User talk:Tvoz/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7

July 2008ish - December 2008ish archive 4


Happy Beatles Day!

AbbeyRoadZebraCrossingRevisited.jpg Happy Beatles Day! Just a message from the Beatles WikiProject! Have a great day, Tvoz/Archive 4!

...... Densock .. Talk(Dendodge on a public network) 11:20, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Assisting the bootleggers

In the listing about Murray the K, you posted an image of a concert CD that is a bootleg of a legitimate album release. That CD was created from the album whose soundtrack was provided to a UK firm that produced the disk overseas, out of US jurisdiction. I'd be grateful if you'd remove the CD image or replace it with an image of the album, which I'll gladly provide to you. The same firm that hijacked the CD -- Live Gold Productions, which is also known as Lady Goose -- copied and is currently selling a bootlegged version of Murray's 1965 television special, the mention of which has been deleted from the listing.MKArchives (talk) 21:04, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Rvn of your AGF-eligible edit

I reverted your Tim Russert edit summarized "since when do only journalists' reactions count? This was part of the merge", since it's on a BLP and the edit was much wider ranging than the summary. I presume it was just an error of forgetting to finish the summary, but the vandalism rate has been so high that i think it needs an admission of wider scope before going unchallenged. I trust you'll understand my response.
--Jerzyt 05:24, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

  • OMG, i said "BLP"! I hope won't think me quite that stupid, if i suggest that a "still warm" principle should apply, esp. w/ figures so prominent!
    --Jerzyt 06:11, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Your response on my talk sounds to the point, and i hope i'm not belaboring the subject by explaining why i saw it other than as you just stated. I did look back, and found it had been weeks since you edited the talk page; not knowing when the merge was, i chose the excess of caution rather than slog off in an unknown direction (merge from where?) and distance trying to track your reasoning. (Even if it had been quite recent, it would have helped me a lot if you'd ref'd the talk page, and better yet the section, in the summary.)
      That being said, perhaps the simplest resolution is for you to counter-revert saying your "explanation has been accepted", and i'd be glad to confirm that on the talk page if you like, and cite the talk-pg research justifying my "certification" that all is well. Or you could counter-rv w/ a section ref, or i could do it all; it sounds like we are agreed in principle -- there's no hazard of our disagreeing on what's reasonable for either of us to expect or accept. So let me know your pleasure.
      --Jerzyt 06:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Perhaps it's important that i say, in light of what you added in the overlapping edit, that i was sparing words in my summary, and that "misleading as to effect, tho i assume not by intent" would have caught my meaning better; specifically, since i didn't know what the merge involved, i read the journalist part (without much justification) as implying its the scope to be the whole edit, and "journalist" & "merge" as implicitly redundant reasons rather than overlapping ones. (Don't know if you noticed my confused 05:04 edit-summary, when i thot i had reverted you first, and -- what you can't see -- then couldn't figure out why my next two edits, attempting to revert the edit after yours, weren't producing another history entry! I said AGF there in the misplaced summary, but between typing fatigue and the difficulty of editing out the middle of what i was copying and pasting into the summary (esp in light of feeling cramped by the edit-summary length limit), omitted it where i had intended it to go.
    --Jerzyt 07:31, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

RfA thank you

AnnapolisGraduation.jpg Thank you!
Tvoz, it is with deep awareness of the responsibility conferred by your trust that I am honored to report that in part to your support, my request for adminship passed (87/14/6). I deeply value the trust you and the Wikipedia community have in me, and I will embark on a new segment of my Wikipedia career by putting my new tools to work to benefit the entire community. My best to you, Happyme22 (talk) 03:18, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

A special thank you to you, Tvoz, for your kind words on my RfA page. They truly mean a lot! --Happyme22 (talk) 03:18, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

My pleasure - meant every word!! Tvoz/talk 03:25, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


Thanks for the start of a disambiguation for Alun Davies. I'm not sure how to do it. Matter of fact, being fairly new to wikipedia and computers, (although not academia) I was wondering if you'd answer some newbie questions for me from time to time? --leahtwosaints (talk) 00:35, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Sure, any time. Tvoz/talk 01:38, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Bill Ayers election controversy

Ambox warning pn.svg

An article that you have been involved in editing, Bill Ayers election controversy, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bill Ayers election controversy. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? -- Scjessey (talk) 21:46, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Beatles newsletter July 2008

To read the latest newsletter, hit the "show" button on the right ................................................................................................................................................................→


Hey, Tvoz -- I was thinking maybe you could use a wee bit of a distraction from the Obama Wars. (heh heh) So anyway, I was poking around in the new AFD listings, and came across a somewhat familiar name: Ward Morehouse (activist), co-founder of POCLAD. It's just a tiny little stub at the moment, and the issue (of course) is WP:NOTE. Well, I turned up some op-eds he wrote for the NYT, and then I found a book review where he's described as a long-time denizen of Croton-on-Hudson. So I thought, hey, Tvoz might take an interest in this, seeing as the guy's a fellow Westchesterian -- is that the proper adjective? :) Take care, Cgingold (talk) 08:40, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Whoa... Can't believe you're up, Tvoz -- you sure get up early, girl! Sorry I never got back to you on that category question -- I've probably still got that email somewhere. I guess you and Mr. Morehouse are at opposite ends of the county (not that I really thought you were "neighbors"). Btw, what about that adjective I tried out on you? Cgingold (talk) 09:10, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Still up??? Oh man, you're even worse than me! Cgingold (talk) 09:19, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
PS - If you can't get around to this, not to worry. I honestly just thought you might happen to take an interest in it. See ya! Cgingold (talk) 12:27, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Stance on Edwards page should be applied elsewhere

You'd said of the Edwards / National Enquirer issue: "We're supposed to weigh the relative importance of the dozens of news items - when they are even legitimate news items which I personally do not think this one is as of now - and determine if it belongs in the article and if including it doesn't give too much weight to it in the context of his life."

Would you apply the same standard to the page of <a href="">John Gibson</a>? His page is weighed down by the opinions of Media Matters (hardly non-biased, and definitely not a reliable source), and the opinions of his political opponents and competitors. But no news. Just highly partisan blogs and highly partisan editorializing.

If your quote, which I cited above, is to be taken seriously, then you may want to step in on the page for Gibson, where it's turned into little more than a nit-picking criticism of a media personality. His alleged controversies were not newsworthy as they never even made news.

So please, do step up. It's your chance to demonstrate what's good for John Edwards is also good for John Gibson. Thank you. Ynot4tony2 (talk) 18:13, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm amused that you think that a word from me would make a difference - but I don't regularly read or edit John Gibson and am not up on the issues there. (I have made exactly one edit to that article, months ago, which was to remove a reference to itself.) So if I have a chance maybe I'll take a look, but I'm not looking for more contention. Tvoz/talk 04:33, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
It's not a matter of being "up on the issues" there. It's a matter of standards, which you have made clear on the Edwards page. A simple look at the non-sense cited in Gibson's page is all you need.
And why is it amusing to "think that a word from (you) would make a difference" on the Gibson page, but you seem to think you can make a difference on the Edwards page instead? Thanks for the reply, and don't worry...I understand you'd rather fight some battles than others. Can't fault you for that. Ynot4tony2 (talk) 13:02, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Oh - I just meant that I'm not sure my word on a page where I haven't worked would be at all influential - I have been an active Edwards editor as well as active on other political pages, so I'm more familiar with the issues there and have interacted with many of the editors there which may not be the case on Gibson. As I said, if I have a chance I'll look in at Gibson, but I do have my hands full at the moment. Tvoz/talk 20:55, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. I'd been trying to influence the make-up of that page for a while, but some people are just very determined to treat a glorified blog as a RS. 21:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ynot4tony2 (talkcontribs)
Original Barnstar.png Barnstar Award
For your thoughtful contributions to the discussion regarding Abongo Obama.--Utahredrock (talk) 23:23, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Just saw this: considering the tenor of those discussions I'm not too sure about this, but thank you. Tvoz/talk 23:44, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it goes above, when it is ready

Yes, archive notices go above the TOC when they are ready. Not necessarily when they're being prepared in a section marked as being temporary. A section which was created to avoid having people editing the entire article and causing edit conflicts during the setup. -- SEWilco (talk) 02:54, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, but I actually have no idea what you mean. No matter - Bobblehead did the archive and now the bot should do it automatically, which is as it should be. Tvoz/talk 06:47, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Good fight

Don't bother feeding the trolls, especially in a public forum. I noticed someone once commented you on fighting the good fight... glad to see there are other editors who do so. I've learned that sometimes it's not possible to have meaningful debate with people who would rather serve an agenda than consult applicable policy. By all means don't let them wear you out, and keep up the good fight! For a good laugh check out this thread. Cheers! /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:28, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - I don't wear out easily. Tvoz/talk 07:01, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Alun Davies

