User talk:Fat&Happy/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

Rahm Emanuel

Please take a look at the RE talk page. Hoping to hear from you. Thanks. Dr. Dan (talk) 01:29, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Tim McGraw

I just have to ask, how is adding Category:American country singers to his page redundant?? Just look at the the contents of the category under M, all American country singers are to be found, but no Tim McGraw. — Gabe 19 (talk contribs) 20:25, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

His inclusion in Category:American country rock singers makes his specific inclusion in Category:American rock singers redundant, since the former is a sub-category of the latter. Of course, someone might argue the "country rock" category is not appropriate for him, removing that category and restoring the plain "country" one. Or, perhaps a discussion at WP:CfD might decide the "country rock" category is too narrow an intersection and should be deleted, or at least considered to be and identified as a non-diffusing subcategory. But as that particular branch of the category hierarchy currently stands, double inclusion is redundant. Fat&Happy (talk) 20:54, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm not even sure why he's listed in that category, he should be listed at Category:American country singers. Just as a side note, Marty Stuart is listed in both Category:American country singers and Category:American country rock singers. — Gabe 19 (talk contribs) 00:45, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
I tend to agree with you; should one of us switch the category (on McGraw)? I have no idea who Marty Stuart is, but looking through his article, I'd vote for changing it back too. Fat&Happy (talk) 00:56, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Already doneGabe 19 (talk contribs) 01:31, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I swear to GOD u republican TOOLBAG

If I ever see you in life, i'd fucking hurt you U are totally 100% corporation, Tea Party, Anti-Gay, Anti-Abortion, Anti-Black, Anti-Hispanic, Anti-Immigrant, You are like a radio that spews out Rush Limbaugh 24/7. You need to be stopped. U will never know the pain that us poor democrats, blacks, and disabled go throw unless you die and get sent to HELL (u do believe in it right u Christian Fundamentalist) Learn some progressive shit dude, get out of ur fucking parents church. People Like you are what led to the incompetent PResident George W Bush invading Iraq. But wait u probably supported invading iraq instead of Pakistant or Iran. Get a life or seriously DIE caus u'd be doing us all a great favor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashiva2010 (talkcontribs) 21:04, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Emmett Till

On behalf of WP:CHICAGO, I would like to note my appreciation for being one of the people that helped to raise the quality of the Emmett Till article.

Symbol support vote.svg This user helped promote the article Emmett Till to good article status.

--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:01, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

" of the people", Moni3 95%, the rest of us 5%... But thanks, and I'm glad the article has been recognized; it's an important but greatly overlooked part of history. Fat&Happy (talk) 20:21, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Diæresis

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Diæresis has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unlikely character usage. Probably a useless redirect, but not recently created and thus not CSD-eligible.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. - Vianello (Talk) 23:12, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Edits to "Federal Reserve System Criticisms"

Hi - just saw you undid my edits in that section, and read the reasons mentioned: "related "NPOV" "fringe conspiracy theory"

- It is a section on criticism, and criticism is rarely "NEUTRAL" (if neutral exists at all - it is at best "widespread opinion") - The criticism mentioned is a not only a very important but also fairly unpopular one because of its direct implications, hence the label "conspiracy theory" that is a very convenient way of ignoring them. - The economists researching this topic are few, and tend to agree (hence, the "consolidate related criticisms". - Don't you think NOT mentioning this sort of criticism is actually more dangerous than letting it be so that people can attempt to refute it?

Personally, I came upon this research and it dealt a blow to my views of the banking system, and I haven't found solid refutation so far. I think it is important to bring more awareness to verify this, rather than hide it, which is why I added it to the "criticism" section.

How do you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:49, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Edits to "Federal Reserve System Criticisms"

Hi - just saw you undid my edits in that section, and read the reasons mentioned: "related "NPOV" "fringe conspiracy theory"

- It is a section on criticism, and criticism is rarely "NEUTRAL" (if neutral exists at all - it is at best "widespread opinion") - The criticism mentioned is a not only a very important but also fairly unpopular one because of its direct implications, hence the label "conspiracy theory" that is a very convenient way of ignoring them. - The economists researching this topic are few, and tend to agree (hence, the "consolidate related criticisms". - Don't you think NOT mentioning this sort of criticism is actually more dangerous than letting it be so that people can attempt to refute it?

Personally, I came upon this research and it dealt a blow to my views of the banking system, and I haven't found solid refutation so far. I think it is important to bring more awareness to verify this, rather than hide it, which is why I added it to the "criticism" section.

