User talk:Soxwon/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

OR

er...If me getting my information from wikipedia and then adding it into an image is OR...and the image being apparently completely wrong...I think you made a big mistake.-- OsirisV (talk) 23:22, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I used the pages for specific things. For instance the Prime minister of the UK is Gorden Brown. He is a member of the labour party, a centre-left wing party. Thus, the UK is painted in red. Wikipedia can be a reliable source, but it depends on what it is.-- OsirisV (talk)

Can it stay if I just change "ruling" to a better word? It's just...I spent 4 months of research onto this page. I had to redo it twice after my computer crashed, and another time when a niece deleted it whilst "playing".-- OsirisV (talk) 23:45, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I went by the politcal party of the highest person in government. Labour was red. Lib Dems could be either red or yellow. Democrats were pretty much the same as Lib. Dems..etc.-- OsirisV (talk) 23:55, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Two words: On Paper-- OsirisV (talk) 00:03, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

For an example, Mugabe is considered by many as a fascist dictator, and even though many of his policies are clearly non-socialist, he is still a member of the Zimbabwe African National Union – Patriotic Front, who are of the Left-Wing.-- OsirisV (talk) 00:23, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

May 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Tea Party protests. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. JCDenton2052 (talk) 09:07, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Tea Party protests. 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. JCDenton2052 (talk) 09:07, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Mediation

I am not opposed to you asking either of those individuals for comment. The more the merrier, in my opinion. On Wikipedia, more editors == more accuracy. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:35, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Skeptics

Hi Soxwon, would you mind reading the source I have given, and correct your edit?  Cs32en  19:04, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

blame?

as to my accusatory attitude and refusal to take any blame... what are you talking about? an RfC (about collect and no one else) is an appropriate place to accuse collect of bad behavior. thats the point. thats what i did. it is collect who has been making knowingly false accusations about me! i am telling him to knock it off because his claims are proveably false (a pattern w/ him). how many times should i be subjected to lies about me? and blame??? what blame should i have? everything i have said about collect is absolutely true. so yes, i do refuse to take blame for collects actions. the only reason the RfC may be useless is because collect refuses to actually listen and try to change. that is why this will probably go on to whatever is the next step and at that point his behavior in this RfC will be judged (as will others behavior). so this may not be useless after all. Brendan19 (talk) 17:06, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

replied to you on my page. i like to keep it all in one place when possible. Brendan19 (talk) 21:07, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Pagan metal

Hey Soxwon, I hope you understand why I reversed you here--I should have said "good faith edits" in there, just to make matters abundantly clear. I appreciate your weighing in on the matter, BTW. Drmies (talk) 03:34, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

pagan metal

please learn what vandalism actually is before accusing someone of it. it helps to actually read rules before you try to enforce them. 86.138.90.54 (talk) 17:29, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I could say the same to you. I could also point you towards WP:Civil and WP:3RR, not to mention the second paragraph of WP:Deletion policy. Drmies (talk) 18:12, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

i'm doing nothing more than any of the other users on there, so right back at you. the difference is i'm removing unsourced content, as per wikipedia's rules. you're breaking them, i'm undoing that. it's not hard to see who's in the wrong here. 86.138.90.54 (talk) 19:30, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

re: self-revert - no. show me some sources, and we'll talk. what you and others are basically saying is "Stop enforcing the rules, we don't like it." and i don't give in to bullying. 86.138.90.54 (talk) 19:37, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

re Wanda Sykes and Rush Limbaugh

Sounds good to me. Tomer^talk 16:17, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Left-wing

The paragraph in question illustrates how the term left-wing is currently used in China, and other countries. It seems an illustration of how the term is currently used in the US is appropriate. The sentence is really not about Obama, but about usage of the phrase "left-wing". Rick Norwood (talk) 20:09, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

As I see it, the use of "left-wing" to describe Obama says more about the conservative press than about Obama. There was an interesting article I read recently that said that as a result of the conservative press saying over and over that Obama is "socialist", almost a third of all adults under twenty-five now identify themselves as "socialist"!

I engage a lot of people in all walks of life in friendly political discussions -- I'm able to keep things friendly because I listen more than I talk. People use phrases like "left-wing" or "right-wing" or "socialist" or "liberal" and I'll say something to the effect, "I'm not sure what that means. What does "left-wing" mean? The most common reply is, "I'm not really sure."

I think the Wikipedia article, to be both honest and useful, needs to say what "left-wing" originally meant, but show how that meaning has changed over time to the point where the phrase hardly means anything any more. I was tempted to add to the quote about the Wall Street Journal and Obama something to the effect that to call Obama "left-wing" is a meaningless attempt to convince unthinking people that Obama is wrong. But that would be OR. Rick Norwood (talk) 20:32, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Most current academics now find "left-right" to be over simplistic. [1] gives one example. (By it I am very slightly libertarian, and just right of dead center on economics). [2] Dave Nolan's quiz has me dead center and slightly libertarian. [3] puts me slightly to the right and moderate social libertarian. [4] calls me a "state worshipping authoritarian." I rather think how a quiz places people is just as vulnerable to the positions of its creators as anything else <g>. Might be fun to see other scores, I suspect. Collect (talk) 21:04, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Apology accepted (though if you've reverted the paragraph again, I'll still restore it, at least until some compromise is reached). I suspect all of us get carried away from time to time. I know I do, though I try to count to ten and remain rational. Collect, above, is certainly correct. Academics these days rarely use "left-wing" or "right-wing" any more. But the popular press uses the phrases more than ever. I can hardly open a magazine without seeing the phrases. Wikipedia should report that fact.

