User talk:Bonewah/archive 1

Bonewah!

Leave the Charles Koch article alone. Everything on that page is fully documented. If you care to read the sources instead of relying on your own (from the comments on this page) opinion of what should be presented and what should be censored, we will all be happier. Again, I don't know yet what all administrative action I can take against you but be sure, you will lose. Stormport (talk) 16:14, 21 July 2009 (UTC) Stormport (talk) 16:15, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Welcome!

Welcome! Hello Bonewah/archive 1! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, ask me on my talk page, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Below are some recommended guidelines to facilitate your involvement. And remember, no question is "stupid"; if you have anything, absolutely anything that you'd like to know, feel free to drop on by and leave me a message! :) Happy editing! Basketball110 My story/Tell me yours Getting Started Wikipedia Tutorial How to edit a page The five pillars of Wikipedia Manual of Style Be bold in editing How to write a great article WikiProjects Getting adopted Getting your info out there Cite your sources Neutral Point of View Point of View Verifiability Uploading images Image use policy Getting more Wikipedia rules Policy Library Getting Help My Talk Page New contributors' help page Where to ask a question Help Desk Frequently Asked Questions Getting along Wikiquette Civility Sign your posts Wikipedians Conflict resolution Getting technical Pages needing attention Peer review Utilities Village pump

Useful Wiki links

Wikipedia:Dead external links/404/misc

link search

wikipedia:Requests for comment

Re: POV flag on 2004 election controversies

Hello Bonewah, thanks for alerting me of the changes that you made on 2004 United States election voting controversies. You made a lot of constructive edits, but I believe there is still work that needs to be done. I unfortunately didn't specify exactly where in my original talk page comment where I thought there were neutrality problems, but based on a quick skimming comparing the version I applied the tag to and the current version, I still see some instances where there may be original research and where there may be some undue weight. I'll take a closer look at the article in the next few days and give you some more details on where I think some issue should be addressed, but overall you've done some good work here. Thanks! --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 22:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey Bonewah, just wanted to let you know that real life is getting in the way of Wikilife at the moment, so I won't be able to get back to you as soon as I'd originally hoped. I just wanted to drop you a quick message so you'd know that I'm not leaving you hanging. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 21:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello again, sorry that I took so long to get back to you, but things were really hectic the past few weeks. I was able to find time tonight to go through the article and fix problem areas. Here's the diff of my changes. A lot of it was actually just cleanup. The most significant change was that a lot of the racial discrimination section was removed. I felt that a lot of it was supported by non-neutral opinion sources, in particular I thought that RFK Jr. wasn't qualified to make the statements that he did, and dead link sources. I think that article is now at a point where the tag can be removed so I deleted it myself.
I'd like to thank you again for putting in the effort to help present the article in a neutral manner. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 03:41, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

2004 election controversies

Hey, just leaving you a quick message that I presented an alternate version to my edit on the 2004 United States election voting controversies and elaborated on its purpose on the talk page. Thought you'd like to take a look. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 04:53, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Movement to impeach George W. Bush

Re [1], "please stop ignoring parts of the discussion you do not like": I hope you aren't offended by my reminding you to please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Movement to impeach George W. Bush is a controversial article with often heated discussions. It's best to closely follow talk page guidelines and keep a cool head even when you think others are not. --Ronz (talk) 19:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Surprise Collapse

Hi Bonewah, I'm topic banned on the 9/11 articles, so I can't participate in the discussion on the talk page, but I thought I would direct you to this discussion I had with Aude about whether or not engineers were, in fact, surprised. Bazant, who is probably the leading expert on the progression of the collapses, said that "No experienced structural engineer watching the attack expected the WTC towers to collapse." That is, after seeing the planes hit, the collapses surprised them. In fact, It was the "biggest [surprise] since the collapse of the Tacoma Bridge in 1940." Ronald Hamburger (another cited source) did not think explosives were absurd. He originally thought they might explain (what he saw as) the poor performance of the building. Engineers would later come to accept an explanation that did not involve preset charges, but that does not mean they weren't initially surprised. Full disclosure: I wrote the sentence you want to remove.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 05:54, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Jane Mayer

You seem to have a difference of opinion on politics with Ms. Mayer. That's fine and up to you. But to continue to insist that she is not notable is imprudent. Your standard seems to be: if someone does something in the course of their job, then they are simply performing their job and therefore they aren't notable. I suppose one might apply to the same reasoning to a lot of jobs. For instance, Barack Obama is simply performing the jobs of the presidency, and so is not notable for that. Jane Mayer is among, whether you agree or disagree with her politics, the foremost investigative reporters in the country. She was nominated for the National Book Award, for which even being nominated is a rare honor among authors. If you have something reasonable you'd like to point out about her methods, or if you disagree with them, why not approach it that way, and write a sentence or paragraph (or whatever), supported by footnotes? But to continue to argue whether she's notable or not is beating a dead horse. Her notability was established when the article was created. Regards, MarmadukePercy (talk) 14:15, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Where do you think this argument of yours is going, Bonewah? And what is your argument, anyway?