HI- I know virtually no one in wikipedia, so I'm hoping you will help with this. The more I put any energy into the Cat Stevens article, and the song pages, the more I'm convinced that one must be created for Alun Davies. However, the name as you know, is shared by two others- the now-dead Canadian bassist, (who has no page), and the Welsh politician (who does). Would you help me begin to create one for Alun Davies the guitarist? Normally I wouldn't feel so at odds, but since this requires a disambiguation page (don't know how to do that) and the start of a page with the same name as another! (am baffled at the entire idea!) I am hoping for your help? --leahtwosaints (talk) 20:08, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, briefly, I'm doing the Davies article -just beginning.. My first page, I wrote nearly All of the Dixie Chicks article till 2003... but still could probably be your mom, which is why I've so little knowledge of this stuff. Can you create a disambiguation page for the Davies (pl).? And, if you haven't seen the new Yusuf Islam site, it's a wikipedian wet dream! Got nearly enough for a year there. Finally, (this applies to a photo on Wikimedia- placed there for OUR use!, needing shrinking, do you know how that's done so I can put it on a page for Derek Trucks later? Thanks --leahtwosaints (talk) 03:30, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

the The

If you agree the The should be uppercase, could you sign your name here? Thanks, --andreasegde (talk) 19:28, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Laughing at Moms

HAR! Meant it metaphorically. I was born in Nov. 1959 so yes, I had the vinyl of all from Mona Bone Jakon to Buddha- but sold it at age 16 when I was a student at the University of Maryland. (Yeah, I started there at 15, but not because I was terribly smart, just precocious and manipulative!) However, after my early twenties, I did a disappearing act, and only learned to use a computer at ALL (cant understate that enough, didn't even know how to TYPE) until say, 6 years ago. THAT is what I meant about being someone's mom, theoretically with this wikipedia. I'm like a virtual dinosaur. OTOH, YOU could give this smart-ass graduate school genious types a run for their money! --leahtwosaints (talk) 04:04, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

A Little More Photo Help

Tvoz, bless you, I've added photos to both Derek Trucks and Susan Tedeschi; however, the second one has still given me problems. The photo I added (Susan Tedeschi, 2007), should really be in the info box, instead of an album cover, but I can't seem to get it in there, despite your suggestions. Would you give it a try? I'll be indebted, yet again.. --leahtwosaints (talk) 22:29, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


We need to block I.P. address This user has vandalized 23 times, yet hasen't been blocked. most vandals are blocked after they vandalize 4 or 5 times, not 23. so, let's block this anonoymus user.--Master of Pies (talk) 19:29, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, this is not how it's done. I think you need to get more familiar with basic policies and procedures - you could start with WP:AIV regarding reporting of vandals, after they have been properly warned, and note that WP:UAA is for reporting of usernames that violate Wikipedia standards (the name itself, not the behavior). And I'd recommend that you read WP:MENTOR and WP:ADOPT. Good luck with your editing. Tvoz/talk 20:16, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


I have decided I am not going to be adopted. --Master of Pies (talk) 21:11, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm inviting your comment

Here (and also, if possible, here?)   Justmeherenow (  ) 05:12, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Done, but you're not going to like it. No comment about the photo at the moment. Tvoz/talk 08:01, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Stop Saying What's reliable and What's Not

Your edits to the Clinton page WERE TOTALLY UNACCPTABLE. The Capitol Hill Blue is a very reliable resource. Read the website's policy for yourself. KEEP YOUR PERSONAL OPINIONS ABOUT RELIABLE RESOURCES TO YOURSELF, OR I WILL REPORT YOU.Kevin j (talk) 16:01, 22 August 2008 (UTC)(posted this same statementyesterday, but some user erased it for ridiculous accusations that I was intending harrashment. This is not the exact time I posted it)

The Capitol Hill Blue is very reliable. KEEP YOUR OPINIONS TO YOURSELF AND RESPECT THE NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW POLICY. You've already confessed you're a "Nancy Reagan Warrior." Just so you know, WIKIPEDIA IS NOT THE PLACE FOR POLITICAL PROPAGANDA OF ANY SORT. Just good amount of Barnstars you have received from other editors, you still don't get any special privileges at all. Also, I'M NOT CAPITALIZING MY STATEMENTS OUT OF RAGE, BUT RATHER AS A FORM OF HIGHLIGHTING. I don't mean to be uncivil in anyway, and I will put the Clinton facts about Sally Perdue back on by tommorrow. Also, I HAVE ALREADY REQUESTED YOU GET BLOCKED FOR VIOLATING THE GOOD FAITH POLICY.Kevin j (talk) 15:31, 22 August 2008 (UTC)(talk) 01:41, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Tvoz, you're the subject of an AN thread right now, if you want to comment. Link: [1] --barneca (talk) 16:17, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, I have dedicided to Italics instead of capital letters, so don't use them to present any bogus evidence that I am acting uncivil. The edits you made to the Bill Clinton page were completely in bad faith. Capitol Hill Blue is a very reliable resource, and has many good debates on various issues. The motto it has about the mainstream media in the website's motto are only an advertisement. The news media has been accussed of being bias by various parties, and Capital Hill Blue is only trying to use those accusations to draw readers to the website. It's really no different than either CNN's "Most Trusted Name In News" or Fox News's "Fair and Balanced mottos. Nothing I have added violates the Bigraphies of Living Person's policy either. Keep your opinions to yourself, or I will continue to have you noted for violating both the neutral point of view and good faith policies

Trust me, you will be blocked if it continues.Kevin j (talk) 18:15, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Nuvola apps important.svg Please do not stop removing unreferenced controversial biographical content from articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Bill Clinton. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If the top of your head flips up and your brain flops out onto the keyboard, or your hands are spontaneously possessed by the devil, resulting in a complete reversal of your past behaviour regarding this policy, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Regards, SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 19:08, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

[out] Well, serves me right for taking a day off from this playground - Sheffield, I'm literally laughing out loud. and will certainly take your warning to heart. Barneca, thanks for the pointer and your defense at the AN - I almost missed the whole thing. Pleasantville, thanks for keeping an eye out. But Kevin - words can't express my joy at receiving your various missives here and on the admin noticeboard, and elsewhere. You have made it into my hall of fame - yes, I am a proud Nancy Reagan warrior, as she so needs an army to defend her honor. And your logic in saying I'm obviously a loyal Republican as evidenced by my removing unreliably sourced negative material about Bill Clinton? Yeah, that's the ticket. Chill out, and enjoy your week block - better yet, use it to understand basic Wikipedia policy. I did nothing in bad faith, the source you used is utterly unreliable, and you added unsubstantiated negative material about a living person. I'd remove it from anyone's page that I came across. Further, your comments about me are not only uninformed - I am not male, for example - but they are harassment. Learn how to respectfully disagree before making a return appearance on my talk page, please. Tvoz/talk 03:12, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Got your new message

Yeek. Ok, I'm on this now. Depending on finding, I may take this further, as you can imagine. Can I share your message if it becomes necessary? - Alison 05:13, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Check your mail. SSP case done - Alison 05:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

*ding* You have mail. :) --Bobblehead (rants) 18:46, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Tvoz. You have new messages at L'Aquatique's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Cat Stevens and more

I knew the Trivia section was wrong, but felt the award deserved mention somewhere, so thanks! Now for more questions: 1)Do you know anyone who works in Wikimedia Commons who can explain how things there work best? I'm recruiting folks willing to allow us use of their personal pics for a number of people who are missing them on their pages. I'll make a list of them on MY page, OK? 2)I know the CITE refs are probably preferable, to the other kind, but often, no name is used in some articles from major publications. How to standardize the reference sections (esp Cat Stevens?) ps- I AM looking to replace the video sources. Is there ever any way to really reference a video interview acceptably to eventually 3) Do you know how to make those tables showing top hits (as in some of the album pages, or the Dixie Chicks band page in the UK and the USA? How? (I need help getting started w/Alun Davies in that manner- planned to move HIS albums to album pages, etc. but is there more?) Pls see talk page for Davies 3) How can we merge the references best? 4) Do the Yusuf's Cafe sessions qualify as an album? Thanks for your input --leahtwosaints (talk) 16:23, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. I may be in the hospital for awhile and messed up reference #20 or so in Cat Stevens. Can you help? It's the same VHI ref used elsewhere there. --leahtwosaints (talk) 06:43, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Awesome edit summary

Jonesing? -- Scjessey (talk) 16:27, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello, friend

Since we are apparently "known friends", I thought it would be impolite not to introduce myself and say hi. MastCell Talk 21:04, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Cat Stevens

