User talk:Nokternus420

Your comment[edit]

Well, I honestly have a subscription to Maxim, and I'm a fan at that, but even after searching Google, it wasn't one of the most popular results, leading me to believe it wasn't a real award, sorry for my mistake.

-- TylerPuetz (^t/_c) 08:18, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, please sign your posts. -- TylerPuetz (^t/_c) 08:23, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Smoke-filled room[edit]

Unfortunately, your edits suggest a fundamental unclarity on the whole concept. The days of smoke-filled rooms were when presidential nominating conventions were important, while party presidential primaries were relatively unimportant. When Obama announced his candidacy in 2007, he was not any kind of front-runner, and did not have major support from the party insiders. He emerged as the nominee over a long series of primaries. The kinds of party political bosses that could impose a nominee on a party simply haven't existed at a national level in the Democratic party since the post-1968 reforms.

The nearest to a "smoke-filled room" that there's been in any recent presidential campaign was in 1999, when a group of wealthy political backers decided to put a very large amount of money behind George W. Bush very early in the process in order to cut-short any debilitating Republican party primary battle in 2000. Unfortunately, this had the effect of artificially sabotaging the McCain in 2000, even though McCain generated the most popular enthusiasm, would have probably beaten Bush if he had had anything like equal campaign funding, would have been a better candidate than Bush in the 2000 general election, and probably a better president than Bush overall.. AnonMoos (talk) 06:56, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand your exact intended point well enough to make a concrete suggestion. People being enthusiastically supported by their own origin groups (such as JFK by Catholics) is nothing new. AnonMoos (talk) 08:01, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Morrison[edit]

"We guys" are adamant about not violating copyright law, which is what you were breaking when you keep returning copy and pasted wording from a source. It's not just against policy, it's against the law. If you revert it again, I will report to the copyright violation noticeboard and you're going to end up blocked for willingly violating copyright. Beyond that, Morrison's notability was from his music, lyrics and performances. If something said anything near that his death was noted for something, that might be different. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:41, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

January 2009[edit]

Please do not add copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder, as you did to Jim Morrison. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. This is the formal warning about the copyrighted text you keep placing in the article. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:43, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Homer's Barbershop Quartet‎, but we cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses novel, unpublished syntheses of previously published material. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you. TheLeft orium 14:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pete Best[edit]

You seem to think that we are denying that he was in The Beatles simply because he's not mentioned on the Homer's Barbershop Quartet. That humours me. -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 15:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]