stop being a pot. --Bobblehead 22:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd take a nap too, but it'll probably take more than 8 hours for you to quit being a dick. Your snark and "*yawn*ing" aside, you obviously get my point, so there's nothing more to say here. Italiavivi 22:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah, but do you get my point? That he who tells another to stop being a dick should follow their own advice? Seriously, mate, you've gone far beyond being dense and are moving well into troll land. Now shoo, back under your bridge. --Bobblehead 01:27, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the info

It really is amazing how cowardly some people can be. --Coz 04:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Excursion on the SLS&E RR (c 1887), 1201, 1202.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Excursion on the SLS&E RR (c 1887), 1201, 1202.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 02:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I ran across some interesting trivia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dover%2C_Pennsylvania#Intelligent_design_controversy shows an incident where a city got on the news because a religious leader predicted that something bad could happen. http://www.ldsces.org/inst_manuals/dc-in/dc-in-081.htm is of a similar vein, but on Boston, Albany and New York. If you have a better way to make reference to these predictions of religious zealots on various towns in their Wikipedia references then please do so. But please don't remove them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Alex71va (talk • contribs) 17:48, 15 April 2007 (UTC).

RE: Edit to Olbermann

Thank you for your concern, however I believe I cited six seperate sources, one being a transcript from his show and five other audio sources coming directly from the horse's mouth. Are they not supportive of this entry? I don't think this does not fall under a synthesis because of the simplicity of this issue with the number of sources provided. Objectively speaking, I feel this is a controversial issue needing to be brought to light due to his subjectivity. I could probably write it more objectively. What is it about my sources did you not find to be objective? Look, if Americans don't stand up to smear merchants for what they are, then the further our country will go down the toilet bowl of subjectivity and lies. Cobrapete 00:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Jersyko did the block

As I said, "yawn". Tvoz |talk 21:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

More Hong Tran deletions

Bobblehead, I would appreciate it if, given your previous errors regarding deletions on this page, you would take extra care beforehand in ensuring that any deletions are actually justified and meet a community standard. I would also ask that you reconsider whether you can objectively work on this page and retain a NPOV. Emcee 15:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

By being "up on the ebbs and flows of such things," do you mean conforming to the opinions expressed within the past few days on the flagcruft essay? I am well aware of your opinions on Hong Tran's notability, but these were not upheld by the community. Is the answer then to delete any little thing that you can possibly find some kind of grayish support to delete? That certainly wasn't your approach to the Cantwell page. I do have remaining questions about your ability to remain neutral on this piece (bias is not always necessarily intentional, so you don't have to regard this as an accusation of bad faith). Acting "within the bounds of Wiki-policy" is a hazy (and low) bar -- shouldn't we be striving for consensus, and an evenhanded approach to all articles, regardless of our personal feelings about the subjects or other editors? Shouldn't we also be working towards a higher level of civility? It seems that you took offense to my comments above, but I think most readers would regard your response (especially the last couple of lines) as hostile and condescending. Emcee 00:01, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. And why should I continue to assume good faith, if you are fine with being intentionally hostile and condescending? Emcee 08:25, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Let's keep this focused on the issue here, rather than the "I'm rubber you're glue" thing... which is your hostile and condescending response to my recent comments on your talk page. Even should you choose to interpret my comments as lacking an assumption of good faith (which they do not), why is it OK for you to respond in a hostile and condescending manner? Wouldn't that just tend to escalate any problem that might exist? Emcee 23:26, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Socks

Yeah, that's a good idea, though for some reason I have a faint memory of someone already trying that . . . ehh, I guess no one did. It could be an open proxy or it could be a meatpuppet. I dunno. Obviously, though, he's using a non-static range of IPs. · jersyko talk 18:58, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks for doing that. Maybe we can end up with a range block out of this. · jersyko talk 20:36, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

And then there's this - check contributions. Tvoz |talk 05:18, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Already blocked. No way that wasn't Derek. · jersyko talk 14:21, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

. . . and added that one to the list. If he's editing from a completely new set of IPs now, hopefully we can determine what those are. · jersyko talk 14:23, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Formula One (Sega video game)

Hi, the debate on should the article be moved to a new title has come up again. As you participated in it last time, thought you might want to know. AlexJ 16:40, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser case completed

Hi, A checkuser IP Check case you filled has been completed by a CheckUser, and archived. You can find the results for 7 days at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/IP check/Archive. -- lucasbfr ^talk, checkuser clerk, 20:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC).

some of those and some others were already confirmed, so I don't know why it's "likely" - or what about the othersTvoz |talk 20:42, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention we were going for an IP block, not confirmation of sockpuppetry... --Bobblehead ^(rants) 21:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I was doing at lot there and got mixed up. I've looked into that again and blocked a few ranges. Some of the ranges used had too much other traffic and there would be to much collateral damage to block them. Voice-of-All 23:59, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: Tanninglamp's edits

I have been meaning to tell you for a number of days how much I appreciate your vigilance in reverting this individual's vandalism to the Keith Olbermann article. It is astonishing to me---though, I do not know why it continues to astonish me---the lengths to which some people will go in their attempts to smear someone and push a POV. At any rate, looking at the edit history [[8]] of the anonymous user 72.79.115.175, I suspect that these two are one and the same. It would behoove us to keep an eye on this IP. Methinks he is not done yet. Thanks again for your time and efforts. ---Charles 22:38, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Bored

I got bored so I fixed one of your userboxes that no longer worked due to the userbox migration. I hope you don't mind. :)--Mbc³⁶² 01:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Oo, nifty. Thanks! I hadn't even noticed that it wasn't working.--Bobblehead ^(rants) 03:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

IP check

Have the stomach for another IP check? Whatever IP range Dereks1x is currently editing from this user is most certainly editing from it. · jersyko talk 03:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

FYI - Wikipedia talk:Requests for checkuser/Case/Dereks1x. WP:BAN prevents Dereks1x and his socks from editing at all. I strongly object to the reinsertion of his edits at checkuser. Please comment if you have anything to say. · jersyko talk 15:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, the checkuser didn't even bother with the request and immediately checked the user against Dereks1x instead of you, it seems :). Thanks for starting the IP check up again. · jersyko talk 18:58, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for cleaning up List of television shows cancelled after 2006 season. I haven't quite figured out the ref thing yet so it was a bit flabby. Plus, good news about Scrubs. --Wordbuilder 14:36, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

thanks

For fixing the tag on Astronauts HoF - you're right, I meant the whole article. It needs a cmplete overhaul if it's to stay, I think. Tvoz |talk 01:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm working on Gus Grissom's spacesuit as we speak. The article itself is probably noteworthy enough to stay as it does have a number of references in reliable sources. It's just very stubby and could do with some serious expansion. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 02:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

edit to jericho -refs

Hi, I am leaving a note here to ask that you reconsider your removal of the NYT cite from Jericho (TV series) diff here I know that 3 refs might seem excessive, however, info becomes harder to verify as time goes by, and frankly the NYT source seems the most reliable of the three. Sometimes websites don't keep their articles accessible online. In the future someone may be more able to verify the info if the sourcing is in multiple places. Thanks. R. Baley 18:34, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the extra ref. link for Ender's comment, as I forgot to do that when I rearranged the section. Cheers. --Ckatz^chat_spy 18:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

thanks

Thanks for your work on the article that I began, Astronaut Hall of Fame or U.S. Astronaut Hall of Fame, whatever the name. Is there a definite wording say, on the Hall of Fame's charter documents or the like?Feddhicks 02:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

"Flagcruft"

I hate those little flag icons! —Gaff ^ταλκ 03:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Ditto! And I don't even know why. Tvoz |talk 05:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

They annoy me because they don't serve a purpose and if the flag is similar to other flags, it's almost impossible to tell what they are. If it weren't for the name of the image who'd know which of these was Ontario's provincial flag .--Bobblehead ^(rants) 16:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: Infobox JTA Skyway station

Thank you for taking the time to replace the infoboxes and notifying me after its completion. –Dream out loud (talk) 21:45, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Commas

This issue has been discussed before, actually. Commas are actually needed (even if the software formalises the date). A scenario for you to consider: if the software fixed incorrect spellings in the article output itself, do you think it would be acceptable to have have them in the editing box? I personally don't -- just like we shouldn't encourage grammatically incorrect dates.

Also remember that Wikipedia is forked by many websites, not always using the same setup as Wikipedia... thus giving them grammatically incorrect dates. Also a point is not including the comma sets a bad example, e.g. when a person adds a non-wikified date the comma won't be auto-added. Matthew 18:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I guess I don't agree on the "wasn't necessary" thing, the issue isn't a big deal -- anyway -- so I'll withdraw from this discussion. Have a good evening, Matthew 19:33, 20 June 2007

(UTC)

Clinton/Obama Ticket

You are right, there is no ticket yet. I will bet you a steak dinner that there will be one! Cr8tiv 21:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC) Cr8tiv 21:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

And by that I mean Mannhattans and Martinis with Crab Cakes for starters Followed by salad with blue cheese dressing and Sam Adams to drink with buttery rolls that are so fresh that "hot" comes out when you break them open. Then a New York Strip steak the size of a toilet seat with Baked Potato ALL the way, creamed spinach washed down with a good Australian Shiraz. Then when we cannot take anymore Key Lime Pie, gourmet coffee Cuban Cigars and Brandy. I am THAT confident in the future Clinton/Obama ticket!!!!!Cr8tiv 17:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

You lost me at "toilet seat". Tvoz |talk 17:52, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that even if Hillary gets the second seat VP in the Clinton/Obama ticket or Obama/Clinton ticket she will be only slightly uphappy AS SHE ALREADY was covert VICE-PRESIDENT from January 1993-January 2001...Cr8tiv 19:56, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Edwards changes

I think the article was better after my changes; subsections help keep track of things as time goes by. I just went back to add more and was surprised to see my changes reverted with no discussion. It will get more and more difficult to keep track of information as time goes by without subsections, and it's discouraging for an editor to have their changes reverted with no discussion.--Gloriamarie 03:05, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

It is not necessary to create subsections for a single paragraph. If an incident only has a paragraph it is obviously a minor incident and putting it in a subsection gives undue weight to that incident. Subsections are only to be used for major incidents where the weight is appropriate or if the section is overly long and an arbitrary section break is necessary. As far as having your edits undone... Welcome to Wikipedia. I wager a significant portion of my edits don't even remotely resemble the way they looked when I originally added them. Having your edits removed/changed/etc. is how Wikipedia works. The thing that you need to work on is to not be discouraged by this and continue with your editing. If you feel that my removal is inappropriate, you're more than welcome to ask for the opinion of other editors by posting a comment on the talk page. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 03:26, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

thanks

...for fixing the vandalism on my talk page - weird vandalism, that. Tvoz |talk 06:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

3RR

Hey, I redid it using the template, but I'm not confident with it. Would you mind checking to see if it's done right? Thanks! Murderbike 00:26, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for the help yesterday. As to the "vandal" tag, I only did it after Custerwest deleted the 3RR report from that page, which I figured was pretty blatant vandalism, and was getting really frustrated with all the other things I was trying to get this user dealt with that were going nowhere. I'll keep it in mind next time. Thanks! Murderbike 17:09, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

UNmitigated Left-Wing 'Progresssive' Bias of this EDitor

Unbelievable amounts of signs of left-wing leanings by this editor. Examples of this are his outright praise for democratic candidiates for president, labels himself a 'progressive', etc. Has shown incredible amount of protection of articles on people he views as 'untouchable' by negative information that is more than verifiable.69.115.23.71 10:47, 30 June 2007 (UTC) June 30 2007

Yes, Mr. Bobblehead, we are watching you and that unmitigated outright praise. Tvoz |talk 12:06, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh yeah. I'm horrible. Practically a Stalinist. Careful, I might send y'all off to the gulag. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 16:51, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

iPhone criticism

Where are the complaints that aren't about features, such as the AT&T service agreement?  hmwith  talk 13:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, alright then. It integrated into the article so well that I couldn't even find it! Thanks.  hmwith  talk 20:17, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

"Canvassing"

I'm not, I'm balancing the equation. All the shows I messaged have episode articles -- the DRV is very relevant to them as it effects their articles. Notifying editors helps us build consensus. In ned's case, he just notified his friends it seems. Matthew 08:28, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Editors need to be informed of what's happening in the background, the previous TfD (look at it) turned into a right mess... it may of been less of a mess if better notification had been given. I looked at it like this: would I like to know about something that impacts articles I'm interested in? Matthew 08:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Please don't cause trouble

I don't give a rat's about Barack Obama. I care more about the Astronaut Hall of Fame, Fedex, and others (which you followed me to edit). When you and others start creating a ruckus over some neutral talk comments, that creates controversy and edit warring. While I don't say anything about your intentions, the end result of Tvoz' and your highly confrontational comments and accusations, is that many people would respond.

My advice to you is to AGF and don't fan the flames. How often do I look at the Barack Obama article? Almost never! Yet when you and Tvoz (so far it's only you two) fan the flames and start attacking me, this is bad. Luckily, I can enjoy the 4th of July and walk away. Most others would not be so easy going.

In short, not AGF and not being civil is not a good thing to do. This is just advice to help you, not to argue with you. Feddhicks 19:24, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

thanks

...for the reverts on my talk page. By the way, I don't know who this guy is, but I don't particularly believe in coincidences. Tvoz |talk 04:31, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Exuse me Booblehead, not to be rude, but I was just wondering why you termed my recent edits concerning names and religion to Barack Obama page as "Vandalistic", "Malicious", and threatened to have me blocked. Is not Barack Obama's Middle name "Hussein" and was he not raised with two Muslim fathers and went to Muslim school in Indonesia? Politely I ask you not to attack those who post facts contrary to your self-dubed "Progressive" ideology. If I was a powerful Wikipedian editor like you I would respect facts even if they did not fit neatly into my ideology. Thanks.