Thank you for a valuable reference, which should certainly go into the Wikipedia article, and which can probably be used to shorten the article considerably, since it seems authoritative. I've skimmed it, and will read it in it's entirity shortly. Rick Norwood (talk) 15:32, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

collect

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#edit warring by collect and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requesting Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks,--Brendan19 (talk) 19:35, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

In the arbitration about Collect you said: I also feel that the RfC was flawed as it was conducted in an inappropriate manner (Collect's history was searched for possible violations, which were then used as "evidence"): (this was an accusation leveled after searching through his history),...(Fascism only one person). In fact I was not a sponsor of the RfC and only became involved after you asked me to comment on the Fascism article. I only commented on that article on the talk page, not on the main page, and the dispute was three way. I notified User:Spylab about the RfC but he did not respond. Why have you highlighted my role to emphasize that the RfC was flawed? The Four Deuces (talk) 04:44, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your response, I had misunderstood what you wrote. The Four Deuces (talk) 23:48, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: Mistake?

Ah, must have been a mistake - I've been reverting lots of vandalism today, and your edit must have looked malicious at a glance. Sorry. Anonymous the Editor (talk) 14:33, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Fox News, you will be blocked from editing. Waterjuice (talk) 01:02, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

See [5]. You give that editor too much credit. Collect (talk) 13:31, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Psych 101

It doesn't make much sense to put anything you want other people to read into Talk -- my impression is that the total number of people who read any given talk page is less than a dozen, and those only read the bottom posts.

I think political beliefs are a legitimate subject for phychology -- as is every other factor about human nature. But for me it is easy to understand why most people are suspicious of change. What's hard for me to understand is why some people are willing to change. That, to me, is little short of a miracle.

I grew up in the American South in the 1950's, where all of my friends and relations believed that it would take a second Civil War to make White Southerners accept the Negro as his equal. My father kept a stockpile of guns, and my best friend's father built his house on the model of a colonial fort, with the second story overshaddowing the first story, and no windows and only one door on the ground floor. And yet, here we are, in my own lifetime, with a Black president. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:26, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Modern liberalism in the United States

Why did you re-add the WP:Weasel tag? As I explained at the talk page, there have been no criticisms of the article on this basis. There are also three WP:NPOV tags which I think more accurately reflects the dispute. The Four Deuces (talk) 14:08, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for reverting the vandalism to my userpage. LadyofShalott 03:11, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Your message

Best to keep it on the article talk page. Pexise (talk) 22:45, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

OK - 1) see my response on the article page.

2) The Rome Statute is one of the only (if not the only) international human rights treaties to come into force in the 21st century. The US also voted against the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in 2007. Pexise (talk) 23:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Obama article

Given that this article is on probation, I think it more proper to discuss removal of content on the talk page and reach consensus, rather than just reverting. Note that I did not add the text in question, but did clean it up after another edited it. Thank you! --4wajzkd02 (talk) 20:59, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Please see [6]. I am filing a revert violation notice, sorry. --4wajzkd02 (talk) 21:24, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:BRD and WP:CONSENSUS the burden is on the editor proposing a change to establish proper sourcing, consensus, etc. Newly proposed material may be removed, and it should then go to the talk page. Wikidemon (talk) 21:52, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello Soxwon. Please note the result of the 3RR complaint that involves you. Since an RfC is now in process, any further reverts of the disputed item, in either direction, may not be warmly received by administrators. Your Wikidemon's comment above about 'the burden is on the editor proposing a change..' doesn't ring a bell. You Wikidemon must be thinking of WP:BURDEN which is a policy on sourcing. There is no problem with the source in this case. The dispute is surely about WP:WEIGHT (Is the item important enough to deserve space in the article). An RfC is a good way to decide that. EdJohnston (talk) 23:18, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

capitalism

I did not know laissez-faire was a "form" of capitalism - I thought it was a specific economic policy advocated by a particular capitalist elite at particular times in history. Anyway, as far as my proposal for an introduction goes, I have proposed it - if you and others currently working on the article agree it is good, go ahead and put it in the intro to the article. If you andothers working on the article think you can improve it, go ahead! Slrubenstein | Talk 14:46, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for asking. I actually prefer my own wording, but what the hell - Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit! Once I make an addition, it is not really my work any more, it is everyone's. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:34, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, for one thing, I do not like the word enervating in this context. I prefer many shorter and direct sentences over attempts to sum up several things in one word or one sentence. But like I said, I am not arguing - Wikipedia is collaborative, why not ask some of the other editors actively working on the article to go over your changes and perhaps even suggest others? Slrubenstein | Talk 18:27, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Republican Party

