User talk:Soxwon/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Natural born vs naturalized citizens and Human rigts

I took note of your position that it was a 'soap-box' issue to put naturalized citizens' ineligiblity for the US presidency in the Human Rights in the US article. I disagree that it is not notable or a soap-box issue and here's why: It is certainly notable, the eligibilityof the incumbent US president having been questioned in the last election and beyond, and it is a human rights issue because equality before the law is increasingly being recognized as a natural right, which seems at odds with the eligibility criteria for this office. I would therefore appreciate if you do not remove it and do not edit it unless you find something false or incorrect in this segment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.122.20.235 (talk) 18:29, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

NCLB

You reverted some very specific criticism of NCLB into the header of NCLB. If that's the place to discuss the particular merits and harms of the legislation, I could add benefits there as well to make the article more rounded, since there are elements of NCLB which have some hard data to demonstrate their merits. Or we could remove the very specific criticism out of the header, which is a place for general criticisms and praises. If you think it should have a section other than the header, by all means please move it there. --Ryan Wise (talk) 00:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Soxon. I'm still not sure I follow your logic. Why is including anti-NCLB commentary in a section but not pro-NCLB commentary 'NPOV?' Are you saying you're leaving my change as a good faith edit? I'm asking to figure out if this matter has been resolved or not. If you prefer, I could restore the old version of the header and add information to balance it out, so that a study on 1st to 3rd graders (who constitute a small fraction of those affected by NCLB) isn't taken as representative of the program as a whole. Let me know your thoughts. (Or if you prefer, don't do anything and I'll assume the matter is resolved)

Thanks! --Ryan Wise (talk) 16:49, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Limbaugh: Your favorite page!

Leave the transcript alone. it clarifies the controversy once and for all. delete the earlier paragraphs if you want but this is the final statement in his own words: it is his page and should be in his own words, don't you agree, as opposed to someone else's words???

Furtive admirer (talk) 06:42, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

No, it was unecessary and will be taken out every time if not by me then someone else Soxwon (talk) 13:07, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Don't listen to Limbaugh too much - he'll poison your mind. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:10, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

And your heart :). I had visions of strangling my father for making me listen to it for hours on vacation. Soxwon (talk) 13:42, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Take pity on the red-state voters. They've lost everything. They've no power left. Limbaugh is all they've got. Hey, have you heard this one? What's the difference between The Hindenburg and Rush Limbaugh? :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:45, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

No I haven't, what's the difference? Soxwon (talk) 13:47, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

One is a flaming Nazi gasbag. The ot

her is a dirigible. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:03, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

LMAO! Soxwon (talk) 14:07, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Did you hear about the honest CEO Bugs? Soxwon (talk) 14:17, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

pare the section down if you can retain the essence of his quotes. as i said,it is entitled HIS page, so his words should definitely be the priority. if you fellas think he is so bad, then why bother writing there? you want balance, i presume. why not write about rahm emanuel, the ballerina or keith olbermann, the very desperate misogynist?? i would edit out the earlier commentary on the the Obama failure. i cannot keep reverting your edits, so why not compromise?

i surmise we agree on one thing: The Red Sox, or it is the White Sox for you?

Furtive admirer (talk) 22:42, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

The Wiki article on Rush Limbaugh does not belong to Rush Limbaugh, so it's not HIS page. And if you insist on "balance", let's add some input from Hitler fans to the Hitler page, shall we??? OYZ REM (talk) 23:40, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Old Stuff

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on 2004 United States election voting controversies. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. 71.178.193.134 (talk) 04:15, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Rush Limbaugh. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. --Allen3 ^talk 16:48, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I reverted two changes that amounted to vandalism by the same user and one of yours, hardly "edit warring." How about taking it to the talk page instead of making POV changes.

February 2009

Whoops, sorry; I clicked the button right as you reverted the edit, so I ended up reverting and warning you instead. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:08, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

No problem, I'm reporting him since it seems he turned on me after I reverted his edits on the Republican Party (United States) Soxwon (talk) 20:09, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Blazing Saddles

Thanks for you comment. If I let myself get carried away, I might have hundreds of quotes on my talk page. Blazing Saddles by itself has line after line of quotable material. The best movie scripts often do. There are a bunch in Dr. Strangelove, for example. (Protect your precious bodily fluids!) The Marx Brothers, Bugs Bunny, Yogi Berra, Casey Stengel - all great stuff. The one Groucho line I included in that section kind of forces me to keep the number of quotes to four (a "gallon"). Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:18, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi

Hi Soxwon! Thanx for your compliment! (re: Weasel words at their finest) Yet the NYPost cartoon is clearly anti-Jewish. Sadly, the same cartoonist is now relapsing onto the same kind of racialist abuse, this time targeting President Obama himself. See [1] Apostolos Margaritis (talk) 15:42, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Those were weasel words, and if not that then WP:SYN, they have no direct bearing other than by your own opinion. Soxwon (talk) 15:46, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not making this up. To quote from the link above: The Post's cartoonist Sean Delonas, meanwhile, has frequently been accused of bigotry: the New York gossip blog Gawker once nicknamed him "the Picasso of prejudice".Apostolos Margaritis (talk) 15:59, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

That's nice, that has nothing to do with Neoconservatism, and until you can find a reliable non-primary source saying that the person in question and their actions have major implications for Neoconservatism it is still WP:SYN. Soxwon (talk) 16:02, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Keep an eye on the want ads, the Post might soon have an opening for an editorial cartoonist. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:45, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Leftist Guerilla

How do you add stuff to this page. Cmon. I haven't vandalized for 3 years.