Hello Tvoz. I appreciate your comments you made on the Cat Stevens main article about the need for immmediate sourcing of controversial material. You were right. I think that we should be very very careful, maybe even going beyond the letter of the laws and policies of wiki and state numerous sources , because of Cat Stevens libel cases. I have now listed the numerous sources on the discussion page but you have not made any comments since then. I have read as many of your commments and edits as I can and I have found them to incredibly instructive, fair, and positive in tone. Since you are a very experienced and I feel a balanced editor is there any way you can guide us now on how to include a small section or comment on Cat Steven's openly writing anti- Jewish, anti-Israel comments for Hamas front groups, and then donations to Hamas front groups. I conducted a full google, lexisnexis, galileo search of material on Cat Stevens for the last 10 years and he has made mostly negative statements about Israel and Jews with one positive comment where he quotes from the Koran. Also, he does not ever deny his support of Hamas, he just says that he only supports their charity "branches" and not their political wings. The U.S. and Canada, and Israel, among others, of course do not such make fine distinctions and have documented how the charity groups serve to funnel money to terrorists. This is why several of those groups that Cat Stevens have funded have been subsequently shut down as terrorist front organizations. Also, several articles have argued that Cat Stevens might be trying to moderate his own views, and also could be either willfully blind about the nature of the charities he has supported or even naive. I understand that to keep the main article balanced there should only be a small section in it and that it might end up branching, just like the Rushdie event. I have not added anything to the Cat Stevens article because I am a newbie and I have learned that "there is no rush to publish." Any general or even better specific help in structuring this information so that it meets Wiki standards would be welcomed. Thanks again. aharon42 (talk) 16:23, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

tvoz. Please note that I corrected my myself and said that you had properly guided me on how to handle the wiki policies. I put it at the end of the section because I thought that is what we are supposed to do, not adding comments in the middle. I still do have questions about it, which I also noted at the end of the section but I will pay heed to your superior experience in these issues. aharon42 (talk) 18:08, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I have read both articles on Cat stevens and I have also read all of the archives. That's why I was so impressed with your consistent editing style, even when I disagreed with a couple of your conclusions. When you have time its these gray areas that I want to explore further. Most salient for me is when the correct NPOV is negative because that is truely the objective description of the action or person, ie Ted Bundy, Hitler, or George Bush's oratorical skills (not him as a president) It would not be NPOV to give equal weight to some kind of "on the other hand, Hitler denied ever living in Germany, or George Bush maintains he is a great speaker." The article should reflect the weight of evidence and not just be a he said, she said, debate, especially if one of them can be clearly shown to be lying. Specifically there is a huge amount of evidence that Cat Stevens donated money to Hamas front groups, spoke at their meetings and conventions, wrote anti-semitic tracts, it is wrong to give his evasive responses equal weight to the actual evidence. His responses should be mentioned, just like if Ted Bundy denied ever murdering anyone (which I think he did, got to look that up on WP!)but the overall article perspective should not reflect his claims of innocence, since they are demonstrably false. I know you are busy so maybe we could move forward on this in a week or two. (But I am not waiting untill the elections are concluded..)With respect aharon42 (talk) 19:46, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Tvoz, just wanted to mention that I would be honored to work with you on another article.. Something much less contested so that I could do some real edits and then you could give feedback but without as much pressure. Maybe an article on a non-person, it could be any topic that interests you. I just got a mentor so I promise I won't bother you with too much newbie stuff but I would be very happy to do scut work and sourcing for you in exchange for a little guidance. Thanks aharon42 (talk) 08:45, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I could help out with Wikiknome work on Peter Seeger or the Bee Gees or do other clean up work with your guidance? Your political editing is way too high level for me. What ever you decide I'll leave you be for a couple of weeks. Thanks for the editing help on Cat Stevens.aharon42 (talk) 08:53, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


A user has posted about you on WP:ANI Exxolon (talk) 15:18, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - happily I didn't see it until it was closed. Tvoz/talk 17:48, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


I noticed this edit of yours. Perhaps you were unaware that there is an ongoing talk page discussion about the matter?[2] The material that you reinserted does not have an NPOV and is very misleading. It suggests that every time anyone spoke to Monegan about Wooten, there was pressure applied. Palin admits that that occurred only once, not 24 times.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not urgent. The article is changing so fast that anything anyone does won't last long. I think the section now seems fairly balanced, but it's very big.Ferrylodge (talk) 06:43, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Instant karma

I share your... what's the word? bemusement? ... at the remarkable metamorphosis in some editors' approach to WP:BLP. It seems like only last month that a number of editors were arguing that the National Enquirer was an appropriate source for a BLP, and that rumors there demanded inclusion on Wikipedia or else zOMG LIBERALZZ CENSORSHIP!!1!!1! I thought at the time that this sort of argument was, aside from its obvious fundamental flaws, deeply short-sighted.

Sure enough, the Enquirer shifts their focus to Sarah Palin, prints more rumors which are noted (but not supported) in the mainstream media, and... well, you know the rest. I'm actually pretty bothered by the moral flexibility and newfound sanctimonious zeal for WP:BLP on display in some quarters, but better late than never I guess. Besides, there's probably nothing constructive to come out of belaboring this particular display, other than to note it for future reference re: the credibility of a handful of folks. MastCell Talk 19:36, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

uh-yup.Tvoz/talk 20:51, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Obama name

As I recall, the full name was duplicated in the "Early life and career" section to avoid having to cite it in the introduction. If it stays like this, that reference will have to be moved up as well. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The original

If you want a change of pace from Palinsanity, I've finished for now my big expansion of Geraldine Ferraro (which presumably is getting a readership spike these days). Edits and/or comments are welcome, from the important (did I leave out any big developments or famous incidents? is it an interesting and fair portrayal?) to the routine (awful prose in places, I bet – I'm weary of looking at it). I know you did some cleanup work on this back during the spring, and you may have a feel for some of the material involved ... somehow I don't remember her two Senate primary races as well as I should ... Wasted Time R (talk) 03:02, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


Hey! I was wondering if you'd help me with the uploading of the 3 album covers from Alun Davies (1963-1972). All are shrunk down so if you click them, they're slightly larger but still small enough to justify using, I *think*. They appear on; click them to the approximate size we use in album infoboxes. They are here- [3] I just have gone crazy trying to figure out how to UPLOAD them to either Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons is HARD! Commons suggests uploading the photo to the as-yet uncreated page first before starting the pages, so I hoped you'd figure out what suits you best, and maybe help me? Can you begin to start the pages for Davies' 3 albums (there might be 4, but that's another issue). Of them, Daydo, (1972) has the most information, --lots of it, actually, and that would be the best one to start. Puleeze will you help with this? The covers I think would be acceptable since they were shrunken so small. --leahtwosaints (talk) 01:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Got it

Hey, I got your email and responded. I've reinserted the material, and I am very willing to discuss it further at the talk page (which is all in the email... I'm getting ahead of myself :-) My best as always, Happyme22 (talk) 04:32, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

photo uploads

Thanks, but I've started pages a couple of times.. it's just the photo thing. Can you suggest ANYONE who might know about it? Or who is in the album cover group, and that's their "thing"? --leahtwosaints (talk) 22:31, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Barack Obama FAR

Barack Obama has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:52, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Can you weigh in on the current Lolo Soetoro discussion?

Seeing you just archived most of the page, have previously edited the article as well as the talk page, and am a prominent Obama editor would you mind weighing in on the debate I have accidentally caused over whether Lolo Soetoro is to be categorised as an Indonesian Muslim? I'm wary of that all my policy arguments and attempts at neutrality have fallen on deaf ears as the other editor in the dispute seems to have made the assumption I am anti-Obama and am just trying to smear him through association with Islam and thus anything I say is suspect. 04:10, 28 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lid (talkcontribs)

If you look me up you'll find I showed up on other Obama family member articles due to notability claims where I saw only articles that existed because they were related to Obama so you will not get a reprimand from me over the existence of the article. In regards to the practicing Muslim part... it has come up before and I explained that even though he was a fairly liberal Muslim in how he perceived the tenets of Islam to drive him he still self-identified as a Muslim. Indonesia's Muslim population is the largest in the world, and many of them do not partake in strict Islam adherence to the point that (to westerners) they are just normal people whose religion is Islam as they believe in its teachings but do not practice it (as in all religions). If we were to start uncategorising wikipedia biographical articles because the subject did something not in adherence to their religious beliefs the categories would get a loooooooot smaller. Lolo was an Indonesian Muslim - he was not a fundamentalist, he was not an extremist, he was a normal down to earth man who enjoyed a drink that self-identified as Muslim. The only "argument" against the categories inclusion is the negative feeling some people might have to Muslim's, but that should not dictate that we decidedly omit categorisation to prevent some people from pointing to Obama's stepfather being a Muslim as that is on the verge of violating a neutral point of view of the article and its sourced facts through not wishing to do "harm" to Obama. –– Lid(Talk) 11:30, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Lid (and Tvoz), my argument is why single out Lolo to be included, when there are many thousands of Christians whose religion is not mentioned by category. (I did a quick check on my watchlist and had good indication of that). Especially, when the guy is not heavily involved in religion. I would hate to be characterized by my religion, when I am not active in it. It does seem that Muslims are being singled out, and the Obama family in particular. I saw 1 survey that 10% of Americans think that Barack is a Muslim. This just fuels that.Bellagio99 (talk) 16:05, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
It is only being "singled out" through circumstance, which was while reading Lolo I saw it missed the cat and added it. Your removal of the category is what has caused the article to have the discussion. Once again if the articles on your watchlist list their religion, and they are reliably sourced, then add the categories for their religion to their articles. Lack of categories means the articles need categories added to them, not that other articles are to have their categories be removed (per WP:CAT). –– Lid(Talk) 20:50, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Cat Stevens/Yusuf References

I copied references when I knew they were the same- usually when people use Yusuf's website, either the Lifeline, or the Biography one. This is for several reasons: 1- I worry that I'll use a ref, name it, etc, only to find someone else used a different name for the same reference, making it confusing. 2- We really need to form a work group! We need a consensus on whether to use CITE or the old way (ref name= "name") style. I vote for the second one, b/c it really puzzles me as to shortening the vast variety of ways people can CITE refs- whether from the web, videos, whatever. The older way is simpler, IMHO. The Islamic workgroup I'm part of here only use that, and they have a whole bunch of GA and FA articles because of it. 3- Last, when I'm exhausted but have insomnia, I'm scared I'll mess up a reference trying to shorten it. If that's what you're talking about, like ref name"John/" I know how, but was trying to respond quickly to all of the citation needed spots that the bot pointed out in the early parts of the article. BTW, which quotes are you referring to? The one in the Tuberculosis section about seeing people dying I referenced. I have no idea where the "Uncle Hugo, a painter" visit came from, it's from someone long ago, old.