Senator Obama

This dispute is not minor as you said when taking down the FAR label. It is highly contentious with allegations of socks, personal attacks, and so forth.

If you can help calm things down, this is good. I prefer calm. In fact when that other editor constantly attacks and retorts, it just worsens things. For example, I've kept comments to a minimum and did not re-revert that tiny small print in the footnotes even though I think the effect (not commenting on intent) is that of hiding information away. Feddhicks 18:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

ok

Hey, maybe a voice of reason? That Tvoz is so aggressive. Sometimes aggressiveness breeds aggressiveness even though I've been intentionally less aggressive. So, I'll give it a rest starting now. I will not notify any more people of the FAR. In fact, I'll not look at Obama for the weekend and hope that Tvoz won't take advantage of the gestureFeddhicks 19:18, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Sir, Barack Obama went to Muslim school in Indonesia and has stated in his own autobiographical works that his favorite thing to do growing up was to visit the mosque and study the Koran. I guess that does not fit with your description of being Muslim.

Haydenstone2 00:13, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey, Hi. I'm still giving Obama a rest but SandyGeorgia said I need to put tags on more user talk pages which I'll do. See how calm it is when Tvoz doesn't attack? Feddhicks 16:19, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I missed this one. I guess the rest didn't last all that long, eh? Aggressively yours, Tvoz |talk 04:03, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

reply

I usually try not to make fun of other editors. However, it's an insult (possibly intended?) to be compared with an editor like Derek when you said you'll let it slide. It's like comparing you to User:Dialot. After all, your name has 3 syllables, just like Dialot. Happy editing! VK35 19:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Jericho

Hello... I reverted your talk page change re: the new character. You're right about the forum rules, but in this case I think it is more a case of using the talk page to "store" information that we perhaps can't use right now, but may wish to keep on top of for the future. (I won't object if you revert me, mind you - but would it help if we established a "potential fact" section?) --Ckatz^chat_spy 02:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Likewise (the no-skin part)... the source (E!'s commentator) - while trading in rumours - tends to be more "reliable" than a fan forum. However, if you're not comfortable with it, or think it is too forum-ish, please revert me - I certainly won't object. Thanks. --Ckatz^chat_spy 02:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

fedd

Sure. It just became more and more obvious that this was a sock as he continued to make familiar statements. I requested review of the block at WP:ANI, in any event, but I don't expect that it will be overturned for any reason. · jersyko talk 20:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Breather is irresponsible

Your saying to take a breather is irresponsible. Dragging my name in the mud is wrong. That is lack of AGF and some other things... If you take that attitude, put your name in the RFCU or give me permission to do so (not "feel free to" but "I order you to") VK35 01:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Wikipedia:Featured article review/Barack Obama. For the Mediation Committee, Daniel This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

This message delivered: 08:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC).

Olive branch

For not insisting on harrassment and keep the ongoing defacement of MastCell's RFCU, I will consider this an olive branch. Convince Jersyko and others to do the same and we can merrily restart editing constructively. VK35 15:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Let the RFCU proceed, don't remove yourself and Feddhicks, and let's see where it takes us. Then you can go about your business, or not, depending. What are you so concerned about?Tvoz |talk 16:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC) Tvoz or Jersyko removed their names off a RFCU against them (4/30/07). 1st RFCU already done, 2nd one is harrassmentVK35 16:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Consider asking Tvoz to stop attacking. Also see the exceptions to 3RR [[9]] "reverts to remove content or links to content that harasses". RFCU #1 already done. Resulted considered by Jimbo Wales (along with private exculpatory evidence). RFCU#2 only serves to harrass. VK35 16:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you are the only one that sees it as harassment. Your username was re-added by an uninvolved administrator and your entry on AN/I was rejected by multiple uninvolved users and admins.--Bobblehead ^(rants) 16:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Giuliani - controversies section

I linked to one of your exegeses on controversy sections here - hope you don't mind. Just doin' my part to make you famous. That page is quite a mess. Tvoz |talk 06:07, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

He's not exactly a likeable fellow, I can say, as an upclose observer of his mayoralty and the way he conducts his private life. And I never bought the "America's Mayor" bit - he was in the "right" place, so to speak, at the right time, and when you dig through the hype that he gives off, there's a lot that's disturbing underneath. So personally I'd like to blast the page with his many controversies - and they didn't even get all of them - But That Wouldn't Be Right. Tvoz |talk 07:05, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

15 July 2007

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your edit(s) to Link Light Rail, it is recommended that you use the preview button before you save; this helps you find any errors you have made, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Thank you. MKoltnow 03:45, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

huh? Tvoz |talk 07:44, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Wow, someone's has a bee in their bonnet. I clean up the references left by other people and get a warning. *laugh*.--Bobblehead ^(rants) 16:35, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you and Tvoz didn't like my reaction to your edit style. I see that you edit sections (which I don't do very often), but to me it looks odd for the same user to have several consecutive edits to the same article within a short time period. No offence was intended. I thought I looked carefully at your edits; apparently I did not. MKoltnow 00:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I find it much easier to cleanup references if you do it one section at a time rather than cleaning up the entire article in one shot. Especially if an article has a number of references. It cuts down on the amount of text I have to dig through. Although, now that I'm using wikiEd, I should probably reconsider that. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 01:45, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Didn't mean to sound snarky... I just know what it's like to try to clean up references, and having edited for a while with Bobblehead, I could see what he was doing without checking. No offense taken on this end and I'm sure none on his. Tvoz |talk 01:54, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

18 July 2007

Since you seem to revel in dealing with these matters, perhaps you might take a look at the recurring vandalism (i.e., Uncited Statments) going on here; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Pfauter And no, unlike with the KNDD fiasco awhile back, I do not know this guy personally. Roz666 01:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Need a mop?

I saw that you are the one that notified TheFEARgod about a copy and paste move needing fixing. After a year and 8,000+ edits, do you think your editing would be more beneficial as an administrator? I'm not seeing a previous RfA under this name, which frankly surprised me. Let me know, I'd be more than happy to nominate you. Keegan^talk 19:37, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Tent City 4 article

We need to work on a way to revise the section on warrant and sex offender checks. TC4 claims that they run these but testimony under oath before the Redmond City Council has shown that they refuse to allow local police departments to run them and the King County Sheriffs Department shows no evidence that they are running these checks when not ordered by a court to do so.

Without a citation from a law enforcement agency confirming that they run the checks the claim is unsubstantiated. --Coz 05:20, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

If you review those Redmond minutes you will see that they claim they are now running these checks with King County of their own good will but refuse to accept a permit that requires the checks to be run by a City Police agency, or for that matter King County. Since this group has always fought these checks more than any other issue it makes one wonder why the change in attitude until you check with the King County Sheriff and find out there is nothing to indicate that these checks are being run. --Coz 15:57, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Revert borders on vandalism

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack_Obama&diff=146347041&oldid=146336568

Please do not delete content from pages on Wikipedia. Your edits do not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use Wikipedia:Sandbox for test edits. Thank you.

You reverted an entire section and 3 editor's comments. The section was to alert people that we have to be careful about articles of people running for president because they are suseptible to attacks, like the erection mention in the other person's article. The erection thing wasn't obvious vandalism but written to blend in the with article.

I'm not trying to fight with you. It's just that the "executive decision" was bad because it reverted 3 editor's comments. Ok? Don't be argumentative, this is just a note to you. JonnyLate 23:18, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I support Bobblehead's removal of the utterly irrelevant section that was placed on Talk: Barack Obama, including my comment saying that the section was irrelevant. I regret not having done it myself. Tvoz |talk 02:47, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Anna Dogonadze

Anaa Dogonadze is not a track and field athlete which is why I have reverted your last edit. She is a gymnastic type athlete. Dabbler 17:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Toonami

Indef blocked the vandal and semi-protected the page. If you could clean up the mess they left behind that would be great. Thanks. Raymond Arritt 04:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Heh. Yeah. Trying to find a clean version. Thanks! --Bobblehead ^(rants) 04:37, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I wanted to give you a heads up with the Toonami page. The discussions from 71.126.192.8 are likely insincere. As stated on the discussion page, there is a community maintaining this article at the moment. This is the discussion page from that community. Several members came to me after last nights incidents ended and stated someone in the community was trying to frame Zechs. I don't know if this is true or not, all I know is there is a great deal of unneeded drama being associated with this problem that doesn't need to be occuring. The members I have cited on the Discussion Page are the ones working to better this page as a whole. Sorry for you to be involved with drama here, but I would ask that going forward, you consider taking everything with a grain of salt related. The best solution I feel would be to simply lock the document down to the listed users on both the discussion page and the article page as a measure of safety in an attempt to force this topic to blow over. --Knighthammer 17:43, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, is it possible for to check User's IPs? I would like to see if you could possibly verify something. --Knighthammer 17:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the warning, but I'm assuming the 71.126.192.8 (talk · contribs) is J'onn J'onzz (talk · contribs) because he was the original person to leave the comment.[10] Then the IP address took over.[11]And in response to your question about checkuser. I don't have checkuser access. Due to the "sensitive" nature of discovering a logged in user's IP address that ability is only given to a small group of people and it is only used if someone is evading a block. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 18:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I have concerns someone might be spoofing J'onn's good the name then. I can easily check later to verify but that doesn't look like his IP. The conern is greater augmented at the fact someone removed items I had put under the vandalism topic myself. To be blunt, this whole thing is stupid because the parties who have been suggested to me want to do harm to someone in the community who has nothing to do this article (Zechs being that person). Is it possible to lock up the article tighter at least? If there's one thing that shouldn't happen is that dumb drama that I wasn't even aware of till today being dragged out into such a project. --Knighthammer 18:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

They'd have to have his login information on Wikipedia in order to have the system record that he was the one that left the message, but if there's a PTB at Toon Zone that's involved in the drama you mention, there's always that chance (May want to use a different password here than the one at Toon Zone). As far as another layer of edit protecting, the next step up is full protection and that stops everyone but admins from editing the page. They don't like imposing that without an active onslaught on the page by "established editors", even then they are hesitant.--Bobblehead ^(rants) 18:46, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't Wikipedia have the ability to lock an article down so that only specific users can edit it? If not, can we at least get the Discussion Page semi-locked to mitigate drama there? As far as the drama goes FROM WHAT IS SOUNDS LIKE its not even a case of people using other's accounts (although the possibility exists, this is the first time the community has done anything like this), it seems to suggest that certain unscrupulous users from Toon Zone made handles resembling other toon zone users they wished to 'frame'. This all seems to be going on OUTSIDE of the people who are taking the article serious, kind of like the kids in the back of a school room shooting off spit ball while the 'good' people are participating in the actual work. It's all quiet frusterating and childish but I do appericate your efforts =). --Knighthammer 18:54, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia only has two levels of protection, semi-protection, which stops anons and new users from editing an article, and full protection, which stops everyone except admins from editing the article. WP:OWN precludes the type of lock that you'd like to have. All in all, don't worry about adding any extra drama here on Wikipedia. It has so much all ready that a couple of drama queens vandalizing a single page probably won't even be noticed. There's enough ways to squish vandals that even if they do get some established accounts to vandalize the page, they can be stopped.--Bobblehead ^(rants) 19:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Major problems on the page again. Please see Record of Abuse and History. Thanks for any help you can give. Knighthammer 05:37, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry to bug you again, but the problems ensue and I would like some help if you're willing to provide. There's a user named Someguy0830 that has made trouble for me in the past and is now pursuing similar problems today. Before I've suggested setups to articles that he changed on my personal pages. Today he's been messing around with the Toonami Article. RIGHT AFTER the vandalism was stopped that I requested help on, he appeared and started making a mess of that article by indiscriminately changing format on the entire article. What can I do about this?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Knighthammer (talk • contribs)

wouldn't want you to miss

this Tvoz |talk 2:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Darn it! I was so close to getting my first block too. Oh well, guess Dereks1x will have to work on finding some actual vandalism next time. A shame. A shame. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 16:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your note on my talk - I also posted something here.Tvoz |talk 21:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. I saw that after I left the note on the Obama talk page and your talk page. Hopefully Dereks1x will get bored soon and bugger off. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 21:28, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Seems we've been hoping that for quite a while... Tvoz |talk 21:32, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Here we are again, one big happy family. With a few new ones added in - I particularly like bhwin - BobbleHeadWINs. Tvoz |talk 19:48, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Nothing like a trip down memory lane. Thanks for doing the AN/I - you do it far more succinctly than I ever could. Tvoz |talk 20:28, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

No prob. It's like Sergeant Friday says, "Just the facts, ma'am. Just the facts."--Bobblehead ^(rants) 20:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your concern

But I think calling out elitism and exclusivity in the admin only club is important. If an admin only listens to other admins and ignores the common editor, than something is seriously wrong. Turtlescrubber 05:55, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Random Smile!

WarthogDemon has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

-WarthogDemon 04:42, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Native American Disambiguation?