Apparently you've got a history of vandalism according to your talk page. That edit in question was blatant vandalism. Soxwon (talk) 23:33, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

First chimps, and now guerilla megillahs. What's next? Leeza Gibbons? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:47, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Lol, count on Bugs to lighten up the situation. Soxwon (talk) 00:54, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Dr Ordronaux

I would be grateful if you would look at my query on the Civil War discussion page. Many thanks, Wfm495 (talk) 20:36, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I responeded, and I don't think there's much to argue. If John Calhoun isn't in it, then I don't see how this doctor could make it. (Abner Doublday isn't there either which is a crime). Soxwon (talk) 21:52, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I have only two weeks experience of Wiki so please don't judge me too harshly. When a more extensive article is produced about the Civil War there would clearly be a place for the signifcance of medis as there is in the history of the Crimea or war. I have accepted that since it is a very short article, that mentioning a single dr is not appropriate and i have apologised. But I don't think that there is a need for you to comment negatively about (and undo) everything that I do, especiailly as I am trying to implement Wiki policy. Wfm495 (talk) 22:20, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

If I come across as harsh I don't mean to. I noticed the edits and they were indeed in violation of WP:UNDUE. Info like that doesn't belong in the lead. Soxwon (talk) 23:55, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I think a shorter reference to JO's translation of the Regimen (maybe one or two sentences) may be appropriate - it was after all the first English translation since 1617 and that's not insignificant. I will propose something on the article's talk page. – ukexpat (talk) 22:58, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Not in the main article, John C. Calhoun was far more notable, but is barely mentioned. Really I don't think he should be mentioned but it's up to consensus. Soxwon (talk) 23:53, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

undue on Episcopal Diocese of Long Island?

Why did you delete the mention of a historically important benefactor from Episcopal Diocese of Long Island? Tb (talk) 23:40, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE, it was referencing one particular Dr. who was getting undue weight. Soxwon (talk) 23:53, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I believe you are incorrect. WP:UNDUE refers to points of view; it stresses that equal-time should not be accorded views of differing credibility. It doesn't speak to the question you are addressing. But the real question is: this is a hugely important and famous New York benefactor from a hundred years ago, whose quite substantial donation remains of considerable importance for the diocese of Long Island. (You are aware that we are talking abou $10,000 from a century ago, right?) Tb (talk) 23:57, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

No, and I quote: "Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject." Again, giving money is nice, but that is a historical aspsect and not something that should be put in the lead of the article (maybe if it was the founding or the ONLY contribution they ever got) Soxwon (talk) 00:01, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm still confused about one point: is this undue weight? I think you're not aware of the true size and ongoing importance of the bequest. Are you aware of other contributions to the Diocese of Long Island of similar value? Tb (talk) 00:18, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

That's all well and good, it can go in, just not the lead. Soxwon (talk) 02:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Thanks for discussing it with me. Tb (talk) 07:00, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Templates

Hi, I noticed you asked for help at Baseball Bugs' talk page. I know a good bit about templates, just tell me what you need done and I'll get on it. :) — neuro^(talk) 09:31, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm still happy to do it, even if you do want it for personal use. Drop me a line if you change your mind! :) — neuro^(talk) 00:20, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I've made {{User:Neurolysis/Define}}, you can use it by using {{User:Neurolysis/Define|Word|Definition}}. That the sort of thing you want? — neuro^(talk) 01:21, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

No problem at all. :) — neuro^(talk) 01:45, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Very Easy Solution

I'd love to keep this as pleasant as can be. I bet there must be loads of CCM artists who are prominently active in the CR movement. Find one, with a proper citation, and I'll peacefully retreat from my position.TakeMyRollerCoaster (talk) 09:23, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Drudge Report

Thanks for being fair. It's not that common. ► RATEL ◄ 04:09, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

► RATEL ◄ has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Thanks for the cookie lol. It's common sense, Drudge is conservative and the Report is considered that way by many. I just feel WP should leave it to the reader. Soxwon (talk) 04:16, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Blocked

Hello, I have blocked you for a period of 24 hours for violating the three revert rule on the Drudge Report article. The article was locked for 3 days by admin Deacon, and even after that time you and User:Collect still continued to edit war. In future please consider adopting a one revert rule. If you believe this block is unjustified, please use the {{unblock|YOUR REASON HERE}} template directly below this paragraph. Thanks and regards, Scarian ^{Call me Pat!} 17:14, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Soxwon (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

My last change was a change in tense, not a revision, I thought grammar was not a part of 3RR

Decline reason:

Nope, 3RR has very few exceptions, and grammar is certainly not one of them. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:58, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Soxwon (talk) 17:53, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

3RR

Ouch. Keep this on your page as a reminder. As a general rule, never break 3RR. There are exceptions, such as blatant vandalism (e.g. stupid stuff that random idiots post in the middle of articles, like "Hi, Mom!"); and BLP violations (e.g. "according to National Unquirer, famous actor Joe Schmo is a closet necrophiliac.") Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:07, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

That's what I get for being a grammar nazi, I was annoyed at the tense. :( Soxwon (talk) 19:38, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, just say you won't do it again and you'll get unblocked. No big deal. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 22:29, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Really? Well, this might actually be a good thing, I was about to do the same thing with Rush Limbaugh, so it was probably better this way. Soxwon (talk) 23:26, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I would also like you to be unblocked -- I have the funny feeling we agree on far more things than we disagree on for sure! And I iterate my apology. Jpgordon is giving you very good advice here. Collect (talk) 23:32, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm. I don't think you should have been blocked, but I don't write the rules either. Sometimes it's easy to forget how many reverts one does on an article. No biggy. :) ► RATEL ◄ 23:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

The block was fair, but I support unblock at this point. Obviously, the decision is up to an admin. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:05, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree the block was fair, after having reread the policy. Soxwon (talk) 00:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

There's no reason you couldn't re-post that unblock request. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:17, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I removed it b/c other than now (and now is only for 5 minutes) I wasn't going to have occasion to edit before my block was up, I figured I'd save everyone the trouble and just let it go. Soxwon (talk) 10:52, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

That's up to you, as you've got about 6 hours to go. When I've been blocked in the past, I just let it run its course without asking for an unblock, since it was short-term. But that's an individual decision. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:59, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I just got back from the Supreme Court, and the blocks up so I didn't miss much time lol.