Hey, look, you totally misunderstood me. Now, with old and your version, the political ideology sections shows the historical section first and then the modern, and it looks really confusing. What I improved: I used better spacing, put the ideologies in order, and put the current modern ideologies in the front - so political ideologies sections first says "conservatism, fiscal conservatism, social conservatism, etc etc", and then there are historical ideologies like progresivism and abolitionism BEHIND the modern - more important ones. It is much better, look at both version closely please. --Novis-M (talk) 02:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh no you still don't get it and you still haven't read it :) look, I DIDN'T ADD OR CHANGE ANYTHING, I ONLY SIMPLIFIED IT, and I KNOW EVERYTHING ABOUT THE REPUBLICAN PARTY, I study politics worldwide. Look what I did:

FROM this, which I think is confusing:

Historical:
Abolitionism
Classical liberalism
Progressivism
Paleoconservatism
Modern:
Conservatism
Social conservatism
Neoconservatism
Fiscal conservatism
Right libertarianism
Minority

TO THIS:

Modern:
Conservatism
Social conservatism
Fiscal conservatism
Economic liberalism
Neoconservatism
Right libertarianism

Historical:
Abolitionism
Classical liberalism
Progressivism
Paleoconservatism

--Novis-M (talk) 02:24, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

It's alright, I just didn't know how to explain it :D By the way, good thing somebody is looking after it, I bet there are many vandalisms (especially from our liberal friends) :D I'm just trying to help to make the article more simple and accesible to normal readers :) --Novis-M (talk) 02:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Over, I trust

All the ANIs, WQA, CUs, RFC/Us and RFARs are over, I trust. I sincerely thank you for voicing your position on the RFC/U on me. I did not canvass anyone, and in order to avoid any claims that I canvassd, I waited until now (the request to reopen the RFC/U seems dead) to show my heartfelt thanks. Collect (talk) 12:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Psychological Research

I have a funny feeling about this whole psychological research topic, but maybe it could go in the Conservatism article, if anywhere.

Psychological research suggests that we don't vote for what is right, or even for what is our own enlightened self interest, but for what pushes our buttons most cunningly. I can't dispute their data, but I don't have to like it. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Request for Opinion on User Collect

Sorry for not responding to your request to participate in the RfC on April 20th. Users such as Collect had steered me away from trying to improve Wikipedia and I'm just now getting involved again. Please let me know if any similar discussions arise.

Thanks,

Rtally3 (talk) 22:36, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Obama talk page

Regarding your removal of a talk page proposal here,[7] I would agree that the proposal is naive and is not likely to result in any change to the article. And thanks for watching out. But it seems to be in good faith. The early results from the Obama arbcom case suggest that arbitrators are looking unfavorably on talk page management that involves aggressive removal of comments. As you can see the poster looks a little miffed.[8] So we'll try explaining things patiently. Cheers, Wikidemon (talk) 18:03, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Editing conflict with the film "Death Race" (2008).

Look. I'm sorry about what happened yesterday. I mean, when you kept changing it back to the old plot, I kinda got upset. I guess I was jealous. That's all. I just thought that if I could make the plot more exciting by updating it more, they would seem more interested. I was so embarassed. I'm still embarassed now. I've only had an account on here for almost a year now. You have to bear with me. Anyway, again, I'm sorry. Okay? Christopher K. Howell (talk) 23:31, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Bible translations

Much of my edits about Bible were essentially a small transfer of text into Bible translations. [9] In general, I think the entry should not only focus on translations and canons, but should also include general information about the book. ADM (talk) 18:52, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Bird of a Feather

Great birdbrains think alike. Badmintonhist (talk) 04:27, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Helpful

It was helpful.

And your recent edits have improved the articles we both work on. Rick Norwood (talk) 15:44, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

O'reilly/Tiller

I just noticed your post on the above at the BLP noticeboard. You might want to list that at the RfC page instead or as well. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 22:27, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Fascism

I don't think that the para you restored on the Fascism page is supported by the evidence and was made by an editor without discussion. If you support the version you restored could you please explain your position on the talk page. The Four Deuces (talk) 23:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, please could you consider looking again. The material being inserted is, to say the least, not supported by the sources, whereas the material being deleted is. Vision Thing has raised a couple of minor objections to this material which do not jusitfy the deletion of the whole section. I have indicated in talk that I think there is room for manoevre, but Vision Thing is declining to engage, instead carrying out repeated reversions without discussion.

Also, I am not an SPA, I just have a dynamic IP address, so it is different each time I log on.

Thank you. --89.242.184.16 (talk) 23:33, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Fascism in the political spectrum

The RfC on Fascism#Fascism in the political spectrum has now run one month and there are now two versions of the intro para:

Most scholars do not find the terms right and left very useful with regard to fascism, which incorporated elements of both left and right, rejected the main currents of leftist and rightist politics, and attracted adherents from both ends of the political spectrum. Hence, fascism can be called sui generis. Some scholars do place fascism squarely on the right or left.

Most academics describe fascism as extreme right, radical right, far right or ultra right; some calling it a mixture of authoritarian conservatism and right-wing nationalism. However, there exists a dissenting view that fascism represents radical centrism. Moreover, a number of writers highlight aspects of some types of fascist ideology which may typically be associated with the left.

Could you please comment at Talk:Fascism#RfC.

