User talk:Wikidemon/Archive 5

I found a phone number and address for a place of business listed in an article, is this something that should quickly be deleted

Do you know the policy about phone numbers and contact information on wiki articles? Sorry to bother you with this, just didn't know the answer. thanks It is me i think (talk) 19:51, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

If it's nonpublished information, attempt to breach somebody's privacy, or something like that I would delete it without leaving a clue to call attention to it in the talk summary, and ask an administrator to delete the history. If it's something that anyone could just look up, I would delete it but not worry. It's a style thing mainly...It flows from WP:NOT#DIRECTORY.Wikidemo (talk) 20:24, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

it is published number. thanks It is me i think (talk) 20:30, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Ayers listing of names

Is the listing of the names of there children necessary, the children are probably still living, although over 18. I can research if needed, but I am inclined to remove the names of adult children who were not involved, because they themselves, I feel are not notable. It is me i think (talk) 18:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

it does appear the names have been mentioned for a while, I just their mentioned is unnecessary and not noteworthy. Mentioning, number of children, adopted/biological, male/female, is fine. It is me i think (talk) 18:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree. Given the POV edit warring on the page you might want to wait for a quiet time. I don't know if there is a hard rule, but even in noncontroversial articles I would tend to leave childrens' names off unless they are public figures, have some notability, or are relevant to the article. Otherwise we're giving publicity to private people who may or may not want it, and cluttering the encyclopedia with facts that don't add to the article. It also makes the tone less serious because it's reminiscent of wedding announcements, obituaries, etc. In the case of a controversial figure like Ayers I think there's a stronger argument for omitting names of children unless it's common knowledge (which differs from simply being public information - we don't repeat everything just because it's out there). Wikidemo (talk) 18:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

On another article, I did mentioned the names of the persons to children and spouse, but all are deceased over 10 years ago, and the man was head of a company that was in the family for generations, and one son turned down the chairmanship and the other son succeeded his father (these two facts are not noteworthy and I do have great sources, so it is not mentioned in the article. Their names are simply cited as children. It is me i think (talk) 19:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

CSPI

Good work on the CSPI page, but I think you corrupted it slightly. I've had a go at restoring it. Candy Weintraub (talk) 18:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Those unclosed references will get you every time :) Wikidemo (talk) 18:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Logo fur

Template:Logo fur has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — ViperSnake151 20:33, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

CSD edit back in September

Ah, good, you are online. :-) Would you have time to have a look at this discussion where I point out ambiguity introduced by an edit you made? I'd be grateful if you could comment there to say what the intent of the edit was and what you think "cleaning up redirects" was meant to mean - just a rephrasing of what was there before, or something new? Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 08:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Imagine being called a Facist

... even if only of the liberal variety.

Did that upset you? Then imagine how a mainstream conservative feels about being smears as a jew-fearing conspiracy-propounding white supremacist.

The popular left-wing tactic of labeling conservatives as far right only works because most people who follow politics are completely ignorant of what the genuine far right is really like. There is nothing wrong with being ignorant of the racist right, but there is a lot wrong with not even attempting to understand why an established editor with a lot more expertise in the area recognizes that smear as a blatant violation of WP:BLP. If you want to educate yourself, you could start here. If you want more pointers, ask me. In the meantime, stop reverting edits that are required by Wikipedia policy.

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living persons. Thank you.

BTW, you also violated WP:AGF. Stop. CWC 08:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

That's complete bonkers. Calling someone "far left" on a talk page isn't a BLP violation, whatever your idiosyncratic beliefs may be on the question. You're so far off base in understanding policy on the matter it's hard to know where to begin.Wikidemo (talk) 14:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

So not EVERYTHING is a BLP violation after all!Bdell555 (talk) 19:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Expression of continued annoyance over continued vandalism of Bill Ayers article

Wikidemo, the Bill Ayers article is now semi protected. Will this reduce the vandalism? When I look at the history of the IP anonymous users and new wiki users, they seem to only be focused on the Bill Ayers article. It is quite annoying to keep making these changes, especially when I am not really at all interested in the subject matter. It is me i think (talk) 23:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I think semi-protection will tend to discourage random people from vandalizing and disturbing the article, and set the bar higher for people who are only interested in a single political issue rather than Wikipedia as a whole - also it discourages sockpuppets from creating multiple accounts to have their way with the article. There's a valid question about how much treatment to give the Obama link and how it could be described, and how much to describe Ayers and the Weathermen as terrorists versus simply a violent group. But you can't have that discussion if people keep assaulting the article to edit war over their point of view. Wikidemo (talk) 23:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

How can it be "a valid question" as to whether Ayers may be described as a "terrorist" when terrorism is clearly a serious crime?Bdell555 (talk) 19:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Ayres

You guys should both take it to talk, seriously. Kaisershatner (talk) 18:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Please don't equate legitimate edits like mine with POV-pushing edits to include inappropriate material in the encyclopedia. There is almost no chance those edits would stand up to review, and they are in a BLP. The editor has been repeatedly uncivil, so I see very little to gain by engaging him or her yet again on the talk page. Wikidemo (talk) 18:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

So your edits are "legitimate" and mine are not? Where and when have I been "uncivil"? Where have I assumed bad faith about YOUR editing intentions? Have I ever dismissed your contentions as "unworthy of response"?

If there is "no chance" my edits would stand up to review, then why not take it to review? I've noticed you advising other users that an "editorial" is not a RS. New York Times columnist Paul Krugman labels himself "Liberal" front and centre over his "editorials". Speaking for myself, I have no problem at all with having Wikipedia include facts cited to one of Krugman's columns, since I have no reason to believe that facts Krugman asserts are made up or shoddy scholarship. He's a recognized scholar regardless of one's politics. More importantly, however, is the fact Wiki policies do not exclude such citations. Would you consider refering other users to Wiki's RS policy henceforth instead of your own contentions about what is a RS policy and what is not? If policies are unilaterally and not collaboratively determined then I stand corrected.Bdell555 (talk) 19:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

You don't understand, Bdell. Wikidemo ASSUMES that his edit are legit and edits that do not agree with his are not legit. It is simple as that. You do not argue with Wikidemo. If he/she states that something violates BLP then it violates BLP. According to Wikidemo it just fine that there are two articles on Mel Gibson's drunk driving conviction. But Wikidemo believes that there should little or NO mention of Sydney Blumenthal's drunk driving conviction, get it? Just get with the program. Wikidemo can call your logic senseless and its ok because Wikidemo SAYS it is. He's not being uncivil. He's just telling the truth, man, get with the program. Just to be clear: I'm making a joke with the above comments and I don't believe any of it.--InaMaka (talk) 01:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Will you kindly raise such matters in the discussion area? I'm not going to engage in a side discussion on this. Thx, Wikidemo (talk) 19:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

You didn't claim that my edits would have "no chance" in a review and call them illegitmate over there.Bdell555 (talk) 19:51, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Template:Furt subject belongs to

Hi, Wikidemo - I'm trying to do some organization and cleanup of image namespace templates...is the above template being used for anything? I noticed that nothing links to it. Kelly ^hi! 01:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

note - the below is by one of the many reactions I have to deal with when rooting out editing problems on Wikipedia. I would delete as harassment, but preserve as a matter of what one deals with on troll patrol. The editor, in the course of doing this, erased some of the old record as well. Wikidemo (talk) 15:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Civility Warning

For your comments on the discussion page of Sydney Blumenthal about me, here: Civility Violation #1.--InaMaka (talk) 19:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

That's one of the most civil messages I've ever seen here. Your warning is completely unwarranted. Kelly ^hi! 20:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

No. You are incorrect, Kelly. Wikidemo has stated that opinions that I have given "don't make much sense." Sorry, but if Wikidemo is going walk about and point his/her finger at other editors for civility then the finger is going to pointed back at him/her. Wikidemo needs to follow the rules that Wikidemo is trying to enforce. That's just the way that it works and your comment does not change that fact.--InaMaka (talk) 00:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

That's just tit-for-tat retribution from an editor I've warned about tendentious editing. It comes with the territory. Wikidemo (talk) 21:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

As for your comment on my talk page, Wikidemo, I have a right to express my opinion about your uncivil behavior. Please all communication with me. Your untruthful and uncivil comments are unwelcome.--InaMaka (talk) 13:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Once again, I have asked you not to communicate with me any longer. Why can't you respect that request. Is it because you are acting in an uncivil manner? Of course, it is. Please curtail your behavior.--InaMaka (talk) 15:44, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

You did not make such a request, unless you are referring to the ungrammatical comment, above, which does not communicate that point. You are trolling, and I have a right to leave appropriate warnings on your talk page. You do not have a "right" to misbehave, and it is wrong to harass other users on their talk page whether or not they tell you to stop. That is the difference. At you request I will not attempt any other communication though.Wikidemo (talk) 15:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of 2008 United States presidential election controversies and attacks

I have nominated 2008 United States presidential election controversies and attacks, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2008 United States presidential election controversies and attacks. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice?

Sorry to have left this step out; my bad. I almost never put up articles at AfD, so I'm not very good at it. I think I've notified everyone who edited the article more than once. Wasted Time R (talk) 19:40, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks much! Wikidemo (talk) 19:41, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Just wanted to say thanks for your 'Keep' comment - well put! Flatterworld (talk) 19:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Second Life Spam

Hello Wikidemo, I am not so good at doing this, but I have a distinct feeling that this page Lerappa is spam. The user has no previous edits and appears to be a shill either for Amiee Webber, the designer or Second Life. Is there a way you could mark it Spam or non-notable? I am unsure how to do it. All your help has been really inspiring. TheRegicider (talk) 23:20, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmmmm. Thanks. There are a few ways to go about it. It could be a sockpuppet account of someone who does other edits here. There are a few ways to do with WP:COI such as the notice board, sniffing out the IP address, and so on. And then purely as an editorial matter, it seems unreasonable to give so much weight in an article about an important company to a single relatively minor advertising campaign. I was thinking of trimming that back myself. I'll take a look. If a new WP:SPA editor adds something and leaves you may never know if they had a hidden agenda. But if the editor starts edit warring over trying to include irrelevant material, chances are the community will just reject the edits and that will be the end of it. Wikidemo (talk) 23:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I've edited the article to be less spammy and include only two mentions of the designer's name. That should be plenty. Having the name in there a dozen times didn't make her seem any more respectable, quite the opposite. Even if it was created as a conflict of interest and promotional piece, there is some well-written encyclopedic content in there, and other than promoting the designer it is a balanced piece that includes some of the positive and negative things. I think it's notable as demonstrated by all the major news magazines writing about it. It's kind of interesting, really. So I would just shape it into a proper article and leave it be.

fyi

I responded, on Talk:David Frum to a recent edit you made.

I really do believe that the talk page was the appropriate place for your concern, not an edit summary. Geo Swan (talk) 11:02, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

conspiracy theory

how so? cointelpro is a conspiracy theory?80.42.23.192 (talk) 11:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Please Stop Arbitrarily Moving All Peoples Temple Mentions to Other Articles

I couldn't believe this, and it's across a number of articles where the subject is a primary participant in the discussed events. The extensive Peoples Temple involvement in, for example, Moscone's election in 1975 and San Francisco's 9-11 (Jonestown) tragedy during his administration certainly belong in Moscone's article, for example. I can't believe anyone would consider cutting this out, given the huge amounts of literature on the subject and the massive scale of the tragedy. Mosedschurte (talk) 04:46, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I apologize for the harsh tone of this. After I was suprirsed to find that no such section existed in the articles for both Brown and Moscone (Jones two big supporters with which he was heavily involved), I spent a lot of time putting together the section going through some books and other info I have lying around. I was annoyed it was moved, which effectively deleted it in its entirety. Mosedschurte (talk) 04:46, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I since have substantially cut down the content and moved it to subsections in both articles. Hopefully, this alleviates the "weight" and "relevance" concerns. Mosedschurte (talk) 04:46, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

about Bill Ayer articles editor

I've actually never been interested in politics when it comes to wikipedia. The reason I have been pushing to much against editors in some Obama related articles is because I've noticed that there are so many people that push POV for Obama. I'm just trying to balance things by calling out those that are being biased and pushing an agenda. QuirkyAndSuch (talk) 17:21, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a place to write good articles, not to engage in name-calling over some people's attempts to keep derogatory election-rleated material out of bio articles of people who have little or nothing to do with the candidates. Wikidemo (talk) 17:31, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

changing Power in international relations

I wanted to ask you about changing the Power in international relations article (see talk page) because i noticed you have been undoing my edits and I think the template should change. I'm unsure of what to do because you keep leaving notes saying you're undoing my edits. ObamaGirlMachine (talk) 20:55, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with editing an article and you don't need my approval (but thanks)...but you could take a little time to think through how things are going so far before you do something so rash as to re-nominate all of the articles about Obama's relatives for deletion only a couple months after people decided to keep them. Particularly if you're a new user it's sometimes best to go slow at first, making smaller edits here and there to improve things while you learn what kinds of things fly and what don't, and get your arms around all the different policies and guidelines. As you can imagine, getting into something of current interest that people disagree about is a lot more controversial than making improvements to uncontroversial things. Wikidemo (talk) 21:16, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi

Tinucherian has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and happy editing! .... Hope you have forgiven my immature behaviour during this some time ago... Keep in touch -- TinuCherian ^{(Wanna Talk?)} - 07:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Frank Marshall Davis

I reverted the vandalism for this one article, but would you mind checking this guy out? Thx. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Guitarlord123 Flatterworld (talk) 20:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

He seems to like pants[1]. One of our more innocuous vandals, kind of funny actually (not to encourage this sort of behavior). People like that usually get blocked, or find something else to do, in a few minutes. I can't imagine he would add the word "pants" to Wikipedia very long before he gets tired of it. He doesn't seem to be acting like a sockpuppet or mental case so I wouldn't worry about it (As much as I fight trolls and scold people I'm not an admin so I can't block him...). HTH Wikidemo (talk) 20:58, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I left a warning - don't know where the template is so I did it freestyle.[2] I couldn't help myself but to be a little cheeky. Wikidemo (talk) 21:09, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration report

Hi Wikidemo. Please go here and state your claims: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Statement_by_Dario_D.

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dario D. (talk • contribs) 08:18, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: [3] (a bit late)

I really meant

“ omgbbqdramaz ”

because that's what characterizes the best most of the 542 edits and 209221 bytes of this page. Wikipedians are attracted to drama, not unlike a butterflies are drawn to the light or flees to a fresh cow dung. -- lucasbfr ^talk 12:39, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Not sure about the entire acronym, but the bbq in the middle looks tasty. Wikidemo (talk) 12:42, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I quite agree ;) -- lucasbfr ^talk 15:07, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Orthomolecular medicine

Before dismissing orthomolecular medicine as "fringe" science, rather than as therapies rejected by the pharmaceutical-academic "mainstream," I urge you to look people up whose lives have been turned around from disability to paying taxes by this underacknowledged scientific discipline.--Alterrabe (talk) 12:45, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Alexander Stanhope St. George

I blanked a version that was universally agreed on the AfD page to be a blatant hoax article, being actively used for PR purposes for the benefit of the article creator. We should WP:DENY hoaxers the benefit of such free PR during the course of an AfD. Now, if you want to write an article about "Alexander Stanhope St. George" as a "fictional character", I think that is a strange idea, but it is not against policy to do so until the AfD is ended. When I blanked the version, there was no other previous version that was not a blatant hoax article, so there was nothing else to "revert" to. Thanks.--Pharos (talk) 17:18, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and Drink Newsletter June 2008

WikiProject Food and Drink Newsletter June 2008

--Chef Tanner (talk) 17:03, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Request for comment

FWIW, Wikidemo, I've an identical discussion going on here. — Justmeherenow (   ) 06:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. I've commented there too. Wikidemo (talk) 06:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Bill Ayers election controversy

You appear to be involved in an edit war at Bill Ayers election controversy. Please slow down on the reverts and use the talk page and dispute resolution pathway instead of repeatedly reverting. Edit-warring may result in the page being protected or in blocks for participants. MastCell ^Talk 19:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice but there's no edit warring on my part that I can see. I made a single revert, spread out over several edits, to restore sourced content fundamental to the article and remove a bunch of junk that had recently appeared, thanks to a single tendentious editor. I did not revert any single part of it more than once, but there were so many edits over a period of time that my reversion also took several edits over time. As far as I can see the other editor involved was doing the same. The article has been stable for some time, so a reasonable effort to counter the effects of an editor making a complete mess of it isn't really edit warring. Wikidemo (talk) 19:35, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Obama vote

Hi would you mind simplifying your reason for your vote. Youve added a lot of stuff that isnt relevant to this specific issue. Dont worry though, you will be able to make your other thoughts when we come to those issues. --— Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 01:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure. I'm not sure that the "divide and conquer" approach is really going to guarantee a smooth or legitimate outcome, but I'm game. Wikidemo (talk) 02:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Cheers, i see your concerns, but i think this is the closest we have ever come to peace, i have faith in it. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 02:07, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Weigh in?

Perhaps you can take a look at: Template talk:Barack Obama. It's rightfully protected, but it seems like a clear editprotected matter (both of them). LotLE×talk 19:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Request for your opinion

		Please Vote For Change We Can Believe In Or Even No Change at Obama Article
		Requesting your final opinion on the Bill Ayers language You previously !voted (here) on what language to use at the Barack Obama page. We're trying to get a consensus now. Please take another look at how the discussion has progressed (especially here) and consider what option might make the best consensus, then !vote again at Talk:Barack Obama#Call the question after detailed discussion: Option 3 or not?. Please keep in mind the discussion has been long, so if you can accept what seems to be a likely option, please do. This is one of Wikipedia's most prominent articles. Thank you. Noroton (talk) 23:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Ha! I feel like Mr. Obama has personally reached out to me here on my Wikipedia page. Wikidemo (talk) 00:39, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Racists

If you perpetuate a racist ideology, you are a racist. Calling a racist "racist" is not a personal attack: it is an accurate description of his/her character. 71.195.153.149 (talk) 17:37, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Someday you may realize how misguided that is. Meanwhile, whatever you may believe in your heart do not call editors on Wikipedia racists for honoring the overwhelming majority of sources, including the candidate himself, that refer to mixed race people like Obama an "African American". Wikidemo (talk) 17:44, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the light has blinded me from seeing that most wretched day. So, I still stick by my claim that if you perpetuate the one-drop rule, you are indeed a racist. There is no denying it. Also, please don't live biased commentary under my post. ;) 71.195.153.149 (talk) 18:07, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. Nobody is going to stop you from believing what you want to believe. I think I understand, and might even agree wit you in an abstract sense. People who accept and use racist language are racist in that they're perpetuating racism, even if they don't have any active malice in their hearts. The classic example is people who fly the confederate flag, claiming it isn't about slavery. I personally don't think that's the case here because our job here is to report the mainstream of thought, not to make judgments about it. But even if it were, it's simply against the rules and upsets the cooperation we need to edit an encyclopedia, if you call people racist here. Certainly you've been in situations where you have to hold your tongue and others where you don't. You can't reasonably expect that you're going to convince people to stop using the term "African-American" on the Obama page, or in the campaign. The best you can do is make them aware, and plant some doubt in their minds. If enough people find the term offensive and speak up, for long enough, the language and awareness could change. I think you'll get to people faster if you don't personally call them racist. You could say the same thing, probably get to people faster, by simply saying that you find the term racist and wish people wouldn't use it.Wikidemo (talk) 18:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't find the term African-American racist: I find people calling someone with just as much "white blood" as "black blood" solely African-American racist. I understand what you're saying about causing disruption in the already turbulent talk-page; however, approaching this acquiescently hasn't proven the least-bit useful in the past. Every time there has been something in the article's introduction explaining his biraciality (w?), it ends up getting removed by some editor. It's just frustrating. 71.195.153.149 (talk) 18:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Understood about the distinction. I think usefulness has to be judged in small increments. You're kicking a very heavy object if you want people to call Obama biracial, like playing soccer with a bowling ball. Practically, I doubt you could get that to replace "African American" in the first sentence of the lead, but you might find people agreeable to including the term somewhere in the lead, and more detail elsewhere. As with everything around here, the best support is to find good sources that describe it and make te distinction. I think America (and with it, those Americans on Wikipedia) are just coming to terms with race in the first place. Many aren't even aware that there are multi-racial issues as well. Wikidemo (talk) 18:48, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Re edit

@ Ayers. While I experience disinclinations to specify what the business of Weatherman was and therefore the whys of notability as rendering text that's pretty leathery and colorless, I suppose others experience prose that pointedly summarizes controversial material as sensationalistically juicy and rare. — Justmeherenow (   ) 22:26, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Point taken. It depends on the specific article and the word in question...dry prose is sometimes a good way to avoid dispute. On the other hand if writing about something noncontroversial like a cartoon rabbit one can be a little more evocative without anyone minding. Cheers, Wikidemo (talk) 22:52, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Rezko

Please self-revert your Rezko-related edit. It is factually-inaccurate (media scrutiny came before conviction) and lacks a reference. Furthermore, the indictment and conviction of Rezko is not at all related to Obama. Mentioning these details in the biography implies wrongdoing on the part of Obama, and therefore is a pretty serious violation of WP:BLP ("do no harm", details should only be about the subject of the article). -- Scjessey (talk) 16:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

If it's inaccurate I'll change the description. However, stating that the deal lead to scrutiny of the relationship seems to e misleading. The relationship and the deal were both scrutinized because of Rezko, not because they happened. No plausible BLP vio there, and the citation already there is the source. BLP does not exist to protect Obama against controversies arising over his Presidency, and as a convicted public figure Rezko doesn't have an interest in hiding his convictions. Note that I didn't add the material, I'm scaling back a bold removal of the material that seems to have happened without and perhaps against consensus.Wikidemo (talk) 16:59, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, after reviewing the sources in the paragraph it's clear: (1) Rezko was under indictment at the time of the transaction; (2) the scrutiny (and Obama's view of it) goes both to dealing with a corrupt person as well as dealing with a campaign fundraiser; (3) I could find no way to word it that did not seem to implicate Obama so I re-added the part that Obama was never accused of wrongdoing; and (4) the scrutiny is not over a "relationship" but over the dealings and potential for quid-pro-quo that occurred in that relationship. I think the coverage as rewritten captures that. It was rather bold of you to condense that material in the first place. I would have done the same. Consider this a correction that may lead to consensus and stability, not an attempt to introduce anything new that is controversial. Wikidemo (talk) 17:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I am in agreement with your assessment, and I think your changes are appropriate. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, moot point now - they've been reverted. Wikidemo (talk) 18:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Please follow up

This has been sitting around for a while. Please respond to it. Noroton (talk) 19:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

I appreciate your comments. I think I've said this before, we may disagree on some things but I trust your sincerity, too, and every now and then I think you're going to convince me about something. All I'm doing is going through the articles I've found and adding whatever seems to fill a gap in the article, positive, negative or otherwise. The thing about Ayers is that there's a simplistic positive view and a simplistic negative view out there, and neither is correct. I think some criticisms of him are devastating, and some defenses are the same for the critics, but I'm going wherever the sources take me. Noroton (talk) 02:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, believe it or not my personal opinion of him is not at all positive. But I do think that if the facts are presented in a neutral way people can come to that conclusion for themselves. Thanks again, Wikidemo (talk) 02:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Obama Article

I'm sorry but i'm fed up of it as a 'mixed' race individual, and so is most of the mixed race population. We should determine how we label ouselves, not the media, not black or white people or even Obama himself. It is accurate to say he is of dual heritage whether others like it or not. There shouldn't even be an issue about this... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Invertedzero (talk • contribs) 03:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, true. But Wikipedia is not at the forefront of social change - it brings up the rear. There's plenty of room in the article, and even the rest of the lead, to talk about his mixed heritage...if you can find some strong, reliable coverage of the issue. There must be some. There is no question of his immediate ancestry, but all the major media are reporting that he is the first AA major party presidential candidate and that seems to be how he publicly self-identifies. So I think it will be a hard case to make as a primary adjective to describe Obama in the first sentence. There's a longer term issue of changing the discourse and awareness in the United States and the world. More power to you if you can, just be careful...and please don't edit war. You might notice there's an edit war brewing on another issue, and I have a feeling a number of editors are going to be blocked or even banished over that. You probably don't want to be on the scene in your own dispute when that happens. Wikidemo (talk) 04:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Huh?

