No, it was neither neutral nor well-sourced and ignored all discussion and consensus for that article. Plus, as I pointed out, it was very poorly written (you could at least have spelled his name right if you're trying to attack him!) Further, the proper place to discuss changes to an article is on the article's talk page. --Loonymonkey (talk) 21:44, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While the contribution did not coincide with consensus, it was not vandalism. As a side note, 2+2=4 whether or not people consent to it. Scientists once consented that the Earth was flat, but it was not true. An encyclopedia is not supposed to reflect consensus, it is supposed to reflect fact. Obama has had an inconvenient relationship, of sorts, with Bill Ayers, and it has certainly been a dubious criticism worth adding (when compared to other politicians' articles). Interestingly, this is not the first time that I have noticed a constructive (although imperfect) contribution being regarded as vandalism simply because it does not appeal to the internet masses.Gefreiter (talk) 20:33, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not really sure what you're talking about. Looking through the history, I haven't reverted any of your edits as vandalism. Perhaps you have me confused with someone else? --Loonymonkey (talk) 20:44, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
RfC on Weathermen, Ayers, Dohrm, Obama, and "terrorism"[edit]
Please note that I have created an RfC to discuss the matter of whether, how, and where we should use and cover the designation "terrorist" describe the Weathermen and their former leaders. It is located here: Talk:Weatherman (organization)/Terrorism RfC. The intent is to decide as a content matter (and not as a behavioral issue regarding the editors involved) how to deal with this question. I am notifying you because you appear to have participated in or commented about this issue before. Feel free to participate. Thank you. Wikidemon (talk) 20:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm new at this so maybe I'm not totally up to speed on the process, but Clarence Thomas shouldn't include statements about allegations made by Angela Wright and Sukari Hardnett if they aren't sourced and substantiated. Thanks! (Wallamoose (talk) 02:26, 14 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]
I noticed that a user named Emeraldcityserendipity had been to a page, David Brickner , and wikified the birth date. I looked at his contributions and saw that he had been to the page of someone I know, Carolyn Merchant, I clicked and saw that he had done the same thing there. Lightbot had undone it. I went to the talk page for Emeraldcityserendipity and saw that you and others had warned him against doing so. I'm not sure what the appropriate response it. It's vandalism, but of an unusual type.Elan26 (talk) 13:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)Elan26[reply]
Since you are one of the article's primary contributors, if you've got time could you help out by adding references to the article where needed? It is sorely in need of more references before a good article nomination is possible :) Thanks in advance! GaryKing (talk) 19:06, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll give it a try (and I've tracked down a number or the refs previously). The problem is that at the moment, I'm pretty pressed for time, so my editing seems to come in twenty minute bursts when I have a few moments free. Thus, I tend to spend my time checking my watchlist for vandalism or blatant POV. Are there specific areas that you feel need the most work? Let me know, thanks! --Loonymonkey (talk) 19:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Specific areas is references, since I didn't add most of the content; whatever you've added, please reference if you can :) GaryKing (talk) 19:12, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't added any unreferenced content, but maybe you could tag something that you feel is an unreferenced claim and we'll track it down. Be sure to read the entire paragraph and all of the refs in the paragraph in their entirety first, before taggin. Often verification can be found buried in the ref a couple of sentences later (it's poor style to put a ref after every sentence, of course). --Loonymonkey (talk) 19:18, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If some text is cited previously in the paragraph then move the reference to the end; only everything before the reference should be covered by it, not any content after it. GaryKing (talk) 19:46, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please take another look at Weatherman/Terrorism RfC[edit]
