User talk:Loonymonkey/archive1

obama fundraising debate

While i will concede i should have place the body of my text in the bottom fundraising section you nothing i wrote was factually inaccurate or misleading. There is a lack of a criticisms section for this particular candidate. THe article is in its current form misleading because it says that " Obama has said he will not accept donations from federal lobbyists or political action committees during the campaign" yet there is clear evidence to the contrary. In light of the harsh criticism allowed on the hillary clinton page i feel that the bias on the Obama page is i feel that this saying that i am being misleading is unwarranted. Taps Two Worlds To Fill 2008 War Chest By Matthew Mosk and John Solomon Washington Post Staff Writers Sunday, April 15, 2007; Page A01 Obama's supporters get around money limitLance Williams, Chronicle Staff Writer Wednesday, August 8, 2007

I would also like to ask you to characterize how this should be characterized given http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/08/us/politics/08obama.html?ex=1331010000&en=b6cf764c22aba91b&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss.

New Hampshire Results

Hello, the "final" results, with 99.66% of precincts reporting, were 38.99% for Sen. Clinton and 36.39% for Sen. Obama. See those results here.UberCryxic (talk) 06:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

On top of that, as I mentioned in the talk page, every major news organization, from Fox (see Fox's final tally here) to MSNBC to scores of newspapers, have cited 39-36 as the final number. I really don't know why CNN says 39-37. It's just weird, but they're wrong.UberCryxic (talk) 06:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

CNN, the New York Times and several others have a "100% reporting" figure of 36.5%. I favor including the decimal which makes this argument moot. --Loonymonkey (talk) 15:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Official results from the NH Secretary of State say 37%,[1] so that's what we should go with. --Loonymonkey (talk) 16:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Well this really is an odd situation. Apparently there is a disagreement with the sources. The one you give is actually not the NH Secretary of State per se, but the Boston Globe citing the NH Secretary of State. That Boston Globe tally gives Obama's vote count as 105,004 and 37%. The MSNBC tally gives Obama's vote as 104,772 with 100% of precincts reporting. They say Hillary won 39 to 36 (as does Fox). How do you propose we move forward on this? Most news sources say 39-36.UberCryxic (talk) 19:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I should also note that all these organizations are obviously using the NH Secretary of State, so one could make the same claim for all of them that you did for the Boston Globe, using a secondary source and trying to pass it off as a primary one. If you can find the actual NH primary results from state officials, then that would be the final arbiter. Right now, the Boston Globe vote tally for Obama seems...."unique."UberCryxic (talk) 19:08, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok you are right. The official results are here. I also went through the numbers myself and Obama was just above 36.5%.UberCryxic (talk) 19:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Twinkle may have a bug

Hi. I got a speedy deletion note (A7, no asserted notability) for a redirect I created by moving a page, Nick curran (musician) to Nick Curran (musician) (note the capitalization). Since you did not tag the latter for speedy deletion, I saw no reason to leave the tag on the former. My guess is, this is a bug with Twinkle which you should report to its creator. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 02:51, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll look into it. --Loonymonkey (talk) 02:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Warning Vandals Advice

Hi. Thanks for the head's up. Knowing the protocol is important. After the Level 4 warning, besides being reported, should I have continued the reverts, or waited until the block was in place to do all of the reverts at once? If you see me out of step with the normal procedures on anything else, please don't hesitate to clue me in. Thanks again. Igoldste (talk) 20:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Rfc on United States presidential election, 2008 usage

Please see Rfc on this issue. TableManners^C·U·T 23:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

An Incumbent Can't Succeed Herself

Having a Successor section in the Infobox of an Incumbent is meaningless. The Incumbent can't be his or her own successor, so the section serves no purpose. Go to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Infoboxes for a full discussion of this regarding another article. --SMP0328. (talk) 03:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Vysoko (Yulia Savicheva album)

Hi. Just a friendly reminder, you tagged Vysoko (Yulia Savicheva album) for speedy deletion under criterion A7. I have removed the tag from the article because it does not meet the criterion specified, because A7 only applies to real people, organisations and companies, groups, and websites, not albums. The article's subject was an album, not a biography as it was tagged. I advise you to re-read Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion so as to avoid making mistakes like this in the future. Thank you, Spebi 21:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

My mistake. I thought that one fell under the category of band. --Loonymonkey (talk) 21:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment invited

As an occasional past editor at Template:United States presidential election, 2008,
your comment is invited at Template talk:United States presidential election, 2008#Revisited: Proposal on minimum standards for listing on template
-- Yellowdesk (talk) 18:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Fixed warnings

I hope I have cleared up the problem with Pay Per Play. I accidently deleted the tag (then replaced it) when I was removing a portion of the article that was causing an advertisement warning. I'm am seriously committed to trying to write the article appropriately, so please help me, so it does not get deleted. Thanks.

CohibAA (talk) 18:40, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Swirlitrash

Thats not my article...I don't know why you are telling me thats its goning to get (and already is) deleted. --Thebluesharpdude (talk) 23:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Possibly a bug with Twinkle. I didn't leave the message personally, it was automatically added by the CSD script.--Loonymonkey (talk) 23:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

For some reason, it notified you because you placed the AFD tag on that article (should have been speedily deleted, AfD is a waste of time in cases such as that).--Loonymonkey (talk) 00:15, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Political controversies