• Also: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Lulu_of_the_Lotus-Eaters - an odd sock puppet that could be another piece of this puzzle - Wikidemo (talk) 04:35, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• • That report, you must know, was a puerile game by an actual sockpuppet. Whateeevar! LotLE×talk 04:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Read between the lines. If the SSP report is as baseless as you think, then the administrators at AN/I will figure that out for themselves. They hardly need me to tell them. So the word "odd" says all I felt like saying about it. The more I protest about what's going on at the Obama article the more I look like part of the problem. So I'm laying low and urging cooperation...a simple link is enough. Cheers, Wikidemo (talk) 05:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. LotLE×talk 16:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

AN/I silliness

Have you seen this nonsense yet? The funniest bit is when the single-purpose agenda account demands that we get slapped with a six-month ban. Anyway, I wanted to thank you for the comment you left on my talk page. I was going to take a three-day wikibreak this weekend, but I might just start it now. I'm tired of being accused of being biased, when all I want it to make sure the article follows Wikipedia's policies. I can't even vote in the election, so I'm at a loss as to why these editors should describe Bill Clinton as "my man". I'm a Thatcherite, for goodness sake. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

You may wish to plead your case. By which I mean acknowledge that your reverts, which you intended in good faith, might be perceived as being part of the edit war and promise not to do it again. You might want to do that without lashing out against (but without validating either) some of the bizarre nonsense you mention. I think the administrators know that one group of editors has been a lot more belligerent and problematic, but as I noted in cautioning you last night, at the moment they decide to do something, anyone left fighting, or expressing hostility, at the moment is perceived as a problem and is going to get a time out. Think of it as being spotted in a fight the moment police arrive. They perceive their immediate role as breaking up the fight, not to figure out who started it or whose underlying grievance is legitimate. I would hope some of the administrators take the time to review the edit histories of the people involved for possible sock puppetry and long-term tendentious editing, problems that go beyond just getting people to stop a revert war. Sometimes that wider review happens; usually it does not. Wikidemo (talk) 17:10, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks.

I was about to write up the 3RR report, but I'll let you handle it. I'm noticing suspicious similarities between certain users' edit summaries, and may submit an RFCU in the interim. We've clearly got a large group of good-faith editors (so-called "inclusionsts" and "exclusionists" alike) willing to build the article, but there're a couple who've got no regard for the Talk page whatsoever. Don't worry too much, things'll be fine once they've been dealt with. Shem^(talk) 18:14, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I re-opened the last 3RR report, if that is possible. At least I tried to. I'm very unclear on the procedure....I'll see what happens. I'm preparing to notify the AN/I and a courtesy notice to Workerbee74 about the 3RR report. Wikidemo (talk) 18:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Probably best to re-file it separately down page, for the ease of the reading administrator. Shem^(talk) 18:20, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Will do. Wikidemo (talk) 18:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Er... I filed a new report a little while ago. I didn't notice that you had reopened the old one. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:36, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Reliable sources

I find some of your remarks ("I imagine we would deride most popular music there as simplistic and uninspired...") on Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources sufficiently off-base that I thought I'd come over here to discuss them rather than respond in such a public forum. To me, your remarks read as if you are just imagining what academic literature would be without ever reading any, and I figured I'd come over here so I could say this a bit more privately.

For example, in my experience, musicologists give death metal more respect than anyone other than metalheads, and an American Studies professor who focuses on the 20th century is going to have at least as much to say about Leiber and Stoller as any music critic. Not to say there isn't a certain amount of bullshit on popular culture to be found in academia, but in my experience it is more likely that academics will "discover" non-existent depth in a piece of popular music than dismiss it as "simplistic and uninspired".

As for "discuss social problems in terms of oppression of the majority culture", it's hard to say much more that "huh"? Are you saying that academics tend to defend the status quo and view the mainstream as somehow oppressed? No doubt some do, as do some of any other group. I'm sure you can find some Indian academics among the ranks of the BJP, and so forth, but in the U.S. and many European countries far more critical questioning comes out of academia and academic presses than out of the newspapers or (certainly) television.

Causation, as Redheylin accurately said in responding to you, is an explanatory principle, not a natural phenomenon.

"Jesus will save the oppressed": I have no idea where this came from. Are you saying that academics have a bias in favor of some kind of quietist Christianity? This just strikes me as bizarre. - Jmabel | Talk 21:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not an academic but I've read a fair amount of academic literature. Much is reasonable within its area of expertise, some is quite iconoclastic, biased, or nonauthoritative. Not academic literature but I recall a textbook my college classmate showed me on music appreciation that, as often happens, gave only a single chapter to 20th century classical and pop music. It concluded with a paragraph to the effect that most popular music is unsophisticated and of little interest, with the possible exception of the Beatles, who showed some degree of harmonic complexity in their works. I've found similar arrogance and bias in quite a few other fields - and in fact studied the issue a bit in academic pieces on history and philosophy of science. Perhaps a textbook is not a peer-reviewed journal piece, but the discussion in talk space was more broadly addressing the question of academic sources. The whole discussion over at WP:V is a bit arrogant and ivory tower. If you look at actual articles in article space, most of them are unsuitable for academic sourcing. It simply does not apply. I can understand the impatience with pseudoscience, fringe theories, etc., but most of the world does not look to academia as an unassailable source of knowledge. Our job as an encyclopedia is to present knowledge, not to favor one school or another. There are other regimes of understanding, e.g. law, news, and government records. As to you "huh" question the "of" is used in the sense of "by" - the majority culture oppresses minorities. That's dogma, and the predominant explanatory tool, in some circles of social science. Nothing wrong with that analysis, mind you, and perhaps true, but it's just one perceptual lens. It's a position, and not authoritative. And yes, much academic literature talks of causation as a natural law. It depends on the field. It's only when you get to philosophy of science, or metaphysics, some of those other things, that you actually get to a critique of causation. Of course in law, causation is something entirely different. I don't remember what I meant by the Jesus example, probably that in liberation theology that is the premise, something having to do with acceptance of Jesus or working of Jesus serving to liberate oppressed people throughout the world. You won't find that in most mainstream academia, but certain religious scholars for sure. Wikidemo (talk) 21:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Your agreement at Barack Obama

I have just posted the following in response to your offered agreement at Talk:barack Obama.

I am eager to not only agree, but to defend the agreement. I will do my best to keep the inclusionists (my side) from breaking the agreement. (I point out that this will mean I'm going to try to deal with such hot-tempered folk as Fovean Author and, when they inevitably return from their blocks, WorkerBee and Andyvphil.) You must, in turn, do your best to keep the exclusionists (your side) from breaking the agreement. (That includes Life.temp, Scjessey and Lulu.) Do you agree, Wikidemo? Kossack4Truth (talk) 23:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. I'll respond on the article talk page. Wikidemo (talk) 23:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

superstar

I left a few notes on the article talk page. I'm finding myself interested in improving the overall quality of the article. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 03:38, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

The weight of worlds

I've returned from my brief wikibreak and re-watchlisted Barack Obama. After reading through the discussions on the talk page, I am concerned at the way things are developing. It is clear that several editors are still trying to use Wikipedia to inflate minor controversies as much as they possibly can, and the lack of neutral editors is placing a lot of burden on your shoulders.

As you know, I voluntarily decided to take a two-week break from editing Obama and McCain-related articles, but that was predicated on the notion that the editors responsible for adding BLP-violating text would receive some sort of sanction. Unfortunately, the noticeboard debate has focused on matters of process, rather than matters of substance. Individuals responsible for tendentious and disruptive edits, like the single-purpose account WorkerBee74, have been allowed to continue their activities unchecked - perhaps even emboldened - by the absence of policy-driven editors like myself.

It disturbs me that a so-called "consensus" for the inclusion of contentious material is coming into being, opposed only by yourself and a couple of others. I note the frequent use of the word "compromise", but I think it is important to note that there can be no compromise when it comes to Wikipedia policy. WP:BLP must necessarily be strict because it involves people's lives, and how they are perceived by others. It is my opinion that specifically referring to Rezko's indictment and conviction of charges that are completely unrelated to Barack Obama is a clear violation of BLP policy.

I will continue to monitor the discussion from a back seat for the time being, but if I see things continuing to move in the wrong direction I may have to rethink that position. In the meantime, let me thank you for doing your best to maintain some level of sanity on the Obama BLP - it is much appreciated. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:24, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

As you probably know, AN/I is all about process, not substance. They're trying to sort out behavior problems and edit warring, not what the policies and guidelines say the article should look like. At some point you might want to comment at the andyvphil page that you would like to rejoin the discussion page inasmuch as nobody seems to have been topic banned and you still have some things to say. I'd avoid making accusations or big characterizations, and simply argue your position on the content. I'm probably not as firm as you are on keeping material out. I think some things have their place, and my threshold is probably a bit higher. The relevance of Rezko's indictment to Obama is that the investigation was already in place as of the time of the land deal, and Obama went ahead anyway - saying he didn't know initially but trusted Rezko's assurances later. Although the specific counts is not relevant to Obama, nor is a list of all of a politician's friends and associates who have been convicted of crimes, what is relevant is that Obama as a politician (apparently) lacks or lacked the insight, steeliness, judgment, caution, or whatever, to distance himself from controversial associates to the degree that is expected of most politicians these days. I find that argument persuasive, and it certainly did get a non-trivial amount of press. You're welcome to your opinion about BLP and you're free to argue it, but I disagree and don't think the BLP argument will carry much weight. It hasn't with the crop of administrators and editors so far and I'm guessing it won't with other neutral people. The deal is that Rezko himself has very little BLP interest - he's already been convicted, and the conviction was widely publicized, so there is no protecting him from anything. Only a little bit, that we shouldn't drag him through the mud indefinitely to disparage other people. Obama has very little BLP interest because he is a public figure, and all of these scandals are well-reported. As you probably can see I think of it as more of a weight and relevance issue, with a dash of NPOV and avoiding forks / redundancy as a style matter. Those arguments have wider appeal. If you step back and look at the Rezko material, though, it doesn't make a heck of a lot of difference. If we're going to mention it at all, the difference between Workerbee's proposed version and mine, or what's already in the article, is not going to make a huge difference. It makes Obama look about 3% worse than he would otherwise. The POV problem and gaming is the cumulative effect of a lot of derogatory material - trying to add Ayers too, and each of the Trinity pastors, and perhaps every other controversy that rolls around. As a final note, I don't think the sockpuppet question has been fully sorted out. It's probably best not to keep mentioning it on the talk page, and I doubt that all of the people involved are sockpuppets, but they never really did a complete checkuser. Workerbee is indeed an SPA and so are others. It is legitimate, though, to start out one's Wikipedia career on a single important article like this if the editing is productive and in good faith. So unless any of these can be shown to be sockpuppets or meatpuppets, I think you just have to live with it. People with longer edit histories, less history of trouble, and who argue calmly and well DO carry more weight because they convince more people. I think we might just have to leave it at that. But it would be nice to close the sockpuppet accusations down, and to do that I think they have to take their course. Life.temp being a sock puppet threw me off guard, so I would say, run it on everyone accused on both sides. Cheers, Wikidemo (talk) 01:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I just want to clear up a couple of things. Firstly, I haven't been one of those accusing anyone of using sockpuppets, apart from this report that I filed today. I do not believe that any of these regular edits are socks, or even meatpuppets. Secondly, I think that the whole "public figure" excuse for shoehorning titillating tangential tidbits (I should trademark that awesome phrase, shouldn't I?) is a wee bit overused. It indicates a slight relaxation of the rules for the public interest, but it shouldn't change the overall philosophy. Your argument about duplication was particularly well made - blue links, especially in an article written in summary style, should provide a reader with the opportunity to go deeper into biographical details of Obama's associates. Obviously some mention is essential, but it really should be restricted to the campaign section - if it weren't for the campaign, Rezko would not have been notable at all. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:01, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure. I haven't been keeping score of who did what but I tend to agree, there are different people editing (though it's possible that one or more are sockpuppets of someone else, you never know). I'm curious to see where the article would go if we had a whole bunch of fresh editors on it. I've caught a number of sockpuppets on the project so I'm pretty alert to the issue. You'll find that the BLP policy is already pretty strong, and many people don't support it as it is. I won't try to convince you, just consider it friendly advice that I don't think your BLP argument is gaining much acceptance so if you lead with that, a neutral editor/administrator may disagree and then compartmentalize your concern as answered/invalid. I think a parallel concern is that we don't want Wikipedia to be a scandal sheet. Even if not for Obama's own good (as a Presidential candidate he's expected to take all challenges), we simply don't want to be a conduit of the nasty political nonsense. Well, my proposal does restrict Rezko coverage to the campaign section but it discusses the uncontroversial aspects of his home purchase, and his work for the law firm, in their appropriate places. That's putting everything where it belongs, IMO. Wikidemo (talk) 02:26, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: Barack Obama article

Regarding my "potentially contentious" edit to the Barack Obama article:

My 20:58, 19 June 2008 edit: (Revert mass reversion by US - Jimmy Slade done without any edit summary or discussion on Talk page to last version by HailFire) was to undo US - Jimmy Slade's highly disruptive massive revert to revision 212239461 by Scjessey of 00:12, 14 May 2008 from 5 weeks, 1 day, 18 hours and 14 minutes earlier, undoing 1,187 subsequent edits (including 23 of my edits), from which point editors could undo one or more of HailFire's edits and discuss them on the Talk:Barack Obama page.

Your 21:09, 19 June 2008 m edit: (Undid revision 220433224 by Newross (talk) restoring what seems to be stable version of article - will caution user to not edit war) did not restore a "stable version of article," it restored US - Jimmy Slade's highly disruptive massive revert to a revision from 36 days earlier which undid 1,187 subsequent edits.

Please be more careful with your edits. Thank you. Newross (talk) 15:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

It was a complete mess. My comment about edit warring stands. Certainly you know of the discussion on the talk page.Wikidemo (talk) 15:40, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

It was indeed a complete mess. And your completely unwarranted lecture about "edit warring" to a regular editor of the article simply trying to undo US - Jimmy Slade's highly disruptive edit -- that accompanied your careless restoration of US - Jimmy Slade's highly disruptive edit -- was not appreciated and not conducive to maintaining a WP:CIVIL atmosphere.Newross (talk) 17:25, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

You're being needlessly confrontational here. I can understand the awkwardness of being cautioned about your edits, and I did try to keep up a courteous enough tone for that. I stand by mine. If Lulu had not jumped in to finish fixing things I would have. Sorry, Wikidemo (talk) 17:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Sock wearing armies

I note that in addition to Forvean Author being blocked for sock puppetry (is there a link to anyplace where that action is explained?) there are two other new reports, Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Improve2009 and Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/216.153.214.89. That makes a total of four SSP reports and two confirmed sockpuppet operators on the Obama page in the past several days. It's only natural to wonder if some of these are related, and whether a narrowly focused checkuser might miss some of the connections. Maybe it's best to ask for guidance from a seasoned admin / checkuser operator. With two confirmed sockpuppets on one of the most important articles in the encyclopedia at the moment, I think there's a good case to be made for sorting it out once and for all in an orderly way. Wikidemo (talk) 08:38, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I quite concur that there's something much more going on than only those socks I listed in this latest report. I actually think that one of the IP's I copied over to the second K4T checkuser request was an Andyvphil sock, not a K4T one, but it's hard to sort out. I'm not really convinced by the negative check on FA/K4T, but we have to go with what the admin found. WB/K4T I'm pretty sure about though.

Moreover, there is something very strange about the masses of "votes" on the Rezko language polls from IP addresses whose first contribution to the page are those votes. Even more so because they all vote the same way.

I don't really know how to deal with this. If you can grab a seasoned admin/checkuser by the shirt collar, that would be great. It's hard to pin them down at times though. I appreciate any efforts you make. LotLE×talk 18:55, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Pronoun Problem

You have been recently active on the WP:V talk page. Please visit this discussion on WP:VPP and contribute comments if you want to. Thank you. 208.43.120.114 (talk) 02:21, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Sock-IP-SPA issues

Thank you for your comment. It is definitely going to be difficult to move forward unless the "beastly horde" move to new feeding grounds. With the exception of reverting vandalism or correcting minor formatting/spelling errors, I have no plans to do any editing of the actual article, so I won't be getting involved in any revert wars. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:46, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Presidential Memorial Commission of San Francisco

Awesome. Just, awesome. I think Philadelphia needs to rename a garbage scow or something too! -- Scjessey (talk) 19:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Fark

Wikidemo -

I know you're not an administrator but you've been so amazingly level headed on the American Apparel stuff I was hoping you might take a look at the Fark article. I tried to rewrite the article and again am having similar problems with people editorializing an article that is for a real (albeit a funny) business. I could be totally wrong but I thought you might be able to look at it and tell us if there is a problem. I'm sure you'll at least know who to go to if there is. Specifically, it is the section about Fark TV and the vandalism by an unsigned user.

TheRegicider (talk) 03:01, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

RfA Review

Hello Wikidemon. I've noticed that you have a completed set of responses to the RfA Review question phase at User:Wikidemo/RfA review , but they don't seem to be included on the list of responses here. If you've completed your responses, please can you head to Wikipedia:RfA Review/Question/Responses and add a link to them at the bottom of the list so that they get included in the research. We have a closing date of midnight UTC on 1st July, so please add your link before this date. Once again, thank you for taking the time to participate in the Question Phase of RfA Review.Gazimoff ^Write_Read 16:50, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Do not remove legitimate requests for citation

You've removed legitimate tags requesting citations on the Stars (restaurant), your reason being "I don't think so".

The sources contradict the article, or partly contradict the article, in at least two places.

The article makes wild claims, almost entirely based on a couple articles from the same newspaper columnist. From a paper (or from the person themselves) that the Stars owner refused to speak to, according to one of the articles.

Many of the important (and questionable) statements appear to be founded on a single newspaper article, or come from other sources that are not named.

See the discussion there.

67.169.126.223 (talk) 16:08, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

The tags are farfetched. I reverted as a matter of course as seemingly misguided hit-and-run tagging by a new editor. I'll respond in more detail in the article talk page.Wikidemo (talk) 18:31, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Die4dixie

Setting aside who is right and who is wrong for a moment, I recommend you not remove his comments like that from his own talk. If they were made on your talk, you would have every right, but they were made on his talk. The whole issue of who is harassing/stalking whom can often be looked at based on what talk page the issue lies at. From what I see, he isn't coming to your talk and posting those things. He's doing it at his own talk. I'm trying to be fair here, and I'm not condoning some of his past reprehensible behavior, but I hope you can see my point. Regards, Enigma ^message 08:59, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, for goodness sake! Don't equate a problem editor with one trying to maintain the peace. He has been harassing me and others, and playing tit-for-tat games on administrative notice boards as retribution over a simple civility warning that doesn't even involve me. It's a garden variety problem editor. Wikidemo (talk) 09:24, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say he was trying to maintain the peace. I'm suggesting that edit warring with him over a borderline civility issue at his talk page and then reporting him to AN/I was probably not the best course of action. Enigma ^message 10:03, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

If I were an admin I would have blocked him, or asked another to do so. As a non-admin, my recourse for personal attacks like that is to first ask the editor to stop and then report it to AN/I. This is an administrative issue. The editor is a long-term problem here with basically nothing but trouble in their edit history, and shows no sign of heeding warnings or moderating his behavior. How many warnings does the guy need to accumulate before being reported? I suppose I could have allowed the obnoxious comments to remain pending the outcome, but they're indefensible and it is unpleasant when a problem editor plays wikigames with bogus administrative reports or makes accusations about lying. Wikidemo (talk) 10:09, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

You would have blocked him? You're personally involved in a dispute with him. You don't block someone you're in a dispute with. That's sort of what got User:Tango desysopped. If you really thought what he wrote was a personal attack (even then, only parts of it were questionable, not the entire thing), I'm sure someone else would have removed it. Or maybe not, because nobody reads his talk page. Which begs the question, why does it matter so much what he says on his talk? I think you should take a step back. Enigma ^message 10:18, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the patient explanations, that's very helpful. Administrators patrolling articles do block tendentious editors who try to stymie their efforts at keeping peace. It seems to happen all the time, although I do hear your point. It's a tough balance. On the one hand you have to be firm and not put up with nonsense that people throw out. If you disqualified yourself from a situation every time a tendentious editor accused you of administrative abuse, lying, bias, etc., you would give the troublemakers a free ticket to continue. On the other hand, I wholeheartedly agree with you that you have to keep a thick skin and can't bring your own ego to the table. I'm not troubled that the editor accuses me of bad faith, lying, douchebaggery, etc. I'm editing in good faith, not lying, and trying to do what's best. But I am troubled by the editor's abuse of the project here. They have caused a lot of disruption, and seem intent on continuing. This started out as a warning over edit warring and incivility on an important article. If they return to editing articles in that mode, they'll have to be dealt with. If this editor isn't warned and blocked over the latest talk page stuff, surely he'll just get into trouble as soon as he returns to editing articles. Wikidemo (talk) 10:34, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

The project has a way of policing itself. I admire your intentions, but if he truly is what you say he is, he'll be dealt with. Just let things take their own course. They tend to work out in the end. Enigma ^message 10:43, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Let me just make this clear

I may have been unclear on this. Scjessey was confused by my proposal, and I notice you wrote "Adding a criticism section on the topic would be over the top." You do realize that I'm asking that the words "media scrutiny" in the proposed Rezko passage be replaced with "criticism from political rivals and others" with some added expansion in a footnote. This is a net addition of four words to the Rezko passage, and I'm not even proposing to name McCain or Clinton in the text. That's the entire weight we're adding. Noroton (talk) 23:49, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I'll take a look - is there any place where I can see the proposal? I'll look for it on the talk page in the next day or so. Take care, Wikidemo (talk) 00:13, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

The section is here Talk:Barack Obama#Let's fully discuss judgment/media scrutiny/other alternative language. I added a note on top of the original discussion (now marked by a bullet and boldfaced words saying The original discussion started here). You've already participated there, but if you thought I was arguing for a paragraph or section rather than a four-word addition, please look over the discussion. I'd like to know if you think four words (or, alternately, 7 words, as discussed) would be OK. Noroton (talk) 17:49, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay...Thanks. I am inclined to disagree with including it but would go along if that's the decision. You're absolutely right that as proposed it is not a whole lot of wording or weight. I'll participate there if I have some time later. -- Wikidemo (talk) 18:04, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

3RR vio

Actually, I inadvertently reverted the last time and immediately reverted my revert. I meant to restore my edits that were deleted by another editor [4]. When I realized what I had done, I restored that which I had mistakenly deleted. At least I think I did. Additionallly, I viewed the section heading as a personal attack on those editors trying to find a WP:V, WP:NPOV way to present the material. No whitewashing intended....  :) Dreadstar † 07:19, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the help on George Soros. He has taken many controversial stands (in many areas, not just politics) and the article attracts many controversial opinions, misc. facts that are supposed to prove something, etc. The man himself draws many opinions, see e.g Karl Rove's contention in today's Wall Street Journal that Soros is one of 3 reasons that Dem's have a financial advantage over the Republicans. The article was locked up for 3 months last year over how to include a fact-free campaign by Bill O'Reilly against Soros.

Any help to maintain a NPOV would be much appreciated. I watch the article, but sometimes I think too closely - maintaining NPOV can't be a one person job.

Or perhaps you could ask others with a reputation for even-handedness to watch the article as well.

Thanks again,

Smallbones (talk) 15:39, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

William Morris article

Thanks!11:13, 4 July 2008 (UTC) Could you help add the logo to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Wmalogo.gif? I don't have the authority... Thanks Breadandsocks (talk) 11:37, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. Someone apparently added a logo already but I just uploaded a new version that I think looks better. Wikidemo (talk) 12:02, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! I'd really apprciate if you can continue to help with this page.. i'll try to add more useful info tooBreadandsocks (talk) 12:03, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, regarding your suggestion on the lists, i actually had a past client list but was deleted. Should i reinsert?Breadandsocks (talk) 20:46, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I think a single list for current and past clients works. 2 lists means double the potential issues and upkeep... but if it gets way too long you'll have to trim it to the ones that are most notable and relevant, and say so in the heading, e.g. "representative list of notable present and past clients". Also, it's best to give a list a brief prose introduction if you can do so without appearing to be boosting the company, e.g. "WMA has provided talkent, a, and b representation for many notable clients in the x, y, and z industries." Wikidemo (talk) 20:51, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and Drink Newsletter July 2008

WikiProject Food and Drink Newsletter July 2008

--Chef Tanner (talk) 15:56, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Happy Independence Day!