How do you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:51, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Edits to "Federal Reserve System Criticisms"

Hi - just saw you undid my edits in that section, and read the reasons mentioned: "related "NPOV" "fringe conspiracy theory"

- It is a section on criticism, and criticism is rarely "NEUTRAL" (if neutral exists at all - it is at best "widespread opinion") - The criticism mentioned is a not only a very important but also fairly unpopular one because of its direct implications, hence the label "conspiracy theory" that is a very convenient way of ignoring them. - The economists researching this topic are few, and tend to agree (hence, the "consolidate related criticisms". - Don't you think NOT mentioning this sort of criticism is actually more dangerous than letting it be so that people can attempt to refute it?

Personally, I came upon this research and it dealt a blow to my views of the banking system, and I haven't found solid refutation so far. I think it is important to bring more awareness to verify this, rather than hide it, which is why I added it to the "criticism" section.

How do you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:53, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Edits to Federal Reserve System Criticisms

Hi - just saw you undid my edits in that section, and read the reasons mentioned: "related "NPOV" "fringe conspiracy theory"

- It is a section on criticism, and criticism is rarely "NEUTRAL" (if neutral exists at all - it is at best "widespread opinion") - The criticism mentioned is a not only a very important but also fairly unpopular one because of its direct implications, hence the label "conspiracy theory" that is a very convenient way of ignoring them. - The economists researching this topic are few, and tend to agree (hence, the "consolidate related criticisms". - Don't you think NOT mentioning this sort of criticism is actually more dangerous than letting it be so that people can attempt to refute it?

Personally, I came upon this research and it dealt a blow to my views of the banking system, and I haven't found solid refutation so far. I think it is important to bring more awareness to verify this, rather than hide it, which is why I added it to the "criticism" section.

How do you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:54, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Causing inflation is causing inflation; two instances of the same criticism, especially when one is published by the proponents of the other, do not deserve separate sub-sections, which is why I moved the Rothbard book to the existing inflation section (though it probably belongs at the beginning of that section chronologically).
Criticisms themselves are not neutral; Wikipedia's presentation of them must be, neither appearing to endorse or refute their assertions – "explains" implies endorsement; "claims" would imply refutation; "argues" appears more neutral, like "says" but more forceful.
Nothing in Mullins' article indicates his writings are given any sort of credence in academic circles; certainly the quote from him is undue weight. It might be appropriate to mention him briefly with an internal link, but I can't see that as being particularly helpful. Of course, policy encourages you to feel free to discuss this further at the article's talk page. Fat&Happy (talk) 23:41, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Richard Goldstone

see comment on talk page regarding your 2nd revert within 24 hours on a restricted page, and why it should/shouldn't be reverted at all. thanks. Soosim (talk) 06:11, 28 February 2011 (UTC)


On 15:11, 24 February 2011 you removed link to Bertie Lewis stating no reliable secondary sources supplied - surely you cannot get a better source than the actual FBI file itself?!! --Rizlazu (talk) 13:09, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

What would you consider a worse secondary source than a raw, bare-bones FBI report and cover letter? Other than, of course, a pdf file purporting to be such a document, uploaded to Wikipedia by an anonymous user. Fat&Happy (talk) 22:36, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about that!

I just saw where it was covered. I was about to revert my own change before you did. Thanks for being civil and patient about it! Arnabdas (talk) 16:48, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. I actually consider my edit summary to be merely borderline civil, prompted by what I later decided was probably a misinterpretation of the last half of your preceding edit summary. So, as you said, sorry about that... Fat&Happy (talk) 22:30, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Not strictly Wikipedia business

In helping me with a small amendment to the Alec Baldwin page, you mentioned that you'd looked me up. Further to that, I have been an occasional editor as an anonymous user since the early 2000s. Later in the decade I formed a personal view that I should not participate in a serious, non-commercial, altruistic project involving public information as an anonymous user. At almost exactly that time I was struck down by a prolonged and serious disease that took me out of action for a couple of years, hence the gap in the history you can see.

My renewed interest comes as part of dusting off and oiling up my journalism skills, which were last used professionally ten years ago, given I 'drifted' into an IT career. What happened was that an acquaintance (who calls me 'House' after the Hugh Laurie character, because I use a cane to help me walk, and because he thinks I'm blunt, gruff and contrary) asked me to edit a comment piece he'd written for an IT journal. His response to my edit was: 'You're savage. You should be writing for Wikipedia.'