Hello. Since the regrettable biting incident when I was a newby and which still scars me I've tried to avoid controversy so I won't be entering a revert war over this. In the case of the Barak Obama article the lack of a controversy subsection is a major deficit. All politicians have controversy and so it is best to address it in a productive, proactive and orderly manner. It seems that a section or subsection is customary in these articles. Regards.Trilobitealive (talk) 22:47, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, no, controversy sections are strongly discouraged. They are poor encyclopedic style and in practice tend to simply become POV magnets where anyone opposed to the subject will dump any editorial or attack piece they can find. Most importantly, they give undue weight to subjects which may not be at all noteworthy. It is much better (albeit harder) to weave notable controversies into the relevant sections of the article. In this particular case, a lot of work was spent by a number of much better and more experienced editors than myself specifically dismantling these attack sections in the presidential candidate articles and integrating anything notable into the body of the article. Please note that there are no criticism sections in the John McCain or Hillary Clinton articles either. This is by design. Unilaterally adding sections and reverting other editors (without first reading through the discussion archives to see if this has been addressed) is not the way to go about this. --Loonymonkey (talk) 00:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Fine with me. I do agree with your point about unilaterally reverting other editors...Regards.Trilobitealive (talk) 00:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Glad to see you quoting Gzkn's excellent point - I quote it too when people ask about controversy sections. Bobblehead also has some good observations on this that I've quoted. But Gzkn really hit it. Tvoz |talk 08:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

RPI Players

Hello, Loonymonkey. {{db-repost}} is used on re-created articles that were deleted from an AFD discussion. Thanks. JetLover (talk) (Report a mistake) 23:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake. So articles that were deleted by CSD just need to be renominated for the same reason? --Loonymonkey (talk) 23:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes. It's kind of confusing. JetLover (talk) (Report a mistake) 23:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Yep

Probably did. Sorry... Two One Six Five Five ^τ _ʃ 21:19, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

If you're talking about the Michelle Obama revert, where does it say that she belongs to the Church of Satan? Where's the source? Two One Six Five Five ^τ _ʃ 21:22, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Template discussion

As an occasional editor to the discussion at Template:United States presidential election, 2008 your input would be appreciated at Template talk:United States presidential election, 2008#Proposal: A return to the old standards. Thank you.--STX 04:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

colons in category links

Hi Loonymonkey -- when you're talking about a category, you should add a colon before the category name. That way it displays the category name, rather than adding the category to that talk page. [[Category:Harvard Law School alumni]] would add the category to the page (and make the text invisible); [[:Category:Harvard Law School alumni]] would just add the text, a la Category:Harvard Law School alumni. Cheers, Lquilter (talk) 15:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Oops. I knew that. Sorry. Chalk it up to sloppy proof-reading. (I assume you're referring to talk:Barack Obama which is the only category discussion I've had recently). --Loonymonkey (talk) 15:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Right, of course -- Barack Obama. Sorry for my vagueness. I thought you probably knew it, but on the off chance that you didn't, thought it might be helpful. The colon trick was darned annoying for me, back in the day, until I figured it out! Cheers, Lquilter (talk) 19:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for the posting on my talk page. I do think I crossed the line and I am sorry for that. Also, I appreciate your civil tone. I really don't like edit warring although I have been doing it so much lately. I think I hit the breaking point yesterday and now I will try to completely avoid edit warring altogether.--STX 22:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

removing talk page content

As per WP:RPA, it's usually better to report objectionable talk page content and let someone else deal with it than simply removing it yourself. I think the comment was probably borderline as an attack and a better route might have been to politely ask the poster to focus on content, not commentator. Ronnotel (talk) 16:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

That didn't come out of the blue. Unfortunately, that user has been stalking me lately...any comment I post on any talk page will be followed by a long string of (often nasty) personal attacks. --Loonymonkey (talk) 16:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)comment moved from my talk to here for clarity, (let's keep this in one thread) Ronnotel (talk) 16:23, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

If someone is stalking you all the more reason to ask for a friendly admin to help out. I will be happy to take a look. But please review the policy I cited and try to avoid removing talk page comments in all but the most egregious cases. Ronnotel (talk) 16:23, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that would be great if you could take a look at it. I've left warnings, but I doubt it's going to stop. In particular, take a look at this whole series of edits from yesterday. [2]Honestly, I've looked over the edit history and I'm not even sure what the guy's beef is. I don't seem to have had any dealings with him previously.

OK, I'm a bit wrapped up at the moment but I'll take a look later today. Ronnotel (talk) 16:39, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Re accolade as Hillary caption

"Unhelpful"? Even the Weekly Standard, of all places, awarded it to the progressive candidate:

Even Hillary Clinton, the Lioness of Tuzla, can't compete with McCain in this area.

---Surprisingly counterintuitive, I know, for such a conservative rag. (But unsurprising, really, in light of the bonefides she's engendered through her recent speech, I would guess! lol) — Justmeherenow (   ) 22:45, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Obama POVs

Would you mind warning User:Thegoodlocust for his POV. You've been involved only for a short time, and it would be probably more appropriate that way. Thanks, Grsz11 00:38, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

"NPOV" Warning on Nancy Pelosi

My contribution toward Nancy Pelosi regarding her trip to Syria was done trying to make the article more neutral, not more biased as you claim. The article is full of information regarding the trip, but there was no information regarding the criticism she received, which would be necessary in order to maintain the NPOV. Otherwise, the article would clearly be slanted to the left. I do not appreciate being threatened for trying to improve the article and I would politely ask that you remove the warning from my page. Thank you. 192.77.143.167 (talk) 20:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

You should probably re-read the policies to learn what neutral point of view actually is. You are saying that if you are not allowed to add your point of view for "balance" then an article will not be NPOV. That is completely incorrect. The goal is to keep all POV out of the article, not to add POV from both sides. As for the edits you made, no reasonable editor would consider it NPOV to refer to Nancy Pelosi as the "Damascus Diva" and a "terrorist sympathizer" as you did. Those sort of inflammatory POV statements (whether yours or Sean Hannity's) do not have a place in a biography of a living person. --Loonymonkey (talk) 00:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Funny! I have seen tons of criticism sections on pages for people with conservative political views, yet I have seen very few on those for people with liberal political views. Example: there is a whole page dedicated to the comments Rick Santorum made when he was only stating his opinion about homosexuality yet the liberals were up in arms about it. If there is a whole page for that, then there certainly should be room for at least a comment about what someone such as Sean Hannity says as he has a major influence on the political scene. The McDermott edit was a joke, and I had planned to erase it after about half an hour, but someone else got there before me. On the Pelosi article, I am only telling the truth about what conservatives such as Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity thought about the trip, I was not trying to vandalize it. Additionally, Wikipedia's global warming policy clearly promotes a left-wing agenda. I take it that NPOV really means LWPOV (Left Wing Point of View) at Wikipedia. Perhaps someone should undertake an effort to fix the problems with this website before it becomes another version of the New York Times. Thank you. 192.77.143.167 (talk) 02:27, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism is never acceptable, even if it was "a joke" and you "planned to erase after about a half hour." You have a long history of such disruptive edits and that behavior will get you blocked. Ranting about how much you hate Wikipedia for not allowing you to include your extremist opinions in articles doesn't change the fact that you simply do not follow the rules. --Loonymonkey (talk) 16:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