As you are a nice Wikipedian, I just wanted to wish you a happy Independence Day! And if you are not an American, then have a happy day and a wonderful weekend anyway!  :) Your friend and colleague, --Happy Independence Day! Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:57, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Barack Obama Edit War?

OK, sometimes I get that sometimes these things whip up quickly so I'm going to assume that's how you came to be involved and then to leave a warning on my talk page. In good faith, I seemed to have stumbled into some kind of tempest regarding Martinevans123 and his repeated additions of Obama's Welsh ancestry. I checked the discussion page and there was no pending conversation on the matter, and one of the editors engaged in the add/RM cycle had stated that his/her objections were a) it was trivial especially in light of the b) already massive length of the article.

"Oh," says I. "Well, an offer of an official visit is not so trivial and there are ways to make this bit smaller and folded in more appropriately as a compromise edit." And thus I did. Which has since then seen me singed by the same flamethrower that's spinning about this article. My point (and I do have one) is that edits are NOT always edit wars, and no one does own this article - so differing points of view should be a welcome thing to process, yes?

This is a conversation that should have quickly been taken to the Discussion page and I, like others, failed to do so. In my case, a moment of poor judgment - but not, emphatically and loudly, any attempt AT ALL to engage in an edit war. My edits tried to make what seemed to be an important nugget of material more acceptable to its gatekeeping editors. It didn't work, and I've walked away. EBY3221 (talk) 20:04, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Indeed - I tried to leave a friendly, factual message and don't mean to imply at all that you were trying to cause trouble. I perceived you may still be tempted to keep reverting and might not know the history of the page and why it's particularly sensitive. If the admins who sometimes visit the page catch you at the wrong moment you get blocked for stepping into the wrong place at the wrong time. I'll leave a courtesy notice on your talk page for the record, if you haven't already, so nobody sees it as a bad mark. Wikidemo (talk) 20:51, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your civility, and your note. Thank you EBY3221 (talk) 21:18, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your message on my talk page. The section that I deleted was POV material of the worst order, and it was garbage to anyone with any sense in their heads, regardless of political sentiment. It was not even close to being NPOV, and no one seemed to be making any effort to improve it. Furthermore, I opened a discussion section on the material on the talk page. While I appreciate your good faith and honest efforts on the article, I would suggest that your concerns are misplaced. Aloha, Arjuna (talk) 02:11, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring, and inflammatory comments, are a bad idea no matter how much you are convinced of the rightness of your opinion. There are obviously more than a few people who feel otherwise, and as I said, the article is under probation against this sort of editing style. Proceed at your own peril here - if the edit warring continues sooner or later the article probation terms will be enforced. Wikidemo (talk) 02:17, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

deleted discussion

My discussions are not "unhelpful" that is a bias opinion of yours, please do NOT vandalize my posts or I will report you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.112.222.247 (talk) 10:12, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I deleted the contributions as racially inflamatory and not appropriate to the encyclopedic purpose of article talk pages, and cautioned you accordingly. You are on notice. I would not care to discuss it beyond that. Wikidemo (talk) 10:23, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

My discussions were anything but racist, they were non biased according to race. One should not be seen as African American only if he is a mix of both races, that is bias and that is racist. You are on notice that I will be reporting you to Wikipedia if you continue this bias opinionated editing without being civilized about it. For one, it was in discussion, I have freedom of speech for two I was not doing or saying anything wrong, incorrect or immoral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.112.222.247 (talk) 10:36, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Editor warned again; I will not respond here.Wikidemo (talk) 10:54, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

threaten me and accuse me falsely of racial slander. How can I be racist against someone who is my own race, it makes no sense. You are the one being racist! and you will get whatever karma is coming to you for your racist POV bias nonsense. Ban my IP, it's dynamic do you think I care? you are nothing but a racist, control freak communist who likes to twist things to falsely accuse others. You are on a power trip and need to be removed from your position in wikipedia and replaced with someone who understands the difference between comparison logic and racist bashing. I am using comparison logic, factual data which can be understood in a non-bias orderly way. you are taking it out of context and twisting it to make it seem like I am being racist. Prove to me logically that I am being racist, where am I being racist? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.112.222.247 (talk) 07:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but I am not going to respond to this kind of trolling on my talk page. Wikidemo (talk) 07:18, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

You have been reported to wikipedia for your power trips. I no longer have any use talking to ignorant power hungry "know it alls" like yourself. Goodbye. I only hope and pray one day you wake up from your ignorant controlling nature and become civilized and logical. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.112.222.247 (talk) 08:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

A "new" article for Malik Obama----

is sure to be nominated for deletion; so I've actually done so myself here even though I believe it now passes muster due to Maliks multiple press mentions (which had not yet been catalogued when contributors had so very recently weighed in on its "Obongo" iteration. Please be patient with this proposal while those interested weigh in again. I'm notifying those who commented.) — Justmeherenow (   ) 06:40, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

feel free to delete

You're welcome to delete any of my comments anywhere in the article. I won't protest or revert any changes you make.

I will not remove them myself because I was truly shocked by a user swearing at you and find my comments relevant in that those arguing for deletion are using red herring arguments, if not plain personal attacks, to divert attention from the merits or demerits of the article itself.

I have no problem with you removing them.

If nothing else, I know that I am not always right, so I defer to your judgement.

Cheers,

--Utahredrock (talk) 04:47, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree, and thanks for the concern. But I've also learned recently that even when someone is being abusive it's best to just let them have their say and move on. As long as they're editing in good faith and not trolling. They'll calm down and everyone is okay....but if you scold someone for being upset, they just get more upset. I think some of the red herring arguments have a real concern at heart. In the wider world lots of people are trying to find every last farfetched scare tactic to make people fear Obama. Of course there is legitimate criticism of Obama too, but a lot of the "Obama is a secret muslim" stuff is made up out of thin air. Some of it creeps onto Wikipedia. There have been quite a few people trying to repeat the rumors here. So people are jumpy and suspicious. Everything that is critical of obama alarms people, because it might be yet another problem. I think they've incorrectly jumped to the conclusion that the Malik Obama is just an effort to put bad stuff about Obama in the encyclopedia, and lose sight of the fact that he's a real person and the information presented here is factual, and not negative. I'll probably take you up on the offer. Wikidemo (talk) 04:54, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree and even though my intent was to call for order, the effect (obviously) was the opposite--at least with S Dean and probably with T-rex. It was particularly ironic since I'd felt attacked by S Dean previously and had replied on his talk page. When someone swore at you, that seemed over the top enough to reply on the main debate page. Still, I think your reasoning is sound and trumps my own. When S Dean took the bait on the main debate page I found the irony too rich--but as you point out, irrelevant to the discussion all the same. Cheers,--Utahredrock (talk) 05:04, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Levitron AfD

Hi,

Thanks for working on improving the article. You made some good points in this reply; I'm just not sure that there's enough material there to warrant two articles in the end, especially given that the trademark owner appears quite willing to pay people to influence the outcome. Anyway, suppose it's up to the community. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:16, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, if there's only one article it should be a merge - not expunging the branding, marketing, and litigation history of the device. And logically, the merge would probably best be at the common name of the thing. I think Wikipedia can defend itself against COI. We've had far more formidable COI foes than a little toy company, e.g. American Apparel and Microsoft. At any rate I would take it to AN/I and if necessary to arbitration before giving up....the final give-up, yes, is to delete the article rather than letting it be used by the company for a revisionist history of its litigation. Wikidemo (talk) 17:23, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it's a bad idea, I think the article should die. It's all very well right now, but the article will be rewritten in the next week or two to remove all the stuff you've added. There's too many sockpuppets and the wikipedia aren't even enforcing the rules against company-specific accounts (see User:Fascinations). So then you're involved in, not vandalism, but a content dispute with the company account... as well as the sock puppets. And the thing has a whole bunch of legal angles thrown in, and they already have lawyers. I think it's far better not to attack the company for what they did, but to describe the Roy Harrigan guy that really did invent it over in the other article. It's likely to be a whole lot less problematic all round. I don't think you can win this one, it's better for everyone if this article dies.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 00:16, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. Well, we can plan for what to do if the article survives AfD and there's trouble. Although there's the precedent that Wikipedia shouldn't be bullied by bad actors it's not a terribly important article and there's some deterrent effect and self-protection by a de-facto policy that if a company tries to game its own article to the point of overwhelming Wikipedia's resources then we just jettison the article rather than letting it be corrupted. It's probably fine to move the Harrigan material to the other article because even if they did base the Levitron on his invention it's still a separate matter. I also think it's possible to have an article about Levitron that doesn't take sides or offend the company...but the way it had been written was entirely one sided in the wrong direction. Wikidemo (talk) 01:28, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it's guaranteed that there will be trouble. There's also the point that if you consider the sockpuppets to be the enemy, then it's usually a good idea to do the opposite of what the enemy wants, and they seem to want this article to be here. I think what you're describing could work, but might be better left to the fallback position if the article gets recreated after a DRV. And the two inventions are the same. The only difference is that the base magnet is a trivially different shape, and I wouldn't like to bet any money that a patent review would consider that difference novel.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 02:54, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah, there's also another patent issue surrounding this company. The floating globe that floats above the base is actually patented by another company, see: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sgYUOUfPm8c. As I understand it simerlabs did a lookey-likey patent and Fascinations tried to market it. It turns out that Levitation Art is the Sherlocks company.[5] There seems to be legal attacks trying to prevent simerlabs/Fascinations from selling their system in America.[6] I'm thinking that Fascinations/Simerlab should lose, but you never know.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 04:32, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Wow, we can't get in the middle of an active patent dispute. We can report that there is litigation if there is, but I think it's a little tough to comment in main space on active IP litigation and who apparently is in the right. I swear, they're going to bankrupt each other if they don't stop. It's like watching editors edit war over nothing. Still, very interesting stuff to follow. Maybe this is tech blog territory more than Wikipedia article territory. Thanks for the update. Wikidemo (talk) 05:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Brilliant breakdown

Your analysis of sentence-per-topic on Obama is absolutely wonderful. It helps put the weight questions in clear and stark perspective. Thanks. LotLE×talk 08:48, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Lying

Lying is telling an untruth. It is not true that I have said I am "trying to delete the efforts of "Obama fans" on the project". If you want to me to retract my comment, retract yours. John Smith's (talk) 11:08, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore if you ask others to assume good faith you need to do the same. I will try to assume that you are acting out of good faith, but it would help if you did the same. John Smith's (talk) 11:10, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to bargain with you about your accusing me of lying, but I have refactored the comments to be less harsh. Lying is stating a falsehood with a deliberate intent to deceive.[7] If you simply disagree, say you disagree. But don't accuse other editors of lying. If you're going to hold court over your own AfD nomination that way there's basically no way to have an AfD discussion. Please redact your comment form the talk board.

You did indeed say that you were trying to counteract Obama fans. That is an inherently POV statement and, as I said, a provocation. Perhaps you didn't understand this issue but as I said it has been a big problem on the Obama pages. Once you assume that the articles exist for POV purposes and you're fixing the POV by deleting them, you're acting to change POV. That has nothing to do with your nationality, assumptions, or anything else. Interestingly, other people are arguing the exact opposite, that the only reason people want to create articles about Obama's Kenyan relatives is to cast aspersions on him. I should think that AGF and avoiding POV would be to accept that people have created the articles because they consider the people notable and the articles worthwhile to the encyclopedia. Wikidemo (talk) 11:32, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

"it appears that discussion of this issue in the sources is mostly a POV matter advanced by anti-Obama partisans"

What is that if not an assumption of bad faith? Why can't I have foremost in my motives a genuine concern that Wikipedia articles be neutral? Why is it that if I sincerely think the Obama article is lacking in information that I think is important, I shouldn't want that information included? Please refactor your 08:16, 13 July comment at Talk:Barack Obama. We were sticking to the subject and that comment started degrading the discussion into one about motives. Noroton (talk) 17:08, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, wait a minute, in the sources -- OK. I get it. That's actually not a bad point. I'll answer it later on the Obama talk page. Noroton (talk) 17:09, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Please don't be so quick to scold. That is a comment about the motivations of people off wikipedia, not on wikipedia. That's the reason for the phrase "in the sources", a phrase I inserted deliberately to make that clear. I'll refactor if that can make it clearer. The source of the first few under "Obama ACORN" at the moment are Marathon Pundit (John Ruberry), "Dateline D.C.", "Carnivorous Conservative" from "Riehl World View", Stanley Kurtz at National Review, Michelle Malkin, redstate.com, the No Quarter blog, etc. With one exception those are all very partisan sources. It is quite relevant that this is the issue of the day for the anti-Obama partisans, and that we should be careful not to mirror that here on Wikipedia. Wikidemo (talk) 17:29, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Yet not one the sources I added to the discussion are on that list (I'd read the Kurtz source before this discussion started, but none of the others, although I read John Fund sometimes.) There is clearly WP:RS sourcing available, it clearly documents something important to his community organizing and political careers. Sounds like something worth mentioning in the article. ... -- Noroton (talk) 21:47, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

As yet it doesn't pass the sniff test for me as being something that has the necessary relevance or weight to be a salient detail of Obama's life. If you want to gather all the sources I'll keep an open mind but as of now I'm dubious and think all the attempts to add negative associations are proving to be a bottleneck in the article. I think my formulation is pretty on target, that a bio covers things he actually did, not indirect associations and inferences.Wikidemo (talk) 21:53, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Input requested

Could you weigh in on a very minor edit war at Gabrielle Giffords?

Thanks. See the talk page. Tvoz came up with a solution that I thought made sense, calling Giffords a politician and small business owner. I think she is still both, she certainly was both prior to becoming a member of the US Congress. I am not convinced the category (it's an infobox thing) is even needed, but another editor is making changes to all members of congress. I guess I could see some use in it.

Anyway, would love your input at Giffords. Thanks.--Utahredrock (talk) 23:29, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

blanking pages

This edit was a mistake. While it is true that biographies of living people and copyright violations are not allowed on wikipedia blanking the page was not the correct action. You should have marked the page for speedy deletion as G10 (attack page) or G12 (copyright violation). Blanking the page does not inform administrators that the page needs to be deleted. Jon513 (talk) 16:48, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Not a mistake at all - a blatant copyright violation can't sit here pending resolution. I took no position whether the page ought to be deleted or not. Perhaps I could have stubbified and linked to the source website, or added a speedy notice in addition to blanking (I see you created a new stub) but I took no position as to whether the subject is notable and a legitimate article could be written. The mysterious user had just done two copyvios in a quick succession and I didn't want to get bogged down in procedure while figuring out whether this was an issue that needed AN/I attention. Wikidemo (talk) 16:55, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

assuming the New Yorker piece is reliable

I'll make this point here since I suspect one or both of us would just end up repeating ourselves at some point if we continued over there.

If you "take no position" on the New Yorker piece, then I take it you are dropping your claim of a "contradiction", seeing as you cited it when you claimed there was a contradiction? If you should happen to take the piece as generally reliable, as I do, then I'd refer you to "The 1992 voter-registration drive, Project Vote, introduced him ...". We have a subject here and a verb. The verb is "introduce". The subject appears to be "voter registration drive". It also appears that "Project Vote" is a particular name for this "drive". My reading of the sources is that ACORN hired Obama to run this drive but ACORN was not the exclusive financier and supporter of the drive (other individuals and/or organizations with similar agendas being involved). In any case, whatever ACORN's role was in supporting Obama and the project, ACORN was "smack dab in the middle of it", to quote Obama, such that it is not as if we were misleading readers by mentioning an organization with which Obama never worked. It does say later "His work for Project Vote was similarly applauded"; however, I think the common sense interpretation of that sentence is that it is like saying "Eugene Kranz' work for Apollo 13 was similarly applauded". If you saw such a sentence, following as it does after a sentence on the order of "The 1970 lunar mission, Apollo 13, introduced him ...", I believe it would be less than "obvious" that Eugene Kranz could not have have been hired by NASA.

In sum, while acknowledging limits to the analogy, I see ACORN as analogous to NASA, the Project Vote organization as analogous to the Johnson Space Centre in Houston, Illinois Project VOTE! as analogous to Apollo 13 (albeit more successful), and Obama as analogous to Eugene Kranz. In terms of space exploration, some discoveries are described as due to the work of "Johnson Space Centre" or "JPL" and others as due to NASA. One could say Kranz worked for the Johnson Space Centre in Houston. You could also say Kranz worked for Apollo 13. But is either ideal when we've got a source in front of us that says, "NASA hired Kranz to run Apollo 13" and we know that Johnson Space Centre is an arm of NASA? More importantly, would it be appropriate to have no mention at all of NASA in a bio about Kranz if other sources said he had worked with NASA affiliates prior to Apollo 13, NASA employees worked for Kranz subsequent to Apollo 13, Kranz has continued to train NASA staff for years, NASA says "Kranz has proven himself among our members", and Kranz says himself that he has been "fightingworking alongside NASA ... my entire career"?Bdell555 (talk) 02:28, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not withdrawing anything. If there was a formal principal/agent or employer/employee relationship between ACORN and OBAMA with respect to the voter drive I would expect more sourcing than the WSJ article, which stands by itself in the field and does not seem reliable. If ACORN was paying money to Project Vote, which in turn hired Obama, we also need sourcing or that but we then have to deal with weight and relevance. Wikidemo (talk) 02:40, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

As requested, my argument for ACORN sentence, organized

This is a form message I'm cross posting on various user talk pages: As requested, I wrote up my argument in one spot, consolidating what I'd said before and adding just a bit. Please take a look at it at User:Noroton/The case for including ACORN and comment at Talk:Barack Obama#Case for ACORN proposed language, restated. Thanks, Noroton (talk) 02:56, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll take a look within half a day. Wikidemo (talk) 02:57, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Aaak, no time yet. Thanks for the effort. I wasn't being difficult, I really was having trouble seeing it all in one place rather than a little bit of an argument here and there. But I am inclined to rethink things. Not so much through the indirect argument that A + B + C = a close connection between ACORN and Project Vote, but some of the sources Bdell555 has turned up. I don't think they show what he is trying to prove, that there is a direct employer/employee type relationship, but they do seem to show that the two organizations are closely aligned, in which case it's fair and helpful to mention that in some way. Wikidemo (talk) 21:11, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

what I don't understand

about your approach is how you can apparently dismiss something that appears in the Wall Street Journal as false so casually. The fact is, the situation and the sources are vague. Many of them are like the Obama campaign's Youtube video in that they indicate that "Project Vote" was what the registration effort was "called". That doesn't seem compatible with the idea that "Project Vote" could have hired Obama. So how do we explain this? I'm trying to integrate all the sources into an explanation that doesn't require rejecting any of them as necessarily false on their face, but there doesn't seem to be much enthusiasm for such an effort. It doesn't bother you at all to just dismiss Fund's claim? You just don't feel motivated to come up with a scenario that wouldn't involve just implying that Fund decided to make it up? I raise this issue because it occured to me that perhaps the biggest reason we have differences is because cognitive dissonance doesn't especially bother you. In my own case, I'd say that there isn't anything that bothers me more. I can't just dismiss ANY source casually short of the Weekly World News because if I do, what does that say about the rest?Bdell555 (talk) 10:30, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

An editorial on the WSJ is still an editorial. Fund is clearly advocating against Obama, and in the process playing fast and loose with the facts. You are asking a simple factual question. Did the corporate entity known as ACORN enter an employment or contractual relationship to employ Obama. The question can be resolved easily on the merits, not by weighing sources. And that answer is almost certainly no. If I were to apply Occam's Razor to why Fund said something clearly not true, I would say it's a rhetorical flourish, just beyond the bounds of unethical journalistic conduct because under some unlikely but plausible definitions of the word "hired" one can say that an entity hired a person when in fact a distinct entity arguably tied to it did. Wikidemo (talk) 10:37, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

re "editorial", I've asked you repeatedly to respond to my post of 18:55, 13 July on the Obama Talk page which debunks the relevance of this contention and you've refused. Why continue to deny the world your rejoinder? If Fund is "playing fast and loose with the facts" you ought to be able to provide specific examples that support this generalization of yours. And, no, I am not asking that question. I'm asking if "Acorn hired Obama" is false. That could be a formal hiring or an informal hiring. re "The question can be resolved easily on the merits, not by weighing sources", that's really what's at the heart of your error. You are saying that you can draw necessary inferences, when in fact one can only draw contingent inferences. Why aren't you accusing the Kansas City Daily Record of approaching "the bounds of unethical journalism" when it claims that a worker "was hired by the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, a nonprofit organization, in 2006 to work with Project Vote, also a nonprofit organization", something that you insist is a priori impossible because, according to your analysis of "the merits", if someone worked with Project Vote, he or she could not have been hired by ACORN? If "Acorn hired Obama" is a "rhetorical flourish", what would a simple statement of fact look like?Bdell555 (talk) 18:31, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Huh? It's a partisan position statement. Yes, "Acorn hired Obama" is not literally true. That's rather obvious.... unless the author has some access to W-2 forms he's not sharing. It misleads the reader. What you call an "informal hiring" means that a company that the author wants to connect somehow to ACORN hired Obama, or perhaps that ACORN asked Obama's company for Obama's help, or something else indirect. Yet a casual reader - and a more intent reader like yourself - misreads the statement as a claim that ACORN formally hired Obama. That's fast and loose with the facts, yet it contains enough of a hint of truth that the author can deny an intent to mislead. It's a common tactic in political debate. Wikidemo (talk) 19:46, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, the additional sources you brought to the table, and your arguments are beginning to convince me of Noroton's position, though - see next section up. Wikidemo (talk) 21:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

If you are interested, the Project Vote/ACORN dispute continues over at Talk:Project_Vote#What_sources_actually_say as well. I bolded my assertion that a "friendly" source is more likely to minimize the relationship because I think it is of particular importance.Bdell555 (talk) 05:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the notice. Wikidemo (talk) 08:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

ACORN is trumpeting the New York Times article that describes PV as "arm" on acorn.org: "The voter registration campaigns of ACORN and Project Vote have been so effective that they have gained national attention – including a front-page article in this Sunday’s New York Times, included below."Bdell555 (talk) 20:57, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, yes. More sources. I won't comment too much now this specific source. "Arm" is an interesting choice of words and not a term of art so I wonder if that's deliberate. There seem to be a cluster of sources that say slightly different but related things around the core issue of PV being a side project of ACORN. I trust you're keeping a list of these so that if you have to make a case all in one place, as I asked Noroton to do, you can lay it all out. Cheers, Wikidemo (talk) 21:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd also like to see the magician's trick that saws Project Vote's current Executive Director in half:

This report was compiled by:

Mike Slater

Election Administration

Program Director

Project Vote/ACORN

Bdell555 (talk) 21:41, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

CFD

I've replied on my talk page. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 20:14, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Thx, I'll go there. Wikidemo (talk) 20:17, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Obama primary page

thanks for understanding what I was trying to do, even without any justification of mine on the talk. I remember crafting a long and detailed response to your questions. Which I apparently previewed but never posted. Do you remember seeing anything along those lines anywhere? I talked a lot about summary style and trying to use general statements over specific ones, especially when talking about the claims made in the emails. etc... you seem have gotten the gist of it without my rantings anyways... so thank you and I am sorry I didn't explain myself better at the time. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 20:59, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Help at Project Vote

I could use some assistance here, if you are able to: Talk:Project_Vote#Editorial opinion of ACORN relationship. LotLE×talk 23:59, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Illegal Immigration (US)

The article was screaming, "Open-source collaborative edit!" Any heavily-edited article, much less one subject to contentious editing, needs someone to come around, now and again, to apply some consistency and logical structure to the content. Thank you for stepping up on this article, and keep up the (usually thankless) good work. 75.111.38.114 (talk) 04:39, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Aw, shucks. Thanks! Wikidemo (talk) 08:25, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Man vs. Bot

You're right, the bot at Talk:George Soros is not going to back down. I tried forward-dating the RfC, and that didn't work either. I left a note for MessedRocker who apparently owns the bot, but no response so far. Do you have any other suggestions? --Marvin Diode (talk) 14:43, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea. Maybe a new one on a different page? Considering there wasn't not much response you could use this as an occasion to make the new one more enticing, maybe mention something about Jessica Alba? :) Wikidemo (talk) 18:04, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

July 2008

You said this is my second warning where is my first warning. What I wrote is factual information it clearly says it on CNN.COM Obama Visits Troops--Ron John (talk) 17:40, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Your first warning is the request at the top of the section.[8] We can discuss the content on the article talk page. Avoiding edit warring and making personal attacks against other editors is a separate issue. Wikidemo (talk) 17:57, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Obama visiting service members in combat zone is notable. People have died in these places even recently with the death of 9 service members Obama still came to see us. Yes I'm a servic e member in war now and you guys seem to have it out not to note this man visiting us in a war zone. I've been in combat and haven't seen McCain come to visit us! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronjohn (talk • contribs) 18:20, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I do respect your views, just wish you wouldn't edit war over them. It would be a shame and kind of an irony (if you can laugh at it) that you've served our country in combat only to get in trouble on Wikipedia! I'll self-edit my "warning" on your page to be less threatening. Maybe this belongs in the campaign article - there's a separate article just about the Presidential campaign. Or if you think he did it in his role as senator rather than candidate, maybe in the article about his senate career. Wikidemo (talk) 18:24, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

He visited before in 2006. I'm not warring but it's not fair to remove something that is factual is very notable that a Senator from US came to visit us in war zone. If it was BS I wouldn't have put it up there. I moved it to his Senator part but someone removed it now what? This is why I hate using wiki sometimes. Granted I may have written some non-civil stuff on user pages but oh well that's on the user page not something important--Ron John (talk) 18:37, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I meant that there's an entire artcle, United States Senate career of Barack Obama, where that might fit. Perhaps somewhere near the section on honors and awards - a new section on "official visits" or something like that to mention his visiting the troops and any other trips of note. Wikidemo (talk) 18:42, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Auspicious

I suspect you meant 'inauspicious' instead:

$ answer auspicious
aus.pi.cious (o-spish'@s)
  adj.
   1. Attended by favorable circumstances; propitious: an auspicious time to
      ask for a raise in salary. See synonyms at favorable.
   2. Marked by success; prosperous.
  auspiciously aus.pi'cious.ly adv.
  auspiciousness aus.pi'cious.ness n.