This is a message sent to a number of editors, and following WP:CANVASS requirements: Please take another look at Talk:Weatherman (organization)/Terrorism RfC and consider new information added near the top of the article and several new proposals at the bottom. If you haven't looked at the RfC in some time, you may find reason in the new information and new proposals to rethink the matter. -- Noroton (talk) 02:31, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that the times is conservative or is accused of being conservative is completely unsourced and unsupported. Accusing a single reporter in a staff of several hundred is not a sufficient source as to the whole newspaper. I checked the archives and there was no consensus to the exact wording rather the contrary others have also pointed out that it's a misrepresentation and cannot stand. Sources cannot be used for statement they do not support. Please do not (re)introduce a version that is completely unsupported by the sources. Hobartimus (talk) 05:08, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly you haven't actually read the sources that you were attempting to delete. Start by reading the two articles from the Nation. While I don't entirely agree with it, the entire controversy involving the run-up to the Iraq war is that they helped "sell" the war to the public for the Bush administration. Trying to claim that those articles are just about Judith Miller, and not about the newspaper that ran this series by her (and others) is just absurd. Miller didn't publish this stuff herself on some blog, the Times published it on their front page for months. You don't seem to be clamoring to remove references to Jayson Blair because he's "a single reporter in a staff of several hundred." Your only reason for wanting to remove this material seems to be that it doesn't fit your personal POV that the Times is always liberal and couldn't possibly be considered conservative by anyone anywhere. Unfortunately, you're wrong, as the sources clearly indicate (remember, we're merely sourcing opinion here, not objective fact). Please don't try to unilaterally edit-war. You have yet to even discuss this on talk. --Loonymonkey (talk) 19:24, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I checked quite a few sources and never found one single accusation that the times itself would be conservative, you have yet to produce a single source of that accusation. A single sentence that spells it out that describes the Times as conservative is nowhere to be found. Yet the sentence and the references were merged as if the "conservative bias" allegation had equal weight in the sources. Now you claim that the times ran a series of articles some years ago based on available information at the time that later turned out to be misleading. Others accused at most these series of articles and singled out journalists like Miller from an organization of several hunderd. That's extremely far from what I'd like to see to support the serious charge that the Times itself is a conservative newspaper. Hobartimus (talk) 20:30, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again, it's clear by your words that you haven't actually read the articles in their entirety, rather just skimmed them for the exact phrase "conservative bias." And you seem to be confusing the idea of being a "conservative newspaper" with exhibiting a "conservative bias" as it relates to specific issues. A newspaper that features Paul Krugman could never genuinely be considered to be a "conservative newspaper" any more than a newspaper that features William Safire could be considered to be a "liberal paper" (and guess which newspaper he was the lead editorialist for). But neither claim has been made in the article, rather the claim is whether they have ever exhibited bias and those on both sides of the debate have said so (as the references indicate). --Loonymonkey (talk) 20:51, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"with exhibiting a "conservative bias" as it relates to specific issues." exactly my point the article should say exactly that what is supported by the sources, "was accused of exhibiting conservative bias in the coverage of some issues" you can top it of with "such as the Iraq war" as preference. And the references should not be merged to a massive 8-pile but each reference placed to the statement it supports. It's all I propose really. Hobartimus (talk) 21:13, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you giving me a warning when R.Schuster is the one vandelizing this post? He has repeatedly deleted the informaiton without discussion and you are ignoring this fact. You are being unreasonable. Where where you when he originally deleted the post without taking it up for discussion? The post has 3 reliable sources. One being CBS.