Drudge Stuff

Thanks for the note. I'm still re-reading the discussions on the related talk pages. I'll refrain from editing per your indication of the decision of the day. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:54, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Reading the discussions on the talk pages of both Drudge and his Report, it appears that present concensus indicates agreement that: 1) Drudge is conservative (claimed, cited and generally acknowledged), and 2) his Report, while often described as conservative or reflecting Drudge's conservative views, isn't strictly defined as such in secondary reliable sources. So a few of you have agreed to have the conservative descriptor attached to Drudge, but not his report, at this time. Do I understanding the situation correctly?

I've reverted my edit, since it was out of line with the present understanding. I do see the lede on the Matt Drudge article as lacking in the defining characteristics that make him notable in the first place. Please review my recent small edit to that article and let me know if you find it acceptable in light of your recent discussions. Per your note on my talk page, my edit still allows the reader to make up their mind about the Drudge Report. Xenophrenic (talk) 23:44, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Perfect, that is I believe the concensus. Soxwon (talk) 23:55, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not totally sure who's doing what on that page. Take it to WP:ANI and (1) explain the situation and (2) ask for advice. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:18, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

You responded last week on my talk page:

Alright, as you could probably tell by my talk page, there has been quite a *ahem* "spirited" discussion over this so I don't want to start another lol. Soxwon (talk) 21:57, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

You, sir, are a master of understatement. ;-) I'm glad I sensed a warning in your message and back-peddled out of that conversation when I did. I'm still following it, however, as it makes for some interesting reading. Xenophrenic (talk) 16:19, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

So glad I can keep you entertained lol, but really I think that the argument has finally been decided. The arrival of other wikipedians has shown me to be correct for the most part. Soxwon (talk) 16:56, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you...

...for coming to my defense. I've mentioned that guy on WP:ANI. He seems mighty familiar with wikipedia for a newbie. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:39, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Rush Limbaugh

In accordance with Wikipedia policy, controversy sections have no place in good articles. If you have something you want to add to this discussion, see the appropriate section in that article's talk page. Ejnogarb (talk) 16:18, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

That's not what you said, you said and I quote:

Since the principle editors of the Barack Obama page have made it clear that a controversies section has no place in a good article, I am removing that section from this page (which is inordinately long as it is).

You obviously were trolling and only trying to start trouble. Soxwon (talk) 16:22, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm trying to make Wikipedia unbiased by not favoring any particular person or set of principles. If such a section is inappropriate for Barack Obama, it is also inappropriate for Rush Limbaugh. Ejnogarb (talk) 16:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Again, I can see the troll. You're undermining your own credibility and as such will not be taken seriously Soxwon (talk) 16:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Please re-consider

Please withdraw Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anarchism and capitalism. An AfD on the article will be unproductive for several reasons:

The relationship between anarchism and capitalism is beyond all doubt notable; there has been an overwhelming amount of scholarship done on this topic.
Your nomination addresses only the current state of the article, rather than its potential.
Should the article not be retained, content will almost certainly need to be merged elsewhere rather than deleted – as your nomination implies.
Almost no discussion whatsoever has taken place on the article talkpage as to what should be done with it – this is a prerequisite for an established article as WP:BEFORE clearly indicates.

Please withdraw it. Skomorokh 18:57, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Eh?

Hey, I was just curious how one reconciles anarcho-capitalism and free education... —Memotype::T 04:05, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. I agree that our talk pages isn't the best place to debate; I was mostly just wondering if you really meant that :). However, I would enjoy discussing the issue somewhere else if you'd like. —Memotype::T 22:55, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Weatherman (organization)

There is the beginnings of an edit war, and I though you might want to be add to the conversation before it becomes a one on one debate. I am ok with suggestions on improvements that you might suggest. Bytebear (talk) 01:57, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Madoff's betrayal: Dante's Inferno scholar interviewed

are you my professor? do you delete everyone who uses quotes? who deletes you? why do you keep asking why? Madoff's personality is a metaphor for tragedy and should be included for those "dense" readers who have trouble evaluating maladaptive behavior in society, not unlike the super-criminals from the planet krypton!! pete hamill just wrote he is up there with stalin and hitler, as the top 25 of the 20th century! you seem to be as controlling as madoff, hmn... maybe you should mind your p's adn q's. did you teachers ever tell you that?

Furtive admirer (talk) 16:23, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be oblivious that reverting everyone's research is a huge personal attack!! do you add new facts or just edit everyone else's input? i would suggest you do your homework as well. in the movie, To Sir with Love, a student wrote a love letter to her high school teacher, sidney poitier. he proceeded to correct it for grammar and syntax, and ignored the intent and message. i would suggest you research Dante's The Divine Comedy and Robert Pinsky yourself and figure out why it is an important metaphor. i am going to re-insert it again until there is a consensus asto why it is irrelevant in the lead section, which is misnamed. It should be "Bernard Madoff: The Government Case". please do not be so IMPULSIVE and PERFUNCTORY in your deletions. you are also omitting words in context in your haste to offend, which is EXACTLY what you are doing!!