Thanks. Yes, I misused the word. I meant eyebrow-raising. I'll spend some time looking for a sysnonym that doesn't carry the direct accusation of it being a bad way, just a very aggressive way of rejoining the discussion. Wikidemo (talk) 19:00, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

The simple negation looks right though (LotLE×talk 19:05, 19 July 2008 (UTC)):

$ answer inauspicious
in.aus.pi.cious (in'o-spish'@s)
  adj.
  Not favorable; not auspicious.
  inauspiciously in'aus.pi'cious.ly adv.
  inauspiciousness in'aus.pi'cious.ness n.

AfD nomination of Bill Ayers election controversy

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) 21:47, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Bill Ayers election controversy

The article states that the relationship was all but ignored until Senator Clinton brought it up. In discussing the controversey, the article mentions only the debate points between Clinton and Obama. Everything else is defined within the article as "Reaction to the Controversy". The article as it stands does not support the assertions in the lede, nor the implications that seem to be pushing an insidious POV, that the true nature of the relationship is unknown and there's something inherently odd about it. --92.10.199.11 (talk) 01:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

It was never a secret that Ayers and Obama had met, served on a board together, etc. But that does not seem to have arisen as a controversy for 30+ years until early 2008. The issue arose in connection with the 2008 campaign with some British press that got picked up by bloggers in the US. If you check the creatino date of the article (or possibly, if not that, the edit wars and contention of the material in the Bill Ayers article), you'll see that the material predates the debate even here on Wikipedia. I believe the sources demonstrate that origin; if not we can find additional sources if necessary to trace the origin as a political issue. Wikidemo (talk) 02:16, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

(Damn). I was the last one correcting an edit on that page w/o checking further and missed that IP edit from earlier that I actually was aware of. Still gotta pay more attention. Regards, --Floridianed (talk) 07:27, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I reverted. I agree with others that the title is no good, and I don't think a "public discussion concerning the propriety" is the best way to put it. It's a something for sure....but what that something is needs some rewording probably. Wikidemo (talk) 07:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

From my standpoint such edits have to go thru the talk page to build consensus (which would of course change the language if included in an article). So I have no problem to reverse such blunt edits but hate it when I miss one as I did. Regards, --Floridianed (talk) 07:46, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Deleting WB's comments

Hi - WB has asked me to warn you about deleting other users' talk page comments. Rather than warn, I'll suggest that you leave WB's posts alone no matter what you think about them. There are a number of admins watching the Obama page - I am one of them, but given my participation I'm now an involved party so can't directly take any administrative actions. -- Rick Block (talk) 18:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

WP74 has no business making or defending such insults. I have a solid position on page content, which I should be able to state without that kind of pestering. My options in dealing with it are quite limited. If there is some attempt to deal with the page then that's good.Wikidemo (talk) 18:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Removed text on WP:ANI

I assume by mistake. You just deleted a paragraph of comment by me from the WP:ANI page. LotLE×talk 01:32, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Oops. I thought I had duplicated it by accident. I'll go over there and fix anything I munged up in case you haven't yet. Wikidemo (talk) 02:03, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Off on wrong foot

I think that its about time we let some things die. I doubt seriously that we will agree on much content wise, but there has to be a better way. If you are interested in finding that way, please feel free to email me. Although I am not a prolific contributor,I do want things to be factual. You've perused my talk page before. My interaction with a certain editor regarding the Sean Hannity article should be instructive.My concerns about connecting dots for readers continues. I guess we won't agree on that, but there might be a better way. If this advance is unwelcome, as I have studiously avoided your talk page, then this will absolutely be my last incursion. Happier editing,--Die4Dixie (talk) 06:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

No, I appreciate your effort. Thanks so much. I think we can patch things up, and try not to grate on each other in the future. No reason people with very different opinions can't work together constructively. I think the concern about how we present information is a valid one even if we disagreed on the outcome; we seem to have gotten on each other's bad spot to an extent out of all proportion to a relatively small content disagreement. So I'll be extra careful. Wikidemo (talk) 06:54, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I will do likewise.Die4Dixie (talk) 07:05, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Yay! Wikidemo (talk) 07:09, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Love Thy Wikipedia Nemesis

Hello. I just wanted to stop by and let you know I appreciated your attempt at humor to lighten the tension brought by Thuran on my talk page. Also, please feel welcomed to keep my talk page on your watchlist. You are always welcome there. Beam 17:00, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Obama

I appreciate your reasoned good faith attempts on the talk page. I'm certain that being able to agree on small, trivial things will go along way when there is an issue that we genuinely don't. This seems like a small thing and you are right, it would seem to speak better of Obama that he would distance himself from those comments.--Die4Dixie (talk) 20:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Sure, for now I'm trying to concentrate on points of agreement, and also places where we can have a discussion on things that don't seem to be hot button issues. You'll see you inspired me to try to spread the goodwill, above...Wikidemo (talk) 20:47, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Could you maybe talk to lulu and scjessy? LuLu is an atheist, which is ok, but I question his labeling a member of the clergy a mere orator and perhaps he is not familiar with naming conventions within Christian sects[9]. Judging from his statements on the talk page, he mistakenly believes that a visiting pastor from another denomination cannot give a sermon in a differently denominated house of worship[10], and that this was merely a speech. He then edited the page ignoring our working towards consensus. If you can talk to them and reign them in , I will try and contact Worker bee and do the same. I'm sick of the constant bickering about the pettiest of things. This appears to be one.Die4Dixie (talk) 23:28, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

What to do?

I guess you've followed it, so I'm not adding anything really. I just noticed (via an indirect mention on Talk:Obama), that Kossack4Truth filed both a 3RR and a WP:ANI with various accusations against me. No notice on my talk page about any of this, of course (by anyone, interestingly). It appears the complaint tries to muster together four distinct edits I made, concerning two completely unrelated topics on the Obama page. It's frustrating, obviously; but it does appear that the various admins, including you, did the right thing with the reports.

I'm a bit worried about what to do with such things into the future. Of course, I may or may not learn of any administrative pages at all. But I more-or-less assume that K4T will continue to try to incite conflict and engage in various wikilawyering. I suppose in this case, the fact I never saw it until everything was already closed was for the best. Any sage words on how to walk the line of contentious editors while trying to keep hot-button articles free of unencyclopedic content? LotLE×talk 00:36, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, you know. I had posted a lengthy rebuttal, noting that: (1) 5 other editors had been revert-warring on that issue; (2) you had long-ago self-reverted; (3) we were nearing a consensus version on the talk page so an AN/I report was unnecessary; (4) Concerned bystander is obviously a sock account so your concern is justifiable - though there is an innocent explanation that it's an allowable sock; but that nevertheless (5) you seemed to understand and react favorably to my suggestion that on the Obama pages at least, edit summaries and talk pages weren't the best place to raise concerns about SPA. However, I got the database lock message without noticing, and by the time I went to re-post it the administrators had shot down the report and closed the discussion. I decided not to accuse K4T initially of bad faith in filing the report, and not to chime in with my 2 cents after it was obvious that nobody took it seriously. If I had noticed you weren't notified I would have done so - and frankly, if people had taken it seriously any discussion that proceeded too far in your absence would be somewhat suspect. Nevertheless, it's a moot point now. Any indignation makes you look bad. Best to be publicly charitable and let other people point out and deal with the misbehavior. I think the article has reached a tipping point where enough administrators are paying attention, and enough of the disruptive editors are gone, that they might keep order. As I've been saying from the beginning, you want to look like one of the respectable people there, not one of the people fighting. Not that I've ever studied Judo, but there's a lesson there about letting attackers exhaust themselves with their own bad energy, and stepping in only lightly, where absolutely necessary. Also, recognize people who are (Noroton) or may be (Die4Dixie) redeemable, and be their friends. It's a lot more useful to have respect and goodwill among adversaries than your friends. So my main advice to you here is just don't look bad or do anything too harsh. Patience and longevity are more effective than a big flame out. Wikidemo (talk) 01:29, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm... do you recall admonishing me in no uncertain terms in the last couple days for pondering the possibility that Curious bystander maybe wasn't a disinterested new user. It's funny that you now describe the account as "obviously a sock account". It just might make you want to consider that there is more behind my edits and comments than you have apparently seemed to assume. Oh... I do know you are not an admin, my error in typing (not even in thinking it, just the wrong description).

In any case, I certainly hope you are right about enough neutral admins keeping an eye to exercise a positive influence. I think the recent topic ban clarification discussion is a good sign. LotLE×talk 05:16, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

As an aside, your own block log and history of contentious encounters limits your range of options here. The longer you can get time-wise between yourself and your last block, the better. When it becomes a year since your last block, it almost doesn't count at all if you've been event-free ever since. So whatever you do, don't get yourself blocked; if it's coming close to that be as contrite and open to criticism as possible. People are blocked more often for attitude I think than things they actually do, so make a point of asking the person threatening a block what you can do. K4T's community service effort on the new user welcome team is, interestingly, a good example. Sure it was a little over the top. But who can complain that a guy decides to welcome new editors? Wikidemo (talk) 01:33, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment

Yea I was referring to the entire trip. My opinion is give it some time to see how it pans out. If it turns into something really note worthy in the near future (I.E. he blunders or this ends up being a step towards a a win at the polls) then it should be added. Personally, unless someone has a reliable crystal ball and can see into the future, I'd rather not make speculations as to the full impact of this event right now, which adding it might lead to. Just my opinion on it. Have a good one! Brothejr (talk) 02:12, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

There are probably a healthy sprinkling of "ashrams" in Jakarta

See eg the Muslim "Sufi" one here. And, if nobel laureate V. S. Naipaul is a "practicing" Hindu, maybe he visited one while visiting the Dutch East Indies. However, in Beyond Belief: Islamic Excursions among the Converted Peoples, Naipaul writes about his impressions of an Indonesian madrasah (the word, I'm sure, you'd thought you'd typed in your comment that came out ashram). :^)  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 16:09, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Oops! I'll fix it. Wikidemo (talk) 16:11, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Andretti Winery

Can you point me to the discussion that led to a snowball decision not to merge Andretti Winery with Mario Andretti? -- Blanchardb  -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 17:45, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

It was my decision. The comment is that it's a snowball issue, not that there was any process. I've left a note on the talk page about the reasoning. Wikidemo (talk) 17:47, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:SNOWBALL refers to cases where a due process is aborted on the grounds that the outcome is very clear, not in cases where one user thinks something is a really bad idea. -- Blanchardb  -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 18:04, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. SNOW is often used as a shorthand in discussion. Call it WP:IAR if you wish, and I'm sorry if this sounds harsh (we all make mistakes), but blatantly bad ideas can be reverted. If you don't like it, please justify your position or take me to AN/I - but please don't scold me or invoke process for the sake of process. The articles aren't going to be merged in a million years. This is silly and futile. Wikidemo (talk) 18:09, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

So WP:IAR it is. As far as I'm concerned, this issue is closed. Remove the tag if you wish. -- Blanchardb  -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 18:12, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Wikidemo (talk) 18:13, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee report

You have been named as a party in a report seeking a hearing by the Arbitration Committee concerning events at Talk:Barack Obama and WP:ANI. I have posted the report at the Talk Page for WP:RFAR since the main page is semi-protected. Feel free to add your statement, and please transfer the report to the main RFAR page if you see fit to do so. Thanks. 74.94.99.17 (talk) 18:53, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Archiving RfC at Talk:Barack Obama

Wikidemo, until the Arbitration Committee accepts that case, the RfC cannot be subsumed into it. I've noticed that you've made several premature attempts to shut down discussion at Talk:Barack Obama. Please stop it immediately. It is inappropriate. Curious bystander (talk) 19:41, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

This is already discussed on your talk page. Why bring it here? Wikidemo (talk) 19:44, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Because I wanted to be sure you'd see it. Curious bystander (talk) 19:48, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

That's an odd explanation, and an inappropriate accusation to boot. Wikidemo (talk) 19:54, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't feel my accusation is inappropriate. You've tried several times, on at least two different pretexts, to shut down constructive discussion. Why did you add my name to the Arbitration Committee request? Curious bystander (talk) 20:02, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, after a review of the Arbitration Committee's documents, I've learned that they carefully avoid deciding any content disputes. A review of their recent cases confirms this. But RfC is expressly designed to resolve content disputes. So both processes should go forward simultaneously to resolve separate problems: arbitration for problems related to user conduct, and RfC for the content dispute. Wouldn't you agree? Curious bystander (talk) 20:07, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikidemo, removal of the template removed Barack Obama from the RfC list at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies. Please restore the template. Kossack4Truth (talk) 03:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I have restored the RFC template to the talk page. Wikidemo (talk) 03:59, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Déjà vu

This looks awfully familiar. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:29, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Yup. If he gets banned we had better find all the sockpuppets or else we'll be back to square one with disruption under a new name. Timing, argumentation style, same points trying to prove, same quirky about behavior and how Wikipedia works... I'm about 50% convinced now. Best to just sit back and watch, find patterns and note them offwiki but don't announce them here in case he's watching. Wikidemo (talk) 22:36, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Warning

Please do not use talk pages such as Barack Obama for general discussion of the topic. They are for discussion related to improving the article. They are not to be used as a forum or chat room. See here for more information. I'm posting this on Noroton's page as well. -- Rick Block (talk) 02:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Please don't template the regulars. I appreciate your desire to calm the article but I am doing the same, and warning me on these issues will only add fuel to the fire of disruptive editors who see every "warning" as confirmation of their wikigaming. You'll note I was responding to editors who were doing so with my own admonition that such discussion is off topic. Wikidemo (talk) 02:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, however I'm tired of it and a level 3 warning didn't really seem appropriate. If this crap continues, I'll escalate (level 3 is a "stop or you may be blocked" warning). Just drop it. You're not going to change his opinion. He's not going to change yours. And you're not arguing about article content at this point., since he already agreed to drop it. -- Rick Block (talk) 02:33, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not the one promoting the discussion, and Noroton is a decent editor acting in good faith. Warning the legitimate editors is not the answer. Both Noroton and I are both on the right side in terms of supporting encyclopedic mission, and we both respond to friendly advice. The article's disruption is not coming from us. Wikidemo (talk) 02:38, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if this came across unfriendly, and I do believe both you and Noroton are decent editors acting in good faith. I'm also sorry if this comes across as preachy, however you both push the edge of tendentious editing and you (plural) should own up to your part in the general problem because (among other reasons) your examples are followed by others of less good faith. Noroton agreed to drop the Ayers thing. Your response was mostly OK, but basically amounted to "oh yeah, but I'm going to get the last word in" (this is an exaggerated paraphrase, but I suspect it's basically how it came across to Noroton). It's OK if Noroton gets the last word, particular if he's compromising about something that he clearly strongly believes. On the flip side, it's also OK if you get the last word. But, neither of you seem to be willing to let the other get the last word and this is a problem. A newbie seeing this exchange may think "ok, how it works here is people argue with each other incessantly". You know you're acting in good faith. Noroton knows he's acting in good faith. But the newbie sees two editors flat out flaming at each other (responding within minutes - which is another issue). Relax. Noroton conceded. He's to be commended for his willingness to compromise. Even if he'd said (and he didn't) "2+2 is 5 and everyone knows it, but I'll put this aside for now" focusing on the "2+2 is 5" part rather than the "I'll put this aside for now" doesn't get anyone anywhere. If he seriously, truly believes 2+2 is 5 but we're not on the 2+2 page and he's willing to put it aside what difference does it make? Thanks for listening. -- Rick Block (talk) 04:09, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I understand the sentiment but Noroton and I were hardly flaming each other. I am in no way a tendentious editor and Noroton only occasionally has crossed that line. It's disheartening that some of the misbehavers on the page undermine the legitimate editors by trying to undermine them - has their untiring campaign to impugn me actually started working? Wikidemo (talk) 04:21, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Ayers' communism

Ayers was a founder of a violent communist movement. It's reasonable to assume that Ayers was and for all I know still is somewhere in the communist camp. How is one aspect of the ideology of Ayers organizational baby not relevant to Ayers' biography article when other aspects (the Weathermen's radicalism and their violence) is relevant by your own measure? TMLutas (talk) 03:27, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Responding on applicable talk page. Wikidemo (talk) 03:32, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Glad to see you finally started working it out in talk instead of just throwing up bogus warnings and trying to intimidate another editor. I set up the talk section to work out consensus prior to your second revert. I still think it's daft that a group calling for world communism should not be described as communist but fine, that's wikipedia. TMLutas (talk) 03:42, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we do try to be neutral. If you want to work it out rather than edit warring please don't insist on inserting your disputed change while trying to establish consensus. Try WP:BRD. Wikidemo (talk) 03:45, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

First, you are misapplying WP:3RR I reverted you twice. The first edit was a simple act of good faith editing and does not count as part of the 3 edits. The error does not matter much because one can be sanctioned for fewer than 4 edits if you're gaming the system but it does tend to not put you in the best light and in an editor a bit less careful would be cause for a wikifight. You might want to avoid that sort of provocation in future. TMLutas (talk) 03:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you just concentrate on avoiding tendentious editing rather than trying to scold me on it? Wikidemo (talk) 03:58, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Psst: I agree with you

Re [11], I'm supporting you and responding to Exxolon. That's why I indented my comment to the same extent as yours directly above. Cheers.--chaser - t 03:35, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Please self-revert this, according to your definition, it's a personal attack. [12] Thanks. Kossack4Truth (talk) 02:15, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

For goodness sakes, that's ridiculous! You're topic banned for disruption. Please stay away from the topic already, including on my talk page. Wikidemo (talk) 02:20, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikidemo, I've seen your comment in the (abruptly archived) ANI discussion about the alleged WP:BLP violations. I assure you that I'm not seeking to start any disruption, but to end it. LotLE has been a disruptive presence at Barack Obama and its Talk page. I believe his recent efforts to temper his behavior are only temporary, and that he will erupt again in six weeks when things heat up during the fall campaign. I'll be filing my report tomorrow, and you are welcome to comment at that time, but please refrain from the usual retaliatory accusations against me. I'd appreciate that. Curious bystander (talk) 22:47, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Not retaliatory. I have never retaliated against any editors, only tried to defend the article and Wikipedia more generally against abuse and manipulation. First, I have a serious concern about sockpuppetry. Your editing patterns are suspicious - you're clearly not a newbie yet you say you are. Who are/were you before registering and why did you jump into the Obama articles with two guns blazing? I've been watching and will file a sockpuppet report if warranted. I had hoped to wait a while to be more certain and see what happens, but you force the issue if you start lobbying AN/I for editors to be banned on AN/I. Second, if you file a report as threatened it's going to cause enormous disruption and wikidrama. It will plunge things into a huge dispute again, at a time when the article is relatively calm. Third, there is no present problem to address. There is no dispute happening now. The other editors who were blocked and banned were at the administrators' initiation during present behavior issues that were brought to their attention, either for sockpuppetry or after long histories of blocks and warnings. LotLE is not in a dispute with anyone right now, and he has had no series of escalating blocks or warnings. If memory serves there was only a single proposal a long while ago about a topic ban. If you file a report out of the blue like this, you cause trouble when there is no problem to solve. The most that could come of it, unless editors start flaming out again, is some statement that everybody needs to stay calm. Wikidemo (talk) 23:12, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

One note of clarification - my sock concerns exist, and I may try to resolve them, whether or not you file an AN/I report. It is merely the difference between a sock editing an article and a sock filing AN/I reports. Wikidemo (talk) 23:37, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually she

looks pretty hot in the 3/4 profile one.[13]

Bernardine, in her 60s→[14]  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 03:30, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I found a free-use sketch of Bernardine from 1970----one that apparently came to be posted in just about every neighborhood in the land! →As it turns out, the author of Prozac Nation agrees with ME! "[Bernardine] was renowned for her beauty and daring, for her revolutionary rhetoric, and for an FBI 10 Most Wanted poster that was pinup worthy[!] [...]Bernardine – she became quickly known on a first-name basis – started a craze[.... ...Bernardine and Bill] are unfathomably charming, brilliant and comely people, absolutely irresistible. Everybody who meets them is taken and forgets[...]."  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 14:18, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, a "most wanted" poster is just as funky as a mug shot but who cares, really? I agree. They could sell her face on tee shirts next to Jane Fonda, Patty Hearst, and Che Guevara. How did that Ayers guy land such a pretty revolutionary - must be all that polemical communist rhetoric, gets the girl every time. Wikidemo (talk) 15:08, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I guess hooligans (and/or "a youthful revolutionary vanguard") come to overstep certain bounds as they run around trashing (/negotiate experiential breakage of status-quo) societal structures and taboos. Eg what's to be proper etiquette within the mores of sexual restraint/revolution is something that's perenially gotta be worked out by countless thousands. See one chick's forthright reminiscences about some fairly assertive "Ya-really-gotta!" tactics enjoined in by Bill for the egalitarian benefit of his underprivileged roomy and horny younger sibling she published decades after the fact in 'aught-six.  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 23:31, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Request for deleted article

Responded by email. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 18:15, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Danke schön Wikidemo (talk) 18:22, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Yet another AN/I complaint

You have been mentioned in a WP:ANI report here. You may wish to participate in the discussion. Despite you being "named" as one of LotLE's collaborators, the reporting editor did not see fit to inform you. I am choosing to stay out of all these AN/I discussions, for the most part, because I think the system is being abused in an attempt to resolve a content dispute. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:49, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Obama's certification of live birth

I do not understand why you do not call the image what it is titled in the actual certificate. Could you please give a reason? 66.25.24.244 (talk) 04:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

because it is a birth certificate. All of the stories about this that use the nonstandard title "certificate of live birth" are WP:FRINGE theories trying to prove it is faked, and that he was not born in Hawaii. The little info I can find is that there is no difference between a hawaii birth certificate and a "certificate of live birth." Hawaii uses the terms interchangeably. Using the nonstandard term only adds fuel to the conspiracy theorists.Wikidemo (talk) 04:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I do not think it is faked, and I do not doubt that he was born in Hawaii. I just think that it should be called what it is titled as, should it not? 66.25.24.244 (talk) 05:04, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

It needs more research. I don't have a strong opinion - you just seemed to be edit warring and we've had lots of that on the Obama article. I'll sleep on it and see if anyone has anything else to say. Thanks for bringing it up here on my talk page. Wikidemo (talk) 05:06, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

No problem :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.25.24.244 (talk) 05:26, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Bob Geary (police officer) DYK

On 6 August, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Bob Geary (police officer), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Congratulations! PeterSymonds (talk) 01:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Request for your comment

Here.  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 23:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Deep breath...