The Four Deuces (talk) 21:55, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Attacks and the like

I can't say that was a very thoughtful response. Honestly, we've humored your antics quite long enough, and I think we're trying to let you know that if you're going to contribute productively you need to put forth a little bit of effort and a little less lawyering. I'm not going to bother re-explaining to you how unnecessary that entire exercise was, but I'd encourage you to go and re-read the points (especially Croc's). I can think of at least a half-dozen long-established editors who have told you your assertions on policy implementation are just plain wrong, and at least a few (self included) who have interacted with you long enough to believe you'll let your point of view motivate your actions. I'm know I can come off as dickish, but we get so many POV warriors on politically active articles that the community's tolerance of antics is fairly low. Best of luck... //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 05:01, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I think this is probably another indication of the wrong approach... Instead of "waiting to hear" about something, take it upon yourself to go look. I can think of at least two editors in the past week who have commented publicly on how you seem to operate in bad faith, so I'm not sure where the "mystery" is... I'd like for you to keep in mind that I've made no other comment about you beyond your seemingly partisan motivations, and I don't run around Wikipedia calling you an "asshole" or anything else. If you can't approach a discussion without stooping to childish insults and immature rants, how can you expect the community to believe you approach things from a neutral point of view? //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 10:12, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you; apology accepted and appreciated. I'm sure we'll be working together in the future. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:09, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Talk page posts

Please do not resort to edits like this. They're unprofessional, uncivil, and immature. It's fine to be angry from time to time (even expected), but resorting to personal attacks and the like never help matters. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:20, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Try not to take what others say personally. And if it becomes personal, take a step back, work on something beside Wikipedia (or try a completely unrelated editing area), and return with a cooler head. I've been here long enough to know that those who can't relax a bit and take things in stride nearly always get frustrated and eventually burn out. :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 05:25, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Peacock terms

In my opinion this edit is inappropriate; it is a direct quote from a source in The New York Times. And frankly, speaking from personal experience, those folks WERE pretty, pretty dumb too, but that is to change the subject. Fred Talk 14:02, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

"Consensus Wording", Vandalism, etc.

Looks like you've been around here long enough to identify vandalism, and should know what a consensus is. There is only a consensus when a change has been proposed, discussed and then accepted or rejected (maybe with a lone dissenter...usually someone who doesn't know what he/she is doing). An article (or part of it) is not automatically a consensus just because it has been that way for a while, or because of the POV tilt of the editors who are active with the article. I am reverting back with my edit. If you have a problem with it, bring it to the talk page.Chido6d (talk) 20:15, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Passive Smoking

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 several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing.

You do not have consensus. The only one I know of who has a problem with the change is you. I suggest that you bring it to the talk page for discussion. P.S. It is you who is reverting. Not the other way around.Chido6d (talk) 22:26, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I am not proposing the same changes as SonOfFeanor. Come into the discussion page and let's talk. You are way too fast on the trigger and need to think things through and communicate a bit more.Chido6d (talk) 00:46, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmm

Just wondering, why did you revert the edit I made to the Fascism talk page?--UNSC Trooper (talk) 06:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the agreement!

Thanks for agreeing with me about Tiller.PokeHomsar (talk) 16:31, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

I wanted you to know I appreciated your statements on the 3RR notice board. It appears I still have much to learn regarding the policies and guidelines. To that end I have decided to relinquish rollback and return to manual editing for the near future. I want to earn the trust of editors in general; that desire is stronger with regard to those, like yourself, that have gone out of their way to help and support me. See ya 'round Tiderolls 00:30, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

My Block

Just to clear things up. I'm not a SPA. I have been a on wikipedia since February 2008 but had taken a long leave of absence from wikipedia to concentrate on school. In reality I have truly only been editing on wikipedia for a few months in total. Know that it was never my intention to upset anybody or vandalize the article Jessicka. I added the citation I was blocked for to improve the article and strengthen the article not vandalize it in any way. I had a conversation on my talk page with Benjiboi ( who has been very helpful) about the reinserted citation (I was banned for) in and we agreed that it was fine. I don't believe I have attacked anybody here. It appears I still have much to learn regarding the policies and guidelines.

I'm not being disruptive or deceptive, I assure you. I just want to see the articles be the best they can be.

I will be the first to admit I am not well versed in all wikipedia policy but I am learning as I go. The more I get help from editor's like Banjeboi they better editor I can become. Swancookie (talk) 04:23, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Chido6d's edits

I like your version of this latest battleground snippet better, but calling Chido6d's edits "vandalism" in the revert comments is extremely poor form. Gigs (talk) 21:15, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I requested a week of article protection, hopefully you two can hash it out on the talk page during that time. Gigs (talk) 02:32, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Poor form is a huge euphemism. I have asked for discussion (received none), and warned of repeated reverts to no avail.Chido6d (talk) 04:50, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Faceplam?