One last thing-- the Cat Stevens Fansite has a link to an extensive site in German, and I asked a friend, Editor: Krautmaster, to look through it and lend a hand, since German is his primary language, though he's fluent in English. --leahtwosaints (talk) 23:00, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Lifeline alone is too vague - in fact it is pretty much useless. We need to use the specific URL to get to the right year's page in Lifeline, and you were using the Lifeline 1963 reference for something that appears on the 1965 page, for example. The point of the refs is for readers to be able to verify the text, and a general link to the website or a section of it is just not enough. Especially for quotes. DOn't worry about ref name, just come up with unique names for them if you think the ref name has been used - I've rarely seen that happen, and you can use your browser to check the whole edit screen if you're concerned. As for citation format, the "cite" format is better because it is consistent - it takes whatever is put into it and converts it into the same order and construction, leaving a cleaner set of footnotes. And you just use the proper "cite" format for whatever type of source you're using. It results in consistency, and that's important. Also, the cite format is totally consistent with using ref name for subsequent cites of the same exact source. I'll check about which quotes were missing specific citations - yes, one was Uncle Hugo. I don't know where that came from, and if no one finds a source I'll remove it. As for a German site, that worries me - we should not rely on sites that aren't easily read by our readers - and being that this is en-Wikipedia, I think the sources need to be in English - I do not feel comfortable having sources that I can't read and verify. I am concerned, though, that we're leaning too heavily on his own website which is not nearly as good as using independent third party sources - we have some of those too, but have to watch out about too much from magicat or As for a work group, well, I've had mixed experiences working with those, so we'll just have to see. This article had a stability for a long time after a lot of contention, and I don't want to go back to those days. Tvoz/talk 23:25, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
I hear you. The Magicat site is like, the mirror site of the German site, and the other editor will translate if he finds an exceptional article, that's all. No huge contribution from him, trust me.

I don't know why you didn't notice it, but 2 days ago, I began using the date on Yusuf's Lifeline, also. (shrug) No offense intended, but you amaze me -seeing some things but missing others. I believe if you and I work together, we can make this a really powerful article. As for depending too much on Yusuf's site, when I was working on John Frusciante, before I registered a name here, with an ISP instead, we used the same blogs from the members of the Red Hot Chili Peppers' members for the band page and the individuals' pages and so forth continuously, and there were no complaints- in fact, the article went from GA to FA status really quickly! As to this one, I'm going over information regarding song and album pages, and more on Yusuf Islam. We need photos badly. Problem: many Muslims don't believe in photos- it's a long story but I'm not one of them, it just means fewer fans will provide GFDL photos. Let's try searching Flickr for some taken recently, at least. I badly want one for Davies, too- AND his D.O.B! There are all kinds of sources of articles for Stevens/Islam; in fact, I was afraid we'd have too many! I can do a lot of the grunt work if you're willing to fine tune, and explain how to REALLY use CITE, because I feel pretty doleful about it, even now. If you get bored, the Derek Trucks and The Derek Trucks Band (two great examples of the articles I begged for on Flickr along with many others like Leo Kottke) --IOW, anything with Derek Trucks and his band can use help!! I kinda alternate, so I don't lose interest entirely. --leahtwosaints (talk) 00:00, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

YAH! hearing you my Sister, on the political tip. I haven't gone into that arena to my knowledge, have I? B/c I'm the one who placed Stevens/Islam's deportation from Israel, and suspected ties to Hamas in the article, (referenced of course!) followed with the libel cases. Glad I did, too, since I recall when User:asharon-- or whatever the name gained this current user name due to people getting really pissed at her for her POV issues, allegedly. I wasn't part of the original Stevens article, no way I'm top editor, don't wanna be, but would like to see it go to true GA/FA status. I got another editor to rate the article from Wiki Islam group. Shoot, I work my ass off on GA articles from Start or Stub all the way up, but nobody notices. :( Anyway, I'm dubbing myself the "photo queen" cause I'm getting tired of asking for help from folks with articles, only to find them yanking out the album cover photos or whatnot. I'm willing to bone up on the refs, however for now, I may just use the short way, like [] and then anyone will know where it's from and can make it into CITE, what do you think? That's just for this article. If the infighting over politics was that fractious, I'm glad really you and I have been the only two who keep coming back for more these days. But honestly, I think the usage of Yusuf's site is inevitable just b/c we'll have so much information there for hard to find references.

PS- where is there a banner for rewrite and wikification of an article? See Ron Holloway- that's a famous sax player I actually met and knew in the 1970s.. but look at the page, please! OMG. What a sight. How nobody saw it before me is beyond me. And he's playing with Susan Tedeschi! --leahtwosaints (talk) 09:37, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


Tvoz, can you have a look at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Help needed with Aaron Sorkin and then examine the edits in question? There's an Obama connection in there somehow, and the edits seem politically motivated, and I'm wondering if you are able to generate evidence sufficient for a familiar checkuser. I left a note for Bobblehead as well. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:47, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Wow. But I'm not recognizing anyone in particular. Tvoz/talk 07:28, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
hmmm. Feels awfully familiar. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:33, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I agree, but I haven't put my finger on it. Tvoz/talk 07:38, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Look at my edits. I explain what I'm doing. There were terrible errors in this article. This was not a flattering article and mostly, gravely wrong.Homely Features (talk) 08:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Who is Bobblehead? Here is what I suggest you do: take a fact, look at its source (if there is one, mostly there is not) and read the source for evidence of such a fact. Now your astonishment will begin.Homely Features (talk) 08:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

←Not on my talk page please. And "not a flattering article" is not a criterion here. Tvoz/talk 08:21, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Fine. But if I am to be put on trial please notify me about it. Thank you.Homely Features (talk) 08:34, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: Sarah's Marathon

That section was a complete mess before you took a hatchet to it. Actually, it would have been perfect if we were writing an article for People magazine, which I'm fairly certain she has never read. AniMate 07:14, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

You know, there's only one thing that ever really pisses me off on Wikipedia: when someone is funnier than me in both content and edit summary. You win this round. AniMate 07:43, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Palin - 'Politicle Positions' section

Hi Tvoz- Nice work on the Palin 'reception' section. I would appreciate your opinion on my comments on the 'Political Positions' section: [[4]] Thanks, IP75 (talk) 18:52, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for reinstating my comments. I think they got lost amidst the endless bridge discussions to nowhere. IP75 (talk) 22:11, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


Back atcha :) - Alison 02:20, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Help me?

Tvoz-- can you tell me how to archive my talk page? I'm clueless. In addition, though I know it's not your favorite page, Derek Trucks originally had The Derek Trucks Band on his page. Problem is, it was called the Derek Trucks Band, and was also kept on his page, since it was salted and removed. NOW, since the two are separated, if someone puts "The" before the name of the band, as in my first example, it goes to the new page. But if they just put "Derek Trucks Band", it still goes to his page. Can you help me figure out how to stop this? There should be only a Derek Trucks page, and a The Derek Trucks Band page. Thanks. --leahtwosaints (talk) 04:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm lost. First, I'm just hoping to archive my talk page. I looked at the wiki instructions, to do it (they have too many ways it can be done, and it is too confusing), and your instructions, but OK, I click a number, like what you placed, and then.. copy and paste the discussions on the page I want to archive, and do what with them? Try to drag them into the little box, or what? And what happens to my "Welcome" template with all the cool quick glance spots I can go to and get something done? I'm so confused. I just want to archive everything except the Welcome template on the talk page.
Answered this one on your talk page. Tvoz/talk 08:45, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Another question, I have SO many edits, since I'm paranoid of having my editing sessions last to long and either being unable to save what I've edited, OR, finding another user is editing the same page, and being unable to save my work. I have hundreds of edits as a result. I know I can go to the "Earliest" edits, etc. but wonder if people have a way to put them someplace, too. I spend an average of 9 hours a day doing stuff on wikipedia, esp. since I get bored with one page for a couple of days, and just surf through the wikipedia fixing obvious things, you know, WikiGnome style. That way I can get a fresh perspective on the pages I'm working on after a day or two. Thanks for noticing. Once I learn something, I'm OK, but I'm still trying to figure out how to upload shrunken album covers for album pages to Wikimedia, as well, and I'm UTTERLY PERPLEXED! I might just be too much of a dingbat for all of this I'm so frustrated. Ready to hang up the whole wiki thing, since instructions- I'm dyslexic too, really make it hard. --leahtwosaints (talk) 06:25, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what you're asking - see your talk. Tvoz/talk 08:45, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Obama's Palls

Thanks for reverting this obvious attempt (at Palin) to slur and use guilt by association.--Buster7 (talk) 05:26, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Just trying to keep it real.... Tvoz/talk 05:58, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Steven Georgiou

Are you the one that changed the last name of Stevens on the Cat Stevens/Yusuf Islam page to Georgiou? Someone did that at the beginning of the page, at least. Nearly nobody knows Cat Stevens by Steven Georgiou. I think it should be Stevens and then Islam after conversion. I STRONGLY feel this.