Furtive admirer (talk) 17:08, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

United States presidential election, 2008

With the Dems having more coverage and scrutiny in the news at the time your little mistake is understandable. I was close to revert it too but gladly didn't do so (after checking sources). No need to "shove it any further into my mouth" ;) :) --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:45, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

wings and stuff

Well, I do believe in God, a Christian God and am in fact a devout Catholic Christian. So I do in fact believe God had a hand in evolution. Perhaps not in a way that say, gaps can be shown, but he did do it, just as for example, if a man gives money to the poor, we would say that the poor man received from God, and that the mechanism for this charity was that a rich man allowed the grace of God to enter into his heart. So with evolution and God, we say God made the world, and that the mechanism is evolution. Ultimately, God made everything good, so its all causal - God is the ultimate and final cause of all creation, so that he made the first big bang 15 billion years ago, and he created the laws of physics that governed how the universe would turn out, and ultimately, how you and I did.

As for how complex organs work, a wing evolved from a feathered limb, and through natural selection, reptiles with stronger wings could jump higher away from predators and towards food, and so natural selection would cause reptiles with only the strongest wings to survive, until only reptiles with wings that could fly existed. For evolution, you need mutations to cause variations, so that some reptiles have freak arms that are more like wings, and more feathery than others.

Respectfully Gabr-el 02:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but why did the ones with feathers survive when the mutation hindered them and kept them from reproducing? I mean, it couldn't have reached a stage where it helped them all at once. Soxwon (talk) 02:05, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Good point, so then they must have evolved in an environment that had certain conditions that favored a direction. The more feathers you have, the more attractive you could be to a mate for instance. Birds nowadays have males with bright colors that make them easy to see and eaten, but this balanced by more females and mating. So when the balance favors one more than the other, which can be changed by the ever-changing environment (we're talking hundreds of millions of years) then the result is selection for more feathers. Gabr-el 02:15, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes but again, where did this mutation come from? Where did the feathers come from? Did they suddenly just appear? It just seems like to much diversity to happen by random for a species to survive. Soxwon (talk) 02:19, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

The feathers can start out as modified hair, or skin, I don't know personally, but a much better explanation might be asked of from a professor in this field, provided you don't fall into their trap. At the end of the day, as I said, God made all the atoms, and the laws of Physics, so how it turned out doesn't make a difference. If you're worried about reconciling 6 day creation with the world, I have a little something that will surprise you. They say that God reduced the length of days in old times since the world was so full of evil. Well, with that in mind:

Day 1 = 7.5 billion years
Day 2 = 3.75 billion years
Day 3 = 1.875 billion years
Day 4 = 0.9375 billion years
Day 5 = 0.46875 billion years
Day 6 = 0.234375 billion years

Total time = 14.7 billion years.

I started day one as half of 15 billion years the universe is suppose to be aged at, then halved that at every day.

Finally, God rested on Day 7.

If you don't mind my interceding (I saw this conversation start over on Ilkali's page, and I was interested, so I followed it here), evolution (theoretically) works as follows. first, three terms:

genome: (loosely) the sum total of genes available in a species
genotype: the full set of genes inherited by a creature from its parents
phenotype: the genes that actually express themselves in an individual

for example, the human genome has genes for all sorts of hair colors. you personally have genes in your genotype for hair color inherited from your mother and your father, but only one of those genes might actually express itself in your hair color (phenotype). and it's tricky - if both of your parents have black hair, but both have unexpressed (recessive) genes for blond hair you could inherit both, and end up blond (and probably cause your parents to have a biiiiig fight...).

so, lets says you have some ancient population of ground dwelling rodents (GDRs). there's a broad range of genes in the GDR genome, which get expressed according to statistical randomness. only those few that are completely unworkable get weeded out of the genome; most continue to get passed on as recessives, even if they're not really successful genes. then the environment changes: some new predator arrives, and suddenly GDRs whose phenotype has sharp tree-climbing claws become more successful than those with phenotypes that don't, because the predators can't catch the tree climbers. so that gene starts to become more common (because those without that gene get eaten) and the species becomes arboreal. Then the predators evolve as well and start climbing trees; those GDRs who can get out of one tree into another with the greatest ease survive better than those who are stuck in one tree or who fall and die. aerodynamic phenotypes get their genes passed on more frequently, and soon you end up with something like a flying squirrel. feathers are similar: feathers provide warmth and protection from rain and sun, just like hair. nothing to do with flying. but if you're a creature who gets an advantage from jumping out of harm's way (or jumping after prey) then feathers (because they are a flat, semi-rigid surface) give a much bigger aerodynamic advantage than hair does (which is why all flying birds have feathers, but the few flying mammals rely on hairless stretches of skin for lift).

now there's nothing in evolution theory that prohibits some sort of Intelligent Design, except for the assertion of strict randomness in the transmission of genes. randomness is a good model of gene transmission, but I've never seen any study that actually demonstrates that it's factual. Neither Darwin nor Lamarque (neither of whom had anything like the modern conception of genes) assumed that the transmission of traits was random (Darwin thought that more-fit specimens bred more; Lamarque thought that parents tended to pass on characteristics that better fit their environment). Mendel came up with the idea of random gene transmission, though there's some evidence he cooked his data. However, the Intelligent Design idea (discounting the sillier uses of it, and giving it its due) will never satisfy a scientist, because it's not parsimonious. if you ask a scientist to choose between an undetermined random process and 'Designer', the scientist will always choose the random process, because you have to assume so much that can't be investigated in the second case. basically he's going to say 'what I see is an undetermined random process - if you can prove that the undetermined random process I see is a Designer please prove that, otherwise have a nice day.' That doesn't mean the scientist is right; it just means the scientist is not going to make assumptions that he can't justify.

just a wandering clarification.