Where was there such a problem on the Presbyterian Church in Canada article? Bacl-presby 22:13, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Damn. I didn't change the edit summary. I was disambiguating Halifax, Nova Scotia, but it would appear that instead of saying I was disambiguating that, I did a couple of hundred edits saying I was doing Native American. Sweet. I rock. Sorry about that. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 23:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!Bacl-presby 15:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Fred Thompson age difference again

Zsero has resumed his deletion of the age difference between Fred Thompson and Jeri Kehn Thompson. As a participant in previous Talk discussion on this matter, your presence at Talk:Fred Thompson would be appreciated. Italia^vivi 14:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Hidalgo

Surely it would be better to just move Hidalgo (Mexico) to Hidalgo? --Ptcamn 23:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

United Kingdom/Britian Comments

Britain does not exist you are correct but nor does the United Kingdom. What actually exists is a collection of 6 nations, Cornwall Devon England Northern Ireland Scotland and Wales. Also the official name for this collective is "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" --Lucy-marie 12:55, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Poe's "Romance"

There is a link for that poem: Poems by Edgar Allan Poe#Romance (1829). I added it to the dab page.--ShelfSkewed Talk 18:55, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 19:00, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Britain

Hi Bobblehead, I'd been working through the Britain disambuguation page, took a weeks holiday and came back to find you'd finished it. Great work, you must have spent most of your time on it. By the way, ignore the bit from Lucy-Marie about the United Kingdom being 6 countries, The Cornish are just wierd and probably still eat babies. It's only the chains on the Tamar ferry that stop them floating off into the Atlantic. I should know, I live in Devon. Not that there's any rivalry between the two counties, it's just that we have a tradition of fighting each other if there's no one else available. Pan narrans 19:16, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

RFCU

Doesn't matter. That's not Italiavivi's job, and the request was unacceptable anyway as per the top of the page. The fact is that he moved it from completed to outstanding, and that is not his place to do that, when a clerk would have fixed it when it went to archive. N/m that Italia is not a clerk, he altered a case he was involved in. RFCU is one of the few places where people can't be messing about, and that's all there is to it. If there was a problem, we have an RFCU talkpage and a clerks talkpage, both of which he could have used if he had read the procedures first. MSJapan 21:59, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

You should mentor me.

I'd like to be mentored by someone who I have called a dick and who has returned the sentiment in kind. Italia^vivi 18:22, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

The Immigrant - a new American musical

I am the composer of The Immigrant as well as one of the producers of its CD. As such I am the copyright owner of the artwork and would be happy to make its cover art available for the show's Wikipedia entry and agree to necessary licenses. The image upload procedures and requirements are a little intimidating for me, but it would be a pleasure to provide whatever information I can to the WikiProject Musical Theatre team. Or if someone could walk me through it, with a little more hand-holding than the help pages provide...?

I'd like to thank the WikiProject Musical Theatre team for their efforts in creating such an invaluable resource.

Best wishes,
Steven M. Alper, Smalps 16:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Phoenix

... and a fine job you did with it too. Thanks much. User:Devildevildevil seems to be attracting the wrong kind of attention recently, so I'm grateful that I didn't need to get into it with him/her. Best, --AndrewHowse 01:54, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Securitization

Hello

I refer to your recent edit of Securitization. I don't quite understand what you meant by "the diversification is dead". Please explain. Thanks.
Zain Ebrahim 07:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Your standard disamb edit summary

In context of Byron Stevenson, a man who died of throat cancer only yesterday, your edit summary to this disambiguation wasn't entirely amusing. Struway2 | Talk 11:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

ever see this?

hey Bob - do you know about this guy: User:Bobbleheadz? But that's not why I came over here... is there a policy statement about the unacceptability of using a source that is actually a mirror of the wikipedia article being edited? Wow, that was clear, try again: if someone uses as a source some article out there that looks like it's an outside source but when you read it all it is is a mirror of the very Wikipedia page that it's being used to verify - in other words, it's verifying itself. Not WP:SELF - that's "An article in Wikipedia says that..." or "This Wikipedia article..". I'm trying to find something to quote when an editor uses what looks like a reliable source to confirm some fact but it's just confirming itself. I am sure I've seen that somewhere. thx Tvoz |talk 01:03, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Removal of content

Is this removal of content ok? I have been having a dispute with the anon and I would really like to have a third opinion. Thanks, Brusegadi 03:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC) Thanks, I replied in my talk if you are interested (to keep things centralized.) Take care, Brusegadi 05:59, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Knight Commander of the British Empire

Thanks for pointing that out-- I guess I got too overzealous in removing the title from both his article and Billy Graham because the KBE looked pretty silly :) --Gloriamarie 20:54, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Firestone edits by anon

The outright deletion of the text probably is a bit uncalled for, but on the other hand, I don't think all the text is needed. A summary of the interview is probably more fitting rather than a direct quote. However, I'd probably characterize the undiscussed nature of the removal as vandalism, especially considering the editor is probably User:Mobile 01, who has a history of edit warring over the article in order to remove negative content. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 05:24, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I noticed this edit you made yesterday and thought I would comment. Firstly, please dont make assumptions about what I may or may not have done. Secondly, please dont make derogatory comments about me, I dont do it to you and have always tried to be courteous to yourself in our previous dealings. Thirdly, dont misrepresent the facts so as to bolster your own agenda if you have one. Your comment above "who has a history of edit warring over the article in order to remove negative content" implies you have first hand knowlege of my motives which you do not. I do not edit to remove negative comment but rather to enforce unbiased content. Any edit warring as you well know was initiated by Travb; having had pages protected after placing his own edits in place, a fact which you are also well aware of. As one of those involved in the mediation, you are also well aware of what was agreed on for that article. I personally have not edited the article in a long time as there was no need. From the history of edits we can see that the editor who edited yesterday was also involved from the beginning and is most probably an employee of Firestone. In fact Travb made comments to the fact that they and you were probably the same person and from memory he accused you of being a sockpuppet of me.

I have no intention of getting beack into this crap again as it took quite a toll last time. I hardly edit any more as I just cant be bothered with all the crap that goes on here. Have a good Day. Mobile 01^Talk 01:58, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

First off, you should add {{Non-free media rationale}} to all the images that Betacommandbot added the disputed fair use rationale tag to. Repeated removal of the tag Betacommandbot left on those images without adding a fair use rationale is a blockable offense and those images will be deleted on September 20 if you do not add a fair use rationale by then.

On to the content of your spiel, it takes two to tango, as the saying goes. It doesn't matter who started the edit warring, both you and Travb went a few rounds over the article and the result of that edit war was the mediation that you requested, during which time you were chastised by both myself and the mediator for the tone of your comments. You should also familiarize yourself with m:Wrong version, putting an article back to a preferred version and then requesting a page protection is a common technique in an edit war and complaining about the protection being implemented while the article displayed "the wrong version" is just as common, so that's not going to win you any points. You should also re-examine your memory as far as the sockpuppetry goes. As the Checkuser case and suspected sockpuppetry case Travb filed against you clearly shows, he thought you and 203.49.235.50 (talk · contribs) (among several other IPs and a couple of accounts) were the same user and myself and others agreed with him on most of them. All in all, you can seriously stop hiding, the commonality in the topics that you and the anon edit (Smallville and Firestone related articles) and the fact that you just happened to notice a comment I made on another user's talk page within minutes of the anon noticing the comment makes it very clear that you are the same user. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 06:49, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

As before it's obvious that your still full of shit and dont actually read what people say before adding another of your holier than thou tirades. I wasnt chastised, I was cautioned that I was becoming too emotive, as for your comments I just ignored them, after all you are just an editor like me and I frankly didn't give a rats what you had to say that was not ralated to the article content. It was the mediators job to talk to me about my wording and certainly not yours. You were just interfering with his function and trying to bignote yourself again as the mighty superman of editors who can do no wrong and knows everything and doesnt let anyone else forget it. Wrong once again on your other comments too, Travb made his revisions to the page and then had it protected. Up until that point there was no edit war between anyone. If you read his comments he was quite happy with everything until one day he just went crazy and made heaps of changes and had the protection placed. Thats what started the war. The sockpuppet case was dismissed; so dont even go there. I watch the Firestone article and saw your entries on that day, I tracked them back and found the other users talk page comments, nothing sinister there and certainly no smoking gun as you try to imply. So once again you shoot from the LIP and we find you only have blanks. I said originally that I did not want to get into this again and you could have just left well enough alone. Instead you have started harrasing me here with your half truths and twisted version of events and then butted in to another issue about images which had nothing to do with you. Obviously you want to start something so take your best shot, I can be just as annoying as you are. Last warning, stay out of my face and I will do like wise. Mobile 01^Talk 02:28, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Oooo, warnings. Thanks for stopping by.;)--Bobblehead ^(rants) 03:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

This is a lie: "In fact Travb made comments to the fact that they and you were probably the same person and from memory he accused you of being a sockpuppet of me." "went crazy and made heaps of changes and had the protection placed""Travb made his revisions to the page and then had it protected. Up until that point there was no edit war between anyone." Which I have shown to be untrue before. It appears like only the arbcom can determine once and for all who is telling a lie and who is telling the truth. When they boot Mobile 01, she call tell the arbcom they are full of shit, etc.

The edit warring began when firestone employees and Mobile 01 began deleting large sections of referenced material.

RE:

Checkuser case and suspected sockpuppetry case Travb filed against you clearly shows, he thought you and 203.49.235.50 (talk · contribs) (among several other IPs and a couple of accounts) were the same user and myself and others agreed with him on most of them.

Another lie, I never claimed that Bobble was you. I did find that you had used several anon accounts, and, as Bobble revealed, with one of the anon accounts, you were talking to yourself in the third person.

Bobblehead should we initiate another checkuser? I doubt this time the wikipedia community will be so kind and forgiving. Travb (talk) 18:58, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[12] confirmed but no action taken, which was expected. Travb (talk) 21:24, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. The use of sockpuppets isn't prohibited, it's using those sockpuppets to circumvent the rules that is prohibited. So since Mobile 01 hasn't used any of her IP addresses to circumvent the rules, there isn't anything to block her for. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 22:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeehah

Thank the wiki god someone can do a hi ho hio on an awb edit for spelling corrns - there is hope yet despite the dark side taking over wikipedia with violent mad scientist death squads in multiple heads :) SatuSuro 01:46, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Just doing my part to fight off the evil hordes.;) --Bobblehead ^(rants) 04:44, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		I just wanted to let you know I got a chuckle from your disambiguation edit summaries :D Parsecboy 01:55, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Heh. Glad you enjoy it. Just trying to spread a little joy throughout the project. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 03:16, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Another award

		Funny-Looking Monkey
		I was going to give you that same barnstar for your funny edit summaries. Since you've already gotten one, I give you this Funny-Looking Monkey for your funny summaries. SU Linguist 03:12, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Nice. A funny-looking monkey! Just what I always wanted. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 03:16, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry ...

I won't forget the little people who helped me along the way..... Thanks for putting it onto Freddie's talk page - I'm of course too modest to have done it myself. Next stop WP:PRESS? Tvoz |talk 05:13, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, yes.. WP:PRESS. Done. Heh. Can I get your autograph? --Bobblehead ^(rants) 05:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll be selling it on eBay. Tvoz |talk 05:28, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

The playing field isn't exactly huge, if you know what I mean. Tvoz |talk 21:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Do monkeys like cookies?

Have a wikicookie for spreading the love through your edit summaries. A couple of these popped up in my watchlist and it made me smile!! (Although the fact that more than one popped up in my watchlist says i need to check some pages for dab links) Thanks making me smile. Woodym555 02:59, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Darn right we like cookies! We've been known to rummage through people's pockets in search of them actually. Although, the fact that I've appeared on your watchlist a couple of times could mean that I've been spending too much time fixing dabs. Heh. ;) --Bobblehead ^(rants) 03:05, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

iPhone

Thanks (from another Seattle-area editor) for cleaning up my edits on the iPhone page, my goal was just to integrate the missing features in with the rest of the section, and it looks better after your changes. -- Atamasama 19:36, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I should be thanking you. Your integration of the missing features section actually finished something that I started shortly after the iPhone came out. The article used to have a pretty lengthy "controversy" section that listed every complaint about the iPhone until I got rid of that section and integrated it in with the rest of the article. The missing features section was the remnant of that integration (with some things added after my integration)where I punted on where to put a handful of the missing features that didn't easily fit into one of the sections that existed at the time. So, you're welcome, but thanks to you too! --Bobblehead ^(rants) 21:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Cheers

Heyheyhey. thanks for cleaning up some link on mi NZ-US relations page. Just wanted to thank you for no apparent reason. so..... thanks. (♠Murchy♠) 22:44, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

feel free to move this to userspace...