"Extremist opinions." You are probably an elitist from San Francisco who loves to look down on the majority of American opinions. You did not address any of my concerns and instead you claimed that two edits are "a long list." You should know that this IP is shared and others have edited it as well. I pray for you. 192.77.143.167 (talk) 06:27, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I noticed that you have been erasing my edits and I have reported your abuse of your "anti-vandalism" position. Please stop before this goes further. 192.77.143.167 (talk) 22:04, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I see that you were scolded by an administrator for abusing the process on that one. Better luck next time. --Loonymonkey (talk) 15:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

2008 US Election controversy article

Please advise. This page was initially created because people kept adding politically motivated information to the Bill Ayers article. USER Wikidemo suggested this new article to allow wiki user to highlight controversies from the election representing both sides. It is a fairly new article and updates are being made. I do understand user comments about the material on Obama. I have encourage other users to add additional information. One user MikeWren provided a helpful addition on McCain. If if users don't add info about McCain or Hillary maybe the article should be changed to Controversies about Barack Obama. Please let me know you thoughts and thank you very much for your input. It is me i think (talk) 18:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

That's my point exactly. There already exists articles about specific controversies which are notable and well referenced. This article is simply a coatrack of attacks against Obama, some notable, some simply blog chatter. The solution is not to add more dirt on Clinton and McCain to make it "balanced." Considering that the reasonable parts of this article are copied verbatim from other articles, this article really doesn't have a reason to exist. --Loonymonkey (talk) 18:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you think have a having a summary of controversies surrounding presidential candidates is helpful and (is it within wiki guidelines). I am thinking along the lines of there is an article about Barack Obama, but also articles on this early life, IL Senate careers, US Presidential bid, and a listing of endorsements his has received for his presidential race. Should there also be an aritcle which summarizes controversies.

Also, while I am asking questions. How notable does someone have to be in order to have there endorsement of Obama listed on his endorsement page. And what if the person and their endorsement be perceived as controversial, such a Jane Fonda? Is is appropriate and acceptable to list endorsement of controversial figures in the article. Also, there is a sections of endorsements by foreign political leaders. What are the qualification for notability and what if the leader is controversial, should their endorsement not be mentioned. Thanks It is me i think (talk) 20:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you so much for letting me know about the photos

How do I find out if photos are copyrighted. There was no list on the websites. For instance MSNBC cites a sources for its photos, many are from the Associated press. thanks again It is me i think (talk) 19:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

If they are from the AP, they are most definitely copyrighted and their use is prohibited. You will find these photos with no copyright information on a thousands of blogs but that doesn't mean they are free. Wikipedia is simply much more stringent about such things than, say, Drudge. --Loonymonkey (talk) 19:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks It is me i think (talk) 20:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Inclusion of Muslim support of political candidates

Where is the appropriate place to list Muslim support of political candidates, while due to pure numbers, Muslims may not have the numbers and political inlfuence as African Americans and Hispanics Americans, but they still are a valid political constituency. It is noteworthy and appropriate to mention endorsement by their leaders of Barack Obama, if other leaders are mentioned. I feel your removal in not coming from a NPOV perspective. Louis Farrakhan is a longtime national leader ofa well-know organization Nation of Islam. Both are noteworthy and have very detailed articles on wikipedia. This is a noteworthy endorsement. Also, Louis Farrakah is a significant well respected figure in his community and his endorsement does carry weight. Farrakhan's endorsement of Obama is more meaningful and will have more impact then the endorsement of ,Wouter Bos, Minister of Finance and deputy prime minister of The Netherlands, Toshio Murakami, Mayor of Obama, Japan, Fredrik Reinfeldt, Prime Minister of Sweden, which are listed under the foreign endorsements section of the Barack Obama presidential endorsements article. If the endorsements of Obama by these foreign leaders is noteworthy, how is Farrakan's endorsement not noteworthy. Fararakn is very much more noteworthy in the context of a US presidential elections and US new outlets have covered this story (as a referenced Chicago Tribune, MSNBC, and ABC. Please let me know. Very much appreciated. Hamas is not as noteworthy as a Farrakan endorsement, if for no other reason than they are a foreign political group, but it is still may be noteworthy, if more reliable sources are identified (for example ABC, CNN, MSNBC, etc.. They are an international known political group with supports in the US. Similarly the IRA are a foreign political groups with supporters in the US. If the Obama endorsement list is an extensive list of noteworthy endorsements, I feel the Hamas endorsement should be included if I can higher profile sources. Overall, I feel support of by well-known Muslim leaders is noteworthy, but as I am a newer user, I do understand, I may not be putting them in the right place. Could I suggest a seperate article on Muslims for Obama? Or any suggestion you have would be appreciated. Thank you so much It is me i think (talk) 03:15, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

You may have me confused with another editor. I don't believe that I made any edits concerning Louis Farrakhan on the Political Endorsements of Barack Obama article. --Loonymonkey (talk) 22:51, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I did, my apologies, working through the topic on the talk page, thanks, It is me i think (talk) 22:55, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of 2008 United States presidential election controversies and attacks

An article that you have been involved in editing, 2008 United States presidential election controversies and attacks, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2008 United States presidential election controversies and attacks. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Wasted Time R (talk) 19:36, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Obama