I'm not sure that I've heard of this before. What does it mean? -T'Shael, Lord of the Vulcans 00:27, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah, okay. Thanks. :) Happy editing, -T'Shael, Lord of the Vulcans 00:36, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: Neoconservatism

I did a history merge to the article to fix a cut-and-paste move from six years ago. Graham87 14:37, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

FYI

Admin Noticeboard: [[10]]--Yachtsman1 (talk) 04:40, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

could i get you opinion

Just wondering if I could get you opinion on something Talk:Manchester mayoral election, 2009 (New Hampshire) is where the discussion is. So there is an disagreement between me and another editor on what the page should be I believe it should be the one posted above and he thinks it should be Manchester, New Hampshire mayoral election, 2009 just wondering if you could contribute thanks Gang14 (talk) 22:38, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:Areas for Reform

Might benefit from your insight. Collect (talk) 15:28, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Bravo

Bravo! That sort of comment goes a long way towards calming any concerns of bad faith.  :) //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:48, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Rollback on Barack Obama

Why did you do that? The addition is very well sourced. The discussion mentioned on the talk page does not take this new groundbreaking information to account (the book was released today). hydrox (talk) 17:09, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

No problem, if you want to discuss the edit futher, you are welcome here. hydrox (talk) 18:24, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

OHH you bad person

Nope its OK, as long as you cover yourself in linseed oil and walk down the high street starkers shouting I appoligise i'm a very naughty person.Slatersteven (talk) 18:38, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

OK i'll let you off this once, but remeber somewhere in the world its always thursday after wendsday ends.Slatersteven (talk) 18:40, 11 August 2009 (UTC).

Birther page

Not IMO, I was just trying to inform the anon of the 3RR. I assume you're aware of it, and your rvs seem entirely appropriate. But then, I'm an old fossil from back in the days when "Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy" was actually true. So I'm probably unreliable.  :) Guettarda (talk) 03:38, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

No, we were talking about the same page. I just ec'd with you both on the "conspiracy" page and on the anon's talk page. Guettarda (talk) 03:42, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Ron Paul

Hello, Soxwon. I've put forward another proposal in an attempt to resolve the content dispute at Ron Paul. Please take a look and let me know what you think. Thanks! Nick Graves (talk) 17:02, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Your objective input is requested on Christianity and abortion

I am currently on the brink of an edit war with a revisionist contributor (User:IronAngelAlice) who wants the Christianity and abortion section to suggest that Christianity has taken a somewhat equivocal and lenient view of abortion. Your objective opinion would be greatly appreciated. Please look at the history. Thanks!LCP (talk) 17:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

That would be a rather generous view, given that half the world's Christians are Catholics, and the Catholic Church opposes abortion. And that's just the starting point. In fact, I can't think of any Christian denominations that openly support abortion rights, though I'm sure there could be a few. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Glenn Beck

I almost pleaded surrender. I figured if I cant convince Soxwon, I am lost, but then I read your complete comments, and I think you are right that it needs to be covered in the show page. Can you help me direct a compromise in moving the boycott information to the show article? Bytebear (talk) 02:32, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Soxwon. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Noloop.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 15:14, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I responded again.Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 17:37, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Beck

Wow, what a lightning rod that article is. Well, that figures. As to the guy making his fifth edit, notice that he has 5 edits scattered across 3 years. Presumably that's either a sleeper sock or else he normally edits as an IP. Is there anything familiar-looking about his writing style? I wouldn't know, but if you watch that page a lot, you might. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 22:45, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Liberalism in the United States

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Liberalism in the United States. 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 several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. The Four Deuces (talk) 04:22, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

It appears to me

that we might be getting into an edit, or revert war over the use of the terms Black and/or African-American over at Conservatism in the United States and I figured rather then letting the Three Revert Rule come into play that we should talk about it on the side. I was heartened to see that you consider yourself to be a anarcho-capitalist, and although I have not clicked on that link to see what it means, I find the "anarcho" part to be reassuring. I take it to mean (while being fully aware of the folly of making assumptions) that you believe (among things) that problems are best resolved between the folks having the problem, which is to say, without dragging in some power structure that is somewhat arbitrarily imposed on us. I believe that the term African-Americans is pretty much coin of the realm these days and if we are going to slide back let's just call them niggers and be done with it. Ambrose Bierce, I'm sure that you know, defines "Conservative" as "a statesman who is enamored with existing evils, as distinguished from the Liberal who wishes to replace them with others." Oh yes, I'm probably considered to be a liberal bordering on the radical, almost lunatic fringe, but think that this new evil, the term African-American has already won the day and that you should (opinion) pick your fights more carefully. Carptrash (talk) 23:48, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I thought that, " Republicans often oppose affirmative action for African-Americans." was a bit odd too. It seems to me that Conservatives/Republicans oppose affirmative action to everyone - AA's, women, gays, whomever might get an advantage from it. This sentence was not footnoted, but I am curious, do you think it's wrong? Should I look up in the Congressional Record and try to discern what conservative voting patterns on affirmative action are? Carptrash (talk) 02:09, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

You are quite the dedicated defender of conservatism in America. So., was the New York Times not a good enough source? 23:11, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Taking it slowly.

I am working carefully through the section one paragraph at a time. So far, except for removing the word "simply", the only changes I've made are in capitalization. Rick Norwood (talk) 23:19, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I read the paragraph above. Conservatives may oppose affirmative action for Whites, but I've never heard them say so, and many more Whites benefit from affirmative action than Blacks. Rick Norwood (talk) 23:21, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

"It never says they oppose Affirmative action for whites (or if it did I missed it, but that would be rather absurd)."