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		Awarded for your hilarious edit summaries while working for WikiProject Disambiguation. "Hi ho" indeed. VanTucky Talk 00:35, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Just spreading the wikilove. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 00:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Natonal Flags

Hi, hope you don't mind, but I thought I'd reply to you here. Yeah you're right I was getting a bit wound up, silly really :) I might put a message on the village pump tomorrow, if I can face it. Many thanks. Sue Wallace 03:39, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

FAR notice

Seattle, Washington has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. LaraLove 17:30, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

RE: User:SueBrewer

Please see: Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets#User:HarveyCarter

Please leave input there. Thanks, IP4240207xx 20:55, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Talk:iPhone archive sizes

You just changed the default size for archive pages on Talk:iPhone to 250k. This seems massively too high. Is there a reason for archiving pages in completely unreadable sizes? Chris Cunningham 13:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Archives are meant to be just that, archives. They are read infrequently so the point is to make it as "quickly" navigable as possible and forcing someone to go through six 38k archives actually takes longer than making them go through one 250k archive. Not to mention the whole frustration of having to go through six archives and giving up after one or two. All in all, archives have an inverse relationship between size and usability than do the active pages. In the active pages the smaller the talk page the better in regards to determining what is actively being discussed on a page, while on archives the larger the better in order to speed up referencing and research. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 17:14, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

There's an indexer bot set up for searches. For manually browsing the archives (which I do all the time when reading up on how consensus was reached on various articles) it's a massive help if the archives are still readable; 250k pages of text are not very human-readable. For now, I'm happy to manually archive Talk:iPhone rather than relying on a bot with such quirks as moving pages to /dev/null if its configuration is invalid. Chris Cunningham 18:39, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

• shrug* if that's the approach you want to take, works for me. Once the template is set up properly the bot works just fine. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 19:22, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

List of Japanese N64 games

I noticed your one of the people that wished there to be a list of Japanese games online for Wikipedia which I tried to make for the Nintendo 64 a few months ago, but just like when they where added to the orginal List of Nintendo 64 games they are trying to delete the new page List of Japanese Nintendo 64 games here's a link Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Japanese Nintendo 64 games to the discussion, how about giving your view. (Floppydog66 16:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC))

Wow

Hot damn! That would have taken me a week, and I would have missed a few (as I did in the earlier sections). OK, is AWB hard to figure out? I am convinced. Tvoz |talk 05:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

AWB is good if you're doing a lot of (semi-)automated tasks (like my cleaning up of disambiguous links), but after some initial confusion it is pretty easy to use. As for the Barack Obama cleanup, it took me about 30 minutes to get the regex correct, but that was due mostly to me having to teach myself regex how to use it. Once you get the regex set up it's just a simple find and replace. I messed up and didn't save the code, but the find part was something along the lines of $(publisher*|first*|last*|work*|accessdate*|date*)=/|$ The round brackets tell the program that the character string it is looking for is variable and contained within the round brackets, while the | within the round brackets act as separators and the * mean that the preceding character is optional, but to include it if it is there. Also, since | is used as a separator in regex if I'm actually looking for that character I have to use an "escape" which is done by using the / character. So in the end, the expression I created would return a match on publisher = | or publisher= | (or any of the other strings I put in the round bracket), but not where the word publisher was followed by any other character than a space or an equal sign or any situations where the equal sign was followed by any other character besides a space and a |.

--Bobblehead ^(rants) 14:51, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, right, sounds easy.....Tvoz |talk 19:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I think I detect some sarcasm there. Heh. I glaze over much of the functionality myself and tend to avoid the regex functionality. I mainly use the find and replace functionality using boring old words. I just type in the word I'm looking for in the find field and the word(s) I want to replace it with in the replace field. So if I'm disambiguating "British", I'd put [[British]] in the Find field and [[United Kingdom|British]] in the replace field, load the pages that link to British, and hit the start button. AWB opens up the page and highlights the change (just like the Changes button does), I either tell it to Save the change, or Ignore it, then AWB moves on to the next article and the process begins again. Probably more information than you needed. Heh. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 20:17, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Missed this reply - right you are about the sarcasm - but I have to admit I sort of followed what you said. Will have to look into this magical AWB - but someone tried to explain Twinkle to me (was that you?) and I kind of glazed over then too. I guess I'm a manual kinda gal. Tvoz |talk 22:08, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

congratulations

You do get around. Tvoz |talk 22:13, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

OMG. Well, at least we found 2 more Dereks1x socks.. I don't even know who Polounit and Greenwinged are... --Bobblehead ^(rants) 23:40, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I am flabbergasted at the unmitigated chutzpah this guy has. You'll see my comment. Tvoz |talk 04:15, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

What surprises me is that Durova didn't think to check the checkuser page and sockpuppet category for a user that she blocked for sockpuppetry.--Bobblehead ^(rants) 04:23, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

removing external urls

if u want to remove my external urls them remove all urls, lets be fair —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.11.164.207 (talk) 04:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

"Fix dab link Feet using AWB"

You're pointing to a redirect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.106.229.118 (talk) 17:39, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

D'oh. That's what I get for not actually following the link on the page. Shouldn't be that big of an issue and it's more hassle then it's worth to go back and fix 'em, but I'll point the rest to the direct link. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 17:44, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I Heart Irony

Perhaps you did it on purpose, regardless, I love the irony of it all! You have a link on your user page for Progressive, which is of course to a disam page, and not (presumably) to the politically affialiation. I see your name frequently in the disam project, and find it quite humorous that your own userpage contains a link to a disam. Great laugh! Keeper | 76 22:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, it was completely on accident. I added that back when I first started and haven't really touched my userpage since then. But now that you mention it, I like it! Thus it shall stay. Heh. Thanks for the snicker. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 22:47, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

If I'm ever disambiguation "Progressive" (which I'm sure has shown up on the project page), I'll be sure to leave your userpage alone...Cheers! Keeper | 76 22:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Controversies articles for political figures

Hi ... since you recently were involved at Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton in discussion of whether political figures should have Controversies articles, and I stated that the one for Rudy Giuliani had recently been dismantled, I should say that I spoke a bit too soon — the dismantling is being contested by an editor, and that controversies article is now up for AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Controversies of Rudy Giuliani. Your input welcome if you wish. Wasted Time R 23:46, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Love your sense of humor

Love your sense of humor as shown on the Nan Kelley edit. Chris 23:26, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I concur. Now let's put that little red pointy hat on again and get back to work ! ;D Have a nice day. Rosenknospe 14:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

peace out

saved you the trouble. Tvoz |talk 02:24, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for cleaning up my work on the article Steve Hill. I'm still trying to figure out a lot of the innerworkings of Wikipedia and it's nice to have helpful users like yourself watching over my shoulder. Thanks! Vayne (talk) 05:53, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Deleting , Maya Soetoro-Ng

Hiya,

I noticed that you blanked and redirected the page Maya Soetoro-Ng. Isn't it usual to have a discussion before doing that? I believe she may be notable, as I've seen her on TV and in magazines before. --lk (talk) 05:36, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Obama fundraising

Better? --HailFire 23:15, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Obama discussion page

I would like to explain to you that this is not a forum for the selling of products or the electioneering of political candidates. Wikipedia is a neutral place, and the discussion section is not the place to call folk names, and not for quashing discussion, I am going to report you for vandalism. John5Russell3Finley (talk) 00:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Disam of Evangelist

How many of these did you do? I find it hard to believe anyone could confuse the Four Evangelists and Evangelism, but you have managed it. Please check your contribution & correct the mistakes. Johnbod (talk) 02:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Yup, periodically I mess up.:) But thanks for the rather non-descript problem report. Perhaps if you gave an example of an article where I messed up I might be able to actually do something about it, but alas, your problem report is crap.;) --Bobblehead ^(rants) 02:28, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

See any of my recent contributions before I gave up correcting yours - I was a bit harsh - I see you got better as you went along. Johnbod (talk) 02:34, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Media coverage of anti-Obama whisper campaigns

That's certainly a better way to handle it. Thanks. --HailFire (talk) 01:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Mike Huckabee Merge Proposal

Please comment on merging Mike Huckabee controversies into Mike Huckabee here [[13]] Jmegill (talk) 09:54, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Lou D'A

Thanks. Never seen that before (but can never say that again). Cheers --AndrewHowse (talk) 18:43, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Is it possible?

I know Wikipedia is uncensored, and I personally have thick skin, but do you think it's possible that you could make your point without saying Jesus fucking Christ? If it was about any other religion, say, "Mohammed fucking Islam", you could easily be blocked for racism, or at the very least insensitivity. Please consider toning it down. I've never edited Mitt Romney, I don't have a problem with you, or the article, or your contribs, I simply stumbled into your comment and was struck by your irreverance. Cool it, dude. This is a volunteer project after all, no need for the added drama. Lay off the "goddamns" , etc... Keeper | 76 22:17, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Heh. No prob. The usage wasn't religion related, just the ole profanity for profanity's sake.;) Mostly did it to get their attention. The article had just come off a full edit-protection and they went right back to fighting in edit summaries rather than actually discuss the edits. So figured I'd give 'em a good slap to get their attention. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 22:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

re: Comments on Talk:Hillary Clinton

Mactographer, I would also suggest that you apologize to the editors of the Hillary Rodham Clinton article for your rather uneducated comment about them being sockpuppets of the Clinton campaign.[14] If you take a look at the edit history for the Giuliani and McCain articles you will find that many of the editors on the Clinton article and talk page were also the ones (particularly Wasted Time R) that were in large part responsible for the dismantling of the Criticism section and/or articles in those articles. What you see reflected on the Clinton article and on many other politician articles, is a general dislike of criticism sections that has been applied across party lines and without regard to a person's political beliefs and/or practices. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 23:57, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

You are reading into my comment. I didn't suggest ANY particular Wiki editor was a sock puppet. But as we have proof that IP addresses from the Clinton campaign have been used as sock puppets, it's not a stretch to imagine the same thing might be happening here. Yet to state such was ill advised of me to post, so for that I apologize. And yes, some editors have started to dismantle GOP candidate criticisms subcategories ... now that it has become painfully obvious that, for the sake of ostensible fairness, they need to be addressed in the same fashion as the democratic listings which have been so zealously protected. --Mactographer (talk) 00:35, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

P.S. However, for what any and all editors are doing now to remove ALL criticism sub categories, they are to be commended. --Mactographer (talk) 00:49, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Your comments were obviously aimed at the editors of the article in general and were inappropriate regardless of the actions of the Clinton campaign off-wiki (who are not alone in using sockpuppets to spread propaganda on their candidate's behalf). As for the reasons behind getting rid of the criticism sections in the other articles, it had nothing to do with "fairness". We were just tired of other editors coming to the various talk pages to whine about X not having a criticism section when Y does have a criticism section and then not actually doing anything fix the other articles. It is not the responsibility of the editors of the Hillary Clinton article to fix the problems on the Mike Huckabee or GWB articles it is up to the editors of that page. If you are an editor on those pages, or feel that the articles need to be improved, it is your responsibility to fix the articles, not ours. However, if you need assistance with the removal of these sections, you are more than welcome to come to any of our talk pages (or Clinton's talk page) and notify us of your actions and we will be glad to assist you. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 01:03, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

In the broadest sense of who my comments were aimed as, yes... but your original comment pointed out particular editors as if I was aiming it directly at them. And I already agreed that one portion of my comment as ill advised and I apologized as seen above. How many pounds of flesh do you want from me? As for whining about X vs. Y, I've seen the same in Y vs. X ... you even make the point for me by whining about "others" uses of sock puppets. --Mactographer (talk) 01:28, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I didn't notice your redaction on Hillary's talk page until after I had posted my message. ;) You're more than welcome to tell anyone that complains on an article's talk page about the content of another article to take it up with the editors of the other article and/or fix the other article themselves. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 01:36, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

TfD Romney Giuliani

I agree with your TfDs of the redundant Romney and Giuliani templates, but I don't think you got the formatting right on the TfD nom. I'v done it before and there is some automated code somewhere (like AfDs) that formatts it so the names are clearly separated. I'd try and do it, but 1. I'd probably screw it up, 2. I don't know if you meant to do it the way you did. If you'd want me to restart it, preserving yours and Justmeherenow's comments, I'd give it a shot. Mbisanz (talk) 06:46, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

OK

Justmeherenow (talk) 22:16, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

John Edwards

I was not stating the article as fact - I was simply stating that the Enquirer reported it. It is up to the user to decide if the article is true or not, I was simply stating the fact that it was reported. 5minutes (talk) 22:53, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, according to Wikipedia Guidelines, "Material about living persons available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all in biographies of living people, either as sources or via external links". As I made no claim as to the article being true or false, the simple report of the report cannot be considered derogatory. Besides, I don't see "The National Enquirer" on any list of "not allowed" sources. Could you point me to a list of sources not considered "OK" so I know in the future? 5minutes (talk) 23:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Again, no list of "don't use these sources". How about The Daily Mail? (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=503463&in_page_id=1811) How about FindIt News (http://news.finditt.com/NewsStory.aspx?id=30959&cat=5)? I can understand you guys being so cautious about sockpuppets, but come on. It wasn't a statement of fact. It was a statement that a tabloid had reported it. No conclusions. 5minutes (talk) 23:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Your accusations

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Bobblehead, at my talk page, you made a lengthy accusation against me, including this: “Your first three edits on the article were clear BLP violations for using an unreliable source that heavily edited a reliable source to advance a position.”[15]

I would like to kindly ask you to reconsider and withdraw your accusation, please. The so-called “unreliable source” that you accuse me of using is an Associated Press article here (including an attribution to the San Jose Mercury News at the bottom). This so-called unreliable source is verbatim identical to the same article published in USA Today. Do you really want to accuse me of deliberately using an unreliable corrupted version of an article?