The episode reminded me of my past enthusiasm, and I looked again. Still in semi-convalescence, I have some time on my hands, and started to look at the 'roll up your sleeves' list of jobs (the March 2011 drive). That's where I found the Baldwin article, and then the ongoing discussion, which is somewhat surreal to me, since American domestic politics is a remote interest, and has always appeared somewhat heated about what I would regard as trivialities and artificial 'he said, she said' controversies (no apologies for being blunt about that). It did, however, occur to me, that a perspective other than an American one on America itself is not a bad thing, given that Wikipedia is one of the very few truly international institutions - ever (it's an opinion based on an argument for another time).

This means you are quite right that I am somewhat rusty with templates and conventions, but I also try to bring a completely fresh approach to every new job, so that I don't get suckered into that 'group-think' syndrome you sometimes see when people have worked for too long for an organization or too closely to an issue and stop challenging their own assumptions.

All this as an extended thank-you for the Baldwin advice and assistance, and, perhaps, as a reminder to my unknown American friends that not all the world sees things through North American eyes (I'm guessing you're a Floridan).

Regards --Peter S Strempel (talk) 05:59, 6 March 2011 (UTC)


You seem to be a mature wiki user, can you please tell me if it is correct to remove primary sources which may be of use from the talk page.

see here

the talk page of taqqiyah had many primary sources regarding "sunni taqqiyah", it was removed by the user al-andalusi.

his reason for removing it is because of "original research" and "propagating an opinion"

my question is, does wikipedia allow users to remove content from talk page for these reasons?--Misconceptions2 (talk) 12:49, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Since I'm not an admin, I can't really comment authoritatively on what Wikipedia "allows". As a personal observation, I think both the content and its removal were borderline. The content itself appeared to have some bearing on the topic, and (to my understanding) represented the views of Sunni scholars, so deleting it out-of-hand as original research is questionable. On the other hand, if in talk for an article on e.g. "Just wars", I were to insert a series of quotes from Norman Vincent Peale, Billy Graham, Fred Phelps and Jerry Falwell as proof of the Christian position on the subject, without any further scholarly analysis of the meaning of the quotes or their ability to represent Christian (or even Protestant) positions in general, it wouldn't contribute much to discussion on improving the article. Overall, a better approach, not overpowering the talk page with large, colored quote boxes, might be to have a statement such as "Many Sunni scholars have provided interpretations which seem to justify the practice of Taqiyya, as shown here:..." with links to the web site(s) from which the quotes were extracted (and whatever identifying information would aid in locating the quotes referred to). Fat&Happy (talk) 17:48, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Hey F&H

Hey, I noticed you are being harassed by an ip from Wayne State. Try not to be too frustrated by the university, there are many students there and a few game players are to be expected. In any case, my son goes there, so your implication is insulting. Mind you, this is tongue in cheek, you suppressor of gibbersih. heh-heh Dave Dial (talk) 18:01, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Ha. I know you know I know that... And it was probably a bit point-y, even if hat-ted. But I do think institutions are responsible for controlling misuse of their networks (and this includes school districts and corporations as well as universities). I am curious how you happened upon it in less than half an hour... Fat&Happy (talk) 19:54, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Ha! Talk page watching. You know, pages edited appear on your watch list, then you become a voyeur. :-P Dave Dial (talk) 20:51, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Ah yes. I've certainly done that, though after a bit I get bored by topics I'm not up on and unwatch. (I see (s)he moved to another cubby in the library...) Fat&Happy (talk) 21:39, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Raymond Ibrahim


I'm writing about an edit you made to Raymond Ibrahim.

In the process of cleaning up the article, you changed the intro paragraph. In place of the previous identification as a "scholar", you identified him as a "research librarian who has been called a 'scholar of Arabic history and language'". This strikes me as a) unsourced (he worked at the Library of Congress but is nowhere identified as a librarian of any kind) b) unnecessary use of passive voice.

Sources in the article support that he has published in scholarly journals, therefore it seems reasonable to describe him as a scholar. He has also become known for his opinion columns, so perhaps it would be best to describe him as a "scholar of Arabic history and language, author, and columnist".

Unless you have any major objection, I plan to make that change.