The assumption is that White is the norm, and that only Blacks benefit from affirmative action. So, when employees hire only Whites, that isn't affirmative action, that's just business as usual. If they hire a few Blacks, that's affirmative action. A good example of affirmative action for Whites is in college admissions. If college admissions did not favor Whites, our top universities would have all Asian students. Affirmative action requires racial diversity. Therefore colleges admit Whites before more qualified Asians. Another example of affirmative action for Whites. Tennessee State University is a primarily Black college, and so White students benefit from affirmative action in admissions, and pay no tuition. My daughter graduated from Tennessee State. But I've never heard a conservative complain when diversity favors Whites. I assume that if you oppose affirmative action, you would oppose all forms, but affirmative action has never been only for Blacks -- they benefit most because for generations they were universally excluded. Rick Norwood (talk) 23:42, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry you didn't get into the college of your choice. (You can always to to Tennessee State tuition free.) But compare that to Blacks, who when I was growing up were lynched for trying to go to an all White school. I have a picture of about twenty Black men hanging from an old oak tree in my home state of Louisiana, with the shriff and his men posing proudly for the camera.

And I'm also sorry if you thought my aside about affirmative action had anything to do with anything. I just noted the post above mine, and offered an off-hand remark. Rick Norwood (talk) 00:07, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

FNC

Ever since Beck called Obama a racist I have noticed a concerted effort to target FNC and FNC personalities, and it only seems to be getting worse. FYI, I noticed that your welcome message wasn't accepted very well. Arzel (talk) 04:21, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

For patience

Image:Civility barnstar.png

		Civility Award
		This is awarded for having a cooler head, and greater patience than me. Bytebear (talk) 07:36, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Newshounds

Sorry for the delay in getting back to you. Regarding a NewsHounds article, I can't say I'm really very familiar with them or know enough about them to say if there should be an article on the subject. I know I've seen MSNBC cite them at least a few times, but I think the main concern is going to be proper sourcing to ensure that we're compliant with WP:N. I'd certainly be interested in collaborating on such an article... do you want to go and try to find some sources, and then we'll go through them and see if we think it'll be enough to meet our guidelines for inclusion? //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 16:22, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

For your reading pleasure

Someone will probably complain about this: [11]. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:21, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

• I had 2.5% on the Hannity talk page, 1% in the article, .005% in the talk page about one of his books. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:32, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Youtube audio not an unreliable source

Hi, im here to raise cain about the fact you undid an edit of mine in the Rush Limbaugh page. Im here disputing the fact that that particular video cited as the ref for limbaughs quote (which is nothing other than Rush's unadulterated and unedited voice offering his defense) is an unreliable resource. I dont think you should just delete any reference with Youtube stamped on it, rather examine the source to see that it is nothing more than a clean audio rip from the show... cheers.. Mace Windu (talk) 02:29, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

its not a copyright violation since i own it...lol...Mace Windu (talk) 02:34, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

media matters does not own it because its rush's audio.. clearchannel does...but thats beside the point. that video IS mine until stated otherwise by the youtube group.. that is my concern as the owner, not wikipedias. until youtube restricts it that video is considered mine. according to copyright laws since that is undisputed by youtube or the copyright owner, the copy is mine. and you have my written consent to post it on wikipedia.. Mace Windu (talk) 02:41, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

ok you may be right about the copyvio, but i done see the problem this is as a reference. the fact that it MAY be a copyvio is not wikipedias problem since they didnt post it, they are only referencing something that rush DID SAY on his show... (obviously 4 someone to get a video on wikipedia could mean major traffic... is this just some bs to try to keep wikipedia from getting flooded with youtube references so that people may get more hits? thats ok if it is..im just asking)Mace Windu (talk) 02:58, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

lol...i bet Christ wouldnt be irritated. anyway i cant think of anymore arguments and its probably better to let it go, so thx for the help. God bless.. Mace Windu (talk) 03:09, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Glenn Beck - Talk

Hi Soxwon. I saw your recent edits to Talk:Glenn Beck, removing several comments. Were they yours? MichaelLNorth (talk) 14:37, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I certainly see that they could be taken as rants, but deleting others' comments without their permission is prohibited. I completely understand your objection to the content, but perhaps the way to go about it is WQA. In any case, I suggest that you revert your deletions. I understand that there is an exception listed "Deleting material not relevant to improving the article", but perhaps we should leave that subjective decision up to someone not involved in the discussion? There's a lot of content in the talk page that's not relevant to improving the article, and picking out one rant in particular could be seen as selective application of the rules. MichaelLNorth (talk) 16:36, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I do see the personal attack against "Morphhhhhhh" in one of the comments you deleted, but to say he doesn't comment on the article is an exaggeration. He comments on Beck's "Libertarian" status as being a way of expressing conservative views without aligning himself with the GOP, and also suggests that the people who are currently dominating the article's editing process should really let others take over. Granted, he is not polite in the way that he raises these points, but these should be taken as legitimate concerns about the article and the editing effort. If you disagree, then reply to them. If you think that he's trolling or violating Wikipedia policy, then file a complaint. There have been a large number of personal attacks in the beck talk page and starting to delete them now could appear similar to suddenly starting to enforce jaywalking laws when someone you don't like crosses the street. MichaelLNorth (talk) 17:03, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Fox's conservative bias/Olbermann

There are already listed sources for the existing statement saying "critics and some observers ...". If they are inadequate I would think there would be a host of others. Is it your point that using most of these sources would amount to WP:Synthesis since, while they call Fox conservatively slanted, they don't actually say that many (other) observers find Fox to be conservative? As for Olbermann's O'Reilly mask incident, that was once in Olby's bio but was taken out a while back when the article was streamlined. I believe it was properly sourced and don't see any reason why it couldn't be put back in ... except for some stubborn editors, of course. Badmintonhist (talk) 16:12, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I hadn't noticed your re-inclusion of the mask incident. Good show! Badmintonhist (talk) 19:10, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Rant removal.