Finally, HOW IN HELL can we pull the "See Folk Music" out of the side template on Cat Stevens?? I see no reason to have it there! Maybe for Pete Seeger, but Stevens' music, while influenced by folk music, was still an emerging genre, of folk rock, and so it peeves me to see that on the page. --leahtwosaints (talk) 06:31, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi there

Soz, mate, I had already answered to your message some weeks ago directly on Cat Stevens' discussion page, I thought you'd peep in and so on... It's the very first time I'm using the "talk" page, so sorry again, mate. Well, if you visit the Wikipedia.en article about the Swedish town of Gavle you'll find out that Stephen's mother (BTW, his actual name is StePHen Demetre Georgiou, not SteVen, I've been a long term member of Yusuf's fan site Majicat, I know it for sure)... where was I? Okay, well, Stephen's mum was called Ingrid Wickman and hailed from Gavle, that's what Wikipedia itself says, and that's how I found it, to be honest. It was only after this that I started discussing it into the fan site, and I was redirected to loads of newspaper old articles where Cat Stevens' Swedish roots were well explained: one of them, I actually can't remember which one, spoke about this monthly residence in Sweden right after Yusuf's parents' divorce: he followed his mum to Gavle and studied there for some months, before coming back to London to work in his dad's restaurant. While in Sweden, his uncle Hugo heavily influenced him artistically speaking, and that's where Stephen developed his drawing skills. In fact, Cat Stevens himself is the author of his first album covers. Now: I have a strong belief I read all this in a Melody Maker article from 1972, which is still available on the Majicat site, but even though that might not be the magazine, I'll certainly find out which one was discussing Cat's Swedish life, because all of these articles are still available on the Majicat site. I could obviously get there and try and obtain the document requested, and finally quote it. I'll do it as soon as possible, promised. --Gianmaria Framarin (talk) 22:53, 8 October 2008 (GMT)

See my reply on your talk page - note that his website says "Steven" is the spelling, so... Tvoz/talk 22:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

back to Georgiou

Tvoz, the Georgiou name is the only issue in which I disagree with you. There are TONS of people-- see the barnstar article, Flea, and there's a ton more, like The Edge and Freddie Mercury, just off the top of my head. As long as the original name is listed right next to the stage name is documented, I think Stevens is perfectly fine, since people don't go looking for "Steven Georgiou". It's confusing enough that his name was Georgiou, then Cat Stevens, then Yusuf Islam, and now Yusuf. Please, put the name back to Stevens. Quote what you wish about how and why he has these names, but please keep it the way it was. See, if you want, the way I handled the transition of Marha to Martie Maguire. Please reconsider: you are the the only one who feels this must be changed!!

Thanks for removing the folk music part of the side template on Stevens' I couldn't figure out how to get the damned template open, even clicking edit!! RE: archiving, I want to archive every single message on my talk page, leaving only the big green template with all the cool little references of short abbreviated links to places in the wikipedia to use. Its a large green template, saying WELCOME. Otherwise, the rest needs archiving-- everything else on my talk page. --leahtwosaints (talk) 23:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the archive. Seems to me, when Wikipedia gives instructions on how to do something, it appears like they give you 5 options, and then tell you option 2 is preferable to options 1-5 minus number 2, and sheeeet! It's like trying to learn calculus from someone who doesn't know the "new math" and another who does, IMO. Arrgh.

I'm not sure how you do it, but for me, I'll get into editing a page, but after a few days, get bored, go back to an alternate article (- or three)- and then return to the one I began with. So that's why Cat Stevens hasn't got any actual editing from me of late, while I attend to Derek Trucks, his wife, Susan Tedeschi, his band, and Ron Holloway, (in Tedeschi's band now) and I know him! He played for 10 years with Dizzy Gillespie, and many other celebrities after I last saw him, so we had a little reunion via cellphone- was nice!! But Stevens will see me again soon enough, maybe to start more album/song pages. I did leave a note on the talk page there, really for you. Thanks again! --leahtwosaints (talk) 09:43, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I never thought you were joking, lad!

Aye, it's all right, I really thought you were just saying "thank you", no misunderstandings at all. Now just give me some (little) time, I'll certainly get back to the article I'm looking for, one thing I can tell you is that we were often discussing about this "infamous" Uncle Hugo from Gavle on the Majicat board... I'll get it, no doubt. I once tried adding Cat Stevens to the cathegory (I built all on my own) "English people of Swedish descent" (is this the title, BTW?), but it was immediately turned down, I also quarrelled a bit about it: Cat appears in the "English people of Greek-Cypriot descent", that sounds normal to some Wikipedians, so I thought about creating the "Swedish descent" cathegory: no way, they deleted it and I couln't understand why. Now I can see that cathegory actually appears at the bottom of the article, but it's kept "red", hence unwritten. What's the point in this? Let's write that cathegory down and finally give Yusuf his roots back!

Aye, probably Yusuf himself now prefers the "Steven" way to the "Stephen" one: in general, "Stephen" used to appear in documents dating back to some years ago, but now you tell me he himself states he's "Steven", well, it means he prefers that then. Let's stick to that.

I read about the "Steven Georgiou" controversy: aye, almost nobody knows Cat Stevens is "Steven Georgiou", the vast majority of people don't even know he's Yusuf Islam... On the other hand, his fellow musicians, those who worked with him, included his Welsh guitarist Alun, always referred to him as "Steve", as if it was common knowledge his actual birth name was that one. It's up to you, mate, makes no big difference to me. I'm just happy that the Rushdie controversy was fully explained for what it was (just a total misunderstanding!), I'm already content with it.

One more thing: the part of Shaftesbury Avenue where the restaurant used to be is ALREADY in the Holborn district of London, not any longer in Soho. It is actually the last crossroads before Shaftesbury meets Oxford Street, and it is Holborn. Yusuf himself recalls writing his early tunes upstairs in the very same building where the restaurant was, and watching people walk on Oxford Street as a source of inspiration...

Bye mate!!!! --Gianmaria Framarin (talk) 15:09, 9 October 2008 (GMT)

Go Tvoz

Thanks for you diligence and hardwork as an editor . . . good to see your efforts haven't waned--it is because of people like you that Wikipedia is such a useful resource.

Cheers,--Utahredrock (talk) 02:48, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Lolo Soetoro

You are the one who does not have consensus to make this change. The category remained for more than 13 days following disscusions from 30th of Sep till 13th of Oct when an unexplained removal was made. What you are doing is the against WP:NPOV. (talk) 08:22, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

One editor in favor of a change does not mean it has consensus. Tvoz/talk 08:28, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
I don't understand the controversy, the category is only in correspondence to facts presented by the rest of the article and are in dispute. The category itself causes no more "damage" than the presented article itself and seems only to be based on tryingto cut off the long outdated right wing talking point thatObama is a secret Muslim, which has been debunked to the point that attempts to bring it up in any corner are immediately shot down. I cannot see how a NPOV of the article, which includes categories based off any cited facts presented, can be causing such a ruckus. –– Lid(Talk) 11:11, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Quick response to an issue - the arguments about "practicing Muslim" or "laid back Muslim" are irrelevant to the categorisation and blur the actual point of contention by arguing for "levels" of religion that one must be at to be considered part of that religious category. This seems to only be related to Muslim's, and specifically the western perception of Muslim's, in that the argument would be the category only applies if he were a fundamentalist Muslim rather than a (more common in Indonesia and pre-Islamic revolution Iran) progressive Muslim. The double standard being if someone self-identifies as Catholic, whether non-practicing or liberal or conservative, they would be identified by their articles category as Catholic because wikipedias neutrality lies in that what the person says their religious belief is we do not question it based off nuances and how they choose to follow their faith. –– Lid(Talk) 11:20, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately the "long outdated" talking point, while debunked from the get-go, has not at all disappeared from public perception - just this past weekend McCain had to disabuse a supporter at a rally who said Obama is an "Arab" - which to ignorant folks means the same thing as Muslim and means the same erroneous thing as terrorist. As I've said, I don't think a category is the most significant thing, but I question the insistence of the IP in reposting it three times in an hour, his first and pretty much only edits. As I've said before, I question the purpose of this article altogether, and have been concerned all along that it be there to reinforce, not debunk, a Muslim connection. Finally - I think you'll agree that consensus wasn't reached on the talk page as the IP claimed - at best it was a draw, and when two editors objected to its reintroduction to the article, the response of repeatedly reinserting it claiming a false consensus is at best questionable editing. Tvoz/talk 15:54, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Biased people will always use any evidence they can in confirmation bias attempts at "I think Obama is an Arab, where is support of this" which can not be helped. If people wish to be conspiracy theorists I don't think Big Wikipedia suppressing the truth will help any more or less than just stating it as fact and not just presenting it as "yeah his step-dad was a Muslim, and a normal guy, so stop trying to innuendo some forty year long Manchurian Candidate conspiracy from it." In regards to your question f consensus, not to condone what the IP did, but the problem I had was that removal is based on no policy at all, and no policy supports this informations removal. This is all irrelevant however as I'mi n support of your merge proposal and have never thought Lolo was notable enough for an article either, the only thing I wished was if the article existed it should be in line wiki wikipedias policies. –– Lid(Talk) 22:46, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Well, I'm glad to come up with a way we can agree! Now let's see what others think. By the way - is there somewhere else that this merge proposal should be posted? AfD? I'm not really up on merge-delete procedures. Tvoz/talk 22:54, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Neither am I. –– Lid(Talk) 22:56, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
I can help here by precedent. When Old Fordham Village was mostly redundant with Fordham, we deleted all but the header of Old Fordham Village and put a redirect pointer to Fordham. We added into the Fordham article anything that was germane and non-redundant. Seems an exact parallel for here. Technically, it wasn't a merge, so it was easier to do. Bellagio99 (talk) 00:20, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that's exactly what I had in mind. Tvoz/talk 00:34, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Paul McCartney