How is negative reaction to bitter, or clinton win not fact backed up by references? Please un-revert the edits unless you can prove they are incorrect or not supported by notable sources. Bachcell (talk) 23:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

You're confusing editorial opinion with fact. Adding criticism from a George F. Will editorial only serves to inject POV into the article. Stick to the facts.--Loonymonkey (talk) 00:03, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Bill Ayers and Board Position as it relates to the 2008 presidential election

The current wording seems to indicate his being on the board of the Wood Fund controversial in context of the 2008 presidential election. This is wrong, it is Ayers connection to Obama (who is on the board with Ayers) which is controversial not his specific position on the board. Obama and Ayers could have been on any board (Kraft foods, United Nations Food Programme, doesn't mater). This issue is not the specific board, but their connection, which the board is the evidence. I feel this should be changed because the issue of the controversy is not clear, and could be misunderstood by people not familiar with the facts. It is me i think (talk) 18:14, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

There isn't any need to copy discussion comments from the discussion page of that article to my talk page. I have already read your comment. --Loonymonkey (talk) 18:19, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Your thoughts, am I wrong? It is me i think (talk) 18:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Simple Scrapbooks

I disagree. It is difficult through Wikipedia established standards for people to write a "nuetral" article on publications. I would propose that you at least place a hold on the article until more can be contributed. The scrapbooking industy is a major economical force and there are many other publications noteable to be mentioned equally along with "Simple Scrapbooks" to be mentioned. Notablility is subjective. This magazine serves a target industry, much like "Soldier of Fortune" is to gun owners.

So in its respective industry, Simple Scrapbooks is a major publication. I have asked other wiki editors that are interested in contributing to this magazine do so. I have advised them it must be up to wiki standards.

I ask that you place a hold on speedy deletion until more "neutral" information can be added. Remember that no subject can be completely biased free, especially a commercial publication, but it can be objective without waving pom poms and screaming "BY THIS MAGAZINE". I ask that you give it at least 10 days so that other information can be added. If it does not meet wiki standards by that time, then delete it. But I think accusations of auto spam or psuedospam are a little harsh. I have edited many articles and have contributed to many articles with Wikipeida. I would not try to add an article that I did not think would be beneficial to the informational community at large. I don't even scrapbook. I just think that noteable publications of any industry have the opportunity to be published as long as they meet the wiki standards. Please put a 10 day hold before deletion. Thank you. Staplegunter aka Dave

Dispute resolution

He's talking about that California article. Imperial Star Destroyer (talk) 18:32, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

An article that I've made exactly one edit to in the last month? A request for dispute resolution is absurd in that case. Anyway, I assume this is the same IP vandal that made a lot of noise a month or so ago. It looks like he's been permanently blocked, so I'm not going to worry about it. --Loonymonkey (talk) 18:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Your tendentious edit

I documented that Ayers is termed an unrepenatant terrorist, let alone currently merely a radical activist, yet you remove sourced content. Explain this vandalism. — Justmeherenow (   ) 00:38, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

That is neither tendentious nor vandalism, you should learn the definition of both of those terms first before you make accusations. This is being discussed on the talk page so there is no reason to leave me messages, especially in such an uncivil tone (and just FYI, the word is "unrepentant" not "unrepenatant" as you keep calling it). --Loonymonkey (talk) 00:49, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

OK. But...whether by Che or Brown Shirts, violence is repugnatant. :^) — Justmeherenow (   ) 01:41, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Not at all that I question your vaunted precision and lack of hyperbole, Doc, but just outta sheer curiosity, Was it my first 24-word comment or my my 11-word rejounder that you've characterized elsewhere as "long rambling diatribe"?

Greetings Loonymonkey

Thanks for your reply to my comment on censorship.

Censoring the truth & morality is a crime, there is nothing wrong with morality & truth and I want to be sure you understand me correctly. What you posted in reply to my comment is scepticism, fine I have no problem with that but please understand what I am trying to explain to you.

My comments contribute to public awareness.

We don't have a program, we are independent Human beings who are granted freedom of expression, press & religion. Just incorporate this into your decision making, thank you in advance.

Just give me my freedom of speech.

Phalanx Pursos 16:21, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't agreeing or disagreeing with your comments. As I said, they're not appropriate for the Talk:Censorship page. That page is for discussing changes the article, not your personal views on censorship. --Loonymonkey (talk) 18:31, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

=Obama family

This article will not be deleted, so its best we come to some compromise. Anyone is free to remove deletion tags at thier free will. I will add veribililty tags and bias tags until I or anyone else corrects them. Until then feel free to correct or modify. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Therock40756 (talk • contribs) 01:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I am not really sure what you mean by compromise. I was explaining that {{hangon}} tags are for speedy deletes, not AfD candidates so please stop placing it on this article. As for the articles chances, it will most likely be deleted for the same reasons that other similar articles were deleted. --Loonymonkey (talk) 01:40, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Request for input (times 2)

I respectfully request you to humor me with

• INPUT re a pair of re-titling proposals for 2008 Barack Obama presidential campaign "Controversies" daughter-articles----if possible, both here and here. — Justmeherenow (   ) 08:29, 2 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)

NPOV means NON point of view, not "all non-fringe" points of view Here's what WP:NPOV has to say. It refutes your argument completely: WP:YESPOV

The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth", in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view, or some sort of intermediate view among the different views, is the correct one to the extent that other views are mentioned only pejoratively. Readers should be allowed to form their own opinions. As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints.