While you've been somewhat uncivil to me in the past,[16] I hope we can have a fresh start.Ferrylodge (talk) 07:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

How is this comment as referenced immediately above an example of Bobblehead being uncivil to anyone, let alone you, Ferrylodge? He was explaining a comment he had made elsewhere and in fact specifically stated when you asked if it was directed at you that his comment was not directed at any one editor, but at the group. So why are you bringing this up here now as an example of incivility to you? Tvoz |talk 07:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Ferrylodge, you have seriously got to stop mislinking to unrelated comments and saying it supports a statement you make. I've seen you do it several times in the last 48 hours and I know you have done it repeatedly throughout your editing career here on Wikipedia. It is extremely frustrating to have to explain oneself in order to counter one of your incorrect linking and ultimately sends people down pointless bunny trails. It is best if you stop doing it altogether, because it ultimately hurts your position. But on a constructive criticism front, you are an exceedingly difficult editor to work with because of your consistently inaccurate characterization of events and "convenient" forgetting of explanations when you drag up your inaccurate characterizations and you need to work on not drawing conclusions from unrelated events and including it to further a point your trying to make. But since you have mislinked again and "forgotten" my explanation, I will explain it to you again. Keeper76 was more concerned with my choice of words and had nothing to do with any incivility towards you or any other editor, so using Keeper76s comments has nothing to do with me being uncivil towards you. As I explained to you on Mitt Romney's talk page, the choice of wording was not aimed at you or any other editor specifically[17] and as I explained to Keeper76, the wording was done to get the attention of those participating in the edit war preceding the comment and was not about getting hot. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 08:07, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Bobblehead, you said that your "Jesus Fucking Christ" comment was directed to "all involved," which includes me, and you were rightly chastised for it.[18] I'm sorry you don't seem to realize that.Ferrylodge (talk) 08:11, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I would like to thank you for supporting my point of you inaccurately characterizing something by linking to something that does not have anything to do with what your saying. Keeper76 chastised me for the wording, not for being uncivil towards any editor. Now bugger off, this discussion is over. You are more than welcome to post on my talk page on any other topic, but you are not welcome to continue this discussion on my talk page. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 08:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

BLP != wrecking ball

Re: "First and only warning" to Ferrylodge: do not use BLP as a wrecking ball in an edit dispute: [19]. Adding that someone filibustered a bill is not a BLP issue; and neither is senate.gov an unreliable site. The Evil Spartan (talk) 09:36, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't an editing dispute, or at least, I didn't think it was, it was more Ferrylodge being Ferrylodge and trying to force his wording onto an article prior to actually discussing the content. As far as the BLP violation, there is no disagreeing that Obama voted against cloture, that was not the BLP violation. The BLP violation occurred when Ferrylodge used the reliable source of the Senate and the reprint of a reliable source from an unreliable source that I incorrectly thought had been heavily edited (found the article in another source and it was longer with more detail) to make it appear that Obama was being contrary to his stance on filibusters by voting against the cloture. It was this synthesis of two different sources to further a point that was a violation of BLP. I included in an edit summary I considered Ferrylodge's construction to be a synthesis,[20] which is not allowable under BLP and his response was to add a period between two halves of the sentence and called it good.[21] There was a bit of a timing issue at this point as Ferrylodge was leaving a message on the talk page asking what the C portion of A+B=C was,[22] I was reverting his addition as a synthesis again.[23] Then, as per usual with Ferrylodge, rather than wait for a response on the talk page, he re-added his content[24] while I was responding to his question about what position he was furthering. Unfortunately, my talk page comment never actually made it on the talk page because I got an edit conflict from his follow on talk page message saying he'd resolved the synthesis, so I spent some time investigating his claim and then looking for reliable sources that could be used to include Ferrylodge's content in a manner that wasn't a synthesis rather than saving a talk page message that according to Ferrylodge wasn't necessary any longer. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 21:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

2008 Democratic candidates

Thanks Bobblehead. After having checked those numbers, Clinton definitely is the 'current' front-runner. GoodDay (talk) 19:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Obama's tempate

Thanks for pointing that out. I'll look through these a bit to sample how others have handled it. If I can't improve on the previous design, I'll self-revert. --HailFire (talk) 20:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Done now. Thanks again for the gentle guidance, always welcome. --HailFire (talk) 21:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Ferrylodge

Is edit warring on the Mitt Romney page again. As part of the consensus agreement I was wondering if you would weigh in? Turtlescrubber (talk) 02:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

So, I am leaving wikipedia. [25] Turtlescrubber (talk) 03:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Reindexing (Mc to Mac)

I understood, based on notes such as:

"Please index as Mac----, i.e. with an 'a', to assist category sorting"

on other articles that this was necessary for "category sorting"; I'll hold off until an admin OKs this, but the reindexing on surnames starting with O' (O'M or O'H, for instance, to Om or Oh) has already been completed by other editors, so I was sticking to the "Mc" surnames. Yellow-bellied sapsucker (talk) 18:42, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I first became aware of the Mc/Mac situation on Martin McGuinness' article. I did the research back and found the entry (see [26]) from 22:45, 15 April 2006, where the note first appeared about the category sorting (Mac, not Mc). Yellow-bellied sapsucker (talk) 20:16, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Ann's Picture

Ok. But please fix it so that it does not mess up the text. The easiest way is to put it at the bottom but I agree with your point. Can you fix the text so that it moves back up where it should be? Anappealtoheaven (talk) 19:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Can you clarify what you mean by messing up the text? I'm sure it has to do with the resolution of your monitor, because I'm not seeing anything wrong with the text, but if you tell me what is wrong with the text, I can try and fix the issue for you. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 19:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Response

I have decided to outright indefinitely block the user for long-term abuse. I'll alter the comment in just a second. But thank you for your comment.--Jersey Devil (talk) 21:21, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: re-reverted

I'm confused. The table says that its sources include the New York Times and CNN. CNN does have the South Carolina delegate counts, and the table does not specify which source is for which column yet you think that the particular column in question should only use the New York Times as a source. Why?--Margareta (talk) 05:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I see. Thanks. I wonder if there is a way of clarifying this?--Margareta (talk) 06:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the note.

And you're right. I shouldn't have replied to him. I got a bit pissed off when he threatened to drag the article into mediation if he doesn't get his way, and felt obliged to respond. But I do realize it didn't accomplish anything, and I won't be responding to him again, unless or until he chooses to disrupt the main article, or drag the thing to mediation. -- Bellwether ^B_C 21:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

for your help fixing my references Corey Salzano (talk) 23:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Seattle MLS categories

I think we should keep

• Category:Major League Soccer teams
• Category:Sports in Seattle

both are relevant categories, even if they are higher level. Oh Snap (talk) 06:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I added Category:Seattle Major League Soccer team to Template:Seattle Major League Soccer team and then added Category:Major League Soccer teams and Category:Sports in Seattle to the Seattle MLS category. This means that adding MLS teams and Sports in Seattle to the article is redundant because Seattle MLS is a sub-category of those categories. If you'd like we could move the Seattle MLS category off the template and put it on the page to make the category visible on the page, but adding the other categories to the page seems redundant to me. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 07:10, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Edwards

Here is a source saying he ended his campaign. HoosierState^Talk 22:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I just read further down the article and then it talks about him suspending his campaign. That article contradicts itself, I'm confused now.... HoosierState^Talk 22:44, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

mmm good point

but quoting sources properly is important to the whole 'sourced' thing --<*poof*> 22:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.235.64.30 (talk • contribs)

democratic delegate counts

put off any decision on removing NYT from sources till tommarrow.

Due to different allocations of superdelegates, and other numbers, this template has always had multiple sources. NYT takes more time than other sources to adjust their counts, due to the complex rules of each states delegate calculation. The only reason to move to CNN at this hour would be that they currently give BO higher numbers than HC. All sources will reflect new numbers in the morning.--68.243.140.63 (talk) 04:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Michelle Obama GA

Thanks for contributing to the effort at Michelle Obama. You may want to put this on your user page:

This user helped promote Michelle Obama to good article status.

--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 01:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Hillary Clinton

Please take the difference of opinion on Hillary Clinton with User:Zzalzzal to the talk page. I've asked Zzalzzal to stop edit warring and go to the talk page, too, warning that he's close to being blocked. --TS 19:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Your behavior towards me and others on the Hillary Clinton page violates wikipedia rules and policies

This is a warning regarding your violations of wikipedia policies and rules on the Hillary Clinton page.
WastedTime and Bobblehead have refused to engage in discussion and have simply asserted their will multiple times (by reverting changes (on Jan 18, 19, Feb. 1, 7, 18 - Bobblehead reverted the changes only on Feb. 18) I made – they refused to respond to my discussion attempts (made on Jan 6 and Jan 19) regarding reporting Iowa Democratic Caucus results to two decimal points). This and other actions of theirs have violated the law and spirit of wikipedia policies and rules, including “gaming the system”, “"Abuse of process “, “Attempting to force an untoward interpretation of policy, or impose one's own novel view of "standards to apply" rather than those of the community.” (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Gaming_the_system), and “clearly fail[ed] to respect "consensus" on this issue, given that no disagreements were expressed in the discussions on this issue I had initiated on Jan 6 and Jan 19 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Consensus. Additionally, both Bobblehead and WastedTime on Feb. 18 appear to have acted in concert so that neither one would be in violation of the “three revert” rule – which would also be a violation of the spirit of this rule. Yes, I broke the 3 reverts rule, unknowingly. In contrast, WastedTime and Bobblehead were aware of the rule and violated the spirit of it, as well as engaging in violation of the law and spirit of other rules and policies. It was very disingenuous of Bobblehead to have me blocked for violating the “three-revert” rule (and this prevented me from participating in the discussion they initiated on Feb. 18), when both Bobblehead and WastedTime themselves are guilty of violating it and other rules. Greater documentation related to this issue is on my Talk page. Zzalzzal (talk) 21:39, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Wow.. That's an impressive lack of good faith. For one, if you'd actually look at the talk pages that you cite, Wasted Time R and I both replied to at least one of your discussions. For two, your accusation of collusion between myself and Wasted Time R is just comical. For three, I reported you because you made four reversions on the article in less than an hour. That's after I warned you two times to take it to the talk page... All in all, here's a lolly, now head off to your other editing endeavors. ;) --Bobblehead ^(rants) 21:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

You replied to my discussion on Jan 19 on a completely different issue (whether or not the Kucinich recount request in NH should be on the Hillary Clinton page). You did not reply on the issue of carrying the results out to two decimal points. You did warn me about violating the "three reverts" rule (albeit disingenuously), but I had never even looked at my talk page before yesterday (wasn't even aware that it existed), wasn't even aware the rule existed or that I could be warned about it, and only saw the warnings a long time after being blocked. You, on the other hand, were aware of the rule, and reverted my edit, without engaging in discussion - a violation of the "three reverts" rule as well. I'm sorry you feel this is "lack of good faith" - it is not, although I have documented why I feel you have exhibited this. Zzalzzal (talk) 22:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia puts a nice orange bar at the top of your screen that says "You have new messages" any time someone leaves a message on your talk page. If you chose to ignore that message, then it is your fault. I gave you two warnings prior to submitting you for violating 3RR, one more warning than is required. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 22:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I now know that. But it doesn't change the fact that you, too, violated the spirit of the rule on Feb. 18, which is considered the same as an outright violation (WastedTime did this on multiple days), as well as violated other rules, as I have documented.

Whaaa?

(Although I'm myself left wing...) I must say, your offhanded "NewsBusters=blog=not reliable" is blatantly POV Wikilawyering!

Shakes head. In any case, Viva la revolution! lol. --Justmeherenow (talk) 23:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, overreacted. Got my G's (Government issues?) into a twist! :^)--Justmeherenow (talk) 00:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

It frustrates me that you would edit my signed discussion page contribution without expressing whatever your exact objection might be to it (and perhaps then first seeking others' input on the same, too) and I'd appreciate it if you would refrain from doing so in the future. Thankyou. --Justmeherenow (talk) 09:19, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Somebody who offhandedly says, "NewsBusters is not a reliable source" and refuses to acknowledge something as noteworthy that's been referenced in multiple sources - those considered prestigious among conservatives and those among liberals - comes across as a POV shill themself.

('Cause, basically: Any source is a venue! And, what NewsBusters is, is...another venue.

(Just as e-mail is. You can't say "E-mail is not a reliable source" ((...Well, you can, but not cogently!)); you must say, "Such-and-such source is doubtful because... " E.g., in the case of an e-mail, it can't be proven not a hoax in a particular instance; or, the person sending the e-mail is maybe biased; etc. But the FACT that the venue is an e-mail is besides the point.) --Justmeherenow (talk) 09:43, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Your comment above indicates that you have no concept of reliable source and self-published sources. Please review the guideline before commenting on the matter again. Newsbusters does not meet the criteria of a reliable source because it is self-published and has no concept of editor overview, therefore it should not be used on Wikipedia as a source... Regardless of the political leaning of a blog they do not meet the reliable source criteria. I would not expect MediaMatters or DailyKos to be used on Wikipedia as a source unless they were used in connection with the article about them. Your random posting of crap off of conservative blogs on the campaign's talk page is no more appropriate than if I were posting random crap off of progressive blogs on the campaign's talk page. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 23:03, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, Bobb, let's say somebody (I.) "self-publishes" some blather that (II.) nonetheless becomes of note in the culture, someway. Questions:

(A) Are the particulars of it as a primary source "controversial?" (Only in the sense of there being little contention that person A (I don't know. Ann Coulter?), within the venue in question (Handbills?), argued X (<sighs and wearily shakes head> That Christians are "perfected Jews"?)?)

(B) Has this person's argument (issue, contention, controversy) become of note?

If so, it can and should be contributed to Wikipedia. --Justmeherenow (talk) 03:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

If the secondary source is reliable, then you may use that, but you may not use the self-published source, because it is still a self-published source and not reliable. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 03:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

You: Never use self-published sources.

Wikipedia: Material from self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources in articles about themselves, so long as: it is relevant to their notability; it is not contentious; it is not unduly self-serving; it does not involve claims about third parties; it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject; there is no reasonable doubt as to who authored it; the article is not based primarily on such sources. --Justmeherenow (talk) 04:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't we talking about using Newsbusters as a source on Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008? You will also note that above I said "Regardless of the political leaning of a blog they do not meet the reliable source criteria. I would not expect MediaMatters or DailyKos to be used on Wikipedia as a source unless they were used in connection with the article about them." --Bobblehead ^(rants) 05:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Re Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008: Yes it gorshdamned IS in part about folks in the conservative blogosphere bitching - kvetching, if you will - about stuff during the course of the presidential campaigns. And in some case or another, we may well find that it is MediaMatters that we deem to be a good primary and/or secondary source about such said whining (or "kvetching" as it were). Dig?