--Xinunus (talk) 20:59, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Removing poorly sourced material is not vandalism,. As been explained repeatedly, you need much better sources for this claim. No, CBS isn't the source, somebody's YouTube video credited "to CBS2" is the source. Of the other two one is a blog and the other an opinion piece. Find a reliable source and we'll discuss it. Further, the photo you keep attempting to add is a Photoshop fake, a clear violation of WP:BLP (and pretty much every other principal of Wikipedia). --Loonymonkey (talk) 21:11, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Loony. I saw that you added a 3rr report for Xinunus. I already added one above for him. Might be best to incorporate. Cheers. --Patrick (talk) 22:18, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. You were just a little bit quicker! --Loonymonkey (talk) 22:20, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Who knows maybe it will result in a double the amount of time blocked. --Patrick (talk) 22:27, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Loonymonkey. I removed the second 3RR report, just to keep the queue tidy, since the first report has now been acted on. Hope this is OK with you! If you have further comments to make, you might add them to the first report. EdJohnston (talk) 01:46, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's fine. I struck my report instead of removing it just in case there where any problems with the other report. Looks like everything got taken care of. Thanks! --Loonymonkey (talk) 01:54, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hiya Loo. But Gephart's resignation wasn't immediate, he stayed on until the expiration of the 107th US Congress. That's how it's shown on his & Pelosie articles Infoboxes. GoodDay (talk) 00:03, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's not correct. Pelosi was elected in 2002. If his infobox says otherwise, it should be corrected. --Loonymonkey (talk) 00:07, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Pelosi was elected, but; she didn't assume the position until the start of the 108th Congress (when Gephart's tenure expired). GoodDay (talk) 00:13, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I checked the US Congress Directory site. It says Pelosi was House Minority Leader for the 108th & 109th Congresses. GoodDay (talk) 00:17, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're correct. It's a confusing point because Gephardt resigned and Pelosi was elected in 2002 (so most news accounts from then say "Pelosi replaces Gephardt") but she didn't officially ascend until the vote for Majority leader in January. --Loonymonkey (talk) 00:25, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PS- you mean Minority Leader, of course. GoodDay (talk) 00:37, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's the reason for the confusion. It's a weird arcane ritual where they vote for Majority leader (the Dems voted for Pelosi and the Repubs for Hastert even though the outcome is foregone based on who controls the House.) That's how she officially became Minority leader. --Loonymonkey (talk) 01:17, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ya got that wrong, the Majority Leader in the House (like the Senate) is the Leader of the majority party (which in the House of the 108th & 109th Congresses, were the Republicans). The Minority Leader in the House (like the Senate), is the Leader of the minority party (which in the House of the 108th & 109th Congresses, were the Democrats). GoodDay (talk) 14:40, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In Jan 2007, at the start of the 110th Congress, Pelosi was the Dems candidate for Speaker & Hastert was the Reps candidate for Speaker. Not surprisingly, Pelosi got elected (as the Dems had the majority in the House). GoodDay (talk) 17:36, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I meant election for Speaker, not Majority leader (but not Minority leader, either). Alright, it's just an academic point anyway. --Loonymonkey (talk) 18:33, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the record: In the 110th Congress? Pelosi got elected Speaker; Democrats elected Hoyer their floor leader (i.e Majority Leader) & Republicans elected Boehner their floor leader (i.e. Minority Leader). GoodDay (talk) 18:41, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Right, but we were talking about the 107th/108th congress not the current one. --Loonymonkey (talk) 18:44, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No prob. In the 107th, 108th & 109th Congresses? Hastert was 're-elected' Speaker. GoodDay (talk) 18:47, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, 124.169.164.146 self-reverted the sentence about the web polls at my suggestion. Surely web polls aren't really worth citing for anything, since they're unscientific and easily manipulated. Real polls show that Biden won, so what do these add? —KCinDC (talk) 17:16, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh,sorry. I didn't realize there was a reason behind that (or that the cites were discussed as unreliable). It just looked like vandalism to because it was an IP editor removing blocks of text and cites without explanation. --Loonymonkey (talk) 17:21, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We have a problem with the WND article. It was set up by Conwebwatch and uses conwebwatch.com as a reference. Conwebwatch is not a reliable source as they are a subjective political site. I posted my concerns about conwebwatch months ago, no one has responded and that's when I made the changes. Please advise.