The neutral point of view policy is often misunderstood. The acronym NPOV does not mean "no points of view". The elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy by simply labeling it "POV". The neutral point of view is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject: it neither endorses nor discourages viewpoints. Kossack4Truth (talk) 00:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, you are absolutely the last person on wikipedia that is in a position to lecture anyone on neutral points of view, considering your tireless campaign to inject your POV into this one particular article. Read the material you quoted again, particularly "the neutral point of view is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject." Can you honestly argue that you are not making edits in opposition to the subject? Really? --Loonymonkey (talk) 00:38, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

At the moment, Loonymonkey, there is only one POV represented in the article: the POV of Obama's campaign manager. It's been like that, off and on, ever since I started editing it: a hagiography, where never is heard a discouraging word. You've just been shown that NPOV emphatically does not mean "no point of view," which is the rationale given for your edit. Revert your edit, please. Kossack4Truth (talk) 00:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Right, right, we already know that you believe all of wikipedia is a giant conspiracy by the Obama campaign and that all of the editors who revert your edits are "Obama campaign workers" as you keep saying. It wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that they are blatantly tendentious attempts to inject your personal POV into the article. --Loonymonkey (talk) 00:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

AfD

There is no AfD notice on Barack Obama caucus and primary campaign, so you will have to ask an admin to close the incorrect AfD so you can start the process properly. Darrenhusted (talk) 08:11, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

My apologies, it looks like a bug with Twinkle (usually it adds the tag automatically). The notification went through but not the tag for some reason. I agree with Shereth's comment that there isn't any reason to restart discussion, but enough time should be given for all concerned to weigh in (seeing as how only two edits have been made to the page, I don't think it's really a concern).--Loonymonkey (talk) 16:17, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Political positions of Barack Obama

Thanks, I've replied on my talk page. Cgingold (talk) 03:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: June 2008

I am familiar with Wikipedia's core policies and with that I know that the information I added was entirely factual and neutral. Fact: The New York Times made a false report. That is undisputed. Fact: The New York Times lived up to their error and did what they could to correct it. I added it too. Not only is it sourced but it comes with its own article: Tuvia Grossman. Before reverting, tell me what exactly specifically carries NPOV, as everything I see is completely sourced and factual and written in neutral language. NOTHING there is opinion. Zip. Try editing, not deleting. --Shamir1 (talk) 21:52, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

In addition to some minor language problems with your edit (weasel words such as "misrepresented" and "In actuality...") the real problem is that there is no source for this being a controversy. Just because you personally find it controversial doesn't mean it rises to the level of a historical controversy in an encyclopedic history of the Times. At the very least, you're going to need to come up with several reliable NPOV sources indicating that this was a historical controversy for them. Also, please remember that the burden for argument is on you as you are the editor seeking to include new material. You must demonstrate that this belongs in the article and why. Please do not simply revert again without trying to achieve some consensus on the talk page of that article. --Loonymonkey (talk) 22:57, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

First of all, "misrepresented" is not a weasel word. It is what it is. They represented him as a "Palestinian" when he is not. That is clear misrepresentation and they do not deny it. If it wasn't then they would not publish two corrections on the story since then.[3] Saying "in actuality" or "in fact" is not using weasel words, it is using clear words to distinguish fact from falsehood (the corrected story from the original). This terminology is very standard. As to whether or not the situation was a controversy, if it was not a controversy then there would not be a full article about it on this encyclopedia (Tuvia Grossman). As to the "several" reliable NPOV sources, all of the others have one, including one with the I'm-not-sure-how-reliable-or-NPOV Armeniapedia. I see using this as no different than using Indopedia.[4] This one is sourced with a reliable NPOV source, the New York Times. Another I see is sourced with the Washington Post. Another one lists an accusation by FAIR, and I see no difference with listing CAMERA in this case;[5] as well as Honest Reporting[6][7][8]. Here is Grossman's own statement. The controversy's article gives a couple criticisms and one criticizing the criticism: while summarizing op-eds and such published in other newspapers.

Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, the controversy is explained on the official Israeli government website.[9] --Shamir1 (talk) 04:39, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks.

I've been busy this week, but wanted to thank you for your reasoned participation at Talk:Barack Obama. Shem^(talk) 15:53, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you as well. I've been pretty busy myself so that discussion (and a few vandalism reverts) are about all I have time for. Still, it's important not to have a very problematic edit rammed through with the rationale that it's a "compromise" because it's not as bad as it was. Half of a bad edit isn't a compromise, it's still just a bad edit. --Loonymonkey (talk) 17:16, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Can you explain this edit?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Barack_Obama_presidential_campaign_endorsements%2C_2008&diff=220670730&oldid=220670399Hoponpop69 (talk) 19:35, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

The edit summary provides a pretty concise explanation. If you disagree, and feel that a youtube video of "Eric the Midget" is notable to a presidential campaign article, than come up some refs to demonstrate notability and take it to the talk page of that article. --Loonymonkey (talk) 19:38, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't Assume the Worst

Your attack on my good faith, well sourced neutral edit on the Obama page was puzzling. If you look at my edit history, you will see that I have a history of making NPOV edits on the Obama pages. If you think there is a way to improve the energy section, please do so, but don't simply remove it and assume the worst--You seem to edit a lot in "war" mode. By the way, I do apologize for accidentally reinserting those quotes--I was mistakenly editing an older version of the page. Gilbertine goldmark (talk) 18:48, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I apologize if the edit summary was too bitey, I need to work on that. Scare quotes are one of my big pet peeves and I've been working to remove them, at least from the articles that I currently watch. Seeing them all reinserted seemed sort of provocative, but since it was done accidentally, I shouldn't have been so abrupt. As for the energy section, I made some suggestions on the talk page there. --Loonymonkey (talk) 20:14, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Tendentious editing

This is a great definition of "Tendentious Editing", and well worth reading regarding the problem of TE. We all need to work together to provide the best NPOV possible. Prior to deleting, or changing the editorial contribution of another it is best for us to at least read the referenced article and consider the validity of a point of view other than our own. Let's work together to avoid wasting bandwidth and present a truly NPOV. Thanks. Best regards, Rusty Dr. B. R. Lang (talk) 17:44, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I did read the reference. It was the opinion of a blogger, nothing more, and pretty irrelevant to the article. This is an encyclopedia and a WP:BLP is not the place to reprint such attacks, regardless of whether you agree with it or not. --Loonymonkey (talk) 19:10, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

regarding John Murtha

In answer to your question, I did read the reference. It was the opinion of a blogger, nothing more, and as such is irrelevant to the article. This is an encyclopedia and a WP:BLP is not the place to reprint such attacks, regardless of whether you agree with it or not. If you really believe, as you said, that "we all need to work together to provide the best NPOV possible" then it is imperative not to add editorial commentary and POV to articles (whether your own or that of some blogger). Stick to the facts and the reader can make up their own mind.--Loonymonkey (talk) 19:19, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