That is, those principles that Wikipedia carefully lays out in relation to "self-published" sources means simply to be careful when using stuff substantially unvetted by "peers." So that in cases where such primary sources are the most applicable to the matter at hand, it is Wikipedia ourselves that is to vet them, that's all.

This encyclopedia project is about aiming for excellence by non-credentialed folks who are often amateurs. And, the rules we operate with around here aren't arbitrarily-drawn-up, legalistic compromises designed to be interpreted in their narrowest senses possible but rather are expressions of broad, guiding principles in The Search For Truth. Really! (Or I should say, toward an ever-balanced rendering of always-dualing views of this truth - with sometimes one camp considered mainstream and one or more others, while still substantial, being more the "minority" viewpoints.) --Justmeherenow (talk) 08:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

If the kveching/whining of self-published source makes it into a reliable source and is covered to an adequate measure, then the kveching/whining can be sourced via the reliable source. As far as "The Search for Truth", you may want to read the humorous essay WP:TRUTH. But, all in all, I think we're done here. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 17:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Bobblehead123

FYI, I just ran across a new User:Bobblehead123, whose one edit so far was a vandalism. Don't know if this is supposed to be a takeoff on you (which is a violation of some WP policy on usernames) or just a coincidence, but thought I'd let you know. Wasted Time R (talk) 19:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Probably a coincidence considering the article the user vandalized. I don't think I've ever edited the Gravel article. But thanks for the FYI. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 19:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Supersonics discussion

Hello. There's a new conflict between myself and User:Coz 11 on Talk:Seattle SuperSonics, which is related to the one you participated in several months ago. Care to offer a neutral voice? I would really appreciate it. Okiefromokla ^questions? 21:17, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

You reverted me - why?

I am surprised that you reverted my talk page edit at Obama's page. Why would you do that? Are you trying to stifle discussion? I thought talk pages are all about talk and discusssion. I object to you reverting me like that. I have restored my edit. 66.197.129.69 (talk) 04:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:Barack Obama near Capitol.jpg

Hi, can you point to me discussion/info that states this image is copyrighted as it is on Wikimedia Commons which should only contain free licensed images? Thanks Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 02:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

It was on OTRS ticket. I'll try to hunt down the actual message itself. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 02:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Alright, here's the first of the edits that removed the image: [27] A comment by the person removing it left on a user's talk page that questioned it: [28] --Bobblehead ^(rants) 02:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Barack images

Hi Bobbble. As you can imagine, I seriously disagree about removing set image sizes. I spent over an hour getting the layout of images on the Obama article to look decent. Different images have different properties and significances that require them to be sized differently to each other. This is the way it is in every single print publication and many major sites. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 03:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I believe there is a rule WP:IAR. In order to make the article look better, we need to follow that rule. Regards Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 03:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi I can't see anything on the IAR page that says it can never apply to featured articles. If you agree that the images look better, perhaps you'd help me in changing the policy page? Thanks Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 18:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Update on the Ohio campaign

So sorry, Bobble, that you deleted everything I added to the Presidential campaign section of Barak Obama, including a photo of Obama I had just taken 3 hours before at the Ohio rally I was trying to document. I was giving the photo of Barak to the Wikipedia viewers for free, and thought,moreover, that my documentation of the event - the first of its kind in the history of Dayton for an African American political candidate, was very important. The event, and the photo, had considerable merit. Probably more than the article that you let pass, about the turban, with sucn undocumented statements such as "The Obama campaign claimed that the Clinton camp intentionally leaked the photo, and that Obama was trying to be a nice guest." - without a footnote. Everything I had written, about Obama's very first visit to Dayton in this very important state, was documented.

Somalian garb sub article

Hi, Bobble. I'd like to request your help in creating the sub article about the Somalian garb controversy on the Barack Obama page. I also upload the photo below:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:25campaign-obama250.jpg

Thanks for your help: James Luftan ^contribs 23:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, the campaign sub article. I understand what you mean now. Thanks James Luftan ^contribs 18:01, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry about that. I should have said the campaign sub-article in my edit summary, not just sub-article. I knew what I meant, but obviously not everyone can read my mind. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 18:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Cantwell and Murray

Added requested citations, simple google news search on "Cantwell Superdelegate" provided four pages of articles. I picked one from Washington that was on topic. If that is insufficient in your opinion please let me know and I'll link another. Additionally, I think the fact that there are four pages of news articles on the subject shows that it is, in fact, worth of inclusion. I've heard it discussed several times on the radio and read articles in national publications on the issue, specifically in Washington State...since both Senators have thrown their support behind Hillary. Agrippina Minor (talk) 22:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

46 hits for Cantwell and 48 hits for Murray isn't really that many in the notability arena, but thanks for the reference add.--Bobblehead ^(rants) 22:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Your same rationale as before would make for a Delete here

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Scrollboxes

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

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

Thanks

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

Edit warring

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

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

Thank you

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

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

Obama protection

Feel free to interject if you consider my request to lift protection premature. I've basically run out of threads around which to weave further discussion, so thought it might make good sense for the active editors to crawl out of our bunkers and see if the hostile/friendly fire may have calmed just a bit. I've also learned a lesson or two from this myself. Won't know unless we try. If the edit warring resumes, then I think the next step ought to be a third FAR, but if you have an alternate suggestion, I'd welcome it. I've also posted notices to Bellwether BC[29] and Andyvphil.[30] Thanks. --HailFire (talk) 17:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

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

I left my thoughts on Avraham's page.[31] --Bobblehead ^(rants) 18:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Invite

Century Tower

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

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

User:Givemepink

So how do we block User:Givemepink? Here are his useful contributions: [32]. --DerRichter (talk) 21:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

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

thank you.

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

Johnpseudo's edit

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

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

My opinions of wright previous background

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

Martin quote on BO 2008

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

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

Wiki Woman

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

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

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

Well, at least you got named. You could be the nameless editor that "fully scrubbed" her edit on the Obama article.[33] --Bobblehead ^(rants) 17:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

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

PoliticalFamilyTree.com

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

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

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

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

Tool

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

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

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

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

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

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

FAQ

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

Good Idea

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

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

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

Request resolved.

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

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

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

Not being able to see the warnings might make sense because of your dynamic IP address, except you responded to my warning the other day.[warning[34]--Bobblehead ^(rants) 05:45, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

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

Obama dispute

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

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

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

Actually, I just shortcutted the RFCU and went to Thatcher.[35] Thatcher was the checkuser that was involved in squashing the Dereks1x's Archtransit sockfarm. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 21:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

BLP Warning

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

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

"Question for Andy"

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

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

Re: A Suggestion

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

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

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

Mediation?

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

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

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

Wright, take 382

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

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

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

Bracketology

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

freerepublic.com

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

hide/show

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

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

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

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

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

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

Delinking MLS

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

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

How exactly...

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

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

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

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

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

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

HRC length discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Deleted comments

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

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

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

User: Quorty

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

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

The blessings of allah

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

Malia Obama

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

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

Copy to you

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

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

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

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

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

thanks for help and offer to help

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

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

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

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

Happy Holidays

The Roman aquadux in china.

Misunderstanding

I think you misunderstood what i was trying to say, please see my talk page, ill clarify the talk page edit to avoid confusion. Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 02:10, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Jeremiah Wright controversy

Hi Bobblehead,

I provided you some more backround information on the article talk page regarding the "Comparisons with other candidates" section and the "Academia" section. If you have any questions, please leave a note on my talk page or the article page. I have been involved with this nightmare for sometime now and have tried my best to help Josiah Rowe calm the storm. IP 75 75.31.210.156 (talk) 19:30, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

please review

please review and correct the WP:RM and talk page RM tag. Thank you. BVande (talk) 23:15, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

iPhone

Heya, I think there should be a criticisms section in the iPhone article. At its current state, it's more of an advertisement than an encyclopedia article, to be honest. HJV (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 15:17, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello!

I wanted to clear up some confusion about JenningsandRall.com which some users of Wikipedia seem to be propagating. JenningsandRall.com was launched by the game Tom Tooman (just do a search on unfiction or the Jericho boards and you can discover this for yourself). The information that is kept there about its launch being unpromoted or random is false and misleading.

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.164.73.162 (talk) 03:03, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Incivility

I dont suppose your going to warn him for that blatantly offensive comment?--Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 19:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

He's reading the discussion page, there shouldn't be a need to throw a warning on his talk page that is redundant to the one already on the article's discussion page. It's not like he isn't aware that he should be civil. He's also not likely to have any "preventative measures" taken in response to such a comment. On the general level of incivility, his comment hardly registers. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 19:54, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

"Racist original research" was the comment - Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 19:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Like I said, hardly registers. He could argue that the comment was named at the content and not at the editor rather easily... --Bobblehead ^(rants) 20:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

From the discussion on my talk page it seems he wasnt even sure what i was actually talking about. Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 20:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Article size

The relevant text is at the very bottom of the page "It seems obvious from the above that the change to "readable prose" was made without prior consensus and should be removed. Ottava Rima" Oakwillow (talk) 17:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Warning. Do not revert something just to engage in a WP:3RR edit war. Discuss first. Oakwillow (talk) 13:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Article size

Please stop reverting on Wikipedia:Article size, per the edit warring policy. If a revert is needed, I am sure someone else will do it. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Barack Obama

I had tagged that "Presumptive Nominee" business with a citations needed tag, wondering if I had missed something - but good call on the removal. I'd also leave a note to the user, if you get the chance. Thanks, UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 21:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey There

Hey Bobblehead, I've run into a bit of a wall, and being that you are quite knowledgable in regards to the processes etc here I thought I might be able to come to you for assistance. So, during one of my many random wiki searches I ran into an article, which seems to have an exact copy just with a differently spelt name. There is a proposed merger template on the page, but it seems to be from over a year ago with no action on it (the comments on the talk support the merge of course). My problem being, I haven't the slightest clue how to do the merge correctly, even after reading the help page for it. Any chance you could give it a look? International_Fortean_Organization and International_Fortean_Organisation. Thanks in advance! Arkon (talk) 23:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Barack Obama

Please discuss your proposed edits on the article's Talk page, and demonstrate that you have consensus before reverting. I do not choose to engage in any edit war. Thank you. Kossack4Truth (talk) 22:00, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

By popular demand -

[36] - :-) Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 16:42, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Request for input ( x 2 )

REQUEST, if possible, your

• INPUT with regard my pair of re-titling proposals for 2008 Barack Obama presidential campaign "controversies" daughter-articles here and here. — Justmeherenow (   ) 08:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Canvassing

That is why I only alluded to WP:CANVAS in a vague way. It was based more on an objection to his language, than to any suggestion of cross-posting. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Sinclair v. Obama case

Please take this to the talk page instead of rudely reverting my edit. Also, what kind of sources do you consider reliable if not newspapers and government documents? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Geremia (talk • contribs) 04:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Response to your comment at Talk:Obama

I responded at Talk:Barack Obama#Consensus-building discussion of the options to the comments you made in the vote tally (you were voter #8 there). Specifically at the discussions for Option 7 and Option 8. Please take a look and see what you think. My point, put another way, is that the Weathermen are not as well known as Al Qaeda or the IRA. Broad news coverage can be seen here, and here. Thanks, Noroton (talk) 23:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Sock

You're right about socks. I guess it was relatively obvious to you all that 199 and Oakwillow were the same character so there was no question of socking. The way the thread ran it looked to go from 199 saying, "I couldn't agree more" to Oakwillow acting in coordination with this. I thought there was some deception there so I called sock. I'm prickly at the moment because there appears to be some alternate identity action going on in my neck of the woods. Mrshaba (talk) 23:58, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Request for your opinion

		Please Vote For Change We Can Believe In Or Even No Change at Obama Article
		Requesting your final opinion on the Bill Ayers language You previously !voted (here) on what language to use at the Barack Obama page. We're trying to get a consensus now. Please take another look at how the discussion has progressed (especially here) and consider what option might make the best consensus, then !vote again at Talk:Barack Obama#Call the question after detailed discussion: Option 3 or not?. Please keep in mind the discussion has been long, so if you can accept what seems to be a likely option, please do. This is one of Wikipedia's most prominent articles. Thank you. Noroton (talk) 23:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

On the point you made in the voting: I think you or anybody should be able to make a noncontroversial change from "the Weatherman founder Bill Ayers" to "Bill Ayers, a founder of ..." I can't imagine anybody objecting. Noroton (talk) 00:23, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Other Religious Affiliations

Hi Bobblehead,

I have removed the "Other Religious Affiliations" section from the Barack Obama presidential campaign article. The citations were from partisan blogs (WP:RS in a BLP) or the citations did not support the text. Both the writing and content were very POV and only Pfleger at TUCC was a real "campaign issue" in the MSM. I am not a regular editor on this article and would appreciate it if you could keep this material from being re-added. Thanks 75.25.30.215 (talk) 10:35, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Please think about this

Hi Bobblehead. It hasn't been 24 hours since I opened that tally on the Talk:Barack Obama page, but it doesn't look like we're going to get a consensus without a lot of editors changing their minds. I still have some hope, though. Would you consider moving your vote from the section it's in into the Option 3 section? I did that a little while ago, and I think it might encourage other editors to move their votes as well. It's up to you, of course. Noroton (talk) 20:57, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Bobblehead, Rezko was convicted of bribery

Your edit summary reverting me denied that Rezko was convicted of bribery. He was convicted on two counts of aiding and abetting bribery, two counts of money laundering, and 12 counts of fraud -- a total of 16 felony counts. Here are the Daily Telegraph and the Associated Press. [37] [38] AFP specifies "12 counts of fraud, two of aiding and abetting bribery and two of money laundering[.]" [39] If you'd like, I'll add the AFP link to the article mainspace. Kossack4Truth (talk) 10:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Why?