I have nominated Ruth Ndesandjo, an article you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruth Ndesandjo. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Loonymonkey (talk) 21:00, 13 October 2008 (UTC) Loonymonkey (talk) 21:00, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just made a redirect, User:Schrandit started the article. But I've gone ahead and moved your notice to his talkpage. (Hope this is kosher!) Thanks. Justmeherenow( ) 21:08, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to know how I vandalized the 'Barack Obama's early life and childhood' page. I fail to understand how I compromised the integrity of the page by editing (correctly, I might add) that it is in fact not a birth certificate. It is in fact a certificate of live birth that was issued in 2007. A birth certificate is what parents receive and hospitals lock away after the baby is born. A certificate of live birth is what is issued when a copy is needed. Seeing as the image is clearly of a certificate of live birth, I am correct in my edit. If you could tell me what I vandalized, I would appreciate it. 66.25.24.244 (talk) 01:08, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea what you're talking about. The edits you made that I reverted as vandalism consisted of inserting the words "Barack Obama the winner of the 2008 election!" into the early childhood section. Obviously, you know this isn't appropriate. --Loonymonkey (talk) 01:11, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see what you are talking about. I made a mistake and restored the wrong page. 66.25.24.244 (talk) 01:14, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article Barack Obama: The Novel was deleted before I even had time to respond. It most certainly is NOT a hoax or vandalism; advanced copies are for sale on Amazon.com for general publication on January 20. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lewisfan (talk • contribs) 14:31, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Even if true, that still doesn't assert notability in any way (which is why the article was deleted). Incidentally, you might want to respond to the Admin that deleted the article. I can't do anything about it either way. --Loonymonkey (talk) 14:48, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You deleted Barack Obama: The Novel too quickly. I was not given time to even reply. It is not vandalism or a hoax as you alleged. Advanced copies are already for sale on Amazon.com and other outlets. Similar books are included on Wikipedia. You should rewrite the article yourself since you wrongly deleted it. I'm done with it. Time and again there are articles of interest (that I've read, not written) that are deleted too easily. It takes all the fun out of Wikipedia; the whole point is to be able to read about things you can't find in Britannica. Lewisfan (talk) 15:15, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you keep telling me about it? As I said, you're talking to the wrong person. I did not delete the article (and don't have the ability to do so or do anything about it). Talk to the admin that deleted it. Also, there is a process for deletion review that you can follow if you feel the deletion was not justified. I would suggest you start there. --Loonymonkey (talk) 17:32, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The administrator who did the actual deletion has his/her page on semi-protection. I can't get a message through. Also, I was very insulted that you accused me of vandalism and a hoax; the rules of Wikipedia state that you should assume good will. Even if the article should be deleted, it was inappropriate to use the term vandalism to describe a well written (if still short) article.Lewisfan (talk) 17:55, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you're talking to the wrong guy. I never said anything about vandalism, that was the deleting admin. --Loonymonkey (talk) 17:57, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Howdy, I looked on the Ruth Ndesandjo talk page and checked the history to try to see if there was some sort of census regarding relatives. I think it'd be for the best if you or someone else more involved in the obama coverage posted a message on the talk pages of all of those redirects so other folks don't make the same mistake. I'll work to incorporate the information from the individual article onto the longer family page. - Schrandit (talk) 19:57, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that one was pretty serious. It wasn't just a violation of the rules, it was against the law. --Loonymonkey (talk) 13:59, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure you want to argue this standard of inclusion when your position seems substantially different on her husbands page?--Die4Dixie (talk) 15:03, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea what you're comparing, you should probably be more specific if you're going to make personal insinuations. As for Michelle Obama, in discussing her academic career, a brief (one sentence) mention of the things that she received attention for at the time is appropriate but I don't particularly care whether it's in the article or not. --Loonymonkey (talk) 16:43, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry that you felt that I insinuated anything; I thought I was unequivocal. I wasn't trying to be adversarial, nor am I now. It was a friendly question, light and nonthreatening.If it's not that important to you, I'll waste no more of your time.Cordially,--Die4Dixie (talk) 19:33, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I still have no idea what you're referring to regarding a position on the Barack Obama page. Doesn't really matter. --Loonymonkey (talk) 20:05, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I addressed your concerns on the talk page for Political positions of Barack Obama. You didn't respond to them. I put the quote back in the article according to your suggestions, but then on my talk page you threatened to have me banned. You also said on my talk page that I should talk about this on the article's talk page, but again, you ignored my recent comments on the talk page. The quote is very relevant to his positions on economics and taxation, and it's been heavily cited in the media. It should be in the article in some form. Grundle2600 (talk) 17:14, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't live here 24/7. If you write something in the middle of the night, I probably won't get to it until sometime the next day. Please explain how this edit addresses any of those concerns. In fact it's far worse. Get off the soapbox. It doesn't matter if the McCain campaign and a bunch of blogs are talking about this quote, that doesn't magically transform it into a political platform. Maybe the argument could be made that this is a campaign issue (although even that would be a stretch as it's likely nobody will be talking about this in a week), but it's certainly not a political position. Oh, and I didn't "threaten to ban you." I was just reminding you of the WP:3RR policy as you seem to favor edit-warring when nobody agrees with you. --Loonymonkey (talk) 17:26, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The introduction to the Economic policies section already had a different quote from Obama saying that he favors the free market. This new quote suggests that Obama has flip flopped, and no longer favors the free market. Readers should be made aware of this change in his position. Since the other quote was already there, the new quote should be added for balance. I just want his new quote to be listed in the same section as his older quote, where he said he believed in the free market. Why do you think it's OK for the section to have one quote but not the other? Why not let readers see both quotes?Grundle2600 (talk) 13:07, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand how a published book, by the "Professor and Chair of Women's Studies" at Ohio State University, is not a reliable source.