--E-hadj (talk) 22:55, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

"Research librarian", "archivist", or "language specialist" don't translate very well into an unqualified "scholar", and I haven't seen much evidence that, e.g., Daniel Pipes' house organ is a scholarly journal, so yes, I think I'd object to the change. But hey, what do I know – I'm just an Islamophobe. Perhaps you should ask about this change on the article talk page. Fat&Happy (talk) 00:01, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Created talk page for that article. You're right, he is identified as a research librarian. I want to keep your links, at least until this question is settled. Should I move this entire section from your user talk page to the article talk page? I don't know the etiquette about removing material from another user's talk page. BTW, the accusation was that you're an Islamaphobe, not an Islamophobe, so I'd give that low credibility (unless you have some problem with Muslim women for some reason...which I doubt :-) --E-hadj (talk) 23:40, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
LOL. I didn't even notice that...
I don't delete from this talk page, so the links above should stay around. I don't see that moving our first two posts to the article talk page would contribute much, but if you think it would, I'd like to delete the sarcastic comment linked to another topic, since that really isn't useful to the Raymond Ibrahim discussion. Fat&Happy (talk) 00:10, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Baldwin & Team America

Thanks for the follow-up on the Baldwin Team America thingie. I was so snowed with other things I missed your last reply (6 March). Looks good, achieved filling the gap I thought I perceived, is exactly where I would have placed it in the Baldwin article, and rounds off rather more time and effort on your part than it was probably worth. My best regards. --Peter S Strempel (talk) 11:12, 9 March 2011 (UTC) (21:13 local).

Hey, no problem mate. (Yes, I liked Crocodile Dundee, but "no problem" alone has now become so ingrained in my vocabulary I used it before I realized the connection of you being down under.) Anyway, I'm not too good on original work, but enjoy editing, so it was a win-win. Fat&Happy (talk) 16:51, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Citizens United vs. FEC

Just curious to know why you edited the "advocacy groups" section under "criticism" on the "citizens united v FEC" page. It used to state the names of the campaigns that are contesting the ruling. I see that you justified your removal of those references by NPOV (and some other acronyms I don't understand, including "sps" and "rm"). But how does it violate NPOV to state the names of non-governmental campaigns? Campaigns are listed all the time on WP. Can you clarify? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jhickel (talkcontribs) 19:59, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry 'bout that. After a while, habits of using shorthand in es (edit summaries) develop, but it can be confusing. ce=copy edit (a long way of saying "change"); rm is just "removed"; NPOV, I think you got, is neutral point of view – on my last edit it referred to some wording changes, not the deletions; sps is a self-published source, possibly not technically applicable to a press release on their own web site, but within the broad meaning. The overall point was that, with the exception of the charges made by Common Cause which were covered in Politico, none of the other content was backed up by secondary (reliable) sources to give it noteworthiness to be included in the article. Fat&Happy (talk) 21:03, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Obama's leak prosecutions

If it is OK to remove that from his article, why not also remove the section on Transparency, since the two are fundamentally related? There were about 10 references for the statement, why is it not notable? Decora (talk) 21:13, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Nobody said it's not noteworthy, although it's somewhat interesting that three of the seven references have the same author. But it bears more on his presidency than his entire biography. If you think there is older content in this main biography which belong in a sub-article instead, you can bring it up for discussion on the article talk page; if somebody adds new content fitting that definition, revert with an appropriate comment. And, of course, under WP:BRD it's still possible to try to build a talk page consensus to add the prosecutions content. Fat&Happy (talk) 02:47, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Ben Bernanke

Just reverted the anonymous stuff. I've left a notice on the editors page, warning them about 3RR and asking them to use the talk page. I agree with you that it's not something that's needed on the article. It's not sourced, and it's not notable. Until both are satisfied, it needs to stay out. Ravensfire (talk) 16:32, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Yeah, I tend to get a bit lazy with edit summaries; "not reliably sourced" may combine WP:RS, WP:SPS and variations of WP:NOT... Fat&Happy (talk) 17:10, 18 March 2011 (UTC)


This is a courtesy notice to let you know I mentioned you in a discussion at Wikipedia:Wiki_Guides/Change_CSD_to_userspace_drafts. BTW, don't hold Crocodile Dundee against Australia. It was a corny flick that gives the same kind of impression about Australia as suggesting that all there is to known about North America can be gleaned by watching Deliverance. And it's more 'no worries, mate' ('nuow wurriz, maite') than 'no problem'.

Peter S Strempel  Page | Talk  15:18, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Ha. Coincidentally, Crocodile Dundee et seq. were on one of the old movie channels here this past week, and since they were – believe it or not – the best things playing at the time, I watched them again. About three minutes into the first one, I realized my mistake, but figured posting a correction at that point was a bit too anal.

Paul Hogan used to have a half-hour comedy sketch program in Australia in the late 1970s and early 1980s that was spot on with its piss-takes of Australian stereotypes. To gain international appeal, though, from an Australian perspective he stopped being funny. That was my meaning about CD.