Why are you removing my link to WP:DICK? It's a legit redirect to an essay on Wikimedia. Maybe you should read it yourself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.12.114.215 (talk) 01:45, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to trouble you mate but the above anon (someone who is sore about an outcome at ANI perhaps?) keeps trying to make a wp:point on User talk:Andyvphil. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 02:00, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Scjessey edit history

Hmmm. If you actually look at my edit history, you will see that I have only made edits to enforce WP:BLP, except for minor things like formatting and grammar. Perhaps you believe I have been too draconian in enforcing the rules? If that is the case, the rules may need a greater level of specificity, but that would not be a reason to censure me. I do not believe a laissez-faire approach to BLPs is wise. In the case of political candidates, it allows opponents to use WP:NPOV as a tool to apply negative bias under the guise of neutrality. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I have been watching the Obama article far longer than you have and I know the crap that goes on there far better than you do. I also know your edit history on the article and how you have inappropriately applied BLP to gain the upper hand in this little edit war. You are not an innocent party here, Scjessey. The sooner you understand that the better. Most of the admins that patrol AN/3RR do not spend a lot of time reviewing the complaints there. The fact that you included "BLP violation" in the edit summary is enough to stop most from considering a block and the ones that did go farther and look at the content of what you were reverting you convinced to not block you with a promise to not edit the article for the period of time they were going to block you for, thus eliminating the "preventative measure" reasoning for blocking. If Andy or Kossack had actually been interested in filing an Arbcom case against you, or vice versa, chances are you would be topic banned, or worse, right along side of them. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 20:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

We shall just have to agree to disagree on the details of WP:BLP. I think you have judged me harshly in this matter, but you are an experienced enough editor to have earned this right. Your vitriol surprises me, and I shall certainly consider what you have said; nevertheless, I do not believe your charges are valid. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:15, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. ;) I'm by no means an uninvolved party here, so I am, of course, biased in some manner. Enjoy your wikibreak. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 23:20, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Smile

Pecopteris has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

--Pecopteris (talk) 22:15, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: Obama discussion page

I reverted here part of one of your comments. Would you please be very careful to follow WP:CIVIL on the talk page? Let's keep it as polite as possible, even with small things. Thanks. Noroton (talk) 23:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree, your comment wasn't really way off the norm, it's just the unusual situation on the page right now that concerns me, OK? All I'm asking is just take extra care in a tense situation not to set off sparks. Best, Noroton (talk) 16:10, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I just returned image "BarackObama.jpg" US - Jimmy Slade (talk) 09:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

File:Detective barnstar.png		The Detective Barnstar
		To Bobblehead, for solving a very strange rollback mystery at Talk:Barack_Obama#Rollback_4_hours through deduction rather than spending hours writing a script/program to find the problem. Shem(talk) 16:33, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Regarding "the fan"

Thank you for the heads-up. I filed the report as you suggested. After looking at the individual's contributions, I am pretty sure it is this guy, so I am sure it will be resolved quickly. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:37, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

WB74 sections

I was finding it hard to follow the thread because was replying to comments in a different section. It's up to him to figure out how to get around his device limitations. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:42, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I will take a break.

Bobblehead, not even the source you cited agreed with you or Scjessey. Why do I bother to cite sources when they don't matter? I'm doing this old-fashioned thing of gathering evidence and trying to make logical arguments and hoping (less and less) that editors will be embarassed to be shown to be taking positions contrary to the reliable sources -- even contrary to what Obama himself says. And I'm the one being called a "POV pusher" by Scjessey, LotLE and Rick Block?

Thanks for the advice. I think I'll take it. Actually, I think I'll go back to Wikipedia and do some editing there. Noroton (talk) 00:36, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Or you can edit somewhere else on Wikipedia for a bit.;) The tenor of the discussion on the page has pretty much eliminated my desire to edit there, so I haven't been following the discussion very closely, but considering how sensitive you are with WP:CIVIL, I was a little surprised to see the tone you had taken. Perhaps it's time to head further down the dispute resolution path? It doesn't appear that RFCs and discussion have resolved the dispute so far, perhaps a more structured method that is less tolerant of name calling would produce better results? --Bobblehead ^(rants) 00:51, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

What exactly is the point of my participating if attempting to reflect the reliable sources doesn't really matter? If hardly anybody really cares what the reliable sources actually say? It's beginning to look like a popularity contest, and I'm not interested in that. And if such a large number have no interest in looking at the sources and are actively opposed to the way I think we should write this as reflecting the sources, then it's not only not worth my time, it's not worth wasting anybody else's time. Better to have a lousy article with less wasted time than the same result after wasting a lot of time. I can't believe this is a featured article. I may think differently later about participating, but at this point I can't find an answer to "What's the use?" Noroton (talk) 01:29, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Election time is always a bad time for articles about politicians, particularly those of national importance. I wasn't on Wikipedia during the last Presidential election, but from what I've been able to surmise, John Kerry was just as bad, if not worse, than the Obama article is now. As far as Obama's status as FA, considering the amount of edit warring that has gone on the article, I'm surprised the article is still FA, but one thing I've learned is that once an article hits FA status, it has to fall pretty far before the status is removed. The article isn't that bad as a whole, but it certainly has a areas that could do with improvement (such as a need for improved treatment of Obama's negative aspects). --Bobblehead ^(rants) 01:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Heads up

Email comin' at ya... Tvoz/talk 02:59, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

typo in your post changing its meaning

Bobble- I think you meant to say "not sure" here as you did in the edit summary. Tvoz/talk 03:17, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Two apologies and a thank-you

I was looking at some guidelines recently and came across Wikipedia:CIVIL#Removal of uncivil comments which reminded me of this. I was absolutely in the wrong to remove your comment. I apologize for that.

And thank you for your note on my page about keeping cool. You cited this, but Block had been repeatedly goading me with this and then these on my talk page, although he kept cool on the Obama talk page, which I guess meant I was raising the temperature there. That made him look good and me look worse, whether or not it was intentional on his part. Actually, I did need to keep cooler and I also want to apologize for the impolite tone of this, which I could have written without the sarcasm. Thanks for your own cooler head, and I'll try to keep mine cool, too. Noroton (talk) 17:19, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Seattle Sonics

I want you to tell me if you agree with what I put on the talk page for the team. Just to make it clear, I am in no way angry at you because it might come across as that. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:59, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Now you're the one who needs to calm down

Please refactor your name calling on the Obama talk page. That was completely unhelpful and it was unlike you. Noroton (talk) 18:56, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

GAN for Seattle SuperSonics relocation to Oklahoma City

I went ahead and nominated Seattle SuperSonics relocation to Oklahoma City for Good Article. I think a stumbling block may be that Schultz's lawsuit isn't resolved yet, but I'm hoping the reviewer will recognize that the article qualifies for GA and that the case is proceeding so slow that radical changes will probably not be necessary any time soon.

Would you mind looking over the article and doing a little copy editing or anything else you think may be necessary? One thing I am working on right now is a "fan reaction" section, but it's just in the planning stages. It may not been needed for Good Article status, but for a FA Nom (when the Schultz case is finished), a fan reaction section would be very important.

I'm thinking something like this:

Fan Reaction
Seattle

• Fan disapproval of Schultz's sale
• Immediate suspicion that Bennett would move the team
• Save our Sonics and Storm organization
• Thousands gathering outside courthouse

Oklahoma City

• TBD

Let me know what you think or if you'd like to help out at all. Also, if you know of a suitable free picture of a fan holding up a "Save Our Sonics" sign or a pic of a SOS rally, that would be excellent for the new section. I've looked through Flickr, but there are no free images. Thanks. Okiefromokla ^complaints 17:17, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

That's a good idea. When I get down to working on it I'll see what looks best and ask for opinions on the talk page. As for your "leaving the country" trip — well, I'm a little jealous. Okiefromokla ^complaints 17:36, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

My RFA

Indeed. Let that be a lesson to you: Never leave the country for more than a week. Just don't do it. :) Okiefromokla ^questions? 22:14, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

True... True... After 2+ years here, I should really know that being on Wikipedia 24/7 is far more important than spending a couple of weeks jaunting through Europe.;) --Bobblehead ^(rants) 22:40, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Tabloids

Welcome home. I tried making that point too - here, but it wasn't too well received... glad to see some rational thought on the subject. Tvoz/talk 04:20, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Request for your comment

Here.  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 23:13, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

John Edwards

You're right, the IPs had already started - done, thanks. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

email

comin' your way Tvoz/talk 06:56, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

[ding dong] so do you Tvoz/talk 19:53, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Christine Gregoire

Per your input, I've started using the {{cite news}} template in all newspaper references. I would appreciate it if you would review my recent additions to this article and ensure they are neutral, informative and concise. I would also appreciate it if you would make recommendations about material that could be added to the article and leave those on the talk page. Likewise for material that could be pruned out. Thanks for your help, Cumulus Clouds (talk) 15:45, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

WA gub. el.

OK, I guess that works. Makes the table a little wide but it fits I suppose. And gee, those numbers were accurate as of my edit time. Maybe instead of just "as of" date we need to add time of day as well. :) - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 04:05, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Re: Block of CENSEI and Croctotheface

Replied on my talk page. CIreland (talk) 05:47, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Speech was on the 28th, not 29th

I think the user who first added it was from across the pond, given that they used BBC News as a reference. From their perspective, it was the 29th. Obviously the US date takes precedence in this article, but you might want to use a softer tone in your edit summary in case like this. I've been guilty of similar stuff, so you can very much refer to me as "The Pot" if you wish. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:54, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Wiki-linking Birth dates

I've noticed most Biography articles do this. Therefore, I assumed that's the norm on Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 17:16, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 17:44, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

re: summary of political positions

The thing is the material

When asked about her "crowning achievement" during her time as governor, she listed protecting "our state sovereignty by taking on the big oil industry interests."[3] Palin added that she desires that Alaska becomes a contributor to, rather than "takers from federal government."[3].

does not appear anywhere else in the article. This shows what she thinks is her best achievement, and thus says something about her political philosophy. If you want to re-add the sentence detailing that she hasn't always followed this principle, I'm fine with that. (That sentence wasn't a part of the original though.) However, please don't throw out the useful material, just because Kelly edited out the negative part.--ThaddeusB (talk) 21:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

My mistake, I edited it out of the governship section. I misred your comment the first time. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:32, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! --Bobblehead ^(rants) 21:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Probably not appropriate...

especially since I'm hoping the theory gets picked up on Daily Kos. A.J.A. (talk) 22:04, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Eh. Disclaimer under it now. A.J.A. (talk) 22:10, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Palin Wasilla Section Changes

We have a final draft (#8). Could you please take a moment to review and let us know if we finally have consensus and can publish it? Thanks.--Paul (talk) 20:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

re: library section

Hi Bobblehead - You seem to have a good eye for copy editing. Could you read through the 8th draft of the Wasilla section on the Sarah Palin page again and review for punctuation, grammar etc. I've read it through a few times but I think a few more editors need to review it before it goes live. Thanks, -Classicfilms (talk) 21:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't go that far, but I'll take another look. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 21:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Just a quick thank you

For fixing the references on my additions to the Bridge to Nowhere section of the Palin article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GreekParadise (talk • contribs) 04:35, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

No prob. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 04:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Palin

For clarification I wanted to react to the edit by the red linked user and his summary, who replaced the text with long text inserted from the subarticle, instead of a summary [40]. Hobartimus (talk) 02:44, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

"Live by the source, die by the source. Source credits the sales tax for the extra income that allowed Palin to cut the property taxes..." I have no problem with your edit, but the prior edit implied that Palin had increased taxes which wasn't true. She did the "fiscal conservative" thing... saw that she had too much money and gave some back, which she also did as Governor. The sales tax has evidently been good for Wasilla, I was looking through the most current financial planning presentation on the city website, and the 2008 property tax is ZERO and the plan for 2009 is the same. Best....--Paul (talk) 23:00, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Duplicate comment

Did you mean to do this?Ferrylodge (talk) 20:32, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Bobblehead. I just want to mention that I feel really strongly about mentioning Wooten's alleged threat in the Sarah Palin article. It's not only the most notable fact we have about his behavior, but is also the reason why Palin says her people were contacting Monegan; she says that her people were mainly concerned about her safety, rather than being vindictive due to Wooten giving her sister a hard time.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Is this before or after Palin denied that anyone associated with her contacted the PSC? :) But seriously the Palins were throwing so much crap against the wall against Wooten during the divorce/custody trial that the judge had to repeatedly warn them to stop disparaging Wooten because he considered it to be a form of child abuse.[41] Heck, the judge even told them that if they didn't knock it off, he was going to award custody to the husband and order a change of venue to get the kids away from her family. Regardless of what Palin may have "thought" about the "danger" her sister was in, it is apparently not one that the presiding judge of the custody case shares and is actually quite the opposite. I know you're a patent lawyer, so you may not be aware of this, but custody battles can get very nasty and the judge seems to think this was just another example of this. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 01:34, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