Did you even read the references? For this article, I guess even the references need references. I am writing about the following line:
"Some chapters required candidates to sign a contract, before they were endorsed by the local New Party chapter."
1 This is an organization writing about its own organizational requirements. It is not an interpretation.
2. From "Forging Radical Alliances Across Difference", by Jill M. Bystydzienski and Steven P. Schach, 2001, published by Rowman & Littlefield, isbn 0742510581, candidate contract referenced on pages 126-127.
Please read WP:RS. In order to include the material, we would need a verifiablereliable third-party source. Even if there was any way to verify that this material is authentic (there isn't) it still wouldn't be acceptable because it is a primary source, not a third-party source. For example, I can write on my website that Brad Pitt lives at my house but that couldn't be included in an article about him unless it was reported by an outside reliable source. --Loonymonkey (talk) 00:24, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I notice the discussion has started again on this talk page along similar lines to the previous ones and still appears to be getting nowhere so I thought I'd see if we could find some common ground. My position is that there should be some separation between prohibiting the publication/possession of a book and preventing it being carried in a particular library. Your position seems to be (correct me if I'm wrong) that you object to the idea that an article entitled list of banned books would not contain books from both of these categories.
It seems that we might both be satisfied by having two separate lists. One would contain the books currently at list of banned books and could be titled 'List of books banned at a national level' or something like that. Something snappier, hopefully. The other would contain books in my second category, possibly derived from List of most commonly challenged books in the U.S.. Ideally there would also be a central prose article called something like 'Book censorship' which would cover the broader topic, referring to both lists as required, but that would involve more work.
Would something like this be acceptable to you? If you have issues with it then I'd appreciate it if you could explain them and ideally suggest some amendments. Thanks for your time. --Cherry blossom tree 20:40, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, and thanks for the comments. That sounds pretty reasonable, although I agree that writing the third article is a serious chore so it might not get done anytime soon (and could potentially turn into another battleground). My main problem with the article as it is now is that it has the very broad title "List of banned books" but for functional purposes is adhering to a much narrower definition along the lines of "List of books banned for possession at the national level by government entities." Reading through the archives, I find no consensus for defining the article that way or really for any definition whatsoever (and it seems to come from a political POV, although I don't really understand what it has to do with politics). So either the article needs to be renamed (obviously something less clumsy than what I just said but more narrowly descriptive) and clearly defined for readers as well as editors, or it needs to follow the broader title and simply include any book that has been "banned" according to reliable sources. This of course gets into the other big problem with the article which is that in practice, if not by design, it has serious ownership issues. Any editor that attempts to add a book that was not banned for possession at the national level, though this is an arbitrary (and seemingly POV) criteria, is met with an immediate revert war. Not being one to edit-war myself, there isn't much to do but let a few editors have their way. For this reason (and the fact that the discussion on the talk page is thoroughly poisoned) I feel that an RfC is necessary. These sort of logjams are common in small articles that are only watched by a few editors and it's amazing how quickly they can be resolved when non-involved experienced editors and administrators from the larger community get involved. But, as I said, I have so little time for that right now (and am actually going to be taking a little wiki break) so it will have to wait for a few weeks at least. No rush, the article isn't going anywhere. Again, thanks for your well-thought comments and your reasonable tone. --Loonymonkey (talk) 23:47, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Setting aside the definitional issue, there is a more practical issue. If the list of banned books contains books that have been banned by governments along with books that have been successfully challenged in public schools, then this list would be substantially similar to the list of challenged books, which is very large; books banned by governments, which is significantly smaller, would be lost in the sauce, so to speak.