Hi Tvov. I have taken your suggestion about Nancy Shevell. However, there is no procedure to expand the Paul McCartney article, and your repeated reversions of the changes to the section on her are not really in keeping with protocol (and a third one would be specifically in violation of policy). The amount of information on her is less than others covered in the article. What is covered is: timing of her relationship with McCartney, information on their activities together, key facts about her family life and profession, and an interesting and notable connection with Heather Mills. This all seems relevant to the main article (life is made up of banalities). Bongomatic (talk) 07:29, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, the "need to discuss" is limited to the Shevell article and does not spill over to the trivial changes to the main article. This is a minor change (and I've stripped it down further to address the minor concern advanced). On the merits of the issue whether she should be mentioned at all, people are interested in the current status of individuals. If the status changes and in retrospect Shevell turns out to be too insignificant for inclusion in the McCartney article, the information can be jettisoned at that time. However, one of the benefits of a live encyclopedia is that it lends itself to this sort of flexibility. While notability "notability isn't temporary", not every fact in an article about a notable person needs to be notable (yet your concern is additional fodder for the proposition that she ought not to have her own article). Bongomatic (talk) 08:24, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


Is it just me or are all the arguments of supporting a lone Lolo article variations of this? It een goes on to explain my counterpoint to the articles existance:

Family members of celebrities also must meet Wikipedia's notability criteria on their own merits - the fact that they have famous relatives is not, in and of itself, sufficient to justify an independent article. Note that this also includes newborn babies of celebrities: although such births typically receive a flurry of press coverage, this testifies to the notability of the parent, not the child. Ordinarily, the child of a celebrity parent should only have their own independent article if and when it can be reliably sourced that they have done something significant and notable in their own right, and would thereby merit an independent article even if they didn't have famous parents.

I've been accused of being anti-Obama for attempting to bring an article I did not think should exist into line with NPOV, and now you've been accused of obviously not knowing who Lolo was and need to read more Obama literature. For what it's worth I have read Dreams From My Father and believe that it actualy bolsters the argument of Lolo not being independently notable, rather a periphery in Obama's life considering that for most of his childhood he insstead spent it in Hawaii with his grandparents rather than in Indonesia with Lolo (which was not a significant period). –– Lid(Talk) 23:27, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


Hi, you removed two comments in the Talk:Michael Smerconish with the comment WP:NOTAFORUM. Although that policy applies to the first comment you removed, that did not apply to the second comment (which I made to reply directly to the original question). I would appreciate it if you added my comment back. Thanks. — (talk) 06:07, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Palin and Rape Kits...

First, I apologize in advance if this violates any specific WP protocol, Tvoz. If there's a right or better way, please let me know. I know you're tired of "rape kits" and want to bring the matter to consensus, but I remain concerned about the potential inclusion of contentious material into the Palin BLP. I suspect the insistence for inclusion will wane on November 5th. You are obviously involved in many other (more important) articles, but I want to address the allegation of Palin's involvement in the rape kit matter. As I mentioned in talk, I'll take the leap of faith with Factchecker and allow that Croft, a Democrat partisan and Palin critic, is notable in the days before an election. However, here is Croft's actual and only statement on the matter:

"I find it hard to believe that for six months a small town, a police chief, would lead the fight against a statewide piece of legislation receiving unanimous support and the mayor not know about it."

This is the basis for inclusion of this material in the Palin article, and I contend it falls short of WP:VERIFIABILITY, i.e. there is no burden to support its accuracy, and it doesn't need to provide evidence that it's accurate in order that it be true. In short, it's a clearly crafted statement that indemnifies the author against liability for unfounded allegation--his thoughts on the matter and not an allegation of fact. Finally, while anecdotal, most major RS have been unwilling to run this story except in op-ed columns, including NY Times, Boston Globe and others that have pounced on prior anti-Palin stories. In closing, my only goal is to be discriminating before WP becomes complicit in potentially untrue and unfair allegations. Fcreid (talk) 14:11, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Rape kits

Hi, I really do not have the energy to argue with editors over the wording of the rape kits. I may make comments here and there but I don't plan on editing that material at all. Thanks for acting as an intermediary, though.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 16:16, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Our candidates...

With the articles in full protection, I suspect the contentious and occasionally raucous nature of talk/edit will wane on the candidate pages, but I did want to thank you for the insight you've provided in the past weeks. WP is lucky to have such fair and wise people involved in their projects, especially considering the low wages! I'll be around after the election to see what we can do to polish the article for posterity and maybe delve into other areas! Thanks, Tvoz. Fcreid (talk) 12:06, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks F - I missed this comment. Appreciate it. Tvoz/talk 00:56, 8 November 2008 (UTC)


[5] -- Y not? 13:51, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


Just checking...Re: AN/I about protection...did I do wrong by telling that other editor that a discussions was happening?? I know that canvassing is a no-no....but he seemed interested!--Buster7 (talk) 07:35, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't think that was canvassing - you were just telling him that a discussion was going on, and you did so in response to something he did. You didn't know what his position would be on the matter. Canvassing would be trying to influence the outcome of a discussion by going to people you know would agree with you and telling them about it. At least that's how it looks to me. Tvoz/talk 07:42, 31 October 2008 (UTC)


[6] After reading this comment I think you went a little too far there. Even though you publicly advertise both on your talk and user page your affiliation and support to a certain political party I didn't mention it in our discussion to attempt to gain advantage or tried to connect it to your stance on the article or speculate about your motivation. And then you throw stuff out like "You may be hoping this affects the election outcome" was that necessary? Let me assure you the only thing I'm "hoping" is that the discussion will be based on wikipedia policies. Let's just stick to the facts. You also say you are an inclusionist yet you spoke to the effect that 2500 articles in reliable sources including coverage in big name organizations and international coverage were not enough for inclusion as an article. I wonder what is the threshold for inlcusion in "inclusionist" circles? Hobartimus (talk) 11:38, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Glad you enjoyed reading my pages, and I hope they enlightened you. Note that I've been accused of being a Republican too, so try to understand that my position on this matter is based on policy. I did not advocate removing all mention of this person from the encyclopedia - all I am saying is that a merge to the Obama Family article is more than adequate coverage for this very small story, and that, to me, is in line with my view of inclusionism. If you want me to name the policies that I believe support merge in this instance, we can go with WP:RECENT,WP:BLP, WP:ONEEVENT, WP:NOT#NEWS, WP:NOTINHERITED, WP:NTEMP, and I'm sure others. You are working quite hard to build this up into a multi-faceted major story which it just is not at this time - your blitz of the talk page suggests this is important to you, and I can only guess why since you didn't respond to my question of what is the rush about it. I'm an editor alongside you on Sarah Palin, too, by the way, so I'm quite familiar with your edits, and can extrapolate your political views from them pretty easily, hence my guess that you are hoping this story will influence the election. But your politics or mine are not the point - as I said elsewhere, we don't write articles because of "possible" or even "probable" - your words - future notability. Cheers. Tvoz/talk 19:46, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


Replied on my talk page. —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 03:58, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


Tvoz, can you fill in a few words at Wikipedia talk:FCDW/ElectionTFA (for the Signpost Dispatch) about the editing restrictions at Obama? What were the issues, when restrictions were put in place, just a sentence or two of background? Jbmurray will work on the article later, but I'm trying to give him the background pieces. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:03, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Madelyn Dunham

I answered on the main talk page for why I would prefer separation. Think of Stanley Dunham as a spouse of a famous person. Is there another example on wikipedia where two spouses have one joint article? Marie Curie is separate, even though she worked closely with her husband Pierre. About the only joint spouse entry I can think of on wikipedia is Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, but they were jointly convicted of acting together and are usually thought of together. In this case, Obama's grandmother is usually thought of as someone SEPARATE from her husband. I guess that's the main reason I advocate a separate article. And if the the article is often repetitive with Stanley Dunham's, so what? His article could be a stub and wouldn't include her personal traits and could be a link (sub-section) of hers.GreekParadise (talk) 06:00, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Without expressing an opinion on the advisability of splitting or not splitting this particular article, I want to point out that there are more than 100 such articles in Category:Married couples. It might be useful and instructive to look at a good sampling of them. Cgingold (talk) 09:55, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Many of them seem to be husband-wife singing duos or husband/wife pairs involved in some kind of crime or other singular famous event in which they both participated. What I found interesting is where the husband/wife had separate lives/identities, they ALSO had separate pages: i.e. Sonny & Cher and Ike & Tina Turner each have three pages, one devoted to each individual and one dedicated to the pair. I think you'll find extremely few that are pair alone. And for those, there really is no separate material for one that's not the other. In this case, where Madelyn has much more information than Stanley (due, no doubt, to her longer life, Obama's visit during the 2008 campaign, his frequent mention of her, and her recent death), I think she should have her own article, with a link to Stanley's, an article that will, no doubt, be shorter.
One more note. I admit that I didn't recognize at least half the couples. But I did not see any that I recognized that were famous as the parents or grandparents of a more famous person. Virtually every married couple famous as direct ancestors of others appear to have separate pages of their own. But I didn't check them all or know them all. Tvoz and Cgningold, is there anyone on this list famous as an ancestor of someone more famous?GreekParadise (talk) 16:34, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