Don't respond to taunts, it only encourages more of them. In light of that, you may want to reconsider a certain recent edit. Cheers, --Clubjuggle ^T/C 00:30, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what to do. At some point we need to stop the disruptive meatpuppets from doing that - it's not harmless taunting that can be ignored. It gums up all the AN/I discussions and shuts down discussion. Every time I am on AN/I or any other meta-forum they (or he - maybe a single account) accuse me of provoking, or "whining" or lying, and manage to convince a few administrators that I am part of the problem or that it's two sides fighting. It's bad enough when they use this game stymie me and the other productive editors on the administrative board. To bring that to the article is pure disruption. The editor seems to be a sockpuppet anyway, and we need to deal with that sooner or later. Wikidemo (talk) 00:45, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't appear that User:HandThatFeeds is an administrator, as your note on my talk page seems to assume: Wikipedia:List_of_administrators/G-O#H. S/he never claimed to be, no deception there. FYI. LotLE×talk 07:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. My mistake. I had assumed based on the authoritative tone, and yet another nonadministrative closure of an administrative matter. Things have been a little strange on AN/I lately. And odd things afoot with this new account too. It's too early for an SSP just yet but problematic behavior. Wikidemo (talk) 07:43, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

You might notice a set of accounts that post on all the same pages, and that cite exclusively right-wing blogs and National Review as sources, and that have a habit of belaboring a claim of how "left-wing" they are. I bet all those users would be really close friends if they had a chance to meet each other :-). I think those accounts who merely address them by unposted first name are too far geographically to so easily share the same drink, however.

BTW, you realize that being an admin is "no big thing" right? Nothing wrong with HTF closing the ANI, it's good of him/her to help out. LotLE×talk 07:59, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

TY for the heads-up

Thank you for letting me know about that discussion. It is clear that there is a concerted campaign to get me and LotLE (and perhaps you) topic banned or blocked. My article space edits have always reflected a neutral point of view, and most of them have been made to combat vandalism and bias (from the right or the left). I've been less than civil from time to time, particularly when baited by SPAs, but I have never done anything that warrants any kind of sanction. If I am sanctioned, it will because of misrepresentations by the SPAs and POV-pushers, rather than anything that can be found in my contributions. I believe that both you and LotLE have also been impeccably neutral.

I could never do what they do - sock puppetry, meat puppetry, vote-stacking with dynamic IP addresses, and all this underhanded, behind-the-scenes plotting to get people banned or blocked. I'm not very good at hiding anything, so I don't bother. My user page is clear evidence of that. Recently, I've tried to spend less time in the Obama-related pages and more with things like patrolling recent changes, etc. I'm too easily provoked by people like WB74, so I'm trying to avoid confrontation. That being said, I still remain involved because I don't want to see Wikipedia politicized by POV-pushers seeking to influence the election. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:33, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Birthright citizenship -> anchor baby issue

I'm a little disconcerted that after all this pow-wowwing, and after we seem to have settled on some compromise language people can live with (including, I believed, you), you go and remove it again. Can you explain the change in course? Jkatzen (talk) 16:47, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Did I? I looked at the talk history and don't see agreement - I respond there. Wikidemo (talk) 18:02, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, you were silent for over two days, as the rest of us discussed and generally consented, including LooneyMonkey, who tended to support the original excision, and RichWales who's been relatively down-the-center. While I keep trying to make alterations to accommodate the varying interests, you make simple destructive reversions, adding nothing. Jkatzen (talk) 18:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I add neutrality and adherence to policy and guidelines, which I would hardly consider destructive. This is a somewhat broader issue, and you can't force consensus like that. Wikidemo (talk) 18:22, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Jews in the history of business

I have nominated Jews in the history of business, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jews in the history of business. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? IZAK (talk) 20:24, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I replied on my talk page, and also left a message for IZAK on his. I don't think you should have closed the AFD. You are an involved party. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 03:40, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

It was just an IAR to deal with a broken process, not a substantive close. It looked like Izak had withdrawn the nomination in favor of some other process but people were continuing to vote. If it's renominated, best that people save their efforts for the actual discussion process. Wikidemo (talk) 04:22, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify, at no point did I withdraw the nomination, with my last edit I had meant to to bring it back to the version it was at before I tried editing it and then nominated it for deletion which Wikidemo seems to have misunderstood. I followed procedure and should have checked to see the result of my last edit, which has now been clarified. Sorry for any unintended confusion. IZAK (talk) 06:32, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the follow-up. I should have asked you. I was concerned that we might have a process spinning out of control, which is why I moved so quickly. Speaking of speed, if I'd had a little notice - say, a notability concern or some discussion in the article space I could have moved the article in an acceptable direction. As it is there was so much momentum behind the "delete" sentiment from people who are not aware or don't care to know the history of the material on Wikipedia that I did not see any point participating. The content is encyclopedic and it really ought to go somewhere so I'll just have to figure out a place. Wikidemo (talk) 06:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to encourage you to continue working on the article, and get others to work on it as well. I have moved it to a shared user space that I created a while back. You can find the article at User:Back files/Jews in the history of business. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 05:32, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Howdy!

Hey, I saw your name listed on WP:F&D as being someone interested in San Fran-area food topics, so I was wondering if you could spare a wikiminute to help with Odwalla or its peer review. :) Thanks. Intothewoods29 (talk) 22:21, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Templatery

No problem. Please consider my talk page to be your playground! It's a great idea, because I can see that template being used a lot. -- Scjessey (talk) 04:37, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Might as well template myself --

Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Talk:Barack Obama, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Talk:Barack Obama/Article probation. Note that I am templating my own page here to try out the new template I just created - Wikidemo (talk) 04:39, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

So then please explain why you "tried" it out on my talk page! (See next section!!!) --Floridianed (talk) 05:04, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Now, another thing. Could I "borrow" your template for new cases/editors and if yes, can I make changes (and how?) the text to make it fit better in whatever case/page I would place it? Regards, --Floridianed (talk) 01:37, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Sure. The template is out in template space so it belongs to the world, not me. If you go to the template page you can see that there is documentation of the variables by which you can use custom text instead of the default message on a case-by-case basis. You can also go in and add text at the end of the template, or re-edit the user page of the person you just templated. If you want to improve the template as a whole you're free to edit that too. Because it is subst-ed, editing the template only affects future use, not any message that is already out there. But be careful because it invokes a nested string of other templates. You can always experiment by using the preview feature and playing with the settings until you get it right.

You should also be aware there is some discussion about preemptive templates going on right now. We may need to testify that it's a valuable template for the Obama articles and they should allow it to proceed for a while before passing judgment. Alternately, if it turns out not to work we can report back that the experiment was a failure. We're in uncertain territory here with community article probation. Wikidemo (talk) 02:07, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Article probation notice

• I resonded at my talk page her: [15]

• Next response waiting for you [16]

• 3rd (and last?) reply (about this issue?): [17]

• Here we go again: [18]

• Take a peek: [19] . Regards, --Floridianed (talk) 22:37, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. You're on my (unwritten) list too. I've been trying to give notices to everyone - including myself - so that everyone thinks it's fair. Your feedback helped me realize that I have to try even harder to make clear it's a neutral template message. Also, if I had been paying attention I would have used your comment about article probation, not a new message, as evidence you've been notified - as I did with Clubjuggle. Now that everyone is on record as being on notice, then maybe someone can do something about the edit warring if it starts up again. Later, Wikidemo (talk) 22:50, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey, thanks that you say that. I just saw it while I was asking you for a favor in the section above. So what else can I say? Sorry for probably being to harsh at times and you, keep up the good work. I'll "slap" you like I did if I see the need for it, yet I know it'll be rare. :) Kindest regards, Ed --Floridianed (talk) 01:52, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Better late than never... !

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

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Enjoy. --Floridianed (talk) 00:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject San Francisco Bay Area roll call

Hello from WikiProject San Francisco Bay Area!

As part of a recent update to our project main page we are conducting a roll call to check which members are still active and interested in working on bay area related content. If you are still interested in participating, simply move your username from the inactive section of the participant list to the active section. I hope you will find the redesigned project pages helpful, and I wanted to welcome you back to the project. If you want you can take a look at the newly redesigned:

• Main Page
  
• Talk page
  
• Cleanup listing
  
• Template list
  

As well as the existing pages:

• Assessment
  
• Article Worklist
  
• Watchlist
  
• Deletion sorting (California)
  

If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask at the project talk page, and add it to your watchlist, if it isn't already.

Again, hi!  -Optigan13 (talk) 07:54, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Please reconsider your comments at Talk:The Obama Nation

I'm disappointed with the tone and focus of your comments at 18:49 and 18:54 today (I responded in the "Jake Tapper" section). I thought you were commenting on editors rather than edits and I thought the focus was more on which partisan side might be "winning" on the Wikipedia page. Please focus more on how a neutral article would look and speak to that more directly. There's a legitimate difference of opinion on including or excluding information. I think you know I'm almost always in favor of including more information, unless some important policy or principle gets in the way. That's why we need to describe the book, describe the response to the book (giving a longer, more detailed description to the important responses), and why even those responses, being necessarily partisan in nature, must be held to account if they have any widely alleged inaccuracies in them. I think that's a fair way of doing it, and it's certainly a reasonable and defensible way of doing it. And that way of doing it doesn't deserve to be itself put down as partisan. Certainly in each step (that is the response, the response to the response) the weight should be less, but weight is extremely hard to gauge when the article is still growing. For instance: the criticism of the book now takes up more space than the description of the book -- a worse WP:WEIGHT issue. So please shy away from allegations of partisanship, be slower to make complaints that look like special pleading for one partisan side, and keep cool. I've got to be away from the computer for several hours, it looks like, so I can't respond to anything immediately. You're one of the people who sets an example on these pages, please continue that here. Noroton (talk) 19:57, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

You are reading something into it that isn't there. I am commenting on the material in the article, and in the blogs cited in the article, not about any editor. All the comments about partisanship and banging the drum about Ayers are about the source material, not about what any editors are doing. I'll make sure that is clear, but certainly it is fair to say that material in the article text is partisan without people taking that as a comment about themselves. Otherwise one could not comment at all about the merits of different material, lest the author think that is personal criticism. Wikidemo (talk) 20:10, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Per your request, I toned it down. Keep listening to my responses. Listen hard. Especially the parts where I scold you. Those are the best parts! Nobody scolds as well as I do! -- Noroton (talk) 04:18, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Seriously, I'd be willing to remove the Yuval Levin and Hugh Hewitt parts, and if some news story can be found that can adequately describe the flaws in the Obama response, that could be replaced. Tapper is very widely respected and should stay. I also think the Media Matters passage in the "Critical response" section should be moved to the "Other responses" subsection just below McCain because we have no reason to call Media Matters a journalist organization. They're closer to a public lobbying group or political group. Noroton (talk) 04:18, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the levity. I'm scratching my head for where the flaws in Obama's response could go. Certainly there are some more neutral sources that go into detail without attacking Obama's wife, etc. If it can be adequately sourced I would think in the Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008 article's section on Obama's counter-campaign. That's actually a more prominent place for it, and there it relates directly to the subject of the article - it's not an opposition to an opposition. Given the scope of that article it would have to be a concise mention, but two sentences to the effect that Obama also used the site to post a 40-page refutation of Corsi's book but that his refutation was criticized by certain conservatives and also described as xxxx by at least one mainstream journalist. The "reinventing history" comment has to be taken in proportion, both in the Obama Nation article and anywhere else it appears - the journalist was agreeing with Obama that the book was inaccurate and the need for Obama to respond, he was just critiquing the details of Obama's response. Wikidemo (talk) 04:33, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I need to break off for now, but that sounds good. I haven't looked at the "critical response" section footnotes carefully, and I wonder if we include anything directly from the Obama 40-pager there. If not, then I see nothing wrong with what you describe. If you haven't responded to the compromise suggestion on the article talk page, please do. Later, Noroton (talk) 04:50, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Template:uw-probation

I've attempted to start a discussion on this general category of "preemptive warnings" to determine whether there is consensus that these sort of warnings are appropriate, and if so whether a bot should be developed to ensure that the warnings are applied impartially to every editor editing the affected articles. Please comment at Wikipedia talk:General sanctions/Archive 1#Article sanctions and preemptive warnings. Thanks. Anomie⚔ 22:55, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Economic cost of unauthorized immigrants

I read your analysis of the recent pot-stirring complaints by LaRouche supporters at ANI. My previous analysis came to the same conclusion, and since no one challenged yours, I posted something different. I consider myself a pretty good researcher and analyst, so naturally I was impressed with what you contributed.

Perhaps by coincidence I saw your participation again at Talk:Illegal immigration to the United States. I've never posted there, but I've been watching that page since those editors were invited to read my talk page dialog concerning the multi-IP editor's behavior issues (mostly at another article).

Re #My edit got reverted wholescale, the following reverted statement is not supported by its CRS reference: "However, the cost of supporting the amount of illegal immigrants currently in the country is much higher and overshadows the amount they pay into Social Security." < The Impact of Unauthorized Immigrants on the Budgets of State and Local Governments, December 2007>.
I read nearly all of this CRS reference, which isn't all that long. You suggested that's it's ok to 'add "federal" to the list', but CRS doesn't support that either.
You may need to read it to quote their exact wording in the article, but CRS explains the reasons (see their box) why they don't draw a conclusion as to whether the national costs of unauthorized immigrants, including the federal costs, are greater or less than tax payments. The only solid federal figure (CRS and/or NYT) is that they pay 6-7 billion uncredited into SSA. They will probably not get it back at retirement, and so the SSA trust fund is going broke a lot slower than it would otherwise. This probably should be mentioned in the article, since it clearly will make future SSA taxes less or benefits greater for documented citizens.
Calculations from sourced data aren't OR, so I figured the average percent of recovery of state costs for unauthorized immigrants in Colorado and Iowa given by CRS. For Colorado it's 80% and for Iowa it's 54%. Both are calculated from an average of high and low figures provided, and the raw data and calculation method can be provided in a footnote. That recovery further reduces the impact on total state budget costs of under 5% mentioned by CRS. Milo 05:52, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

David Pendleton Oakerhater

On 18 August, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article David Pendleton Oakerhater, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

— Dan1980 (talk ♦ stalk) 23:20, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		For defending the Barack Obama article from attack (over and over again) I award you this barnstar. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 22:28, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Obama Articles

Its not that I think the article "does not contain enough criticism of the subject" so don’t put words in my mouth. Many editors have tried to add what they deem to be some balance into this article, it really looks like a campaign piece, only to be mobed by the owners.

I have decided to stay away from most of the articles on the prohibition list. I have little confidence that it wont be abused and after looking into it, it could be used as a powerful tool against some editors.

Believe it or not, I agree with alot of what you say about how an article, especially biographical articles should look. If you want to see where I am coming from, try an experiment, go to an active biographical article that has been completely and totally shit on and try to clean it up. No need to reply. CENSEI (talk) 23:41, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm inviting your comment

Here (and also, if possible, here?)  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 05:10, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Dana Milbank

I noticed that you weighed in on the "harassment" charge. You appear to be lobbying for tougher treatment on the basis of Obama article probation, but this was about the BLP of Dana Milbank (which is only tangentially related at best). Coming from my perspective, your comment was not particularly helpful; furthermore, I would not wish to see dozens of additional articles fall under the auspices of the probation arrangement as this would impede their development.

On a related note, did you see the "grossly NPOV" comments? At least everyone got a good laugh out of it. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:56, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, the usual response in the situation where A gives an editing warning to B, B responds with incivility on the talk page, A gives B a civility warning, then A or B takes it to AN or ANI, is a sharp rebuke to both A and B, even if B was the only disruptive editor. The lesson for A is to turn the other cheek if A is not an uninvolved administrator who can back up warnings with action. I was deliberately avoiding taking your side in the dispute given how hostile the admins were being in this case, and the fact that I've noticed some emerging problems with your new nemesis on the Obama-related pages. Plus 2 blocks in 10 days for Obama page-related disruption. You might be right about the edit in question but it was about Obama, and if that user turns out to be one of the small cadre of sockpuppets and troublemakers it could be something that needs real attention and not just someone telling the editors to kiss and make up. Whether article probation is a better way to deal with that or not is an open question. It's not clear that anyone is going to enforce article probation at all unless things get hugely out of hand, and that means it's not really article probation but the exact same situation as before. Wikidemo (talk) 12:12, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Arrrgh!

It tears me apart that I cannot get my thoughts to stand still and muster the presence of mind to make a productive contribution to the AFD discussion. Now that the discussion has heated up to a point where Judgesurreal has switched to overt insults (Hi Judge. I know you'll be reading this, but I consider that last statement justified because you just referred to Wikidemo in saying, and I quote: "You are absolutely wrong in all your reasoning, and totally miss the point of AFD... ...I and many other wikipedians will not stand idly by while the same people who have derailed AFD come here, and use the same inane arguments to ignore policy and commonsense in the AFD process..." An explosion of anger might help an angry person cool off; it has been demonstrated a rather exhaustive number of times that it doesn't help Wikipedia get better.) taking part must be strenuous and demoralizing. I want to do what I can do: give my heartfelt thanks for your effort and ask you to keep them up. Your cause is an important one. --Kizor 16:28, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't know Judgesurreal's outburst was all about. It certainly does not lend credence to the editor's efforts to write policy language on how to hold discussions. Wikidemo (talk) 17:28, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Pretty much. To avoid seeming unnecessarily harsh to onlookers, though, I should point out that that outburst was tangential in my message, while "attaboy" was the main subject, and add that their fly is open. --Kizor 22:00, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Provocative

The thread now deals equally with the comments that he made. I am trying hard to understand why no one is templating him in the same way that I would be if I made those comments to you or another editor. Look I'm trying to keep the claws retracted, but he obviously is not responding to my repeated civil requests. Do I need to take this to the probation incident page to get relief? This man has impugned my motives openly with out retraction. I would have imagined you to be a little more sympathetic.Your labeling of me as provocative without a real condemnation of the behavior of the truly offending party is curious. Perhaps a nice template would work so that he understands. I'm loath to do it myself. But if the community won't....Die4Dixie (talk) 04:29, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. I misattributed this edit. [20] to you. The edit summary would tend to indicate he understands my objections. Sorry for the confusion.CheersDie4Dixie (talk) 05:19, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey , what do you think about my talkpage. I seem to have picked up a "fan".Die4Dixie (talk) 23:59, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Bedford/userboxes/User Confederate says it all. Some people get teed off when they hear anything about the south and southerners, and even more when they hear about southern pride. Do you need any support? The rebel thing on your page is kind of funny. After I got tired of dueling with you I've come to enjoy your presence on some articles, I just have to remind myself that sometimes. I mean, what's funny about it is how foolish people act when they get upset. You knew all that already, right? If you get tired of attracting haters maybe you could write an essay or point someone to an article that says it's okay to be a southerner and proud of your heritage at the same time. Wikidemo (talk) 01:02, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I have really tried since our disagreement to be more pleasant with other users. I think I have shown some restraint,so hey ,I must be growing. I have really appreciated your comments on the Obama related talk pages. Your responses are not knee-jerk reactions; They are well thought out and measured, and you seem to genuinely be able to look beyond your views to work towards balance. I say keep up the good work ,and any editor, regardless of political leanings, could do a lot worse than emulate your style on those pages now.Die4Dixie (talk) 09:28, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Yelp

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Yelp,_Inc.#Done and the Criticism section just under it. -Gych (talk) 05:17, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Six Apart logo.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Six Apart logo.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:10, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I want to remain in good Wikipedialisticalicious graces

Yet according to WP:BRD I've edited according to commentary on the Ayer's talkpage and I also remain at 1RR according to WP:3RR even without reverting my own revert. ¿No? :^)  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 21:20, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you're anwhere close to falling out of grace on Wikipedia, if that's the question. But you did just re-added a disputed edit that's been the subject of a lot of heat, even though you knew (or in any event should have known) there isn't consensus for it. 1RR is supposed to work like BRD. If your edit is rejected you talk about it rather than forcing the issue by reverting it. Making a bold change, getting reverted, having a single editor who you know is on one side of a position support you, then making the change again a few hours later, is not consensus. A BRBD process is untenable because that lets every editor make any disputed change they want. Only BRD preserves article stability. Wikidemo (talk) 21:37, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

(Thanks.) Anyway, Wikidemo, yes we do "play" by rules -- and if no opponents had wanted to rebut Noroton's commentary re the edit on Bill Ayers talkpage, they gotta expect to have it considered not actively being disputed and for it to be wikicontributed again.  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 21:57, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Obama probation incident report

What do you think about this "report" filed by Noroton? -- Scjessey (talk) 21:45, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it's best for you to remain calm, lie low, and not counter-attack so that this can be diffused. I'm preparing a comment of my own. I'm wondering what you think about User:Curious Bystander - sockpuppet? Wikidemo (talk) 22:09, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure. You may recall that CB has a habit of adding subheadings/section breaks in the same way as WB74, but this could just be a coincidence. It does seem weird that CB and WB74 seem to edit in tandem, but not normally at the same time. Sometimes I feel like Lois Lane trying to figure out Clark Kent and Superman. I don't have anything concrete to point to besides a hunch, though. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:32, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

About your concerns

Please see this at the Talk:Obama–Ayers controversy page. I also value your contributions and your concerns and I don't want to insult you or even drive you away from editing. Let me explain some things that have been going on.

Several weeks ago, I saw an article by Cliff Kincaid about the Obama-Ayers connection. Kincaid is head of Accuracy in Media, a conservative media-watchdog group. I used to get their newsletter years ago but I dropped it because I didn't consider them reliable enough to trust, and they're not a reliable source now. But while Kincaid can draw unjustifiable conclusions, he can get a quote right, and he quoted Larry Grathwohl's 1974 testimony about Ayers and Dohrn. It is shocking. I was impressed that this was a former FBI informant testifying before a U.S. Senate committee, and saw that he had published a book. I ordered the book (long out of print -- there were about six available online) and read most of it (scanned the rest). It is also shocking and repeats, in greater detail, what Grathwohl was quoted telling the committee. (You know the shocking parts of it -- I emailed them to you and Justmeherenow put a lot of it on one of the talk pages.) I decided to do everything I could, given the resources I have, to check out Grathwohl's reliability, and also to see if what he was saying was consistent with what the most reliable sources said about the Weatherman group.

The book, and Grathwohl, appear to be very reliable. I found two and only two types of responses to him and his book: He is either cited as a source (with no caveats by the authors) or he is ignored. No one, that I can see, questions his credibility. Including books sympathetic to the Weathermen and written by radicals. I saw one article in which a source was quoted calling him an "agent provocateur" but that's closer to a matter of interpretation and doesn't disagree much with what Grathwohl says about being an informant. And I don't regard it as impeaching his credibility.

Nevertheless, I've been careful in what I state in Wikipedia pages -- careful to source what I say and not to go beyond what the reliable sources state. Over on the Weatherman talk page, I saw you noted one addition to the article and said you had no problem with it. It was a cut-and-paste job that an IP account (not me) made from my recent edit to the Bernardine Dohrn article based on my research.

I also looked into the Weatherman group and found academic sources and other sources that call them terrorists and that explain why. (I spent hours in three different libraries, including an academic library I'd never been to before in order to get this information.) I'll either add those to the Weatherman article or show them to you on this page. I think you'll agree that there is a very longstanding, widespread opinion (I'll call it that for the sake of argument, but it's really a conclusion) that this group was a terrorist organization. It was very hierarchical with the "Weather Bureau" (later called "Central Committee") being the only well-informed group and essentially imposing its will on the rest of the organization. Dohrn headed that committee, Ayers was always a very prominent member.

I also looked into Wikipedia BLP, NPOV and sourcing policies and guidelines and reread them a few times. They can be confusing and surprising in what they allow and don't allow. I'm sorry that I was so impatient with your comments at the Talk:Obama–Ayers controversy page, because I think I'd forgotten how confused I got by going through all those policies to figure out what would be OK to add and what wouldn't. And I was irritated with you because I'd gone through all that effort and it didn't look like you had. I don't appreciate my work being reverted in those circumstances.

Again and again in my research I found sources that disagree with what Ayers says about himself, and to a lesser extent, sources that disagree with how Dohrn represents herself. I expect to be adding information to both of those BLP articles and to the Weatherman article as well as the Obama-Ayers controversy article in the future. I have absolutely no intention of adding anything not compliant with Wikipedia policy, especially if it would be unfair to anyone. I'm interested in verified facts presented fairly. I'm even interested in Wikipedia doing a better job of presenting Ayers' and Dohrn's POV fairly and in more detail. If you're interested in the subject, please look up some books about it (what's online isn't nearly enough).