Thanks for the kind mention in the CSD discussion. I haven't read the entire discussion, but I particularly agreed with your comments on the "opaque, impenetrable black hole" that is the current Help system (in which I include policies and guidelines); in fact, I recently had a small content disagreement with Jimbo Wales himself in which I stated "the way policies and guidelines, and their exceptions, are spread out, it takes a Philadelphia lawyer to figure out whether the removal [of a link by a bot] was appropriate or not", and he responded agreeing with my "dim view" of such.

Good on ya, mate. Though I would have ventured a large Miami law firm. Did JW give you any indication whether someone might dispatch an expedition into the black hole to send tachyon beams back out?

Oh, and back to CD shaping my view of Australia, I've been on a (rather esoteric, occupation related) forum for several years, on which some of the more insightful members have been from Australia. Their comments last year during the U.S. healthcare reform debates were particularly helpful in summarizing your system which, unlike those of Canada and the UK, we hear very little about here, so overlooking the periodic bursts of anti-Americanism I have a pretty good overall opinion. Fat&Happy (talk) 16:40, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

If I may be so bold, from an outsider's perspective, the healthcare reforms are the single biggest US achievement in 50 years, surpassing the moon landing, all of the Cold War balancing act, and rivalling only the civil rights movement (of which they are actually a part). I cannot conceive of a Western society that does not understand the dangers of withholding existentially critical services to its members on the basis of ability to pay; it's a recipe for a violent backlash (self-service at the point of a gun), particularly if the evidence of wildly conspicuous wealth is only ever suburbs away. You live in historic times, whether you agree with Obama or not. My perspective ain't entirely Australian. I was born in West Germany, went to high school in England and migrated to Australia in my late teens.

As for bursts of anti-Americanism, I don't know that disagreeing with the more overbearing examples of American arrogance is really aimed at America per se, just its more ugly exports. You'll have to accept that sheer population density (Australia = New York - maybe) means there's more heard about and from the US than from many other places, so it's only logical that by the numbers there'll be more visible examples of everything, including the ugly. Bear in mind, too, that Australia has committed disproportionately (to its size, means and sphere of influence) to US-led boots on the ground missions ever since 1945; that means no matter what the chatter is here, the country is pretty well onside with the US when it comes to blood, sweat and tears. Something you might have picked up from Croc Dundee, though, is that we love to have a go at the 'tall poppies' (overachievers, the successful, the rich and famous).

Hafta go. It's 03:20 here and the crows will soon start serenading the dawn.

Would definitely like to hear whether Jimmy Wales gave any indication about Wiki help or policies. Maybe a link?

Regards from down under (stone the crows) Peter S Strempel  Page | Talk  17:32, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