--Ludwigs2 00:30, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

see actual EB article -- with the Crain's clear copyright notice. Thanks! Collect (talk) 14:19, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Clear? Collect (talk) 14:19, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

March 2009

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Conservatism. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Please stop agenda-based editing. Ejnogarb (talk) 15:54, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Huh? Where did I add commentary? Soxwon (talk) 16:21, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Ejnogarb (talk) 16:34, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh plz, I already know I'm at 3Rs so don't bother. Soxwon (talk) 16:36, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Bugs

Well, I guess we won't be wandering down that rabbit-hole for a while now. Hope the retired hare saved enough in his 401(k) for a fun-filled and Fudd-free retirement. And just at the peak of his career, when the young fella showed such promise: still had years of eligibility left. How long will it be now before the AP writers get to vote on his qualifications for Cooperstown? —— Shakescene (talk) 01:56, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I honestly have no idea why Bugs retired. Perhaps he wants to resume under a different identity (the WP:Right to vanish; perhaps he's just tired of all the grief he got at WP:ANI; perhaps he's just tired; perhaps something else (good or bad) has come into his real life; perhaps he just wants to take a break and do something else. I appreciated his sense of humour and his contributions to the baseball and stadium articles, but I know nothing more about him. Sorry I can't give you any further clues about this, and I'm sorry that Bugs is gone even should it prove temporary or a transition to a different editorship. If you want to look at his old discussion page and user page, I'll be glad to offer some technical hints. —— Shakescene (talk) 05:22, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

anti-Jesus POV

Excuse me?? anti-Jesus POV? I put fact, not point of view into the article about the mythical character. And my input didn't portray it as mythical, or point of view, just factual, neutral. Have you never read of Mithras?

Anti Jesus? are you kidding? I was simply adding important historical connections to the article, and I am not done. Do you even know why Christmas is celebrated on Dec 25? Are you even aware of Mithras? Possibly. Please explain what is "anti-Jesus" about pointing out a Mithras connection to the Jesus story. Your turn, what is "anti-Jesus" about pointing out a Mithras connection?? Geĸrίtzl (talk) 00:44, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

very nice of you to apologize, thank you. All the best to you. Geĸrίtzl (talk) 00:11, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Madoff deletions

i really think you are overreaching with your deletions. i didn't decide to divorce my husband the day before he turned his father in. obviously, you are not aware what people do in dire situations. the only reason ruth is not divorcing bernie is because she has spousal confidentiality and and cannot testify against him.

any one who has a legal background knows why she coincidentially filed for divorce after her husband's lawyer made arrangement for the sons to turn their father in. FOLLOW THE MONEY!! TO INSULATE HER KIDS!!

please put it back.

ann the personal secretary has been given perks to keep her mouth shut. there is an article http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE52J4IF20090320 an eyewitness discusses how everyone was overpaid. besides, you deleted the footnoted source.

as for the quote from Pinsky. he commented on the plea. it is sourced.

please stop reverting all my research. i never see you add facts, just knock out others' work. it is not like it's vandalism. so check the sources, or just read what you see without such being such a critic.

i bet you loved manny and didn't want him to leave boston, right?

Furtive admirer (talk) 23:01, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

thanx 4 your note. we simply have different perspectives: you like to delete critically. i like to find facts and include them. your analysis of my "thinking" is not "original sourcing". It simply is stating the facts. Any reader can make their own inference and judgment why someone is making an outrageous salary, or why someone put his assets in his wife's name when his dad did the same thing. i never said "like father like son". the reader will infer that from the facts on the page. i'm simply stating the facts, not concluding a + b + c = a propensity for cheating/fraud. as the story enfolds, readers make their own inferences. e.g. there is an article about shana madoff's "material girl" addiction for attention and having the "right" image. that is original sourcing and i did not include her needs even tho' it is my "opinion" that is a family pattern.

it is quite amusing that the critics on wikipedia, spend a great deal of time trying to figure out the motives of the contributor rather than just reading the facts: arm-chair psychiatry.

Furtive admirer (talk) 16:55, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Guidelines

Soxwon, the best sources don't describe the website that way. Do a google books search and read what the sources with extensive coverage of the website actually say. The version you just reverted basically gives Ratel everythign he wants, but at least it leaves the door a tiny bit open to reflect that the site itself does not identify itself as conservative and neither do lots of other sources. The New York Times is liberal, but it's not even mentioned in the introduction, same with Newsweek etc. I have tried adding sources that give alternative descriptions, but I've been reverted. Many sources describe it as a gossip website (that's how it started), other don't mention politics at all, and others mention its association with conservative politics, but don't say it is a conservative website. To do so in the first part of the first sentence of the article is misleading, inaccurate and inconsistent with our guidelines here. Please be reasonable. Thank you. Even Wikidemon says the lead sentence is inappropriate. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:09, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm tired of this edit war and quite frankly do not care. Soxwon (talk) 00:22, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Reverting the edits of other because you're tired of the conflict is not a sound basis or supported by policy. You are welcome to take the article off your watchlist or stay out of this particular dispute. I'm focused on continuing to improve the article and making sure it meets Wikipedias guidelines for NPOV, appropriate weight, and encyclopedic content. Cheers. ChildofMidnight (talk)

Obama

My fault. I intended a longer edit summary citing WP:UNDUE but hit the button first. Grsz¹¹ 23:16, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