That which I wrote, and you deleted twice was:

At Jeffrey Chessani's trial, presiding Judge Steven Folsom said, "Unlawful command influence is the mortal enemy of military justice." On 23 June 2008, USMC veteran and Poet Russ Vaughn explained that the Marine Corps are actually under U.S. Navy JAG authority, and that Navy flag officers are subject to congressional review and approval of their career advancement. He also creatively explained that although Congressman Murtha at one time wore the uniform of a Marine, his history of official corruption and betrayal of the USMC motto, Simper Fidelis, serves to emphasize his personal fidelity to egocentric interests above all else. Dr. B. R. Lang (talk) 00:08, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Referenc 1. Vaughn, Russ (2008-06-23). "The Real Command Influence". American Thinker. American Thinker. Retrieved 2008-06-25. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Look, you can't insert lengthy opinion pieces from some blog into a WP:BLP, regardless of whether you agree with the opinion or not. That's just not how wikipedia works. Claiming "censorship" when you're not following wikipedia standards is just ridiculous. --Loonymonkey (talk) 19:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Please note

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Can a proposal be made by an opponent to gauge the sense of the community? — Justmeherenow (   ) 18:44, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

This really isn't vandalism. I know, the user clearly has an agenda, but try to take care to mark the edit summaries properly. Tan | 39 01:04, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

It's a borderline call. If he just called someone an idiot in an article, it would be clear vandalism. But there are many cases where intentionally adding information which is patently false simply to push POV should be considered vandalism. I believe that's the case here. --Loonymonkey (talk) 01:08, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

A "new" article for Malik Obama----

is sure to be nominated for deletion; so I've actually done so myself here even though I believe it now passes muster due to Maliks multiple press mentions (which had not yet been catalogued when contributors had so very recently weighed in on its "Obongo" iteration. Please be patient with this proposal while those interested weight in again. (I'm notifying those who commented.) — Justmeherenow (   ) 06:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

In case somebody deletes the discussion on the McCain page I am copying my reply to you here:

Again, if it is so offensive, just delete it. I did post something similar on the Obama talk page, first. I think it's relevant to all candidates--but clearly that thought is not shared by all. As for me being coy . . . I'll take that as a compliment . . . I guess.--Utahredrock (talk) 21:20, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

• Here's the link to the Obama talk page (not sure how archiving will affect it):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Barack_Obama#More_on_Obama.27s_family --Utahredrock (talk) 21:25, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Barack Obama FEC filings

Loony, I've posted a question on the Barack Obama presidential campaign talk page regarding your contribution of some FEC-related material into the main article. My problem: I can't find the figure you've written ($133,549,000) in the FEC filings you linked to. Can you explain to me how you obtained that figure? Also: Do you know where you can find data on the money raised from 10 February 2007 to 31 December 2007 inclusive? Your original edit, which used Fundraising for the 2008 United States presidential election as the implied source, violated WP:ASR (referencing Wikipedia in Wikipedia is forbidden) and WP:RS (Wikipedia is not a reliable source for verifiability purposes). The source that's (apparently) been used to support Obama fundraising totals for 2007 on that article no longer provides that data; Obama's fundraising totals on that page now include 2008 receipts up to May 31. Yawn. Any way you could resolve, or point me to someone who can resolve, these discrepancies would be much appreciated. Thanks! Geuiwogbil (Talk) 03:09, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, I can't tell you where the figure is from either. I copied the entire paragraph (refs and all) verbatim from the Primary article to round out the Fundraising section of the current article but I assumed the figures had already been vetted (since they had been there for some time). I was just trying to get the ball rolling on that section and intended it to be updated when Q2 totals were available. It sounds like you have of a better line on the most recent fundraising totals (and beter refs) so please feel free to change that paragraph. Thanks for the effort! --Loonymonkey (talk) 16:45, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Please look over the current options for Rezko language and pick one to help us get to consensus

This is a form notice, not a personal message. I'm sending it out to the most recent contributors to the Rezko discussion at Talk:Barack Obama. Sorry if this is inconvenient, but we may be close to consensus if we can get your help.

Hi, I've noticed you've been a part of the Rezko discussion but haven't said which of the options now on the table you'd prefer. It would really help us to get to consensus if we could get your input on that. There's been plenty of discussion, but if you have questions, I'm sure other editors would answer them. The four options now on the table are the three in Talk:Barack Obama#Straw poll and Talk:Barack Obama#Scjessey-preferred version (which doesn't contain the word "criticism"). So far, the two most popular versions seem to be Clubjuggle's Version 3 and Scjessey's. Please help us try to wrap this up. Noroton (talk) 17:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Language on Obama tax section

Since I've already made edits, and I agree with you on the change of language away from "the rich", I figured it'd be better to bring this up with you: the scope of Obama's tax increases affects more than just the top 1%. The version that I feel would be best would read, "while calling for several tax increases." Trilemma (talk) 22:04, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

We are writing about what the plan is, not what your opinion of the plan is. Honestly, looking through the days diffs, your edits seem to suggest an editorial agenda. Is there a reason you cherry-picked only the portions of the plan which are increases while ignoring the cuts? Further much of the language you used is not supported by the cites and strays into non-NPOV territory. --Loonymonkey (talk) 22:14, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

It is not what my opinion is, it is what the facts are. And none of my edits betray the RS sources from which I am pulling information. You are attempting to portray me as a partisan editor while ignoring the blatant partisanship opinion warring and misleading edits of others, and I do not appreciate it. Trilemma (talk) 22:46, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