No, it was just a couple of off-hand comments in a minor disagreement we both ended up giving in on. (He self-reverted his restoration of an external link I had deleted; I followed up by incorporating the link as a ref at two places in the article, so it was still available.) I mentioned it just as an indication you are not entirely alone in your frustrations sometimes.
And believe me, 99% of the participants in that other forum are pretty liberal – probably by international standards, not just U.S. ones. Some of the U.S. members are as apt to come up with "anti-American outbursts" as the Australian, Canadian or UK members (I've even agreed with a few of them myself at times), so I wasn't using that as a complaint against y'all. (Though there is a rumo(u)r being spread that if the Amis ever visit Oz, some parts of Brisbane are best to avoid – or at least keep quiet in, so as not to give away a Yank accent. :) ) Fat&Happy (talk) 18:02, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
ETA: I just re-checked your web site, based on a nagging misgiving about the above post. Honestly, the Brisbane comment was a random recollection of earlier comments elsewhere, not in any way intended to reflect on you or most of the, I am sure, good folks of that city... Fat&Happy (talk) 18:15, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Liberalism in the US has quite a different meaning than it does in the UK or Australia. Liberalism here is defined in a traditional British sense, which attaches some basic democratic principles to the term, as well as some reformist history, but, for us, embraces also Hayek and what you might call libertarians. In Australia, for example, the major conservative party (Republican in most comparisons) is called the Liberal Party of Australia (it is liberal in neither an American, nor a British sense). My point is, I must assume when you mention liberal as an adjective you mean what I'd call 'pinko' or 'lefty'.
That would make sense in terms of any debate about healthcare. In Australia, with the publicly funded system entrenched since WWII, lots of its paid staff have adopted attitudes that sometimes make me wonder whether they realise they are paid from my taxes. That's a price you pay for a public healthcare system, and probably the reason for the stiff opposition to it in the US. My own political views still make me prefer a public system with flaws to dead people outside the shiny doors and marble floors of private hospitals. But then my own political views had me decried as a communist by my alma mater's conservative club, and a reactionary fascist by the Young Labor Club (equivalent to young Democrats). In American terms I might be described as a liberal with a brain and a conservative with a heart, preferring very limited state intervention in the private affairs of citizens, but favouring a bias to the least privileged in whatever wealth distribution that does occur. It is from that perspective that I opined that taking care of the less fortunate is always good policy - to stop them from taking you at the point of a gun. It is also from that perspective that I think it is good policy to be a conspicuous ally of the most powerful advocates of liberal democracy and Western civilization, since I am unashamedly in favour of Western ideals over any others.
No need to apologize about the Brisbane comments. Many of the older guys who still remember the Battle of Brisbane would make no apologies for the fist-fights and discourtesies. I think it is actually an illustration of how much alike many Australians and Americans are. Brisbane is a small city compared to LA, but it is an Australian LA in that urban sprawl and massive internal migration have given it one of the largest land areas of any city with its population (about 2 million). These days it's quite cosmopolitan, with a sub-tropical climate (think a mixture of pre-Katrina New Orleans and Miami, or further South), but beaches that are about 100 klics away.
My blog is mostly earnest stuff about domestic politics, so no real indicator about my socially liberal inclinations (I probably come across like a conservative ogre). I find your online chat here to be relaxed and amiable, and not at all in need of modification or apologies; we have the same proportion of hicks and sophistos in Brisbane as any other Western city. It should be one of the joys of being active at Wikipedia to meet and exchange views with others without having to guard one's conversation needlessly. If there's a bit of elbow-to-the-ribs humour, so be it. If I come across as too serious, just tell me to lighten up, and I'll probably just ignore you. Ain't that what friends do everywhere?
Regards Peter S Strempel  Page | Talk  02:37, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Good Afternoon. (And speaking of which, is my PDA lying to me, or does Brisbane really not use Daylight Saving Time, but Sydney does?)
I haven't actually read your blog. My original "investigation" was mainly a check to see how active you were on WP; if you had been around for seven years and had 34,647 posts, I would have avoided "helpful hints" which might have seemed condescending. But seeing the link to the blog, I was mildly curious about where you were from and just glanced at the "About" page – then after the comment above, I thought I remembered that your part of Australia was Brisbane, and re-checked, feeling some embarrassment but obviously not enough to erase it...
Yes, what I meant was probably what you describe as "pinko, lefty".
I was just watching a discussion on TV about the disaster in Japan, and the thought occurred to me that I don't know if Australia was affected by the tsunami or not – I know it spread eastward to Hawaii and even some more minor effects on the U.S. mainland, but I don't recall hearing about it heading south. Hopefully everything there is OK; the country certainly doesn't need more natural calamities after the wildfires and the then the heavy rains and flooding.
l8r. Fat&Happy (talk) 03:18, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

No, your PDA is quite correct. Democracy in action. Queensland voted several time at referenda to not emulate daylight saving time, much to the chagrin of politicians on both sides. The arguments have always been about the cost to business of being out of synch with Sydney, and, on the other side, the futility of fiddling with clocks rather than personal habits. A deeper debate concerns the pursuit of penalty rates for workers required to work outside the standard 08:30 to 17:30 range of 'office hours'. Unions will not permit flexibility in re-setting those hours (the same number of hours, just at different times) without demanding penalty rates, and employers refuse to pay the penalty rates just to bypass the daylight saving hours regime. What a farce. Add to that the perennial comments such as: 'If we set the clocks back an hour to start the day earlier, my curtains will fade faster because the day will be longer.' Personally I was never much enamoured with clock fiddling. I don't mind getting up earlier when the sun rises earlier.

I don't think there's anything to the Battle of Brisbane thing. It's just a colourful anecdote from a bygone era. Men in foreign ports will do as men do. The locals will react the way they do. No one in Brisbane hates Americans because of fighting about women. It's an expected event between Queensland boys, who have a reputation in the south for being a bit 'blokey' (macho? physical?) because we beat New South Wales (NSW, the state to the south, of which Sydney is the capital city) in the rugby league on a regular basis, and these games, full contact without protection, can get a bit ugly.

Nothing that's occurred in Japan so far is likely to have an immediate impact on Australia, but Plutonium leaking into ocean and atmosphere is hardly a comforting thought. My concern about the whole Japanese tragedy at the moment is that even as advanced a nation as the Japanese seem to be completely helpless in the wake of this triple disaster.