Quelle triomphe, eh Tvoz?! Unlike Tina Fey (who has now been spared from a life of endless impersonations of what's-her-name), you, my dear, will apparently have no respite from your appointed rounds. :) I'd say your boulder just got a whole lot bigger! Sisyphus himself would surely shed a tear... Take care, Cgingold (talk) 09:48, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - I'm feeling more like perfecting Bee Gees than Barack at the moment - but I will soldier on! Thanks for popping in! Tvoz/talk 23:21, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Recognition time

Barnstar-stone2-noback.png The Epic Barnstar
For another multi-year veteran of the 2008 candidates biographical articles and always-relevant music articles, for continuing to maintain a roaring presence. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:26, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Awwww.... thanks. And same to you! ROAR indeed! Tvoz/talk 23:19, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Deleting people of muslim descent

Actually there is a category named "people of jewish descent" Roukas (talk) 15:32, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Zeituni Onyango re-written

This article has been rewritten. Please visit the AfD discussion to see if your concerns have been addressed. Thank you. -- Banjeboi 22:49, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Looks like I missed the rest of the party, and I respect the amount of work you put into it, but I have to say I still think her bio belongs as part of the family article at most. She isn't notable on her own - and the media kerfuffle was trumped up to attenpt to influence the election at the last minute. I suppose there could be an argument for an article about the immigration story itself, but I don't see this as a bio. Tvoz/talk 23:26, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
We'll have to agree to disagree. Her asylum case and her relationship to President-elect Obama certainly have brought a tremendous amount of media attention - as has the entire campaign and I expect this to continue as immigration issues are a part of the Obama transition process. The latest AP piece suggests the story is yet unfolding but now that the election is over I expect the article to remain quiet-ish. -- Banjeboi 00:16, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Right -I agree that the immigration story may be appropriate as an article, but not a biography on her name - you see the difference? We have lots of articles like that here - based on a notable event, not a bio of a person. Tvoz/talk 00:26, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
I understand that perspective yet I don't agree with it in this case. The entire article could be reworked into the ongoing case of Onyango's asylum but I really don't see any benefit in that whereas it works fine as a bio. Is it the best - no. Like many BLPs we have does it skip vast swaths of information that would help us understand the subject better? - sure. Can it improve to become more biographical - definitely. I've avoided adding every tidbit of bio-type info - "she's a proud woman", "a great dancer" - as I didn't see it helping at the time and I felt more bio-friendly material would start to arise as her case re-opens and she/her lawyer(s) divulge more information. -- Banjeboi 00:51, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Well, it remains to be seen. I certainly agree that the "proud woman" - "great dancer" type of detail are not appropriate and kind of silly to be included, especially if it's pretty much all we have. I'm less sure than you that real biographical material will be coming out, but we'll see. Tvoz/talk 00:55, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

NYC Meetup: You are invited!

NYFreiheitsstatue2.jpg New York City Meetup

Next: Sunday November 16th, Columbia University area
Last: 6/01/2008
This box: view  talk  edit

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, finalize and approve bylaws, interact with representatives from the Software Freedom Law Center, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the June meeting's minutes and the September meeting's minutes).

We'll also review our recent Wikis Take Manhattan event, and make preparations for our exciting successor Wikipedia Loves Art! bonanza, being planned with the Brooklyn Museum for February.

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and (weather permitting) hold a late-night astronomy event at Columbia's telescopes.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:54, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey Sister, a couple questions..

I get restless with the same article after a couple of days and do other ones just to regain some clarity. Re: Cat Stevens, do you know if he ever legally changed his name to Yusuf Islam? Was it ever discussed? Also, was it you who pulled out that sidebar (the one where I complained about "See Folk Music", amongst other things)? I thought it quite nice and decorative, would be cool to put something there, if we can EVER get a photo of him. I'm finding more compilation albums than the ones we have listed in the footer of the article. That appears confusing, so I propose only listing the albums Yusuf now lists on his website. I'm planning to do a page for "Don't Be Shy" which did'nt have a page- it just sent the reader to the Tea for the Tillerman page again. Also, I think "Lady d'Arbanville" merits a song page too. Don't know if you've looked at the album & songs pages, they are really scanty. Lastly, I don't know who's involved in the Rushdie page, but the early negative references were blogs with only hostility, no basis. I pulled out about 5-6 that weren't encyclopedic/wikipedic. I think I know who the editor is, but want to avoid hostilities, so I keep out of that one. You might be willing to handle the drama, but I'm not yet up to it. Well, that is about it for now. Just wanted to mention it all. --leahtwosaints (talk) 23:25, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Obama Senior

No problem, I actually don't have the book in order to confirm it, but I've asked a user who originally added the page number. Khoikhoi 01:55, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, now that I have obtained the book I can confirm that there is no mention of Kendu Bay on page 221. However, page 9 says about his father: "He was an African, I would learn, a Kenyan of the Luo tribe, born on the shores of Lake Victoria in a place called Alego." However, whether "Alego" refers to a region or another name for Kogelo, I am not sure. Khoikhoi 04:33, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


Are you watching this page? I have no idea why some people think the hatnote to the Wikipedia essay isn't legitimate. I could use backup here. Lord Sesshomaru (talkedits) 22:41, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Sourcechecker419 (talk · contribs)

This user has run into 3RR blocks four times consecutively. Afaik, it is our practice to begin escalating block lengths at this point. I would ask you to impose a longer block, e.g. doubling block length for any further block, in such a case, since we are obviously dealing with an editor who doesn't want to listen. Thanks, --dab (𒁳) 15:22, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

My .02. I had similar problems with SourceC too. S/he didn't exactly hit 3RR, but wouldn't listen to reason re an obvious edit, in which /s/He kept insisting that ALL of the Obama family was African-American, despite the opposite ethnic diversity therein. It wasn't just that we disagreed, it was unwillingness to engage in dialogue. And I believe that comments on his Talk page show similar reactions with other articles. Bellagio99 (talk) 19:53, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, but I'm not an admin, I just play one on tv.... If there's an ongoing problem, try Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR. And by the way (to Dbachmann)- see here: the edit that returned the immediate family section to was not "mindless", thank you very much! We can talk about it there. Tvoz/talk 20:58, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the point, and I am more than ready to discuss this calmly on the article talkpage. What I will not put up with is my explaining myself on talk in a soliloquy. There are two points here, the article ToC, and the actual article prose. I understand we might need the "Malia and Sasha Obama" as a {{R to section}} target. We do not need "Barack" and "Michelle" h2 sections, because these two have their own articles. And, it is generally a bad idea to split an article into lots of tiny h2 sections. We can talk about it, but we need to work on this. This has nothing to do with Sourcechecker419 and his edit-warring spree. Any user violating 3RR four times in a row needs a block over two or three days at least. Anyway, I saw your warning & assumed you had blocked him. That's my mistake, I should have checked the block log too. Thanks, --dab (𒁳) 21:48, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Ron Paul

Ron Paul has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured quality. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. --Andrew Kelly (talk) 05:14, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Barack Obama at FAR-Redux

Barack Obama has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured quality. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:18, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

OMG, again?!? miranda 22:09, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
My feelings exactly. I'm hoping it burns itself out - how many times can we go over the same ground? And for what legitimate purpose? Tvoz/talk 22:30, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Obama family

The article structure is looking much better now. Thanks for your efforts, --dab (𒁳) 13:23, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Democratic Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2008 is looking kind of GA-worthy.

What do you think? Peer review time, or just go straight for the GA? miranda 22:11, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm actually not following that one - I'll take a look, but I don't think I've ever edited it, at least in this incarnation. Tvoz/talk 22:31, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Probably best to wait until another month or so, after the election season (i.e. AK, MN, and GA) has settled down. :-) miranda 23:19, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Obama's Birth Hospital

There are some reports that he was born in Kapiolani Hospital and some that he was born in Queen's Hospital. How do you reconcile these contradictory reports?--Filll (talk | wpc) 17:08, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Shoddy reporting. Tvoz/talk 20:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Regarding Ann Dunham, FYI.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:19, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Steve Adams

Hey Tvoz, I've seen the reference some time ago that Cat Stevens went by the name "Steve Adams", however, it was a one time thing. I don't think it should be in the article, because absolutley nobody would ever in a million years associate that name with Stevens. So far as I know, he tried it, it didn't work. He never toured under that name, performed under it, and I BET most folks who play with him today aside from Alun Davies would even know about it. I ask that we remove it... or at least place it in the article in some context!! It really is bad form to place referenced material in the infobox. --leahtwosaints (talk) 05:58, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Leah, first of all, I don't know where you get the idea that it's bad form to have a footnote off of the infobox- it's done all the time. But more importantly, the source article does indeed say that he performed under that name, and seeing as the function of the encyclopedia is to inform with sourced information, we've done our job if people didn't know previously that this name is associated with him, and learn it from our article. It doesn't matter if the name stuck - nor does it matter if you think it was a one-time thing - unless you have sources that contradict the source I quoted, there is no reason to remove it. And please take another look at the article - I put the information into the text at the same time as I added it to the infobox, so you must have missed it. Tvoz/talk 07:28, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Also, you added a reference - the Ruhlmann piece - where a ref was requested regarding his donation of his instruments to charity upon his conversion - but that source says he auctioned off his possessions, which is somewhat different. That source did, however, confirm the Steve Adams item, so I moved it there. And we still need a source about the donations upon conversion. Tvoz/talk 08:23, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, yeah, I know I saw the auction piece someplace and will keep an eye out for it. I just think the infoboxes look kind of tacky, and if you already have the Steve Adams piece in the article, it may not be as pertinent in the infobox. It's why I didn't give a reference there for the Stevie Ray Vaughn Fender Strat guitar, since I'd placed it in the text-- I felt it redundant. Please reconsider about the infobox. On other articles, usually the Alias section is used for better-known alternate nicknames, or whatever. Honestly, I mean no harm, just thinking of aesthetics. --leahtwosaints (talk) 10:17, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I screwed up...