Given the amount of work I've done on this already, I'm not going to disengage from any of those articles. The sourcing I've already gathered (in borrowed library books and xeroxes of books I wasn't allowed to borrow) is better than what the articles now have, and I'm going to add the information (the vast, vast majority of it isn't controversial).

I do not appreciate your comments about Scjessey on the incidents page, because they don't strike me as being fair. He attacked me, I don't appreciate it, and he needs to learn, one way or another, not to do that. I also haven't seen you giving the respect that Freddoso, Barone and Chapman deserve, and I'm pretty shocked that you haven't engaged on the points they make while simultaneously calling for discussion to end. That's not how to build consensus and it's not how to get along with me or anyone. I hope you'll step back and re-evaluate your reasons. I'm sorry if my comments stung, and I'll try not to sting again. -- Noroton (talk) 05:06, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Noroton, I'm not ignoring this, and thanks for the thoughtful post. There's just a lot to respond to. My quick take is that your intellectual curiosity and pursuit of truth on the the subject, though admirable, is not the stuff of Wikipedia articles. If a journalist or academic (or lay writer) did that much analysis of primary and secondary sources, came up with his own analysis, and wrote his findings - that makes a book that, depending on credibility or reception would be a reliable source or not. And it can inform you personally in how you understand sources. But putting all these things together may not get you any farther in the direction of material that can be added to a wikipedia article. Wikidemo (talk) 20:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

That was patronizing. Noroton (talk) 03:07, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

No, it is not patronizing. I have bent over backwards to be patient, generous, and understanding about this, to the point of defending your seemingly harsh behavior on various articles. I made that admittedly hasty note to let you know I haven't forgotten, appreciate the attention, and am not ignoring you. At the same time, you are describing what looks to be a problematic approach to content. If you bite me for reaching out to you like that then I can't reasonably continue. You seem to be growing confrontational against me and a lot of other editors. I don't know what might be going on but it may be reaching people's tolerance level. You probably cannot achieve much of any agenda to paint Ayers as a terrorist or question Obama's judgment for dealing with him, but if you do mean to work with the other editors in other ways to improve articles and contribute the world in that way you are going to need to smooth things by an order of magnitude. If the former is your reason for being here then I cannot help. If you really do mean to be an editor here, it would be a shame to let this kind of an issue ruin the experience. Wikidemo (talk) 05:16, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

"New" New Yorker piece

Nice piece in The New Yorker from Hendrik Hertzberg about The Obama Nation: Barack Obama must battle the 'big lie' -- Scjessey (talk) 13:00, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Meant "subversiveness" solely in a Harold Bloomian sense

WIKIPEDIA Harold Bloom (born July 11, 1930) is a literary critic. Bloom defended 19th-century Romantic poets at a time when their reputations stood at a low ebb, has constructed controversial theories of poetic influence, and advocates an aesthetic approach to literature against Feminist, Marxist, New Historicist, Post-modernist (Deconstructionists and Semioticians), and other methods of academic literary criticism. Bloom is currently a Sterling Professor of the Humanities at Yale University. ¶¶ Bloom's influence Bloom's theory of poetic influence regards the development of Western literature as a process of borrowing and misreading. Writers find their creative inspiration in previous writers and begin by imitating those writers; in order to develop a poetic voice of their own, however, they must make their own work different from that of their precursors. As a result, Bloom argues, authors of real power must inevitably 'misread' their precursors' works in order to make room for fresh imaginings. ¶ Observers often identified Bloom with deconstruction in the past, but he himself never admitted to sharing more than a few ideas with the deconstructionists. He told Robert Moynihan in 1983, "What I think I have in common with the school of deconstruction is the mode of negative thinking or negative awareness, in the technical, philosophical sense of the negative, but which comes to me through negative theology....There is no escape, there is simply the given, and there is nothing that we can do."

That's what I thought you meant...though I have no idea what it means. . . as long as you're being subversive in a deconstructionist sense that's okay, just no sockpuppeting or anything...Wikidemo (talk) 20:04, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

II. Spamming: I'll post the Wikimessage I compose and its half dozen or so intended recipients to your talkpage first and await your comment before I send it. Y'hear? -- Justme  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 19:58, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm leery of taking the position of approving or not approving a request for more participation. It's one of those darned if you do, darned if you don't things. I'm wondering if a formal RFC would be more neutral. But note Scjessey's point - what we might need is to draw this discussion to a close, not expand / re-open it. Wikidemo (talk) 20:04, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

What's silly about having to answer your objections at the Talk:Obama-Ayers controversy page

is that you were aware of the "WP:BLP violations at Talk Barack Obama thread at AN/I in which you participated and in which I spelled all this out. So why did you object again when I had already presented the sourcing? I added the same stuff here. -- Noroton (talk) 20:19, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Of course I am aware. I participated in that discussion. This is a very different issue. Discussing whether William Ayers is or is not an "unrepentant terrorist" on the article talk page - or this page - is quite a different thing than citing an unreliable source in article space that calls him an "unrepentant terrorist" (or in this case an "unrepentant communist terrorist") by way of practicing guilt by association against a political candidate. I have explained these BLP objections repeatedly and in detail. Wikidemo (talk) 05:05, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Back off for 10 minutes

Can't you see I'm still editing the thing? Let me finish it. Then look at it. -- Noroton (talk) 18:14, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Will do. Didn't realize you were still going but if you mean to re-insert anything we should agree that neither of our edits are 2RR due to timing. Wikidemo (talk) 18:17, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Question on policy

Hello, We were discussing on Barack Obama's talk page whether or not his cocaine use is relevant for the main article. After some thought I still think it is certainly noteworthy that this would be the first president to openly admit cocaine, marijuana, and alcohol use. However, it certainly is true that it hasn't been reported on nearly as much as Bush's boozin or Clinton's questionable inhaling. Is Wikipedia policy to deem something important, or in this case important enough, only if the news and popular thought consider it important enough? Thanks much.--UhOhFeeling (talk) 19:32, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

If there's any meaning

It comes from The Universe? ('Cause it's a typo! I swear. And would easily pass a polygraph on this one. But still -- How did I do that? (Hmm, the /n/ key is next to the /m/ key[???] -- ! lol)  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 19:39, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

1. The WSJ didn't really deconstruct the pigtails -- but at least provided a play by play (August 5, "Paris Hilton Mocks Self, Announces 2008 Bid in Spoof Ad"): "The spot switches then to Hilton, clad in a leopard-print bathing suit, gold heels and pigtails, lounging on a lawn chair." .......(?)
2. In the video, Hilton lounges poolside, decked out in pink lip gloss, pigtails, a bathing suit and stiletto heels, while she reads Conde Nast Traveler magazine. "I want to present my energy policy for America," she coos.

 $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 23:54, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

That's enough for me but it won't be enough for the anti - [insert word for all that is good and right about Paris] - people. Ideally it would be a quote that says how much words don't do it justice, something like "Hilton, clad in. . . we cannot describe this in words but we will do the best that print allows. . . an indescribable bathing suit, wearing her trademark indescribable expression that you have to see to understand...." You get the idea. If you could find a reliable source that says that words don't do the video justice that would be the jackpot. Wikidemon (talk) 00:05, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

WaPo: "[...]'I'm not promising change like that other guy. I'm just hot,' she says, sitting on a lounge chair and wearing a skimpy one-piece leopard swimsuit -- with a copy of Conde Nast Traveler in hand.[...] With a few film credits in her resume, this might just be her best acting role yet." (See gallery of images.)  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 18:31, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations on the name change

Will you be filing down your horns like Hellboy? -- Scjessey (talk) 20:26, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I hope nobody takes it the wrong way. Maybe I should have called it daemon. Wikidemon (talk) 20:33, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

"Wikidaemon" sounds like a bot. In keeping with the spirit of things, I'll be devilish and say "hell no!" to that idea. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:47, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Paris Hilton Responds to McCain Ad ‎

What do you mean "that isn't among the options"? Merging has long been an (enforceable) option at AFD and since the material in this article is replicated at Paris Hilton, it is easily merged with a redirect. Any questions on that closure can be sent to DRV but please do not undo this redirect again. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 05:19, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Merging is not an option for nonadministrative closure as far as I can tell. It involves deleting and merging the content of the article and so is equivalent to delete. I posed the question at WP:AN (see WP:AN#Paris Hilton Responds to McCain Ad) that this counts as a non-administrative "keep" plus an editor's individual act to merge, which has no binding effect - same as anyone merging). I do not see a consensus in favor of merging there, and the result of the merge was to lose a lot of content, when all the encyclopedic content is merged in, gives undue weight to this as a proportion of Hilton's career (not to mention its notability lies in a number of areas outside of Hilton's career). Wikidemon (talk) 05:28, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

• No it doesn't. Merging does not involve or necessitate the deletion of content. You want it to so you can justify your position, but the very definition of the word means combining material from two places into one. The logic behind the delete-and-move argument is seriously flawed. You also are not in any position to override the judgment of a closing user (administrator or not) since you were an active participant in that discussion. Again, if you have any problems with the process you can take it up at DRV otherwise you should not delete that redirect again. Cumulus Clouds (talk)

• FYI, from the closing user: merge notice. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 05:45, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean "you want it so you can justify your position"? Your response makes no sense. What difference does it make whether I participated in the discussion or not (I did, incidentally - you are mistaken). Inasmuch as the matter is at WP:AN now, and you're edit warring over your own take on procedure, I'm continuing this at AN, not DRV. The AN discussion to date suggests this is not a DRV matter but rather a simple decision by an editor to merge. Wikidemon (talk) 05:58, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

• You want "merge" to mean "delete and move" because this definition would support your position. It does not mean that and has never meant deleting anything, so your assertion about "merge" being an admin action is incorrect. It matters that you participated in that discussion because it now appears you have breached the closing user's findings in order to support your own position on the article. Again, if you feel there was an error in closing this AFD you should bring it up at DRV. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 06:06, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Yikes! Let's keep this to the WP:AN discussion, and please don't accuse me of wikigaming on my talk page when there is already an active administrative discussion going on about whether the closure was valid or not. If the closure was valid I'm happy to accept it as such. If not it has no bearing and I'm doing nothing other than the "R" in "BRD" by rejecting a non-consensus merge. Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 06:31, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikidemon (please see here): Since I'm not all that cognizant of guidelines applicable to inclusion of a filmography in a bio, as @ Paris Hilton (and since frankly I can make neither make heads nor tails of Cumulus Clouds' bold deletion rationale here, since s/he declines to provide it, I think -- it's hard for me to tell, since it's difficult to dicipher what s/he's saying through hi/r saracasm), Could you share with me your opinion concerning the appropriate application of policies here, if you have one? Thanks.  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 13:44, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Now Cumulus Clouds has written me a note telling me that the above query "spammed" your talkpage and is in violation of WP:CANVASSING. Don't people read the guidelines they reference?  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 15:23, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Care to help out?

I saw your name mentioning Todd Palin. I have started a very small stub of 4,500 bytes. Want to help write more? Radiomango (talk) 19:53, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Malkin-Jones

Although I could care less if Malkin's article carries the Jones thing, please try to tone down blatantly PoV, WP:BLP busting, WP:Soapbox edit summaries like this. Thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:50, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, please. I agree that I should have toned it down as a matter of calm editing - but it wasn't Soaping or POV. It was a reaction to blazenly inappropriate content in a BLP. Did you watch the video? Nut-case or whatever I used is not precise - but the point was that he was agitated to the point of some obvious mental issues, the point being that a famous person being accosted by a cursing, screaming, agitated individual is not a biologically significant event for simply being citable and having occurred. Wikidemon (talk) 17:54, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I didn't insert the content and I already told you I'm ok with it being gone. I'm not here to argue politics with you, the edit summary was PoV soapboxing and strayed widely from WP:BLP, as do your remarks above, which are also original research. Please don't do that again, thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:36, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:OR is a content policy. It does not apply to edit summaries and talk pages. Of course you did not insert the content - I never said otherwise. Although I don't think it is so clearcut I see your BLP point and I shall not be calling agitated people who accost celebrities "nut jobs" in edit summaries. The fact that he was acting deranged is relevant to my comment, so I should have used a more neutral term like "agitated", and generally been less provocative. You can tell me all that without scolding me about POV and soapboxing - you are making incorrect assumptions there. I have no POV or point on the issue; I am only objecting to material for being wildly inappropriate for a BLP article, not as a matter of NPOV but as a matter of avoiding sensationalism (it's hard to put a finger on it exactly but it's the sort of thing that must have an essay or line somewhere in WP:NOT). It would be the same as inserting a video of someone famous being accosted by a crazy fan, or a wardrobe moment, or a parking lot accident. Wikidemon (talk) 18:51, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Please use neutral edit summaries, thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:53, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Will do. Thanks for calling me out on it - you were right to do so and I'll be more careful in the future. Wikidemon (talk) 18:54, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Obama-Ayers

I'm done for now. Edit away. I'm unclear as to what you meant to add.

Actually, the way I look on articles about controversies is that they should quote a lot of different comments and give the comments some space, because one essential component of a controversy is that controversialists comment on it. The other essential component are the underlying facts, and we have a good amount of that (not all). I'd prefer to have the actual quote from Freddoso and other quotes back, but if you're going to take out quotes primarily from one side, we need to provide balance: we have a WP:WEIGHT problem if one side and not the other is represnted too much. After my edit, the "Reaction" section has, in Obama's favor: Mayor Daley, the Chicago Tribune, Laura Washington, Michael Kinsley.

Against Obama/Ayers we have a sentence noting that Corsi and Freddoso have commented on it but we don't mention what it is they say or provide quotes like we provided for the others.

And we have Chapman, who has as much to say against McCain as against Obama.

That doesn't seem balanced to me even now: The first two paragraphs of that section are pro-Obama, one half of the next paragraph is anti-Obama and the other half comes down essentially in the center. Where's the balance? And this is after I removed the pro-Obama Scheiber and Hayden comments. Which were quotes. Why again did you take out the Freddoso quotes? Because Freddoso is somehow more partisan than Kinsley, Daley, the Chicago Tribune, Laura Washington (who has a stake in this)? Where is the balance here? Don't you see the imbalance I see? If you think this reflects the overall commentary on this matter, that would be a wrong conclusion. It isn't overwhelmingly pro Obama as that section makes it look.

By the way, I thought you were going to edit information on Weatherman (organization). I added some information to the talk page for you to look over. -- Noroton (talk) 01:59, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

If you're going to edit the controversy article, would you fix Footnote 3? Or just leave it for me. I must have messed that one up somehow. -- Noroton (talk) 02:02, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

(ec) yes, I'll look at footnote 3 now. I'll still probably wait on the substantive edits - I've got some off wiki things to do. I guess we have a different take - I was focusing more on covering the controversy than the underlying events, and summarizing and describing the nature of the different sides' participation more than their stated arguments or quotes. It was related to what you posted on the talk page, wanting to mention some reaction from supporters. There are two or three different kinds of thing going on. Some are defending Ayers himself, downplaying what he did, saying he's changed, etc. Others are saying Ayers has nothing to do with Obama. I don't know how or what can be said about balance - the whole controversy is an election ploy so covering it as such is not on one side or the other. I don't think that going after McCain is a great way to get balance, it just introduces more partisanship - even if Chapman is dishing it on both sides, he's still acting like a pundit rather than straight news and analysis. Anyway, I'll save my direct comments for the talk page. Yes, I've been meaning to get to the weathermen - it's just taking me some time to get around to it. Wikidemon (talk) 02:08, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

No, please don't assume the whole controversy is an election ploy. That's your take on it, and that of some others, but remember that it's not the only take on it. Do you really think after all this time that I, for one, think this is a mere "election ploy"? Even if I was some kind of McCain operative, as Rick Block accused me of being, I wouldn't have spent this much time on this particular subject. Commentators for magazines and newspapers are not just hacks either, so when you see them commenting on this, it's because they think they have something to say about it, not just that they want to influence votes.

You're also downplaying commentators comments -- I don't think there's any reason to consider "analysis" more important than what independent commentators think. In fact, the commentators are much more sophisticated about this and have more trenchant comments than news reporters who are analyzing it do. (This is almost always the case in these things.) -- Noroton (talk) 02:26, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

It's an election ploy that gained traction. It was a non-story until February 2008, then suddenly it's a big thing. It has all the hallmarks. And there are plenty of sources to say it is an election ploy - perhaps those are things we ought to address in the article, not just the direct words of Obama defenders doing damage control. Many commentators are indeed hacks, in my opinion - they have no sources beyond those that the rest of us have, and they are paid simply to voice an opinion. This is not a field like science where commentators are experts. Many commentators are prominent simply for having strong opinions and getting on television with them. There are clearly some who are allied with partisan groups, others who just have partisan biases. Yet there are many nonpartisan commentators who are no more reliable than the partisan ones. To give punditry credit, rather than reportage, creates a bias against serious information about the issues. It is not a liberal / conservative bias, but rather a politics-as-a-sport/industry/game between two parties slant over politics as a democratic institution. Wikidemon (talk) 02:32, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

It is absolutely inaccurate to dismiss commentators like that. Stanley Kurtz, for one, bases what he says on facts, including quite a bit of his own research. David Brooks, David Frum, David Ignatius, Ramesh Ponuru, Jonah Goldberg, E.J. Dionne, Michael Kinsley, George Will, and many, many others actually are experts and do enormous amounts of research and reading, and that's reflected in what they write. These people aren't just spouting off. Yes, some do just spout off, and they can usually be identified. They also don't always come down on one partisan side, indicating that they're not doing this by rote or mere partisanship. Keep in mind that your opinion that it's an election ploy is just that -- an opinion -- and the article should not lean toward that opinion. Noroton (talk) 02:44, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Not universally, there are many good ones out there. But also a lot of low quality opinion. Of course I know and respect George Will, and I'll take your list as a recommendation of some other people to watch out for. A question for you, how does one set a filter in Wikipedia to distinguish between people just spouting off and people who are worth listening to, some standard by which people could say that commentator X is, at least for purposes of this issue or this particular thing commentator X said, a notable opinion? My approach has been to ask whether reliable sources have reported on what commentator X said, but those sources are sparse and not always reliable. Plus an opinion can be notable even if poorly thought through. One's personal choices on what to read are one thing - perhaps good writing, cogent thought, evidence that the person has actually dug deep and done homework. And it's useful to read both sides, even people one heartily opposes. But could that be quantified into a Wikipedia standard so that people can agree on which opinions are worth reporting? Also, when an issue gets hotter and hotter people's perceptions change so that even the wisest person will be influenced by his own politics. Whatever you think of the Bush v. Gore decision, the fact that all the conservatives on the court decided for Bush and all the liberals and moderates for Gore suggests that even some of our best and fairest thinkers are influenced by their own desires. On the subject at hand I think we can find sources to say that it was a manufactured scandal, but I'm not sure whether that is a direction worth going or not. I'll be out for a while. Cheers, Wikidemon (talk) 03:03, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing at all wrong with having sources saying it's a manufactured scandal. My concern is that the idea that it's a manufactured scandal should in no way influence decisions on how to edit the article. It would be like approaching editing the article on the Watergate scandals with the idea that it was all manufactured.

My approach to opinions usually is: quote them rather than try to describe them or rewrite them, since the quotes are usually spicey (and that's one way of getting good writing into the encyclopedia); try to get a sampling from a range of opinions; if you know someone is widely respected or influential, make that opinion a bit more prominent; if you know an opinion is more widely held, make that more prominent; favor diversity and rough equality between various opinions unless you know otherwise; favor including comments that bring some insight into the matter, even if they may be small-minority comments; give opinions space, especially in controversy articles.

I'm not concerned that some commentators are more or less responsible than others, because it's the comment itself that matters, and it either represents some widespread opinion or doesn't, and either is interesting or illuminating or it isn't, so the commentator really doesn't much matter.

But could that be quantified into a Wikipedia standard so that people can agree on which opinions are worth reporting? No. We assume any opinion might be worth reporting unless we already know it's a tiny minority view. We could favor established publications that we know are widely respected -- that might be some kind of standard. Authors that write for those publications and authors of books that are widely respected would also be better to use. But there will always be exceptions. -- Noroton (talk) 04:01, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

FPaS RFC

As a participant in the recent discussion at WP:ANI, I thought you should be informed of the new RFC that another user has started regarding FPaS's behavior.

• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Future Perfect at Sunrise

Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 17:05, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Replied on my talk page

here -- Noroton (talk) 06:19, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Please continue working on the Weatherman (organization) page

There is certainly a consensus there to have a passage on the page about the group being called terrorist. If you don't offer a revised-language proposal then I will, later on.

I found that you worked with me on that page, but on the controversies article you supported and contributed to a blatant POV lead, which severely depleted the remaining reserves of good faith I was continuing to try to assume with you. Some of your statements have been completely over the top. I'll be patient a while longer, but you can't forever prevent well-sourced information that meets NPOV and BLP concerns. People often called terrorists by reliable sources are going to have that mentioned in their articles. That important information won't be buried by edits to protect a political candidate from criticism if this website is going to uphold any kind of bias standards at all.

I notice you don't have much to say about why Wikipedia's policies and guidelines prevents well-sourced negative information to be censored from articles. You can't defend it by pointing to my motivations as some kind of Obama hater. -- Noroton (talk) 18:02, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Please stop this nonsense. I and others have explained many times on several pages why Wikipedia cannot parrot an election-year partisan attack on a living person as being an "unrepentant terrorist". You know this full well, and after months of trying to push this material are simply revert warring on the subject. Your proposal has repeatedly been rejected on BLP, NPOV, weight, and RS grounds - you need to give it up. Wikidemon (talk) 19:06, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm ashamed

I'm ashamed of you, Wikidemo. Why? I guess now you can rest knowing that there is one less editor available to defend Barack Obama from attack by POV pushers. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 02:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't know where that's coming from - I checked both your and my recent edit history a couple times and have no idea what I did that would make you feel that way. Feel free to comment here or email me. Incidentally, though, I don't see my mission as defending Obama against anyone - just trying to be a good editor and keep the articles in shape. There's been some serious trouble on the Obama articles lately so it may look like I'm defending something, but I'm just rejecting some editing abuse. 80% of the abuse seems to be tied to disparaging material about Obama but the problem is the abuse, not that it hurts Obama, and if I see any of the other 20% that's no good either.Wikidemon (talk) 05:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but I think this may be about http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&user=&page=User:Wikidemo. Anyone still watching your old user page saw this. I was concerned for a bit as well, but the way username changes work the old username becomes available. Wikipedia:Changing username#Effects of a username change recommends recreating your old username yourself to guard against this very problem. -- Rick Block (talk) 15:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, this had me confused for a few seconds as well; someone stole your old username to use as a sock, I'm guessing; you really should have re-registered your old username and set it as a doppleganger of your new account to prevent problems like this. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 18:01, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh my Flying Spaghetti Monster, Wikidemon! I'm so sorry. User:QuirkyandSuch used the name Wikidemo to sockpuppet and was indefinitely blocked. I saw that the name Wikidemo was blocked, and I assumed that it was you. :( Dumbass me. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 18:05, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Obama-Ayers Controversy

You are invited to participate in the dispute mediation regarding POV in the Obama-Ayers Controversy article. Thank you. Freedom Fan (talk) 19:35, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Scjessey block

Yea, After I posted that comment I saw that you commented on the admin's page. I completely agree with you on his talk page. Though, I had also posted a comment on another admin's page as a back up. That was a bogus 3RR report and it should never have led to block. Brothejr (talk) 00:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

You might be interested

User:Wikidemo is redirected to you in... a colorful way. rootology (C)(T) 05:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Do you want the redirects from Wikidemo deleted and protected? Bencherlite^Talk 05:43, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. The redirects are fine as-is, if they could just stay protected so nobody messes with them again. - Wikidemon (talk) 05:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind

not being listed. Still I wonder why. Because I'm not listed as watching the pages in question? (Just curious!) <smiles>  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 12:28, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Sarah Palin - talk page and 3RR

Please note that you're violating WP:3RR on the Sarah Palin talk page. Beyond that, your deletion of good faith talk page comments for violating (in your opinion) various aspects of the WP:TALK talk page guidelines are unduly aggressive, which tends to stifle discussion and WP:BITE well-meaning inexperienced contributors. Please allow plausible discussion and suggestions about article content to take their course even if the likely result is not to change the article - and if you are going to reverse a well-meaning new user for making unconstructive contributions you ought to extend some effort to explain to them why you are doing it, and limit it to 3X per day. It is best in most cases to patiently explain just why their idea is not useful, and let the conversation die on its own. You might consider setting up an archive page or a special section of the talk page for unlikely suggestions, repeats of old matters, etc., and move rather than delete things. Wikidemon (talk) 19:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Wikidemon, I not sure how I am violating 3RR as I have been trying to remove non talk page material, ie forum discussions and the like and not really warring over it. I do like your suggestion of waiting before removing material. I am not sure about archiving discussions if that are not appropriate in the first place. I will also try to not bite newcomrs and apologize if I did but I don't believe I did. Anyways, your concerns are noted. --Tom 19:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, you might have noticed a 3RR report on Kelly - which I opposed because Kelly wasn't edit warring, the edits were each to different sections, the edits weren't controversial, Kelly was editing in good faith, and nobody had simply asked Kelly (I'm trying not to use gender pronouns because that name could be male or female). But it was pointed out that 3RR can be interpreted strictly to mean more than three reversions anywhere to the same page (which would probably include a talk page) other than for vandalism, copyvio, and a few select things. My other objection was that if Kelly didn't do it somebody else would have to, so restricting someone to 3RR for uncontroversial maintenance edits is silly. However, some people think that using it even on good faith editors helps avoid article ownership. But really, the main thing is just to help these new users. It's easy to get impatient when you have to deal with the same misguided edit several times a day, but I'll bet some proportion of these people will become good editors if they're welcomed in and gently told that they should learn the ropes better.Wikidemon (talk) 19:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed a 3RR for Kelly, but I will look into that since that seems silly since he/she seems pretty even keeled and well intentioned, however, we all know that the road to hell is paved by good intentions :). The rest of your reply makes sense and again, I don't want to put off good faith new editors from the project. --Tom 19:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Templates preserved for the record

==I DON'T like YOUR CENSORSHIP==
You have not the right to remove my comments on the Obama talk page, just because you don't like or agree...IT smacks of orwellen thuggery threats and intimations it is not very nice.Orangejumpsuit (talk) 06:31, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

(preserved for record) - Wikidemon (talk) 06:35, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

GOOD now you can stop the condescending rhetoric. Leave what I write alone...if you don't like then answer, but threating me with banning, just gets me Jissed up.... I'm just a Messenger in this surrealistic play.Orangejumpsuit (talk) 06:44, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I just left a message on your page. I will revert your latest abuse. If it helps you to take a time out I suggest that, but you are pushing it. Do not respond further on my talk page - it is basically harassment. I will probably just delete it. Wikidemon (talk) 06:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

== Warning ==
Please stop trying to unilaterally control the content of Barack Obama. It violates WP policies such as WP:OWN, as well as the article probation. Establish consensus on the article Talk page first if you insist on removing the paragraph added by Curious bystander. Thanks. WorkerBee74 (talk) 11:19, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment - dubious maneuver by a problem editor, noting for future reference. Wikidemon (talk) 16:24, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

== Wikimond is engaging ==
You seem to be edit warring across the encyclopedia on Saul Alinsky and Obama related topics. In particular, you deleted reliably sourced entries a number of times. Please desist in edit warring on Alinsky related articles. Please desist in retribution and vandalism editing the encyclopedia due to your not agreeing to my proposal on the Obama Nation page to avoid disruptions. --Mtngoat63 (talk) 00:45, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

==Friendly Warning== You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Bill Ayers. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. carefull now, you are dangerously close to a 3RR violation.