Please revert those. Yes, they're rants. But you do Wikipedia more of a disservice by censoring his opinion than he does by spewing out garbage we can ignore. Censor him, you prove him right - the page is being protected by right wingers, especially since it's YOU removing, and you are against a lot of the inclusions suggested there. Leave them there, we can all ignore him, and he at least feels we read his comments. remove them, you antagonize him and he'll keep coming back. If it's there, sooner or later he may calm down and contribute to the discussion - alienate him and he'll tell ten friends wikipedia sucks. ThuranX (talk) 16:24, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

still witing. Please do this promptly, thank you. ThuranX (talk) 17:45, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I AGF'd all through it, it's all good. It's done, and without going around you, that's what matters. ThuranX (talk) 19:15, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Edit War on Feminazi

Hey, just wanted to avert an edit war. Would you please give reasons in the talk page why you deleted citations and various sections of the Feminazi page? Also, would you please talk about the reasons for your changes in the first paragraph? I think this will be helpful moving forward.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 20:54, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Please do not assume ownership of articles such as Feminazi. If you aren't willing to allow your contributions to be edited extensively or be redistributed by others, please do not submit them. Thank you.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Fifelfoo (talk • contribs) 01:00, 1 September 2009

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for edit warring on Feminazi. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 22:14, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

It seems that neither of you read my message at the edit warring noticeboard, where I gave multiple links to avenues for dispute resolution. Both of you need to stick to the talkpage and seek dispute resolution, rather than continuing to edit war. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 22:14, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Please Unblock

I apologize for the edit war, but I believe we're both done. There will be no more reverting, as we've hammered out the compromise. Soxwon (talk) 22:12, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I see no evidence of that—you had done a revert no more than 2 minutes before leaving this unblock request. But if you want a second opinion on the block, you may get one by following the instructions in the box. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 22:16, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

{{unblock|I plan on making no further edits to the article, as I'm satisfied with the current compromise. While we most likely should have worked on it more on the talk page, we did actually work together. I acknowledge and apologize for the edit-war, but I believe that both Alice and I are done with reverting. My last one was just nitpicking, I could just as easily not done it and would have been satisfied. Soxwon (talk) 22:19, 1 September 2009 (UTC)}}

If it was "just nitpicking" you shouldn't have done it. The fact that you "could have" refrained from edit warring is irrelevant; you didn't refrain from it. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 22:28, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

That wasn't what I meant by that, I was trying imply that I had no reason for further reversions and that I was genuinely sorry for what I did. I could assure you that it won't happen again, but then, they all say that don't they...

At any rate, I'll wait for another admin to look at it. Soxwon (talk) 22:37, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Ha! We really did it to ourselves that time. Sorry. --IronAngelAlice (talk) 02:26, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Karl Rove

Please stop reverting my edits. You are no more or less entitled to edit wikipedia. And from I see, you're a bit of a vandal.Malke 2010 (talk) 06:04, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I see you've met Joe

Thanks for the vandal fighting help on my user page. That was Joe Hazelton, a long-time vandal who has some kind of personality disorder and loads of free time. He's perma-blocked, so there's no point in reasoning with him, and he's not going to take your advice anyway. Before I blocked him, I spent the better part of a year trying to reason with him and couldn't even get him to the point where he could refrain from calling people assholes and posting offensive ascii art. The thanks I get is a permanent stalker. Gamaliel (talk) 23:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Gamaliel (talk) has eaten your {{cookie}}! The cookie made them happy and they'd like to give you a great big hug for donating it. Spread the WikiLove by giving out more {{cookie}}s, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Thanks again!

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

Your brief essay on partisans

I like your synopsis, and it shows some similarities to my own evolution. I especially agree with your assessment that radio personalities are "entertainment first." It seems waaaay too many people forget that waaaaay too easily.

I'm curious if there are any that you DO like. There are a few that I still enjoy listening to on occasion. But the ones you list are pretty useless to me. (Though I do have hopes that Franken will make a pretty good Senator -- he strikes me as being a bit less beholden to special interests than most in the Senate.) -Pete (talk) 23:31, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, though I'm not sure why you don't consider Colbert and Steward "pundits" -- is it because they're a little more transparent than most about the fact that their primary goal is to entertain? I completely agree that they're a lot of fun, and I'd say I generally agree with the point of view they're coming from.