It's undue, recentism, and WP:NOTNEWS. Not to mention since it's so hot off the press, largely unverified. Actually, I think i'll revert now. Grsz¹¹ 23:19, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Ran't

Hi, just wanted to explain that I had the edit window open and, with Tchaikovsky's Suite No. 4 in G playing and birds alighting just outside the windows in the drizzle to eat seeds, I was investigating some of the other articles curious to see what the status of photos actually were. When I finally finished composing my response, having previewed it a few times, I discovered the request not to add to the section. (There should be some way during draft previews to be alerted to such a development.) So, for what it's worth, I just wanted to note that I didn't dig in there somehow against your judgement after you had collapsed the section to add my two more cents. I do admit that I noticed you had blanked his rant earlier, but when the other fellow, Cameron, responded I thought perhaps it would remain. As the guy's second response to me shows, he's clearly not comprehending, or at least not responding to, the central points I was making, seizing instead upon tangentials, so I see why it makes sense not to continue with him and have no objection to your decision. I was a little surprised to see so few pics of Obama actually with, say, his fellow candidates in the primary article, but then contemplated that they wouldn't make any point other than to prove they were, indeed, there, and as I wrote, I don't find the actual bio article to be amiss in regard to photos.

An aside, I glanced at a couple of your edits and found them remarkably balanced and collected and fair-minded. If I were one of those in the know or the habit of giving donuts and cookies and stars and whatnot, you'd be my candidate. Great work, great to know someone like yourself is a voice of reason around here. Best, Abrazame (talk) 23:17, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Jones Paper

You are trying to remove the sources of news coverage of a new paper by Steven Jones. Have you seen the paper? Please look at the date of the news article. It is not a "database reprinting." It covers the new information in the new paper. bov (talk) 00:12, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Conservatism

I noticed that several editors wish to delete the "Psychological research" section of Conservatism without discussion. As you had been involved in this discussion I would welcome your comments at Talk:Conservatism#Psychological Research? The Four Deuces (talk) 21:12, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Kindly note that there most certainly was and is discussion. Accusing anyone of sneaking the change in is wrong. The material, moreover, is not about "conservatism" but psychoanalytic material about "conservatives" which verges on pseudo science no matter how referreed the journal is. Collect (talk) 21:31, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Didn't look like much discussion to me and it did look like sneaking. I've looked and responded so there is no need to carry on thank you. Soxwon (talk) 21:32, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Barney Frank talk page

Hi, a friendly suggestion here. Benjiboi has reverted your attempt to change some prior talk page comments. I haven't even looked at what's going on and don't want to try to figure out who is right here. Just a comment about how you may be able to avoid an edit war on a talk page... I think it's completely okay to delete or refactor your own talk page messages if nobody has commented on them yet, or if you do it in a way that does not put any subsequent comments out of context or make them look bad. But if someone else has commented on something you said it's too late to change unless they agree, because the reader should get the right impression about what they are responding to. By that theory it's almost always okay to fix typos, misspellings, poor word choice, etc., but not to revise or remove a point. But if you have second thoughts or want to explain yourself better, and if you think that ought to be done in the original instead of a new one, its best to leave some indication of what you changed and why. One good way is to use the strike-through (<s>xxxx</s>) for striking, and underline (<u>xxxx</u>) or italics (<i>xxxx</i>) to add stuff. Sometimes I also like to use italics to make notes or parenthetical comments, e.g. comment stricken by Wikidemon in response to message left on talk page. Please forgive if this is all old news to you, just hoping we can all get along for the best on the talk page. Wikidemon (talk) 23:32, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Request for citations ?

Added 3 sentences from the History of Republican Party to explain that after the breakdown of conservative coalition the solid south became republican. The change of the south from democrat to republican is arguably the most important political factor in the last 50 years. And it explains how the republicans reached a majority in the senate and house. It is clearly more important than the fact that republicans supported protestant prohibitionists in the 1870s. I note that nothing in the entire history section is cited so I question if that is the entire reason you undid my edit. If there is something there you feel is slanted let's work to re-write but the end of the solid south is an important part of republican history and its present demographic. Nitpyck (talk) 23:37, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Here's my understanding of what happened back in those postwar days. You may find it useful in making the topic more Republican. Up to about '64 there were in effect 3 parties: Repub., Demo. and Southern Demo. Officially only 2, but the southern wing often voted with the Republicans. After WW2 the civil rights movement tore up the southern demos. There were several attempts at a 3rd party and eventually a mass migration to the Repubs. Even through Eisenhower and many other Repubs were pro-civil rights Johnson was given the main blame. In general the Republicans and the southern Democrats were closely aligned on many other positions but it took the federal move against Jim Crow to shock them into moving. This started in '48 with the integration of the armed services. Was seen in the movement of voters to Nixon in'68 and became pretty well settled in Regan's terms in office '80. Many other traditional Demos moved in this same period because of civil rights and and for reasons that in the History of Republican Party page. Nitpyck (talk) 03:17, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dixiecrat http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Wallace http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_United_States_Republican_Party —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nitpyck (talk • contribs) 03:33, 12 April 2009 (UTC) http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/senators/f_two_sections_with_teasers/states.htm 9 Southern states 3 had 1 senator during reconstruction, since 1961 all have had or continue to have at least 1. Delete my summary again and I'll ask for citations for the rest of the History section which has many more questionable statements none of which are cited. I will however forbear to delete as you have repeatedly done. Help me out here, what exactly do you question? That people switched party allegiance, that the south is now a republican stronghold, that this change began after 1964. Nitpyck (talk) 06:04, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Help desk

	Hello Soxwon. Replies have been posted to your question at the Help desk. If the problem is solved, please place {{Resolved\|1=~~~~}} at the top of the section. Thank you! Zoo Fari 06:27, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
	You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{helpdeskreply}} template.