Yes, thanks, CENSEI - I don't think I was edit warring but I know the limit and I'm not about to cross 3RR. Wikidemon (talk) 19:43, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

== Warning ==

Stop behaving as though you WP:OWN the Talk:Barack Obama page. Prematurely archiving a productive discussion twice and striking through my alleged "personal attacks" (while leaving a post by Scjessey intact, which would obviously be a personal attack if measured fairtly by the same standard) is evidence of attempting to WP:OWN the page. Curious bystander (talk) 22:24, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Template:Book cover tag

A tag has been placed on Template:Book cover tag requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 15:42, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

American Apparel article

Hi, I just wanted to let you know that when I looked at the article on American Apparel, I just could believe how incredibly positive it was of them, until I looked at the discussion page and saw your discussion with the various AA employees. I just wanted to commend your efforts and tell you that I have nominated the article to have its neutrality checked. Crito2161 (talk) 22:08, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Palin Religion POV Tag

Hi there. You said "editor who placed it subsequently edited section." Actually, I previously edited section and was reverted, so instead of starting an edit war, I placed the tag. I'm glad I stopped by, I didn't know about the Wine Project. I'll have to check that out. Best regards,--Paul (talk) 16:37, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I must have been confused - so many edits so quickly to that article... Well, for the moment the section is changed. I do think that POV tags don't really accomplish a lot in a highly-edited article. Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 16:38, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

scjesse edit / Dreamhost

As we know, I am not a seasoned editor. I am not familiar with Wiki-speak, so please bear with me while I get used to that. When I refer to a forum, I mean a system where there is the same opportunity for everyone to participate within the guidelines of a system, where everybody's opinion has equal weight and one person doesn't unilaterally make decisions for the wider group. I'm not disconnected to the purpose of Wikipedia and those aren't random complaints in the article. Why would they be published at that source if they were random complaints?

I will take your advice and not speculate as to what an editor's agenda might be in maintaining what you seem to consider non-biased text about Dreamhost.

Please don't suggest that I take your advice and go 'get the hang' of it somewhere else. I've reviewed and used other perfect pages here at Wikipedia as reference for the edits I've made and read the guidelines too.

Those quotes in my edits are:

-referenced

-seamless to integrate into the cadence and disposition of the existing content

-succinct

-broaden the scope of understanding for this entry

-are by no means random

-were carefully chosen by the author of the article I reference

-speak to the specific incident detailed at the Dreamhost Wiki entry

-etc.

I may be new to the system, but I see what it expects from us. I don't know how to petition for advice from a wider audience, or if that audience would favor a seasoned editor like scjessse. This may be an accusation, and I say it with the utmost respect, but is he an editor 'who try[ies] to maintain the neutrality of an article' by actively removing good edits from this page and others? Really, I don't say that with any momentum of a discriminating opinion behind it. It's evident.

There have been more than a few at least reasonable edits removed from this page by him. At least one other editor has okayed another edit (not mine). I don't see how his interests for this page are unbiased if he won't allow a justifiable edit to be made.

Finally, I have no interest in invalidating him personally, but the Dreamhost entry would be improved with some of the edits he's removed.

Max.NYC.Black (talk) 18:41, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Best to discuss that on the talk page to the article in question. Wikidemon (talk) 19:03, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Eesh, would you please point me to how to find the talk page for an article? OK! I just found it, and so many peole have had the sameproblem with this editor. How does one petition for an edit to stick?

TY! Max.NYC.Black (talk) 19:09, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:HO-HO the Clown.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:HO-HO the Clown.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 11:42, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Albert Pissis

A tag has been placed on Albert Pissis requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Superflewis (talk) 16:28, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Take your campaign wherever you think is best

But a better option would be actual discussion over edit warring. I posted a question for you at the RFA. I have actual evidence in the edit and a ton of evidence at the RFA. Where's yours? And where's that consensus you mentioned? In fact, the only consensus I saw was on Talk:Bernardine Dohrn#Renewed BLP questions. And that was a consensus against you. -- Noroton (talk) 03:35, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

That is ridiculous. There was never a consensus for your edits - it is up to you to get consensus and you have not. Your wikigaming on the topic has ranged from personal attacks to groundless accusations and edit warring. You need to give this up sooner or later. Wikidemon (talk) 03:41, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Noroton, your comment that "I have actual evidence in the edit and a ton of evidence at the RFA" is WP:OR. The substance of what you added violates WP:BLP. Wikipedia is not your own personal kangaroo court, so please stop treating it like one. Thank you. Arjuna (talk) 03:47, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Where is the RfC for this article? For the record, Dohrn is someone I find quite distasteful, but BLP policy is there for a very good reason, and that material was a flagrant violation. Arjuna (talk) 03:57, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The RfC is at Talk:Weatherman (organization)/Terrorism RfC. This follows many discussions, edit wars, and wikigaming over the issue across multiple articles, which I tried to consolidate in the RfC. The terrorism and murder accusations were always contested but I had hoped that an RfC could deal with the issue one and for all. Even though I think the terrorism accusations are a clear BLP vio, a minority of editors seem to think in good faith that they are not, so rather than edit warring under a claim of BLP I let them slide to see if they might just have consensus. Clearly they don't. The murder accusation is another story - the article directly accuses Dohrn of murdering a policeman, using a police informant and some other shady sources for circumstantial evidence, and tries to establish that she would have been tried for it had only the government not messed up its case. Wikidemon (talk) 04:03, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

My response is at the RFC; discussion should not take place on this page. -- Noroton (talk) 04:05, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Wikidemon. Hey! remember when, after somebody had copy and pasted Noroton's text about Bernadine into the WU article (that's here), you'd written on its Talkpage,

"Okay, well, some anon IP editors have added the material to the main text - good editing, btw. - , but cited it to Freddoso's book rather than directly to the testimony. I'm uncomfortable with Freddoso as a source but it's a very interesting read and not an obvious BLP violation so I won't object. Thanks for sticking with the sourcing, the result is a much stronger article section.Wikidemo (talk) 20:34, 22 August 2008 (UTC)"

-- ? I'm guessing your reaction to this material's inclusion has changed? (Or, better said, evolved since this time.) Trust me, Wikidemon, I'm completely able to be convinced if you can tell me reasons for this stuff's non-inclusion that I could agree with. (BTW, be warned that I disregard "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy" stuff out of hand, lol.) Still, for real, I'm telling you straight up, my mind's open. So please do respond ("directly," here or on my talkpage; or "indirectly," in the RfC...). Thanks.  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 18:00, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I do think the material is interesting, and a worthwhile read for anyone who wants to dig into the subject. The FBI report is great stuff. The editing (which turns out to be Noroton's) was well done, which is why I was encouraging the IP editor - good work from new IP editors is something to praise. I didn't see an obvious BLP violation in the Weathermen article simply because that article is not a biography. Some people think otherwise but my opinion about BLP is that it should be used only in a limited way to protect people against poorly sourced claims about them, not to shield organizations from criticism. If you take BLP too far it means you can't say anything negative about anything, because nearly everything on Wikipedia involves living people one way or another - for example, you could not say that a book is criticized, that a company is accused of overcharging its customers, or that a military campaign failed from lack of planning because there is always a person behind it. I do think there are some other problems with the way it was phrased for the Weathermen article, just not BLP. It's too long and tries too hard to prove the informant's case. It probably should focus on the alleged Weathermen involvement more generally and not single out Dohrn. Moreover, keeping it factual it should simply say that Dohrn ad the Weathermen were under investigation for having been the bombers (rather than saying more assertively that so-and-so claims they did it -- the investigation is a sourceable fact; the informant's allegation is merely the opinion of an unreliable source). But it's obvious that the Weathermen planted many bombs. This one may or may not have been theirs. An informant says so, but informants say a lot of things. What's the accuracy rate for such people - 20%? 50%? 70%? We ask for the work of scholars, journalists, etc., not FBI moles. When we go over to the Dohrn article we have to be a lot more careful because that's her biography. That's where anyone not only reading the paper but taking one of her classes, listening to her speak, meeting her socially, considering hiring her, her children's friends, etc., are going to find on google when they type in her name. So we need to be very cautious in accusing her of murder. BLP does contain the WELLKNOWN exception, by which we can repeat widely held opinions about a matter. If people widely think someone committed murder (e.g. OJ Simpson) we can report that fact - also if someone had a trial we can report the trial. But this isn't a widely held opinion. We have no sourcing to say that many people think Dohrn committed the murder. What we have is a reliable source that the informant said it, and then people commenting on that. That's not a recognized exception within BLP, for good reason. People make accusations against each other all the time. A day doesn't go by that someone doesn't say a famous person committed a lewd sex act, physically attacked them, cheated on a marriage, abused the children, etc. These allegations are widely sourced - and many are true. But we're the source for real information, not allegations. Wikidemon (talk) 18:42, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Wow, Wikidemon. So far I agree with every syllable you've spoken! (Anyway: those immediately above.) What I mean is, I absolutely agree WP shouldn't sound like a prosecutor and should just report an allegation's existence when it's proven to be notable within the life of a particular person. I happen to think it reaches that threshold, in Bernardine's -- Professor Dohrn's -- case, but at most a VERY minor mention within her Wikipedia biography, one that's stringently phrased so as not to imply the allegation is generally held to be true. In any case, I'm certainly following your train of thought so far. So...then, what exact editorial modus do you advocate for this information, specifically in relation to the Dohrn article? (And again, Wikidemon, only respond to me directly, here, instead of indirectly, in the RfC, if it continues to be your preference. And, in either case, thanks!)  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 19:38, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikidemon and Justmeherenow -- why don't either or both of you propose language that we can discuss? I don't see where my original language actually crosses some of the objections both of you have stated, so when we get to specifics, some of these objections of yours may be dropped. I'm busy working on my own proposals, so if either of you can propose something, it would make it easier for all of us to reach a mutually accepted conclusion. Some objections to what I've seen above: (1) We say she was suspected, and don't say that she did it, so we're not accusing her of anything. I'd like to see Justmeherenow's "stringent" phrasing and see how this passage could be rewritten. (2) Since a major topic of coverage of Dohrn, Ayers & the Weatherman was that they never killed anyone, this is obviously a relevant point and it carries obvious WP:WEIGHT. She has a WP article because she headed up a group that set off bombs, so whether those bombs killed is highly relevant. (3) A major topic of coverage of Dohrn has been her involvement with a group that has been called terrorist, but whatever I've put in the Dohrn article about "terrorist" might be made more compact as long as the point is made that this is what she and the group have been called -- I'm flexible on that. But since this has been proven by the evidence, we should mention that she has become more famous during this campaign because of the Obama-Ayers controversy. It's not worth a lot of space, but it's worth a mention because it deals with her present notariety. (4) BLP applies equally across mainspace and even talkspace. If it's not a BLP violation to mention something on one page, then it's not a violation on another page and when it is a violation, it's a violation everywhere. That's explicitly stated on the WP:BLP page. Acceptable criticism/negative information can be objected to on a number of BLP grounds, but the only objections for this criticism/negative information that I know of are entirely dependent on how well sourced the information is. (5) It would be interesting to see the argument that Larry Grathwohl is unreliable. I was actually very surprised to see just how reliable he is considered by the sources. Much of the Detroit federal indictment is based on his testimony. Simply because his statements are so damning does not reduce their reliability, it just makes you want to look harder at him as a source. (6) Given that we're talking about a woman who led a terrorist organization that set bombs and talked approvingly about killing people, and given that the Weather Underground was, well, underground and secretive, specifics on her terrorist activities are not easy to document, so we don't. The general nature and public acts of her leadership of the group are well known, widely documented and must be in the article in order for it to be NPOV. Let's go forward with specifics and see what we can agree on. -- Noroton (talk) 20:32, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Another point: Wikidemon says, We have no sourcing to say that many people think Dohrn committed the murder. What we have are reliable sources -- Grathwohl's testimony, U.S. Senate committees, Grathwohl's book, a San Francisco TV station, saying it's suspected. What we know is that Weatherman was highly hierarchical, she was at the top of the heap, she was in the San Francisco area and we know all the rest about what types of things Weatherman did and what types of things she said and did. We also know that the allegation has been around since the 1970s. I have never seen her mention it or deny it, just ignore it (obviously, I haven't read everything, but I've read a lot at this point). What "many people think" is not the relevant yardstick. -- Noroton (talk) 20:43, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

That's not right about BLP. My proposal, which I already made, is to include no language in the Dohrn article containing accusations of murder or descriptions of her or her organization as being terrorist. Consensus is running 10 out of 14 in the RfC about that and is unlikely to change. Wikidemon (talk) 20:57, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:FAR for Barack Obama

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.

I have nominated Barack Obama for Featured Article Review. You are welcome to paerticipate in the discussion. Curious bystander (talk) 23:24, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Noroton

I. Can't. Take. It. Any. More. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Noroton I have never, in all my years here (both as flatterworld and as an anonymous editor earlier), ever run into a situation this this. Yes, there are others who didn't 'get' what an encyclopedia is supposed to be, but they either eventually figured it out or left Wikipedia. There's just no reasoning with Noroton. I don't know what else to say. Other than 'incorrigible' is the word that springs to mind. Flatterworld (talk) 16:15, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I am proposing a topic ban. I suggest you not engage in any incivilities or edit wars he provokes. Unfortunately he has a few editors, more tendentious and dubious than he, as supporters who tend to make a mess of things and launch counter-accusations to the point where disinterested editors get confused. So it is best to stay above the fray as much as possible. The risk, though, is that this allows him to steamroll through his content agenda as he has been doing (claiming that by disengaging or refusing to debate you are doing something bad). Wikidemon (talk) 18:05, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Noroton has enough supporters that this would not be a clear case, and it is likely to blow out of all proportion at AN/I. Disinterested administrators new to the situation probably can't take enough time to wade through the history, and some of the POV/sock/SPA editors are likely to impugn the legitimate editors to the point of frustration - I don't think this is the best time, as bad as Noroton's behavior is. We have an RfC that is nearling conclusion. Probably best to conclude and implement the RfC results, reject Noroton's ongoing attempt to disrupt the RfC, resist attempts to re-debate just-settled issues (as with indifintely repeated attempts to re-open Wright/Ayers/Rezko at Barack Obama), and then deal with the behavior in the likely event he and cohorts edit the articles against the RfC consensus. Wikidemon (talk) 21:32, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

While my interactions with Noroton haven't been personally as unpleasant as it has for other editors, I certainly see the pattern of behaviour and agree that it is singularly unhelpful. N is the very definition of a disruptive editor with his blatant POV pushing, violations of BLP, use of OR, WP:POINT, incivility, and other transgressions whose specific names I haven't even bothered to look up. I think the concept of "topic ban" was invented precisely for editors such as Noroton, and I will support it. In fact, I think it would be a disservice to Wikipedia not to pursue it in his case, although I defer to Wikidemon and others who have interacted with him more frequently to determine its timing. Note that I will be offline for much of October, in case my help would be needed with anything. Arjuna (talk) 21:42, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Media prank

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Media prank, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Pip (talk) 21:25, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I've removed - the article was one minute old with an inuse tag to boot. I've since expanded and sourced it considerably. Media prank is a distinct form of prank for subversive artistic purposes, as the sources indicate. Wikidemon (talk) 21:28, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Image caption

Hi, are you aware that there was a discussion about the Palin image caption earlier today? See here.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:03, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. I read it and should have remembered, but forgot about this when I was editing. Thanks for pointing it out. I've restored the cancellation part.Wikidemon (talk) 02:14, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:19, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Canvassing section re: Talk:Weatherman (organization)/Terrorism RfC

Wikimedia's servers kept telling me that the servers were down and to try again in a few minutes. Which I did, getting the same notice again and again. About 1 time in 2 that section actually went through with no way for me to know it. I thank you for the cleanup.

You did move what had been intended as a full section into a subsection which is less than perfect but I'll let it slide. I just want my question answered on the same page I asked it. Which particular insult out of the list were you aiming at me? TMLutas (talk) 19:39, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I didn't insult you at all. I have no idea why you are taking it that way.Wikidemon (talk) 19:41, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I also found the post offensive with regards to the categorization and comments about the editors involved. An example that describes the problem with the tone of the general post is for example "Of particular concern, 5 known or arguable sockpuppets, SPAs" now it's perfectly possible that you are right but on the other hand millions and millions of new people came to Wikipedia in the past month to look at exactly election related articles and it's not an impossibility that some of them decided to try to edit. However this is not the main concern just an example of the general objectionable tone of your message. If you strike out the categorization of your fellow editors I will withdraw my comment as well. Hobartimus (talk) 19:53, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

How do you want me to describe it? Noroton sent the notice out indiscriminately (one hopes) to everyone who touched the page, including problem editors who had been there. I'm happy to remove the specific names but the comment that the notice went out to a biased and problematic group of editors is germane to the question of canvassing. It's probably best, to avoid people taking offense, that canvassing get discussed elsewhere. My choices were to note it on the page (which I did), file an AN/I or similar report (which I avoided to spare the drama), or to simply roll back the canvassing (which I avoided as too bold/problematic, and wanted to get some feedback first). There are few easy options available when someone starts canvassing.Wikidemon (talk) 19:59, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I've removed all the specific names from my claims. This means I can't really support my claim of notification bias but at it should be clear I am not pulling anything out of thin air - something I would no doubt be accused of doing had I made the assertion without factual support. Wikidemon (talk) 20:05, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll be happy to fix source on Palin but...

Last time I did, Hobartimus undid my fix without any talk page discussion. I don't want to get in an edit war. Do I have your permission to do my first reversion? He may revert back a second time, but I guess we can deal with that if it occurs. GreekParadise (talk) 15:28, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Responded on talk page regarding the citation template - I added a fact template instead, which is less intrusive. I won't get involved in a revert war or complain in either case. You might want to lay out your argument on the talk page first though. This should be a very simple matter of verifying sources in my opinion. Perhaps one change at a time.Wikidemon (talk) 15:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I did lay out my argument on the talk page thrice now. Hobartimus simply reverted without comments as usual. The source unequivocally states what I say it does and does not mention at all what it's cited to. It's open and shut. But I'll let some other editor fix it since virtually every change I ever make is immediately reverted by Hobartimus without any talk comment.GreekParadise (talk) 15:28, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Local eccentrics

I have nominated Category:Local eccentrics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Terraxos (talk) 16:59, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Second opinion on debate I accidentally caused on Obama-related article

Sorry to trouble you but I'm feeling I need some more eyes on an Obama-related issue I accidentally seemed to have started that I would've thought was a non-issue. The debate began while I was browsing Obama related pages and got to his stepfather Lolo Soetoro where I saw the article lackedthe category of him being an Indonesian Muslim, which is brought up and sourced in the article (also something I already knew from Dreams From my Father]]).

However when I added the category I got reverted on the grounds wikipedia does not categorise biographical articles by religion/race (which it does). After a slow back and forward, that can now be viewed at Talk:Lolo Soetoro it appears to me the person in opposition to the categories implementation is because he thinks I'm secretly anti-Obama and am only attempting to insert the category because it would strengthen the ridiculous "Obama is a secret Muslim" talking point thrown around by the right. It's an odd opposition, as the category does not relate or change that in the article itself it lists, with sources, that Soetoro was an Indonesian Muslim (which are still in the article now).

While I have brought up that specifically omitting the category, which is supported by the article, is POV based on trying to omit information that may possibly be damaging (somehow) and not including it is a violation of neutrality to articles and the categorisation rules, I have been rebuffed as it has become apparent that no matter how many policies I state, how neutral I make my arguments, nor how I try to explain I am pro-Obama but also believe in neutral editting of wikipedias articles, he has tainted me as trying to being a subverter of Obama.

I don't particularly wish to get into an edit war with this user (or any user) however it has been a fairly long time since I have been accused of being biased and having my arguments shrugged off (I received 100% approval for adminship largely based on the fact I am strictly neutral in article content) and since you are one of the most prominent level headed Obama editors I wondered if you could take a look at the situation and give your opinions before it becomes a storm in a tea cup. –– Lid^(Talk) 03:46, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Newton logo.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:Newton logo.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:28, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

VP debate moderator wrote pro-Obama book

You erased what I wrote, saying that it was badly sourced and not relevant. You are wrong. amazon.com is the best possible source for a book release. And it's extremely relevant, because she has a financial interest in Obama-Biden winning the debates and election, because her book would sell way more copies. The book is being released on January 20, 2009, which is inauguration day. Also, when you erased it, you said it was in other articles, but you erased all of those too. Why are you afraid of people knowing about this media bias? Grundle2600 (talk) 15:35, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not afraid of anything, just helping keep the encyclopedia well-written. I'm in the process of leaving a notice for you on your talk page regarding disruptive editing. Please stop now, and spend some time reviewing Wikipedia editing policies. Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 15:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is supposed to be open to everyone. My edits are not disruptive. It is your censorship that is disruptive.

When you erased it from one article, you said it was in other articles. But then you erased it from every one of those articles too. You are against letting it be in any articles at all.

You said it wasn't relevant. You are wrong. The debate moderator has a financial stake in the outcome of the debate and the election. If Obama wins, she will make millions of dollars from sales of her book, which is being released on the day that Obama would take office.