And yet the question remains. Why didn't you simply add the details of the plan, as reported in the sources? If you did so mistakenly then I apologize, but the way you included only the details (and criticism) of certain tax increase aspects while omitting entirely details of the tax cuts would give an entirely incorrect impression of the plan to the uninformed reader. Better to simply state what the plan is, let the reader make up their mind, and leave the commentary to the blogs. --Loonymonkey (talk) 22:53, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I absolutely support including all the relevant info on his tax proposal. As such the additional info you provided enhances the article. At the same time, you can not reasonably expect to be able to remove details about how much it increases taxes by, who it hits etc. these are not criticisms or opining, they are stating facts the same as stating who is helped. Trilemma (talk) 23:00, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Of course not. That's why I added the additional information that you omitted. Also, I changed the wording back to that of the cites. There isn't any question of tendentiousness if we simply use the same language from the RS that we got the information. --Loonymonkey (talk) 00:02, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

OK. I'll post here

the RfC result re Malik Abongo Obama:

----thx.  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 21:13, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Loony Rocks

I knew we could agree on something. I saw you accepted my edits at Lolo. Thx. Even though I probably put them there initially, it ocurred to me that they really didn't belong--glad you agreed.--Utahredrock (talk) 22:25, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Re canvassing

Please see my response to your message here, where I have posted it to avoid redundancy. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:07, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Rick Santorum

I was already warned for my edit on Rick Santorum. There is no reason for you to put another one. Please erase it. Thank you. Mr. Kruzkin (talk) 22:19, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, but there are several other edits for which you were not warned. The point is that you have not made one legitimate edit with this account and the next incident of vandalism will likely lead to a permanent block. --Loonymonkey (talk) 22:27, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

If you'd read it

you'd have seen I was (with humor) agreeing with your edit.  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  )

Birthright citizenship — heads-up

Hi. You might want to check out the exchange that's been going on between the "anonymous editor" and me on the talk page of CIreland (an admin). Specifically, read the section entitled "Seeking advice on dealing with an accusation of incivility". Given that you used the term "amateur wiki-lawyering" earlier today in the discussion about whether or not to say "anchor baby" in the birthright citizenship article, it's quite possible now that you may find yourself accused of incivility, just as I have been, and you'll probably want to get up to speed with what's already been said. Richwales (talk) 17:31, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Kruzkin has to be blocked

Hello there.

Hello there. You need to help me out with this since you had run in with this user for his unproductive edits five days ago. He is known to post a series of unproductive controversial edits on various television news anchors. Just today (Sunday, August 03), he is at it again posting a controversial picture of Anderson Cooper with another guy, and calling that guy his gay lover. I’ve already reverted this obnoxious user’s edits in this particular regards. But I am pretty certain he will be at it again sometime later whenever I or anybody may not be around to stop him. Right now, I’m engaged in an edit war with this user. This person needs to be stopped. This account is used for nothing more than to vandalize on Wikipedia. KeltieMartinFan (talk) 18:10, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Reverting vandalism (even repeatedly) isn't edit-warring. He's already been blocked previously so further vandalism should be reported to WP:AIV. If you don't have the tools to do so, somebody else will. I'll take a look at it.--Loonymonkey (talk) 18:13, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Barack Sr

If ledes at "Barack Obama" and "Barack Obama, Sr." were to read Barack Hussein Obama II and Barack Hussein Obama, respecively, roman numerals for "the 2nd" and sans roman numerals would supply the necessary distinction lede-to-lede – while the article titles would remain distinct through retaining Sr. for Sen. Obama's father.  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 19:03, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

3RR on birthright citizenship?

Can you point to more than one revert I made? Note, I consider a revert one where no attempt at compromise is made, or where no additional substance is added. A revert is simply going back and forth with nothing new. Jkatzen (talk) 17:09, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

No, please read WP:3RR again. It doesn't have to be the exact same edit. To quote that page: "An editor does not have to perform the same revert on a page more than three times to breach this rule; all reverts made by an editor on a particular page within a 24-hour period are counted." --Loonymonkey (talk) 17:12, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Right, what's your point? Point to more than one revert I made. There was only one revert, by my count. All other edits were substantively different. Do a diff, and tell me if you see otherwise, before you go accusing me. Jkatzen (talk) 17:14, 4 August 2008 (UTC

Well, this morning alone you have made three edits restoring that material (with slight variations each time). Changing the language a bit doesn't start the 3RR count all over again (see WP:3RR for a more detailed explanation of this). It doesn't have to be a simple revert to one version previous and it doesn't have to be the same edit (it's "In whole or in part"). Also, I haven't accused you of anything although I did find it a bit ridiculous that you 3RR warned a user who had made only one edit after you had restored it multiple times. --Loonymonkey (talk) 17:49, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

No, I see where you're coming from. I wasn't accusing anyone of doing it, though I was expecting it would happen next. I probably shouldn't have mentioned the 3RR in the first place. I was more expecting (as rang true) a tagteam of pure reverts that added nothing, but only entirely discounted my attempts at compromise. I was trying to reduce the opposing reversions I expected would happen. I also don't think my edits were "slight variations" -- my intent was truly to bring the sides together with substantive language modifications. I felt that those doing pure reverts don't care that I and others have a different viewpoints. Jkatzen (talk)

I hear you. I wasn't accusing you of bad-faith or edit-warring. It's just a frustrating situation since that discussion has really gone in circles for weeks now (and the one IP editor using multiple IP's never misses the opportunity to throw a wrench in the works). It would be nice to move it to resolution and along those lines your efforts have been productive.--Loonymonkey (talk) 17:07, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Article probation notice

Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, that an article to which you have recently contributed, Talk:Barack ObamaThe Obama Nation, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Talk:Barack Obama/Article probation. Please accept this as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that you have violated the probation terms. Thank you. - Wikidemo (talk) 04:36, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

re 'bureaus'

To save yourself further embarrassment, consult a dictionary. I know it's not the French version of Wikipedia: I"d sort of worked that out all for myself.