Bill O'Reily

Seeing as you were a participant in this discussion earlier, you may wish to know that the criticism page is being looked at again. Soxwon (talk) 00:54, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Check out the main article bio. An editor just reverted another editor saying that consesus was reached about including the "widely considered a conservative" material in the lead when it was discussed by 3-4 folks and the lead had been stable for a while? Its pretty laughable at this point. Anyways, Tom (talk) 01:01, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Criticism of Bill O'Reilly and United Way

Please understand that a controversy is defined as "A dispute, especially a public one, between sides holding opposing views." Clearly, O'Reilly was involved in a notable controversy when he brought to light that charitable donations were not being used as advertised. Whether he was right or wrong is irrelevant to the discussion. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 17:43, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Lolcat image

It's actually User:Gurch you ought to be complaining to. :-) Hut 8.5 17:20, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for giving a clearer explanation of what I was trying to get at on the O'Reilly criticism talk page. I'm getting a little hot and bothered about it for no particular reason (it's not like I actually care about the subject of the article). I can be a bit of a policy wonk at times, and that page appears, in my mind, to have... problems with policies. SDY (talk) 23:24, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

refuses to actually work on body of articles?

First time I ever heard of a fake newbie who "specialises" only in ledes <g>. 110 edits - and he knows all the buzzwoirds, which makes me disinclined to consider him an actual new editor. Did you look at his work? <g> Collect (talk) 23:31, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Help desk reply

	Hello Soxwon. Replies have been posted to your question at the Help desk. If the problem is solved, please place {{Resolved\|1=~~~~}} at the top of the section. Thank you! Zoo Fari 03:19, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
	You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{helpdeskreply}} template.

Good faith on Barney Frank

You and the other editor have each tonight accused the other of stonewalling. Please, I am asking you both to refain from disparaging the other. Ladyof Shalott 03:51, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: RFC

The RFC needs to be closed this second, today. RFCs are only able to work if all the parties agree to stick to the finding of the RFC, in terms of editing restrictions. Collect has made it clear that he is not going to give in and work with whatever they decide upon, therefore the entire thing is pointless and a waste of everyone's time. Since an RFC is non-binding, nothing will come out of this. If they want to force him or her to abide by restrictions, an ANI thread should be created, or they should take it to ArbCom. As I said above, it needs to be closed now, as it blatantly obvious it is not going anywhere.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 20:33, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Move to Close

And a move to Close is not a vote, so including that section is futile and hostile. 207.237.33.36 (talk) 21:23, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

reminder against the perception of CANVAS

Clearly we have different opinions on the RFC of Collect. That being the case I want to completely make a note here - in 100% the most civil and non-threatening way.

You have made several requests for other editors to give their opinions on the page, including LadyofShalott, Jim62sch, and Daedalus969. In good faith, I assume you are not canvassing, votestacking, or otherwise, however, two of those three editors invited by you have sided with you thus far while the third has said plainly they have not had a chance to review the RFC in its entirety. Daedalus969 closed and archived my "indef block" section in the RFC while you prevented my closing and archiving the "Move to Close" section...on which LadyofShalott agrees with you (in that the matter of RFC closure is worthy of finding consensus which you know -from my comments there- that I believe the only consensus is to keep the matter open.)

Since there is a great amount of controversy right now, I have gone out of my way not to invite other editors into the fold; for several reasons: to avoid any accusation of Canvassing, to avoid more redundant opinions into a discussion with many intelligent and thought-out opinions, and to avoid escalating loudness in an already loud discussion.

I can not ask you not to ask other editors from participating. I can, however, in the most polite way I know how, ask you to review WP:CANVAS. I ask this of you not only in the light of the Collect RFC but also in light of the recent accusations of stonewalling made against you on the Barney Frank article.

Of course, you may choose to heed my reminder or you may choose not. But I do believe that this note on your talk page is appropriate. Again, thank you for remaining civil, and for understanding the POV of others. 207.237.33.36 (talk) 03:45, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply on my talk page. I stand by my civil observations and my comments here. The above was a reminder. I'm sorry you clearly didn't perceive it that way. 207.237.33.36 (talk) 04:32, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: Joe the Plumber - "All editors"?... now that's monumental. But I'll take a crack at ones who were more than just passing through.Mattnad (talk) 15:06, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Done.Mattnad (talk) 15:26, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

To my mild surprise, none of the editors I contacted in the second round have yet participated in this RFC. When I made my first cut at picking interested editors (and received the blast from Collect for Canvassing), I tried to finds Editors who were active wikipedians and actually cared (eg. Red Pen of Doom, Jim). It seems the others are worn out or not interested (so far).Mattnad (talk) 15:24, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Replied

at my talk page, as you have seen. While I'm here, remember to use 4 tildes sign your comments - see, for example, my last formatting change at the RfC where your username was sitting there by itself. :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:51, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Collect