I for one do not think Wikipedia should have two substantially similar lists. I believe it much better to have two separate lists, each one pointing to the other and giving the distinctions between them.
Let me give a concrete example and explain more problems. Suppose there are 2000 books that have been successfully challenged in public schools and have been legally removed. They would be on a list of challenged books, similar to what currently exists. Now suppose there are 100 books that have been banned by various governments around the world, similar to what currently exists. If those lists were combined, there would be one list of 2000 books and one list of 2100 books. As a result, 2000 books would be double listed, the 100 books would be much harder to distinguish although they represent illegal activity as opposed to legal activity (generally), and we would be equating the actions of schools "banning" books with the actions of governments banning books--two totally separate although serious, related concepts.
Yes, plenty of reliable sources easily confuse the two, but that does not mean Wikipedia should also easily confuse the two as well. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 01:37, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect that your concerns relating to people removing books that do not fit their definition of 'ban' would also be resolved by operating two lists. In this scenario everyone would more or less agree which books belonged where so the would not arise. --Cherry blossom tree 09:10, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I need to warn you that you are attempting to revert an Obama wiki article content that was part of the article for nearly two years and removed without consensus.--PaulLowrance (talk) 15:33, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See talk page for that article. No need to discuss it here. You need to get consensus for adding that material to the article (whether it once was there or not)--Loonymonkey (talk) 15:38, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize if I was rude in any way. I saw your comment in my talk page and did the same. I guess we can each remove it. I can get overly defensive if I see what appears as wikipedia being used as a tool to bash or even hide information about a politician. Regards--PaulLowrance (talk) 16:07, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, just so you know, I've just unblocked the IP address that was edit warring on this article the other day. I've discussed things with him, and have asked him to start a discussion on the article talk page regarding his recent edits. Since you were the editor reverting him most often, would you mind commenting once that discussion begins, or starting one yourself? Thanks. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask me. Hersfold(t/a/c) 22:58, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I've already discussed it on the talk page but that didn't achieve much. Even after explanation, I'm not sure if that editor really understands the importance of reliable sourcing on WP:BLPs. Thanks for you help in the matter. --Loonymonkey (talk) 01:50, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You reverted my edit of Canada as having a state religion, on the grounds of the reference to God being "random". I don't understand your usage of the word random in this context. The fact remains that the preamble of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms does acknowledge the "supremacy of God". NorthernThunder (talk) 00:49, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What religion would that be? --Loonymonkey (talk) 03:10, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Canada does not have a state religion, Christian or otherwise. --Loonymonkey (talk) 18:04, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I had no idea that there was a god that was not connected to any religion. NorthernThunder (talk) 19:14, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of your personal beliefs, there aren't any reliable sources which state that Canada has a state religion. I don't know what else to tell you. There's not really anything left to discuss on the subject. --Loonymonkey (talk) 21:23, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yoru edit here is the subject of an AfD for Donofrio v. Wells. Please do not revert until the subject is decided by the community. Bearian (talk) 22:06, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The AfD has nothing to do with this article. The AfD is to determine whether the lawsuit merits its own article (consensus seems to be that it doesn't, especially now that it's been thrown out). But that is completely irrelevant to this article, where its inclusion adds nothing. There is no information about Birthright citizenship in the United States of America that is given by mentioning a frivolous lawsuit that's been thrown out. Further, keep in mind that if you're seeking to add material to an article, the burden is on you to make the case for inclusion, not n others to make the case for removing it. --Loonymonkey (talk) 22:58, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I accept the outcome. Sorry for the bother. See WP:GRIEF. :-) Bearian (talk) 02:20, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For your information my addition to Barack Obama was neutral and well sourced. For the future please discuss on Wikipedia:WikiProject Political parties which I head. --Megapen (talk) 21:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