You said it was poorly sourced. You are wrong. amazon.com is the best possible source for a book's release date. And Fox News is a good source, because The New York Times and the Washington Post are too biased to cover something like this.

By threatening to have me banned, you are being a dictator. Wikipedia is supposed to be open to everyone. You are a coward. It is you, not me, who is being abusive, because you are waging an attack against an innocent person.

You are against free speech. Grundle2600 (talk) 15:52, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I have left a notice on your talk page regarding some policies and guidelines here on Wikipedia. Please review them, and do not edit war over disputed material. Try to work with other editors rather than making accusations. Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 16:03, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Why do you always erase things and threaten to ban people?

I see that many, many people have accused you of erasing their stuff, even when they were following all the rules, and even when it was on the talk page. Why do you erase things that cite sources? Why do you erase things from the talk page? And most importantly, why do you threaten to ban so many people? Wikipedia is supposed to be about free speech. It seems to me that you are erasing things that you don't like, instead of following wikipedia policy. The fact that you keep erasing so much stuff even though it follows wikipedia policy, and that you even erase things from the talk page, and that you keep threatening to ban people, is something that goes against what wikipedia stands for. Grundle2600 (talk) 16:13, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

It's called troll patrol. I work hard to keep up the integrity of the encyclopedia. Most of those editors are gone - they were mostly WP:sockpuppets or other bad actors, and one of their games is to make accusations. Don't let yourself be like them, not if you want to make constructive contributions here. You're getting off on the wrong foot. I'm not the enemy.Wikidemon (talk) 16:18, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

OK. Thanks. To be fair, I do admit it may have been wrong for me to add it to 4 different article. I am sorry, and I will be more careful in the future. No hard feelings. Grundle2600 (talk) 16:39, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Sweet! Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 17:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I've left a follow-up note on your talk page in hopes that nobody will hold the dispute against you. If they do just send them to me. Wikidemon (talk) 17:40, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

OK. Yes, thanks. All's well that ends well! Grundle2600 (talk) 18:14, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Civility

I would appreciate it if you conduct yourself with more civility and less condescension. This is in reference to the talk page at the Obama article. You may find that your often helpful and correct opinions will be received better.LedRush (talk) 21:22, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

My civility is fine. You are violating article probation. Please heed my caution. With your approval I would like to remove the discussion from the Obama talk page so I can explain to you what the issue is.Wikidemon (talk) 21:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

A nice cup of tea

Hi WD. The Obama page(s) have certainly been subject to way too many shenanigans, and I really appreciate what a good job you've done in trying to control them. That said, I think you've been needlessly harsh or sensitive about LedRush' recent comments. S/he seemed to be asking a question in good faith, and I did not perceive his/her comments as uncivil. Maybe step back just a little, have that cup of soothing tea, and remember the difficult maxim about WP:AGF. Let's not paint this new editor with the brush of some familiar edit warriors, who are different people. All the best, LotLE×talk 21:59, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I do object to starting a conversation by calling the editors on the talk page edit warriors, etc. Though not obviously intended to incite, that mirrors the language of Curious Bystander, WorkerBee74, and I am not sure who else calling everyone "fans", "Obama volunteers", white-washing, and what have you. The baseless characterization by the troublemakers of other editors as partisan, POV, edit warriors, uncivil, wikigaming, disruptive, etc., is an ongoing problem in the Obama pages as well as meta-pages dealing with the problem. Thus, it is pretty important that the Obama talk page be a safe zone where people can simply propose content or ask article editing related questions in good faith, and not use that page to complain about other editors. I somewhat misunderstood the editor's question to be a request to consider an Ayers controversy link because the editor did mention that specifically. Wikidemon (talk) 22:05, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Barack Obama

Hiya WIkidemon. I'm still concerned with the description of Obama as African American, even though he's described as such on TV, in newspapers, etc. If he were 6/8 or 7/8 african american? no prob; but he's infact half-African american, half-Caucastion. GoodDay (talk) 22:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for mentioning that here - you'll get a little bit of flak possibly if you mention it on Obama's talk page. Have you read the FAQ at the top of the talk page about why he's called AA? You can also do some searching in the talk page archives. Basically, Wikipedia does its best to mirror the reliable sources in their description of his ethnicity / race / cultural background. Most people call him AA, and he refers to himself that way, and it is not obviously a racist term, so we're on pretty safe ground. In a longer discussion we would describe his mixed race parentage, and I think that's alluded to in the article and certainly in some sub-articles. However, if you look at newspapers, campaign literature, etc., they only mention mixed race background occasionally. It seems to be a holdover or after-effect of the old "one drop" rule where someone who has any significant part African heritage is an African American. Clearly it's not one drop, but I'll bet someone who is 1/3 or even 1/4 of African descent would still be called AA. It's even stronger with some, e.g. Native Americans. That may be unfair, and it could be something to change - mixed race people care about this issue and deserve their due. But Wikipedia isn't set up to be the place that leads the rest of the world in word usage, particularly racial categorizations. We're not very good at starting change. We just follow behind wheat everyone else says as far as reliable sources. If I were wanting to make that point about Obama specifically, or on behalf of other people concerned about race, I think Wikipedia just isn't a very receptive place - it would be letters to the editor, websites, blogs, newspaper columns. If enough people did say this, Wikipedia would pick up on it. I hope that helps. Wikidemon (talk) 22:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Yep, that's why I've brought this here. The mixed-race thing, is a don't go there topic at the Obama page (too bad, though). Therefore, I'm gonna let it be. GoodDay (talk) 22:54, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Side discussion

moved here from Talk:Barack Obama - Wikidemon (talk) 00:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

As a side note, you obviously mean well but please do not begin a discussion by describing other editors as content warriors or partisans. Even if made in good spirits, casting editors in that light tends to discourage productive dialog. Best to assume we are all editing the encyclopedia, and if you have a particular complaint about an editor use dispute resolution. That is described here: Talk:Barack Obama/Article probation. Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 21:00, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikidemon, I don't think you're discussing the same thing as the rest of us: we're not arguing about one "See Also" but a "see also"s in general. Also, I didn't call anyone here any name at all, and I'd appreciate it if you were more judicious in your warnings.LedRush (talk) 21:06, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I know full well what you wrote and I am asking you to not do it. It violates article probation. Please redact that last comment and also your introduction, "I know that this page is a veritable hot-bed of partisans and edit warriors." After you do that I will remove this comment and my request, above. Do not scold me here. If you want to point out that you are asking a more general question you can do that without scolding.Wikidemon (talk) 21:18, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

What I wrote is basically an acknowledgment for why the article needs to be on probation and was not an insult of any one (or group of editors) nor does it violate probation. If you have misunderstood my statement, I am sorry. However, you should assume good faith and try to act in a more civil way than you have lately. Scolding others (and then accusing them of this) and making threatening demands seems not really in the collaborative spirit that an online encyclopedia needs.LedRush (talk) 21:34, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

My civility is fine - again, your statement about other editors is inappropriate per article probation. Good faith or bad faith are not part of it. It is the wording. You are not supposed to describe other editors here as a "hot-bed of partisans and edit warriors". Not in the general, not in the specific. Not as an accusation, and not as "describe the edits, not the editor". Just don't do it, and don't lash out at me for making the request. If you have a constructive suggestion or question (which you do), feel free to bring it up here. But do not use the talk page for complaints about other editors' behavior. My own statement is merely a request that you not do this. I have asked you to take this to my talk page so we can delete this whole line of discussion, and thereby not derail the conversation here. Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 21:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I will not delete my comments as they are not a violation of probation. You continue to treat me with condescension, heavy handedness, and incivility though I have done nothing to deserve it. As I said above, if you misunderstood my language above and it offended you, I am sorry. But I hope you can be big enough to just end this discussion and focus on real issues of improving the article. While you may be attempting to create a better environment for discussion here, I believe you're positions and attitude are doing the opposite, making open discussion even more difficult.LedRush (talk) 22:11, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I've not been offended by LedRush's comments. GoodDay (talk) 22:22, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the perspective, GD. LedRush, I have asked you to agree that we both remove this side discussion. If you insist we can have it here, but this is not the best place. I did mistake your question as focusing on Obama/Ayers, because you brought that up along with the statement about partisanship and edit warring on this page, rather than a question about "see also" links in general. Sorry if I rushed to a conclusion. I have fixed that by editing my comment, above. However, the matter of calling other editors partisans and edit warriors is still a bit of an issue. It doesn't need to be removed because obviously people aren't getting bothered by it, but I do want you to understand why that is sensitive. The talk page is for constructive suggestions and questions about editing the main article. Putting those words on the page is a negative judgment about the behavior and legitimacy of other editors, even said indirectly without singling out specific editors. There were two to four editors on one side of the discussion you refer to, and six to ten on the other - surely the comment applies to some of them. Framing editors as partisan encourages more disagreement, as opposed to collaboration. One of the primary reasons why article probation was instituted in the first place was that some editors were describing each other as partisans, supporters of one candidate or the other, misbehavers, etc., with words like "Obama supporter", "camp", "campaign volunteer", "club", whitewash, and what have you. I tried to make my request in a friendly way - I considered doing it on your talk page but some people consider that more intrusive than here. I am sorry if you took that as being too critical of your edit. As I said, you clearly mean well and the thrust of your question is a constructive one. However, it is important to be careful on this page. That's all. Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 22:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Some responses:

1. Sure...move it...I don't believe the discussion was proper in the first place, so I see no reason for it to be here.

2. My words were not a negative judgment of any one, merely an acknowledgment of why the page is protected in the first place and a way for people not to feel like I was attacking the page from a partisan angle, as I thought people might infer because I had above not seen the big deal about adding a "See also" for the Ayers controversy.

3. I don't even know what "issue" you're talking about when you're naming the number of people on different sides.

4. I appreciate your attempt to be friendly, but it came across very, very differently to me.LedRush (talk) 22:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Your indirect POV

I just thought I'd call attention that in my opinion you reflect POV in an indirect way (e.g. not your fault). One can draw the conclusion that you have left-wing liberal views, and I fear that it carries over into your edits unintentionally. Perhaps you should partner up with a conservative editor to "balance" each other out, kind of like Hannity and Colmes? Anyways, I just thought I'd share that. Good day. 68.143.88.2 (talk) 15:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Center For Science in the Public Interest -- pros/cons of "Criticisms" section

I've been editing Wikipedia occasionally for many years, never bothering to logon as a user, mostly because its been on technical topics where controversy and discussion are minimal. I got drawn into the CSPI page from that direction and was at first annoyed that you deleted my hard work. But then having read the Discussion page on CSPI criticisms, I see that there had been a lot of back & forth, including the work of identified sock puppets. So now I wanted to instead thank you for helping to maintain NPOV.

But I also wanted to elaborate on the pros and cons of keeping that section. Your solution of getting rid of things that were "political" is rather arbitrary. Again, there is nothing wrong with politics if (1) it is illuminating and (2) it is fair. For example, in Wikipedia we can legitimately and fairly learn about Hilter and Nazism but not advocate Nazism. The fact is, CSPI attracts criticms that can be political in nature. You chose to keep a watered-down statement about Libertarian Bob Barr being a critic while deleting the everthing else. Bob Barr is so obviously ideological in his stance and uses inflammatory language. The former academic David Hanson is not obviously ideological although he does use over-the-top language. And the Center for Consumer Freedom is an industry-funded negative PR attack group (see the comments I posted in the CSIP Discussion page: Talk:Center_for_Science_in_the_Public_Interest#Criticisms). So I cannot fathom how a fair-minded person like you can accept a statement about Barr's criticism of CSPI but not the others. That is why I continue to urge (and I think you'll agree upon more reflection), keep all or delete all.

Ignore for a moment the partisans who just want to take a whack at CSIP in wikipedia. It is generally interesting and important that CSIP attracts criticsm in terms of who they are and how they function in the realms of public policy, public health, and the political process. In my opinion, sometimes CSPI over-reaches and justly deserves criticism (e.g., in the mercury labeling of fish sold in grocery stores), but an honest information-seeking person needs to know when the criticism is sound (e.g., the FDA and California court decisions) and when it is simply a closed-minded attack (e.g., CCF's mocking press releases). To make that judgement, one needs to know about the critics. Up until you deleted the material on Hanson and CCF, the article contained balanced information about the critics. So it is a disservice to delete a discussion of CSPI criticism. But I had to do that because your solution of keeping Barr just doesn't work, either everything should stay or everything should go.

Now, back to the ideologues and sock puppets... if everything stays, on the other hand, then someone has to be vigilant about keeping things fair. I do not volunteer. So the easiest thing is to squash the whole topic. But that hardly seems the best solution. What is?

Lapabc (talk) 19:03, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

It's amazing that a project as big as Wikipedia continues to improve rather than imploding under its own weight - the sockpuppets, edit warring, industry hacks, etc., are a symptom of its real importance in shaping public opinion. We have to close our eyes to partisanship on the inside, meaning set aside our own biases and evaluate everything for its verifiability and quality, letting the chips fall where they may. Yet be vigilant against efforts to twist things. Unfortunately any article in the political sphere is subject to gaming, and takes a certain amount of effort to watch over. Less active articles like CSPI don't always get attention, so something can linger there. My main concern was the CCF and its apparent supports who keep trying to insert the CCF's talking points into various articles on science, unions, food, etc. It's such obvious nonsense that it's easy to spot. What's harder to figure out is just how partisan and fair CSPI is, and how political it is in its own right. It's quite possible that CCF is banging the drum on one side of politics, and CSPI on the other. I think the answer is to find sources that are as reliable as possible, best from the academic / scholarly community rather than mere political or economic rivals. If a given senator criticizes a scientific institution I have a hard time accepting the senator's words at face value. On the other hand, if a consortium of college presidents, a respected journal, a UN body on this or that, condemns or critiques an organization, that seems more notable. Also, an action against the organization may be notable as a controversy or event in its own right, rather than as a legitimate criticism. If forget which senator it was who used to have the "golden fleece awards". He gave them out to government pork projects, particularly science, that seemed to be wasting money. The thing is, he was a bit of a know-nothing about science and gave his fleece awards to some very important research too.... in my memory, it's been a while. Well, by analogy, it's notable that a researcher got the award, even though the award itself may or may not be reliable criticism of the researcher's work. Kind of like an actor getting a razberry award or a corporation being the site of frequent PETA protests. I hope that makes some sense. I won't oppose any effort to add reliable, neutral criticism.... and if I forget and overreact, be sure to remind me of this conversation. I can be a bit fast on the delete finger when there are sockpuppets around. HOpe htis helps. Wikidemon (talk) 19:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Thought about it and concluded it's best to leave things the way they are now (no "Criticisms" section) because of [1] the KISS principle ("keep it simple, stupid") and [2] less bait for partisans. Bye... and keep up the good work. Lapabc (talk) 19:42, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		For so diligently holding back the barbarians from the gates of CSPI criticism until a decent section could be crafted Rnickel (talk) 19:49, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Another problem user

Have you noticed the bad behavior of User:CENSEI of late? I hate to use the silly term, but it definitely feels like a case of wikistalking. Aside from the ACORN nonsense, and the 3RR reports that I only learned of when you mentioned them in passing on the ACORN talk page, CENSEI apparently followed my edits over at Reginald Foster (Latinist). This latter one really doesn't seem like any kind of political topic or hotbed. I added a rather uncontroversial sentence to a rather uncontroversial section, and CENSEI responded by repeated deletion of the section. I have to think that's some sort of effort to start a personal attack on me rather than anything about content per se (on the other hand, I think I saw this editor had done something at the article Religulous, or something linked to it as I was browsing)... so it might be a hatred of that movie that prompted some of the attacks. Hard to say... even harder to know what to do about it.

Be well. Thanks always. LotLE×talk 03:03, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Kincaid's (restaurant group)

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Kincaid's (restaurant group), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. raven1977 (talk) 22:25, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Weatherman RfD

I think there is consensus to include the proposed (Noroton proposals 1 & 2) language on terrorism within the body of the articles, but not the lead sections, and to include the entire Noroton proposal 3 in Weatherman (organization) article, because I think this works more like an AfD where new information eclipses previous comments, so the 2/3 votes in the "Noroton proposals" sections should establish a consensus. You seem to disageee. What if we both submitted the question to some respected, august Wikipedian and let that editor decide? I'd be happy with nearly any admin on Arbcom. I've had some conflicts with FT2, but I'd agree with whatever that editor decided if we submitted it to him, or NewYorkBrad, perhaps the most respected Wikipedian other than Jimbo Wales, or even Jimbo Wales. Please tell me what you think. -- Noroton (talk) 00:44, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The alternative is to ask AN/I to decide. -- Noroton (talk) 00:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

If "new information eclipses old information" then your attempt to gather so-called new information by re-noticing your new proposals is blatant canvassing, which should be simply discarded. The outcome of the RfC is clear. A majority of people at the RfC opposed including a mention of terrorism in the articles. Thus there is either consensus against, or no consensus for, and in either way the proposed content stays out. I have no patience for yet another re-do because you do not respect that result. Wikidemon (talk) 00:59, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Bluff all you want. We can try to settle it at AN/I or it will go to ArbCom. Or we could together go to some respected editor whose decision we can both abide by. It's up to you. Don't think I won't fight, and don't think the election is going to stop this. It's up to you. As far as I'm concerned, this is worth quite a bit of my time. -- Noroton (talk) 01:41, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

That looks like a threat to continue disrupting the encyclopedia. I'll take it for what it is. Another option for you is to simply recognize the decision of your fellow editors on Wikipedia. Wikidemon (talk) 01:48, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

No threat at all, feel free to be as high handed as you think you can get away with. I'll feel free to oppose your high handedness to the fullest extent of any Wikipedia-approved process I'm allowed. Your baloney is not going to go unopposed. Not one bit of it. Think I'm going to go away? Not a chance. I'm not going to let you get away with it. Period. -- Noroton (talk) 01:59, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Another threat. You should probably stay away from editing the affected articles.Wikidemon (talk) 02:01, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Mail

You've got e-mail! Grsz^X 02:21, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Please don't revert Obama article

You need to discuss it before you go around reverting experienced, long standing editors edits. This is unacceptable. Digital^Ninja 02:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

:What is wrong with you? Don't send me a template message, I've been editing for years. Grow up. Digital^Ninja 03:06, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

That is not how things work. If you have been here a while you should have learned that by now. Please review the links on the notice I left for you, as well as WP:BRD, WP:CIVIL, and the various content policies and guidelines cited on the talk page. Wikidemon (talk) 03:07, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

If an experience editor started vandalizing, they would be reverted immediately. Please stop trying to own the article, Digital Ninja. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 03:10, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I apologize for my comment that I left which i just stroked through. I didn't even realize it was a probation notification. I immediately thought it was an edit warning. My apologies. Digital^Ninja 04:36, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Obama in the New party

The claim that Obama ran as a New Party candidate is sourced to the web archived version of the New Party's own pages. It is therefore a properly sourcd factual claim and should not be deleted.--Mikedelsol (talk) 16:57, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

It may be true, but it actually needs a substantially better source. Webarchive is not a reliable source as defined in WP:RS (sourcing guidelines), and New Party itself is actually a primary source, which is best avoided in biographies of living persons. It's better to let a reliable source, like an independent newspaper, verify and fact-check the claim. Personally, I think it should go into the article... if it checks out. But it shouldn't go in with only a Webarchive version of New Party's website as its source. --GoodDamon 17:15, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

A minor/fringe party's claim that a major political candidate was once a member, at the most, should be cited as exactly that - a claim, and the exact context of the claim needs to be stated. As we have seen with Sarah Palin supposedly being a member of the Alaska Independence Party, these claims have a way of being bogus. It seems very unlikely that Obama would have been a member. Based on the Palin example it seems logical that either someone at the party is trying to make hay, it is part of a smear campaign and simply untrue, or the party itself is being overly ambitions in claiming that anyone who ever attended an event or met them is on their member list. Another thing to be careful about is supposed documents that get emailed around and put up in the blogosphere. There are a lot of pages out there trying to prove this or that about Obama. Wikidemon (talk) 18:46, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Mother's Cookies

An article that you have been involved in editing, Mother's Cookies, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mother's Cookies. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Oscarthecat (talk) 09:17, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Taunting

Please stop taunting Noroton (talk · contribs). Do not post to their talk page again. They have made clear that they do not want to hear from you at this time.[21] They cannot avoid that page. You can. Jehochman ^Talk 19:14, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Are you saying that as an administrator? If so would you kindly retract that? I have not taunted Noroton. My contributions on his page are completely appropriate and warranted. Noroton asked twice for an unblock, each time fixating his anger on me for being blocked and threatening to carry on some kind of vendetta against me personally as an editor. I realize most administrators will not unblock an editor who is making threats or arguing that he was justified in his misbehavior. However, not all administrators are careful in unblocking. Under the circumstances, it is entirely appropriate for me to leave a comment for reviewing administrators regarding Noroton's unblock request. As the target of much of Noroton's misbehavior I have as much place to say that as he has to make the request. If there is any reason to communicate with him after his unblocked I hope to do so, keeping in mind that it is useless to give cautions to certain people who respond poorly to them. He does not own his talk page in that way. My final comment related to Noroton's unblock request, but also said I was giving Noroton space in hopes that others would do the same (at least one other editor who he was badmouthing was taking the bait and arguing with him there). Even a cursory reading of his talk page comments shows that he is taking a twisted interpretation of things. That he chooses to see everything I do as evidence of bad faith and a plot against him is unfortunate, and something I cannot help. I am not seeking him out and am happy to have nothing to do with him - but when he disrupts some very important articles on Wikipedia then I, along with dozens of other editors he is frustrating, are forced to deal with it. Wikidemon (talk) 19:36, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I am not warning you. I am asking nicely for you not to post there because the user is very upset and I hope that they will calm down. Jehochman ^Talk 19:39, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, okay. Yes, that is good advice for sure. I hope he can assure himself that I am not an evil schemer - but I am concerned of the trouble that he may cause if he does not.Wikidemon (talk) 19:47, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi

I am contemplating returning to more active editing. I have been reading over the Obama talk pages for the last few days. I remember how we got off on the wrong foot. Some of it was I.I remember being extremely frustrated by my perception of the language and tone of our interactions. I assumed that you were an administrator. The honest truth is that I submitted your name for review because I had mistaken you for one; I did think the name that you used then was misleading. Fast forward to today. Some other people appear frustrated by language they think is threatening. I know you know, and it won't be a problem for me. I think some issues shouldn't be in the article: Muslim, birth certificate,is he black, white or blight or other stupidities. I think we can agree on that. These editors pushing for it are perhaps operating under misconceptions. I do believe the article should mention Wright, Ayers, and Renko. I'm sorry that I didn't participate in those conversations. I think that they can be discussed again in the future. Consensus changes, and attempts to revisit these subjects shouldn't be closed down before a reasonable amount of time elapses to give full opportunity for interested editors to comment. I hope that we will be able to edit together amicably again. See you on the pages.--Die4Dixie (talk) 06:37, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for reaching out and reminding me. Do you think the new editors will listen to you? One thing that people don't seem to understand is that I usually object to discussions that are completely pointless and/or hot-headed. A courteous discussion of something is just fine. If you do want to propose expanded treatment of W A and R, maybe you can make a concrete suggestion one at a time. Proposals that start with "this article is biased" or "all the editors here are trying to protect their candidate" tend to make people defensive. Who knows? You might talk me into it. Wikidemon (talk) 06:58, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Fellow seems to be wound up now. I can't promise anyone will listen to anything I say. I suggested he refract his comment on the talkpage of Obama. I also invited him to dig around my pages some. I'll be crashing soon. I might be on again tomorrow.--Die4Dixie (talk) 07:48, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Rape kit section of Sarah Palin article

I wonder if you wouldn't mind taking a look at the discussion about the inclusion of rape kit information on the Sarah Palin article. I could ask some people who I believe to be republican partisans to comment, but I think a more neutral or left leaning opinion would carry more weight, especially one so prominent in maintaining an article in a very similar situation. I believe the discussion is closely analagous to several we've had on the Obama discussion page, but, of course, I respect your opinion and would appreciate it even if you disagree with my position and point out where I'm mistaken.LedRush (talk) 23:54, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'll take a look. Overall, I'm pretty skeptical that it is a very important issue in the campaign, much less a biographical article about her.Wikidemon (talk) 00:02, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Your opinion on NPOV Sarah Palin? TAKE TWO

Please post at talk, thanks. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 03:38, 17 October 2008 (UTC)