You're doing a nice job on the RFC. Glad you stepped up, I was feeling all alone. ;) Jim62sch^dissera! 16:40, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Soxwon, I've followed your contributions there with interest. One of them[2] baffles me. Please help me out here. The apparent context of your remark: one user repeatedly attacks other users as sockpuppets, meatpuppets, sockpuppeteers etc. without a scintilla of corroborating evidence. I understand you to be saying that the accuser is not to blame for these accusations. If that interpretation is correct, who do you say is to blame? Cheers, Writegeist (talk) 07:56, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply at my Talk. Writegeist (talk) 16:15, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah, ye olde passion! Hey, us humans are hard-wired with it (and mine has got me into scalding hot water in the past . . .) Personally, I rather like to see it around the place from time to time. Thanks for the background. Writegeist (talk) 16:48, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Funny, it just struck me: you defend Collect so assiduously that, according to Collect's method of deductive reasoning (see his post below), it looks as though Soxwon is -- OMG! -- Collect himself. Not that I think you are... Just thought it would give you a laugh. :~)

Neat -- WG is defending Brendan19 as though he were WG himself <g>. The person who makes unfounded accusations at the outset is the problem -- in this case it was Ikip. Who has been blocked, banned, chastised and warned innumerable times now. And been in around two hundred AN/I pages as well, canvassed several thousand people and the like. I apologized for my 2 3RR violations -- find me where he has been as willing to learn -- or is he free until he reaches three hundred AN/I pages? Four hundred? Collect (talk) 10:28, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

"Neat -- WG is defending Brendan19 as though he were WG himself <g>."

So Collect, hot on the heels of the abject failure to substantiate his repeated personal attacks on me as a sockpuppet, meatpuppet, sockpuppeteer etc., now clearly insinuates that Brendan19 -- whom Collect has already accused, without a shred of evidence, of being a sockpuppet -- is my sockpuppet This latest gratuitous and false accusation duly noted and logged. Writegeist (talk) 16:15, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Collect, pls see my Talk and pls don't continue these attacks at Soxwon's talk. Writegeist (talk) 16:15, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the note

I spelled out my attitude towards this mess here [3] and it appears Daedalus969 has closed Collect's RfC. If you could explain to me how this works, I'd appreciate it. Is it, in fact, closed? Will a new discussion be opened on ANI? I can't bring myself to try to sort out that nightmare of a page, so if you could point me to any conclusions that have been reached on it, I'd appreciate it. (If not, I understand.) Thanks again. SluggoOne (talk) 22:08, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Concerned

Hi Soxwon, just to say I'm a little concerned about what appears to be considerably less than neutral content in your invitation to LadyofShalott[4] [5] to check out the Collect RfC. No need to reply as I'm not interested in your reasons and anyway they're none of my business. This is just to put my concern on the record. It's good to see SB Johnny at the RfC, I trust him to get it into shape and damp down the wilder, more inflammatory and less helpful stuff. Cheers. Writegeist (talk) 02:32, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

My reply anyway since I edit conflicted with your removal of the question

Whether you should or not, I'm unsure. However, I think if you want to pursue this, the place to seek further aid would be WP:WQA. Ladyof Shalott 04:25, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

What LadyofShalott said is not correct. Please note that I have reverted your WQA filing as unconstructive - it's inappropriate to go to an earlier step in dispute resolution to discuss something that is in a later stage. If you have reservations behind the filing of the RfC, and if it's not being paid attention to, then you can either request admin intervention at a noticeboard, or arbitrator intervention at WP:RFARB. You can invite a motion to close, but that is up to the community in general - if they disagree, then there's little you can do unless arbitrators are willing to accept a case. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:24, 21 April 2009 (UTC)slightly modified. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:30, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I probably misunderstood - I thought this was a side disagreement with one of the participants in the RfC. Ladyof Shalott 05:58, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Your "stunt"

That message posted on ANI truly shows that you cannot accept my apology and are trying to push evidence of wrong doing. That is not how Wikipedia works or an RfC work and you know it. Plz refrain from doing that again. Ikip (talk) 06:36, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Mediation cabal / Barney Frank

Hi. I'm unfamiliar with MC cases, having only participated in a few. I've left a comment on the med cabal case talk page encouraging them to take the case. I hope that's not out of line. Wikidemon (talk) 18:23, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Accidental edit?

Hi, Soxwon. Your last edit on the Tea Party Protest article moved a section of text after the sources it cited. And then you placed a "fact" tag after that same text? Could you please check again? Thanks. I see you are following the conversation on Jim's page. I'm going to read your comment now... Xenophrenic (talk) 20:22, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Responded. In all 3 places ;) Xenophrenic (talk) 21:07, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to move that section of text back into place before the sources to which it is cited, if you have no objections. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:10, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Notice

This is just to let you know that I did a little IAR in not editing other's comments here (not sure on policy on adding tags after a few replies). Hope you don't mind. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 01:33, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

That wasn't ignoring any rules. Doing what you did is the whole purpose of that template. Ladyof Shalott 01:42, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality

I don't claim neutrality. Of all the thousands of editors I have had dealings with, the editor in question is without a doubt the only one that compels me to speak toward his removal. --Buster7 (talk) 04:30, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Criticism of O'Reilly Article

I think we have given every editor sufficient opportunities to respond to the changes in the current article. Although there is no deadline, I would support your replacing the article with a cleaned up version of your last draft at your earliest convenience. Thanks for your hard work and assistance on this. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 02:20, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Your recent edits to the critics section may run afoul of the MOS here. Usually when there is a parent article it is appropriate to drop a one word sentence summarizing the issue and placing a {{see also|article name}} tag on the section. Further, without the headers the section reads as a laundry list with no focus. I understand that the end goal for some of you is a final merge, but there is no deadline, and sometimes you have to work in increments. As a veteran of these contentious articles, I would advise letting the progress made over the last couple of weeks stand for maybe a week or two, giving everyone a full chance to review and/or co, before making more drastic changes. The only consensus was to condense the article, not to make it so concise as to prepare it for a merger. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 00:25, 1 May 2009 (UTC)