Tvoz, in attempting to begin a song page for "Lady D'Arbanville", I got halfway done before realizing the title was not "My Lady D'Arbanville"-- horrible screw up and now needing your help in salting the page and moving what's there thus far under the correct title. DAMN I AM SO PISSED WITH MYSELF I CAN'T BEGIN TO TELL YOU!!!! HELP! --leahtwosaints (talk) 04:39, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Relax Leah - easy enough to fix. Should be ok now - and the wrong one is gone. Tvoz/talk 05:51, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


Do we really need to add Sec of State to the infobox? That is the problem with Wikipedia, people jump the gun too quickly. What is the problem with waiting until Jan 20, 2009? CTJF83Talk 21:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

In some circumstances I might agree with you - but I think this is going to be swimming against the tide, as it is such a widely-reported matter. So my aim is to try to get it to be as accurate as possible. See my latest tweak. Tvoz/talk 21:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Ya, but no point in adding her already. We don't know if she will even serve one day as Sec of State. This is kinda Crystaly CTJF83Talk 21:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
It is a verifiable fact that she is Secy of State-designate, and that's what we say. Tvoz/talk 21:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
We can just continue on her talk page, for other users to add. I meant she could die or be in a scandal and Obama removes her from the position. CTJF83Talk 21:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
This is starting to sound like wishful thinking on your part.... If any of those unlikely events were to happen, we'd edit accordingly. Obama could also divorce Michelle before Jan 20 and she wouldn't become First Lady, but that's not happening either. Tvoz/talk 21:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
OH- missed what you said about continuing on her talk page - yes, let's do that. Cheers. Tvoz/talk 21:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
[EC-back to her page] Wishful thinking?! Not hardly! I'm confident she will make a great SoS! I'm just saying, no need to put future dates in place like that. CTJF83Talk 21:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
OOPS - I inadvertently left off the "smile" after that "wishful thinking" comment - I was kidding. Let's see what others think - I don't have a major investment in doing it this way, just think it's inevitable that it will be there so it should be accurate. Tvoz/talk 21:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
HAHA, no problem! CTJF83Talk 22:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

(Outdent) I'd support deleting those Cabinet post-designates from the Infoboxes. GoodDay (talk) 23:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Let's do this over at Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton please, and note that there are a slew of designees, not just Hillary Clinton. Tvoz/talk 23:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC) Ah, I see you said so over there. Tvoz/talk 23:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Obama's proposed choices for his future Cabinet

Hiya Tvoz. I think I'll let other handle those bio articles infoboxes. Somebody has been changing the Secy of X-designate to Secy of X-nominee. As I understood it, only the President can nominate somebody for those positions. Obama is only the President-elect, his choices for these position won't be sent to the Senate, until after he takes office. GoodDay (talk) 20:35, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmm - I must say I'm kind of tone-deaf on this one: I don't hear a real difference between "designate" and "nominee". I'd just like us to be consistent. Tvoz/talk 23:59, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Only the President can nominate someone for a Cabinet post. Obama is the President-elect. GoodDay (talk) 00:04, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Let's keep in mind that Wikipedia is not really about "truth". We are not here to interpret the Constitution; we are here to report on what happens. There is more at Talk:Hillary Clinton. (Ohai, Tvoz!)  Frank  |  talk  00:07, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
I've already decided to leave those Infoboxes alone. Besides, I was probably being too nitpicky. GoodDay (talk) 00:11, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
[ec]Frank! Good to see ya! I was just reading your point there and think you're right. GD: what happens when a nominee is confirmed by the Senate in advance of Jan 20 so she/he can take office on Inauguration Day? Is it then "designate"? Does this really matter? And mostly, as Frank astutely mentions, we're supposed to reflect what reliable sources say, not what we interpret the Constitution to say. We've been over this ground before regarding whether Obama is to be called President-elect yet, and the overwhelming agreement was yes. As I say, I don't hear much difference btwn nominee and designate and don't have much if anything invested in this one, but would like consistency. We can continue this fascinating discussion over at Hillary talk. (Keep smiling, Frank!) Tvoz/talk 00:18, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Okie Dokie, I've not longer a problem with the nominee designations. GoodDay (talk) 00:27, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


Nothing up to your fame (congrats), but did find the citation for the Vonegut quotation. Google had it hidden as an "omitted result."--Beth Wellington (talk) 22:15, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey, Beth - nice to meet you! Glad you found that reference - it was such a good quote I didn't want to remove it from the article. I am not familiar with Breece's work, but anyone who cites a Phil Ochs song as a favorite is ok in my book - and that particular song is one of Phil's most haunting and beautiful and a personal favorite. Hope we edit together somewhere! By the way, do you have a particular genre focus on the books you review? Best wishes Tvoz/talk 22:34, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


Tvoz, I reverted your edit on Caylee. The claim that remains were found was referenced. No problem there. I DID remove the speculation that it might be Caylee. That wasn't referenced in any way. Feel free to change it up if you want to, I've just been checking it for speculation and stuff today!  :) Thanks ! KoshVorlon > rm -r WP:F.U.R 21:05, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

My mistake about the sourcing - and glad the speculation is removed. Replied on your talk. Tvoz/talk 21:21, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


Hey, Tvoz -- something to celebrate! I'm sure you haven't forgotten that horrific CFD last year that resulted in the deletion of all of the sub-cats of Category:African American sportspeople. It was just overturned at DRV -- in a UNANIMOUS decision -- and all of those categories have now been restored. Next up: ethnic-American journalists. I'm not sure when, but I'll give you a heads up. At long last, sanity has prevailed! Cgingold (talk) 12:30, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Excellent! Of course I wouldn't want to make any bets about sanity, however. Tvoz/talk 20:06, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
You'll note that I didn't add something ridiculous like, "once and for all". :) But I gotta say, the unanimous vote was pretty stunning. And that included the original closing admin. I just wish he had acknowledged the error a year ago (I suspect he still remembers your expression of disbelief at his ignoring of concensus in the CFD). Okay, take care - Cgingold (talk) 20:25, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


I went back to edit a comment that could have been read as dismissive about chubby black females, which was not my intention, but rather to be dismissive of the question. I saw where you had deleted the question, which was a good call. I'm only sorry that my ill though out comment will be recorded for posterity in the shape that it was in when I left it. No big deal, but someoen might have been offendedm, which again was not my goal.Die4Dixie (talk) 23:34, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah - the whole thing was offensive in addition to being irrelevant. But even if I hadn't deleted it, unfortunately your comment would remain in history which is where it is now - I did not archive it, I just removed it. Tvoz/talk 23:50, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: Hello?

Sorry about that, I left my computer unattended for about 30 seconds while I was on the Obama talk page and my 13 month old somehow managed to get to your contribs and rollback your edit. I would have explained earlier but I didn't really think it was a big deal. Landon1980 (talk) 20:09, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Everyone's a critic. Tvoz/talk 20:26, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I invite your comment

Here: Template talk:Obama family#Ugly. Thanks. Just tips me hat but then 〜on thought bows deeply 23:24, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Caroline Kennedy

OK. That's a good point. Grundle2600 (talk) 12:31, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for helping to keep the Caroline Kennedy article straight - it's been getting a little hairy lately and it will obviously take several level-headed editors to keep it from getting ridiculous. - Special-T (talk) 04:22, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: Barack Sr.

I have posted a reply to your enquiry at Talk:Barack_Obama,_Sr.#.22contradictory.22_tag. Arjun G. Menon (talk · mail) 21:55, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


edit summary--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:41, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Haha, yeah. Her kids probably think, oh GROSS. Tvoz/talk 21:31, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Uncle Hugo

Hey Tvoz, I noticed that there's a discrepancy between Uncle Hugo's last name and that of Cat Stevens' mom. Can you figure out which is the proper spelling? We have this: the mother is "Ingrid Wickman (b. 1915)", and later, "his uncle Hugo Wickham, a painter."- which is the correct last name? Thanks. --leahtwosaints (talk) 10:47, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Spanish spelling in The Closer

You might want to check a Spanish-English dictionary before correcting Spanish-language gang name spellings. The correct spelling is CATORCE (Spanish for 14), and not a derivative version of quatro (four) as your change suggests. The edit has been reverted. Drmargi (talk) 01:44, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

You're completely right - I didn't check far enough, and trusted my knowledge of French which wasn't too brilliant. Apologies, and thanks for catching it. Tvoz/talk 02:35, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
No apologies required, particularly to me. It's an easy assumption to make. Drmargi (talk) 03:06, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
But perhaps it is this slang usage, from Urban Dictionary:
"Catorce: A never-ending bowel movement, in which you don't know what is coming out of your anus." Happy Boxing Day. Bellagio99 (talk) 14:29, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Um, I hardly know what to say about this one. Tvoz/talk 18:23, 26 December 2008 (UTC)