Are you familiar with Ed Schultz? He's often very full of himself and often off on the wrong track, but he gives a voice to a segment of America that I think is sort of neglected in general, and I admire the moments where he gives an interesting caller a lot of air time, even when he disagrees. I think there could be a lot more of that. I have some admiration for Alex Jones for taking a unique approach, and some of what he says is compelling, though a lot of it just seems flat-out crazy.

I guess I see a lot of value in talk radio call-in shows, because they help average people find their voice in politics. But too many hosts de-emphasize the calls. I don't think I ever heard Franken take a single one, he just had a regular cast of lobbyist guests. -Pete (talk) 00:02, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

ANI

Hello, Soxwon. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Talk:Glenn Beck. Thank you. TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 22:22, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Presidential speech

We have different opinions about the President's speech. You say to merge. I say all presidential speechs are notable if they are reported by multiple sources. If there is not a policy change to include all presidential speeches then this recent speech should be at or near the cut off. That means if kept, all less notable speeches should be excluded. If deleted, then the kept speeches should be at least slightly more notable than this on. Of course, this is the next best thing. You already know my opinion, which is all speeches which are reported by multiple sources should be included.

If we both can discuss this logically and not try to cut each other's throat, then that is a good sign. What is Soxwon? Is that the White Sox win? If so, we are friends that haven't met before. Any friend of the White Sox is automatically a friend of mine. President of Chicago (talk) 04:12, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Hannity

You seem to be confused. I am restoring established content that was removed without explanation by an editor in the preceding 12 or so hours. It has been in the article for months and should remain until there is a consensus on the Talk page to remove it. Please do not undo my restoration of it again. JohnInDC (talk) 21:26, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Friend, either I'm thick skulled or you're being obtuse. Please expand on your (cryptic) edit summary - the only explanation you've offered for this removal of content - consisting of "FAIR=notnews". We are both experienced contributors and I think you owe a bit better explanation than that. JohnInDC (talk) 21:40, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Classical liberalism

Before you comment on Introman's edit or re-insert it could you please read the on-going discussion. It starts here and you were actually involved early in the discussion.

Here is the point of disagreement: Introman wants to insert into the lead "After losing political influence through the 1970's, and during the economic stagnation of the time, a revival of classical liberalism brought new life to the conservative movement, contributing to the election of Ronald Reagan, a conservative, for President" which is from Encyclopedia Britannica online. I pointed out to him that the revival of classical liberalism was part of the modern conservative movement since its inception in the 1950s and the lead already says, "Modern conservatism became a major political force in 1964, when Barry Goldwater...made an unsuccessful bid for the US presidency.... The movement culminated with the election of Republican candidate Ronald Reagan, a self-identified American conservative, as president. Subsequent electoral victories included gaining a Republican congressional majority in 1994 and the election of George W. Bush in 2000 and 2004...." Introman argues in the talk pages that Ronald Reagan and other conservatives only adopted the classical liberal revival after his election. Incidentally other editors have also reversed his edits.

Introman was blocked for editing on Classical liberalism. Note that after pointless discussions with Introman I set up an RfC here which attracted other editors. Although Introman's edits did not relate to the RfC, sufficient outside editors disagreed with thim that he was blocked.

You should remember your own discussion with Introman at Neoconservatism here where you mention his sources do not back up his statements and Will Beback gave him a 3rr warning probably about this article.[12]

It is also interesting to read what Collect said about him:

As to the "new user" User:Introman who is used as the basis for the false claim of editwarring on Fascism, I proffer:

[13] revert of Will Beback 03:04 16 Apr

[14] revert 02:22 16 Apr

[15] (revert of Alexius08) 1:58 16 Apr

[16] (revert of Collect) 19:34 14 Apr

[17] (revert of Collect) 21:19 14 Apr

[18] (revert of Soxwon) 22:56 14 Apr

[19] (revert of Soxwon) 23:06 14 Apr

[20] (partial revert of Fraterm) 01:05 14 Apr

[21] revert 2:16 16 Apr

[22] 1:52 16 Apr (revert of PhilLiberty)

[23] (revert of Collect) 22:02 14 Apr

[24] (added comment on disputed matter in Talk into article) 21:29 14 Apr

[25] (revert of PhilLiberty) 19:23 14 Apr

[26] (revert of Collect) 20:41 13 Apr

[27] (revert of Collect) 20:33 13 Apr

[28] (revert of Saddhiyama) 19:45 13 Apr

[29] (revert of PhilLiberty) 17:43 11 Apr

[30] (revert of PhilLiberty) 20:36 10 Apr

[31] (revert of Skomorokh) 19"30 9 Apr

and about 20 other reverts -- all out of just over 100 total edits. Or almost half of all his article edits are reverts. I would suggest a new user who in only a couple of weeks manages to make that many reverts is a teeny bit suspect. [possibly referring to banned User:RJII] The claim that I am theone editwarring on Fascism is rather groteque at that point, I trust.

As to the discussion on Talk:Fascism note [32] for the nature of Introman's contributions, asserting the US is fascist becasuse the Mercury Dime had the fasces on the reverse.

Also read through User talk:Introman to see if my interaction with him is different from that of anyone else.

BTW have you heard anything from Collect? He has not posted anything for over a month.

The Four Deuces (talk) 03:04, 17 September 2009 (UTC)