I shan't bother reverting it back: have consulted several other wikipedia articles, and most are so riddled with factual inaccuracies and mistakes, that there's not much point in debating the niceties of French plurals. Still less value in discussing what is English, and what isn't.

Best wishes,

Ethanoylchloride (talk) 18:45, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I did, perhaps you should take your own advice? "Bureaus" is correct, particularly in American English. Spelling it with an "x" is archaic and uncommon which is something we try to avoid. --Loonymonkey (talk) 20:56, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

What is the ACLU's Mission Statement, precisely, and where is it found on the web?

Hello Loonymonkey,

I'm a newbie wikipedia editor and you're an experienced editor and stakeholder in the ACLU page; if we worked together, maybe we could do something worthwhile? Over the past year I have been studying the ACLU's 1st amendment history using their website as a primary source where I've analyzed close to a thousand of their web pages. I have some ideas for evolving the wiki entry that I'd like to develop with you, and I understand from today's lesson that consensual stakeholder approval will be necessary for any lasting modifications. If you have any interest in my offer, I've a yahoo.com email account named bhsurveyabc; please send me an email.

Sincerely, Timoleon 71.93.229.131 (talk) 02:58, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Welcome! To answer your first question, that was hammered out some time ago. As far as I know they don't actually have an official mission statement which is why the language "stated mission" was used in the article. In describing the organization, they have a lengthy explanation of their mission that enumerates all of the specific areas they're involved in but this would be far too long to include in the lede (and would give it an inappropriate promotional tone). This is why the summary sentence from their faq was used instead.

For reasons of transparency, I discuss everything within Wikipedia so I won't be able to email you. But if you have ideas or wish to propose changes, then by all means suggest it on the talk page of the article. You'll get the best response if you suggest specific language for specific sections (rather than general suggestions like "such-and-such should be mentioned in the article"). --Loonymonkey (talk) 23:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your time and advice Loonymonkey. I will follow it. Timoleon (talk) 19:07, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Canvassing

I responded to you there. You might want to check the article that you wikilinked to check what canvassing is. You might want to review verb tenses because someone reading your post might be inadvertently misled if they were to take it at face value. Happy editing.Die4Dixie (talk) 23:21, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Improper removal

You have improperly removed the political image edits on Obama and McCain. This was done without discussion. This may be considered edit warring. Please put it back. Impeccable sources, such as Time, CNN, and the Associated Press all report this. If you think Obama is very experienced in foreign affairs, get a source. If you think McCain is agreed by everyone as being moderate (the truth is that some say he is too liberal and some say he is too conservative), then get a source. Oprahwasontv (talk) 19:31, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you understand what edit-warring is. One edit does not constitute a "war." What I did would be considered the "R" in WP:BRD. We can discuss the subject further on those talk pages, but I doubt you're going to get a consensus for adding random editorial opinion (yours or others) to both articles. --Loonymonkey (talk) 19:47, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Geni 3

Hi. The discussion had already closed when you voiced your opinion, so per current guidelines I removed it. Sorry about that. -- Avi (talk) 18:12, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry about that. I didn't notice until I had posted it. I tried to self-revert but you were too quick for me. --Loonymonkey (talk) 18:35, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

No problem. You're allowed one mistake per decade, you know -- Avi (talk) 18:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

List of banned books

Acutaly we've pretty much accepted that mearly challanged and sometime removed from libaries since about late 2006.Geni

Actually, no. That's completely incorrect. Looking through the talk page and the archives, it's clear that you've tried to define it as such for some time but no consensus has ever existed for such an opinion. Further, you may want to read WP:OWN. --Loonymonkey (talk) 19:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Do you seriosuly wish to get into a rule lawyering contest with me?Geni 20:50, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Hardly. But when someone is in violation of those rules, I'm not shy about pointing it out. Threatening to "get into a rule lawyering contest" doesn't help the situation. --Loonymonkey (talk) 20:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

You cannot show I'm in violation of WP:OWN. Mostly because I'm not of course.Geni 21:40, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Sure you are. You are edit-warring and repeatedly removing reliably sourced material that you disagree with. Then you are claiming to not need to justify it or defend your position with reliable source because you have been editing the article longer. That is the very definition of WP:OWN. Anyway, I'm less inclined to engage in battle than you are, obviously, so I'm just going to let it drop until the RfC process is underway. We'll let the community decide how the article should be defined. --Loonymonkey (talk) 22:34, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

You edit wared twice on that article on two different days with two different people.Geni 01:15, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

No. You might want to read up and see what constitutes an edit-war. Your three reverts (within minutes of each edit) certainly count. --Loonymonkey (talk) 02:05, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

• Which part of Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars do you disagree with? LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:56, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

That's an essay, not policy. Sometimes it's just easier to leave a template than to type it all out when another regular needs to be warned. What's your interest in the matter, anyway? I've never had any contact with you as far as I can see. --Loonymonkey (talk) 00:49, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm an admin. I go where I think help is required - even when it is unappreciated. If you think that templating editors who have been here since 2004 is going to assist you is resolving your disputes, then your experience of WP is not going to be as enjoyable as it might. Free advice, all part of the service. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:20, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, yes, of course. Anyone can comment on anything, admin or not. I was just curious if we had some prior history as it was a slightly bitey message to leave and it came a day or two after the fact so there was no "heat of the moment" urgency. Anyway, no big deal. As for DTTR, there are a range of opinions on that and I kind of stand in the middle. I generally agree with that essay, especially where it concerns any template with a "Welcome" message, which can come across as insulting when left for regulars. But I also agree with Stifle's response to that essay; that the templates without "welcome" messages exist for a reason, they save time, and the language has already been worked out in a more polite manner than something off the top of the head would probably end up being. Thanks for your thoughts on the matter. --Loonymonkey (talk) 17:25, 30 August 2008 (UTC)