Queensland is still recovering from being three quarters under water just a month ago, with many rural areas still resembling war zones. Fruit and vegetable prices have sky-rocketed ($7 for a kilo of tomatoes that used to cost $4) because an entire season's harvests won't be made. Some economists are saying between 2 and 4 per cent of national GDP will be cut from output this year because of lost productivity, principally in Queensland's many coal mines (which serve huge Chinese and Japanese clientèles). But the flooding stopped in February, and Tsunamis in the Pacific rarely travel this far - the fault lines, currents and heat patterns don't flow that way. Our cyclone season isn't over yet, but it's an expected event every year, unlike our recent floods or the Japanese disaster.

What's your local climate like? I'm sitting here in Australian football shorts and sandals, wearing very little else. We are in our autumn, heading towards winter (down under all your patterns are reversed). Cold for winter is anything below 15 degrees centigrade (you'll have to do the math for Fahrenheit), which is hardly what would be considered cool in the northern hemisphere. I know people here who've never seen snow, though there are seasonal snowfields in NSW and Victoria.

Regards Peter S Strempel  Page | Talk  09:15, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, got a bit busy IRL. I'd say our overall climate is a bit worse than yours; I found the weekend to be wonderful, riding around in a golf shirt, the sunroof (moonroof? what's the difference?) open (and wishing it was a convertible), but we were still several degrees cooler than you, so I decided to forgo the shorts.
I discovered my confusion had nothing to do with the PDA, but rather my faulty memory; I was thinking it identified Sydney as being in Queensland, but rechecked and saw it was properly marked as NSW. I'm used to local-option in the U.S., so wouldn't have been quite as surprised if I hadn't mistakenly thought they were in the same state. (And on the PA screen, 460 miles looks very close...)
I don't now if I'm just watching the wrong channels, but while it's obviously covered, especially with the nuclear plant, Japan doesn't seem to be getting as much play here as the tsunami at the end of '06. Maybe it's the industrialized country vs. "third world poverty" (even in India). Of course, maybe I just reacted more to the earlier one because of friends at work who have family in Mumbai. Whatever, I guess we just have to watch and hope for the best at this point. G'day. Fat&Happy (talk) 16:49, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Don't quote me on this, but I sense a feeling of black despair and foreboding even among veteran journalists covering Japan (I know some of the Australian ones personally) that is quite unusual in media coverage, and that makes me choke a little about what they're not yet telling us. Nothing to do but wait and watch.
Don't ever tell a Sydney-sider you thought they lived in Queensland; you'd get lynched. Sydney looks on Queensland the way new Yorkers look on LA (and vice versa). Brisbanites, on the other hand, would get quite a chuckle out of the oversight, and might laconically suggest Sydney was a southern suburb.
Stay well. Peter S Strempel | Talk 17:35, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

March 2011

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on Barak Obama. Thank you. [1] - No, there was a point, which was even placed on the talk page as well as in the edit summary. Your almost immediate revert seems a bit hasty and knee-jerk, and your edit summary was certainly ABF. If editing political articles makes you tense and/or edgy, perhaps you might want to consider taking a break and editing something else for a bit. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 15:54, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

No, there was no point to the deletion, other than possibly to demonstrate frustration that the rest of the world did not respond quickly enough to a demand by an editor who obviously has edit capabilities on the article and could have moved the paragraph unassisted. I do, however, find the footnote in your signature rather interesting, if somewhat ironic. Fat&Happy (talk) 16:22, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
A request for discussion is not a demand. Your revert replaced content in what was clearly the wrong section. Why did you not place the content in a more suitable section, rather than knee-jerk revert? Note: i have no foot note in my sig. I have a link to an essay written by someone else. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 18:02, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Oh, I don't know. Perhaps someone who chose to truly assume good faith might consider that perhaps I saw an unwarranted deletion of material which seemed to clearly belong in the article, but for whatever reason lacked the time or inclination at that moment to study the article and determine the exact proper location, so decided to at least save the material from being eliminated entirely. What did the other editor say when you asked on their talk page why the content was not placed in a more suitable section rather than being deleted out-of-hand?
By the way, there was no "request for discussion". There was an admittedly politely phrased request that the content be moved, but the summary deletion of the content in question after 15 hours with no other intervening comment would seem to lend some credence to its characterization as as a demand. Fat&Happy (talk) 18:50, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Starting a thread on talk is a request for discussion, by action. No one responded in 15 hours, the editor was bold per BRD. So far, so good. When the BOLD removal of the inappropriately placed content was reverted, the editor requested in an edit summary that editors "see talk" - again, a plea for rational discussion rather than edit warring. I must completely disagree with your assertion that the actions were in any way POINTy. Edit warring to keep the content in place without discussion, however, could well have been POINTy, and was certainly not helpful. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 17:31, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Obviously we have a difference of viewpoint on this. I don't really see continuing to restate these differences as being a particularly productive use of time. Fat&Happy (talk) 19:21, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Japanese disaster

Following my gloomy prognosis yesterday, earlier today I read quite a different perspective in The Register (if you don't know it, it's an online news for nerds thingie emanating from the UK). Have a look at their assessment.