My understanding is that Palin didn't deny contacting Monegan about Wooten; what she denied was pressuring Monegan to fire Wooten. The only difference is that now she acknowledges Monegan might have felt pressured due to the serial nature of the contact from her people. You say that the Palins were just throwing crap against the wall. I realize (firsthand) that divorce and custody battles are messy, and I have no doubt that much crap was hurled every which way during Wooten's divorce proceedings. However, the death threat against Palin's father was something that Wooten was actually disciplined for; the State Troopers believed the accusation and susepended him for it (along with some other offenses). So, you can say that the judge didn't take the accusations against Wooten seriously, but the fact is that the State Troopers did believe some of those accusations. And keep in mind that Palin's son Track also claims to have heard the death threat. Are you really saying that Gov. Palin would likely stoop to urging her own son to perjure himself, and that the State Troopers suspended Wooten erroneously? The fact is, mentioning that Wooten was accused of threatening Palin's father would take about four words in the main article. If indeed it really happened, it would obviously be suitable for mentioning in the main article, right?Ferrylodge (talk) 01:54, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not even close to saying that Wooten didn't threaten to kill her father. What I'm saying is that there is no evidence that Wooten ever intended to kill her father and that the Palin and her family abused her position as a candidate for governor and then as governor in order to try and win a custody/divorce case and harassed the man so much that the presiding judge questioned their motives in open court and ordered them to stop disparaging Wooten or else the judge would grant custody to Wooten. I mean, obviously Palin took his threat so seriously that she had to go to a meeting rather than call the police.. But hey, that's just my own opinion, but if you want to include the threat in the article, you have to do it in a NPOV manner (IE, not tacked on to the end of the sentence I removed it from) and also mention that Palin and her family were disparaging the father so much that they were ordered by the court to stop. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 02:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Wooten's threat was that he'd kill Palin's father if the father hired an attorney for his other daughter (McCann). As long as the father didn't hire the attorney, there was no danger of anyone getting killed. If a police officer threatened to kill one of your parents, I doubt you'd like the police officer to keep his job. The sentence that you modified was: "Monegan alleged that his dismissal was retaliation for his failure to fire Palin’s former brother-in-law, Alaska State Trooper Mike Wooten, who was involved in a child custody battle with Palin’s sister and had been accused of threatening Palin's father." I don't see anything POV about that. What seems POV is to get rid of the last part, so the whole thing sounds like petty vindictiveness on Palin's part. It's true that Palin tried to get Wooten fired before she ever became Governor, in her personal capacity as a citizen, and I wouldn't have any objection to mentioning that in the article if you think it's important.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:14, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Sarah Palin. ...

I am sure you have noticed that some editors are consistently trying to eradicate anything critical of Palin. It is not irresponsible to revert relevant, properly referenced material. --Zeamays (talk) 18:09, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

		Civility Award
		For your part in reaching the excellent consensus version of "the library controversy" I give you this Barnstar. The way we all came to consensus on this contentious event was truly Wikipedia at its best. ThaddeusB (talk) 01:30, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I just came in at the end after all the heavy lifting was already done, but sweet! --Bobblehead ^(rants) 01:37, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:FAR for Barack Obama

Barack Obama has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.

I have nominated Barack Obama for Featured Article Review. You are welcome to participate in the discussion. Curious bystander (talk) 23:48, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Palin

Bobblehead, I do not understand this edit of yours. Where is it already mentioned in the article that those two opposed her election?Ferrylodge (talk) 02:24, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Check the paragraph on Stambaugh's firing. I moved it there as it seemed more of a bolted on sentence in the previous paragraph and Stambaugh's support of Stein was part of his wrongful termination lawsuit. Also, "firings" does not support the current wording as you claim here. It does not say that Palin's concerns about Emmons support of her administration were alleviated by Emmons saying she'll agree to have library and museum operations merged. While your editted version of the quote from the article does make it appear as such, the editing is very deceptive in that your edit removes a paragraph and a half of content from the article including a Palin saying she had Emmons assurance that she was behind Palin. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 02:37, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I've replied at the article talk page. Please knock it off with the bogus charges of "deception". Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:10, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Bobblehead, if the argument against the bridge is being presented, then the argument in favor of the bridge must also be presented. Sneaking in the argument against the bridge as an "explanation" of how the project became known as the "Bridge to Nowhere" (a name applied, strangely enough, by people making arguments against the bridge) is a Trojan horse. Kossack4Truth (talk) 23:51, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Then get consensus to add Ketchikan's population, but do not remove sourced information that already has consensus to be in the article. As you should be imminently aware, it is never acceptable to edit war over an article and if you continue to pursue this course it is highly likely you'll get a few more blocks added to your block history. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 23:56, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

You know, it seems that on the Talk page, consensus was supporting me on this matter. Either the population of Ketchikan and the island it's on stays, or the population of Gravinas Island goes. Take your pick. If you're going to include the argument for the anti-bridge POV, no matter what Trojan horse the argument is presented as, WP:NPOV requires that the argument for the pro-bridge POV must also be included. Kossack4Truth (talk) 02:09, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

tense bridges

The discussion about whether Palin "continues" or "continued" to support the bridge until June was thorough. As you will note, your source is as of June 10, and is weak evidence for using the present tense on Palin's support. Kindly use Talk: Sarah Palin if you wish to discuss this. Thanks. Collect (talk) 21:59, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

*laugh*Sweet mother of pearl. Do we have to add "As of" dates to every one of Palin's positions now? Unless there is evidence that her opinion has changed, then the default is that she continues to hold that position. Oh well. ;) --Bobblehead ^(rants) 21:08, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh? Nope. As she asked for a review in June, it is to be expected that her support would depend on the result of the study at most. To use the present tense, when this was hashed out in Talk:Sarah Palin a while back, is inane. Thanks. Collect (talk) 21:27, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Please see WP:CRYSTAL, but not worth discussing over, really. In the general scheme of things, the tense on this one sentence is inconsequential to the other issues that currently exist on the article. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 21:36, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser

Bobblehead, can you have a look at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Help needed with Aaron Sorkin and then examine the edits in question? There's an Obama connection in there somehow, and the edits seem politically motivated, and I'm wondering if you are able to generate evidence sufficient for a checkuser. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:46, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I can assure you there is no "Obama connection." Great guy and all but I'm not connected to him in any way. This is getting very kafkaesque. You're having a little trial (?) and I am in no way notified about it or invited. What is my crime? Homely Features (talk) 08:31, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Palin - 'Politicle Positions' section

Hi Bobblehead- Nice work on the Palin 'reception' section. I would appreciate your opinion on my comments on the 'Political Positions' section: [[42]] Thanks, IP75 75.25.28.167 (talk) 18:40, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

If you're interested...

I began to redo the Pike Place Market article with User:Jmabel in my user space at User:Rootology/Pike Place Market. My thinking was to tear it apart there first (thats underway) and then rebuild it for a Featured Article run. Doing it there lets us leave the live page alone and intact meanwhile. If you'd be interested, feel free to dive in. rootology (C)(T) 22:07, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Poking your memory

See your email - I'm trying to remember something. Thx Tvoz/talk 05:11, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

And another email PING for you. Tvoz/talk 22:13, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Image copyrights

Regarding the Obama image that you claim is a copyright violation on Talk:Barack Obama. Is there any way, Bobblehead, that other editors can find out stuff like this call to the senate office, who "originally" removed the image, or any other information related to any of this?! Looking at it, the image has been at the commons since April 2008... it is, of course, conceivable that it had previously been deleted, but then restored by someone else. As I mentioned, I'm resistant to just assuming "everything is a violation" given my previous failed attempts to release self-created PD images to WP because of overzealous deletionists. LotLE×talk 22:13, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for editing your comment above, but figured it should link to the correct article. I've also responded to you on Obama's talk page. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 22:24, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

no problem

Hi! I think WP:REF addresses my real concerns about multipe cites for the same poll in Joe the Plumber. CC made a big issue some time back seeking to prevent any new information being placed in the article, and some of his multiple sourcing using sources he fought against seems odd, I suppose. Anyway -- if you feel the claim needs 3 references which duplicate each other fine. Thanks! Collect (talk) 22:15, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Might you work on CC about the excess refs? All I try to do is make sure claims have a real ref, no matter the topic. Thanks! Collect (talk) 23:22, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Obama's Birth Hospital

There are some reports that he was born in Kapiolani Hospital and some that he was born in Queen's Hospital. How do you reconcile these contradictory reports?--Filll (talk | wpc) 17:09, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

As Tvoz pointed out on her talk page, the most likely cause of the multiple birth hospitals is shoddy reporting. One reporter probably misreported his birth hospital and because it is such a minor factoid, follow on reporters didn't validate that the information was correct and just perpetuated the incorrect hospital. It happens all the time, just generally the misreported factoid isn't noticed or cared about enough to be corrected. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 21:14, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Olbermann article

I'm not sure how changing the category from Category:American tax evaders to Category:American Tax Evaders resolves the BLP issue that you're identifying in this edit: [43] --Bobblehead ^(rants) 18:14, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't. Now it's fixed. I misunderstood what the UNDO would do. Or not do. Instead of getting cute with the UNDO this time, I simply zapped the line. I'll have to look through that cat and see if any more non-convicted folks are on the list. I'm not sure what the point of such a cat is anyway, but anyone not convicted certainly shouldn't be on it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:29, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Date of COLB

Why is it important to have the date the birth certificate was printed? It carries no significance, and it is non-relevant personal information (which WP:BLP says should not be included). -- Scjessey (talk) 21:02, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

The date has no value at all and can't be used for anything except to prove that the copy of the short form document was printed on that date. It is at best and worst useless information. It is not a BLP violation to include it, but there is no value in it. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 21:14, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Seattle FAR

I have nominated Seattle for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Best, epicAdam^(talk) 05:27, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Seattle/Vancouver

Yes, I just saw the sentence was about Metro area. Somebody had changed Vancouver article to say 2nd largest city in PNW & set me back & forth. Cheers --JimWae (talk) 19:39, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Not News news of the day

Please check out: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John McCain lobbyist controversy, February 2008 Borock (talk) 09:45, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Reverting edits that avoid redirects

No, the reversion makes the source easier to read and edit. See WP:R#NOTBROKEN: "unnecessary invisible text makes the article more difficult to read in page source form." TJRC (talk) 22:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Bobblehead. You have new messages at TJRC's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Nice catch...

Inre this diff... thanks. I should have caught it myself. Good looking out. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:46, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Spokane, Washington

I see you have been a significant contributor to Spokane, Washington, which is now a "good article". Thanks for your work on behalf of the project.   Will Beback  talk  04:29, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

phelps discussion page

thanks loads for deleting my legitimate discussion beginning on the phelps cannabis issue, you delete my starting the conversation, instead of acutally having a discussion, which is really lame of you... of course soon afterwards the same discussion came up again (haha too bad for you) and thankfully enough people got involved so your facist editing couldn't erase it again.... people like you ruin these discussion pages... the purpose is to discuss the potential additions to the main articles, but with your overcensoring of discussions many people with legitimate ideas will give up. I feel proud that I initiated a discussion that ended up making the main page, even if it had to be reintroduced by someone else after you deleted me

thanks for nothing —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nustran (talk • contribs) 11:42, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

At the time you added the discussion the only source was a tabloid, which is not a reliable source. Therefore you discussion violated Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy. Once Phelps came out and admitted it was him and it was picked up in reliable sources, then it could be discussed on the discussion page. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 19:17, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

discussion is discussion, not the main page, instead of working with it and seeking more sources, you just deleted, which was very wrong of you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nustran (talk • contribs) 10:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Please familiarize yourself with WP:BLP. Rumors propagated by sources that do not meet Wikipedia's reliable sources guideline can not be used to support sensational claims on any page on Wikipedia. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 17:09, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

bit of help

I was wondering if u could be kinda like a friend. I'm new to this and i want to get involved in stuff but i dont know where to start. Friends? CallMeAndrew (talk) 05:30, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I object to your hasty deletion of my talk entry on Barack Obama's article

You polled but only for 10 minutes. You got one vote in favor of keeping the discussion open and compromising. The reason you gave for deletion was "TL:DR" which evidently is "Too Long: did not read." Therefore the deletion was at a minimum hasty and from an self admittedly ignorant perspective. Several points that I and others remain, including constructive criticisms of the main article from more than one person, remain unaddressed. This is shoddy and with all due respect does not avoid the appearance of impropriety. My previous edit was to a San Francisco butterfly 3 years ago and was accepted (it is still there today, February 9, 2009). I am not a vandal or a spammer, and you have no shred of evidence given your justification "TL:DR" for asserting otherwise or that the constructive talk on the Barack Obama main article I initiated is other than in good faith. Please restore the talk article immediately. Eclectix (talk) 23:43, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

It is unnecessary to poll about whether or not a discussion needs to be closed or not and, frankly, the fact that there was a poll started is more a result of User:Ward3001 being a new user than anything. Based on the response that your discussion was getting it is clear that any productive discussion was concluded and it is on that basis that the discussion was closed. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 23:54, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree that there was no longer any productive discussion going on in that thread. Yet it goes both ways. There are no longer any viable arguments against not adding the controversy to the article. Yet those who oppose the addition of the information have continued to ignore the facts. The information is verified, it is notable, and there is precident to add it based on the Chester A. Arthur article. Closing the discussion before giving some of us a chance to rebutt arguments is incouragable. Not everyone sits at their computers all day and edits wikipedia in real time. Some of us work. Please refrain from being so BOLD in the future. I hope that we can work together in the future.--Jojhutton (talk) 00:30, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

There isn't a controversy over where Obama was born. The only controversy exists is in fringe elements of the far-right. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 00:40, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Its not a matter of far right and far left. The discussion was about whether or not the same information on the Chester A Arthur page is not listed on the Bacak Obama page. It was an open discussion and was still being discussed.--Jojhutton (talk) 01:15, 10 February 2009 (UTC)