Regards Peter S Strempel | Talk 14:40, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, that's certainly a more hopeful viewpoint. I was beginning to have these Nevil Shute-ish visions of everyone standing at the water's edge watching the great nuclear cloud approach from the north. Of course, I also see the Register's view as being a bit slanted the other direction, but it's a useful antidote. Fat&Happy (talk) 19:17, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Stephen Harper

I actually disagree with you. It is matter of fact. Just because politicians want to twist words around doesn't deny the fact. Kingjeff (talk) 17:05, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Obama and BLP concerns

In this edit you cite BLP concerns. What was wrong with the previous version? It was properly sourced. I fear that the "punch" and whole point is now removed and we're left with a "duh" statement. -- Brangifer (talk) 08:05, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Trump: "a joke"; "ridiculous"; "a fool". See, I thought the purpose here was to provide accurate information in a neutral manner, not to "wow" the audience. Fat&Happy (talk) 15:22, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Have you read our sourcing policy? Those weren't my words. The thing that makes his birther remarks most notable is the reaction to them, and there have been many and they've been strong. What I quoted was mild. We aren't allowed to whitewash things. If a source is disparaging or expresses ridicule, we aren't allowed to diminish the POV expressed in the source. That's POV editing. NPOV REQUIRES that we cover the subject from all POV expressed in RS, and leaving out a POV is a violation of NPOV. To avoid BLP problems we cite RS and quote the source. That's exactly what I did, so I don't see any policy-based reason for your actions. Please explain. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:38, 2 April 2011 (UTC)


Kudos for research (redirect back and revert) of USS PT-109 per WP:Naming conventions (ships)#Ships with hull number only on March 31st. I thought that was the proper policy, how it was before. However, I had not gotten around (yet) to researching the matter; it was on my list to do. Now, it is moot. I reverted back the specific language in the JFK article to match. Keep up the good work and stay out of trouble. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 15:10, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. As frequently happens, that was based on randomly triggered curiosity. Someone had made an italicization change in the JFK article (on my watch list), and it jogged a memory somewhere about a discussion or edit summary months ago about the USS John F. Kennedy (CV-67) and what a PIA it is to format properly, so I wondered, since PT-109 seemed like a hull number, not a name, whether it should be italicized. Those guidelines are definitely not a place to find something quickly and easily, but when you get to the correct sub-section, the PT-109 is used as a linked example for correct naming – but when I hovered the link, it showed as a redirect. Bleh. Fat&Happy (talk) 15:37, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
I was still curious about proper form for use in the MTB PT-109 article itself and checked your edits to the JFK article. In some ways, I found the guideline to be ambiguous (i.e., it didn't seem to definitively answer the original question of whether, as a hull number, "PT-109" should be in italics), but I came away with the distinct impression that "Motor Torpedo Boat" should not be. Thoughts? Fat&Happy (talk) 15:51, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
I agree it should not be as to the name of the boat; The PT-109 was a type of MTB but, that was not the US Navy designated name; Patrol Torpedo (PT) was; with that said, I put it in italics in the JFK article when referring to the subject matter, the title of the boat article. Kierzek (talk) 16:15, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Maybe I'm exceptionally dense today, because I don't follow you. As I interpret your comment above, for example, in the second sentence of the lead of the JFK article, both "World War II" and "Massachusetts's 11th congressional district" should be in italics as the titles of the war and district articles, respectively. What am I not getting here? Fat&Happy (talk) 20:09, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
It sounded good earlier today but now after reading your reply and looking at it again; well, it must be my brain was caught up in April Fool's Day. BTW-I fixed the JFK article. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 03:51, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Ha ha. Now that's an explanation I'd expect to get on March 17, not April 1. At least I feel a bit better that I was not overlooking something glaringly obvious. Fat&Happy (talk) 04:20, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
And I have it on good authority that exactly 27,654,864,965 angels can dance on the head of a pin. Fat&Happy (talk) 15:54, 1 April 2011 (UTC)