Of about 200,000 books published in the US in 2008, Mayer's "The Dark Side" was one of twenty nominated for a National Book Award. For you to contend that the fact that she was not amongst the four winners makes her achievement less than "notable" is absurd.

For you to insist that the achievement be validated by other sources has been dealt with. Mayer has been interviewed and cited as an expert countless times in all manner of media.

Are you trying to achieve something? If so, what?

Roregan (talk) 17:41, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, and apology accepted. I'm glad you are happy with the way it turned out in the end. Take care and have a good day. Best, MarmadukePercy (talk) 17:36, 12 March 2009 (UTC) And I had to laugh at the anti-flame star. Thank you.MarmadukePercy (talk) 17:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Worse than watergate

hello Bonewah. i noticed you had flagged john deans book as being questionably notable, and without sources. i provided 2 sources that i think are adequate for this title. im very new to wikipedia, and do not feel comfortable removing your tags. im not even sure thats proper policy, or even civil, but i think the book is now established as notable and sourced. would you be kind enough to remove the tags if you know the right way, or let me know what you would like for it to be better sourced? sincerely, Mercurywoodrose (talk) 08:00, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for your recent work on the Political positions of Sarah Palin article. —ADavidB 04:14, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Ken Blackwell article bias

I have better things to do than debate if including a fact which is contrary to the apparent goal of whitewashing the FACT of Mr. Blackwell's shorting of voting machines to democratic districts during the 2004 election is an unacceptable "POV". You can have your factually worthless article, I will spread the word that it is, and refer people to the NYT article (among others) that documents this and other facts about Mr. Blackwell. Do not think you will succeed in keeping this fact from surviving suppression attempts, because you will not. Your attempt to appear unbiased through vague useless references to non-existent documents as the sole "mention" of these facts is both dishonest and contemptible. If I had the energy and will to waste, I would seek a neutrality dispute flag but as I do not, this soon to be "edited" out of existence comment will be my last involvement through Wikipedia on the issue. 96.57.208.98 (talk) 15:16, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Answer on truthout

This is the citation format that I used:

{{cite web	
 |title=Democratic House Officials Recruited Wealthy Conservatives
 |first=Matt |last=Renner |date=September 6, 2007
 |work=[[truthout|t r u t h o u t]]
 |url=http://www.truthout.org/article/special-report-democratic-house-officials-recruited-wealthy-conservatives}}

It has been almost 4 months since that edit, but this is what I'm guessing: I probably followed the url [2] to the site and did a copy and paste of the title, author, etc. and edited from there.

Here is the cut and paste:

 Special Report: Democratic House Officials Recruited Wealthy Conservatives
   Democratic House Officials Recruited Wealthy Conservatives
   By Matt Renner
   t r u t h o u t | Report
   Thursday 06 September 2007

Then I likely added the template info around it, deleting the "Thursday", changing date format and adding "first", "last", etc. Note that the copy and paste has the spaced truthout. It seems to be a formatting used commonly on the site. — ERcheck (talk) 21:52, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Juan Cole

I realize you you don't like Juan Cole, but that's no reason to go on a crusade to remove him from wikipedia altogether. I agree with some of your removals like the one on Christopher Hitchens page, but a vast majority of them appear to be because you don't like Coles views. Particularly on his own page. There are many pages on wikipedia which give the subjects political views and sense these come fromm coles own blog they are relevant. Please try to exercise better judgment instead of just removing a source from multiple articles because you don't like them. annoynmous 22:08, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Acutally I realize the Hitchens source was relevant because it's about criticism of him. Cole surely was a very prominent critic of Hitchens, particularly in his salon article. So other than the edit to the U.S. Iran relations article all your removals of cole appear to be based on biased assumptions.

Juan Cole is a tenured professor at the University of Michigan and a specialist on the Middle East who spent much time in the region. Your going to have to give a better reason than "you cares what Juan cole thinks" for removing him from articles. annoynmous 23:09, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Well he wrote a book on Napoleon in Egypt that dealt with those issues. I don't understand why someone has to win a nobel prize in order to be qualified to comment on Napoleon. I see you are engaged in a dsipute with another editor on that issue. You free to argue with him over that all you want.

My main concern are articles like the Lancet Report, 1996 Quana massacre, lewis libby, Christopher Hitchens, current history and the habbush letter where it seems you removed Cole simply because you didn't like his views.

In Lancet report he wasn't commenting on demogrpahy, he was commenting on how Iraqis bury there dead and that is relevant to the subject. The Hitchens and Libby articles are political criticism and whether you like it or not they are notable. Also being a scholar on the middle east means his opinion is relevant to the Quana and Habbush matters.

Then theres the matter of Capital Athletic Foundation. You must know it was not just Cole who accused them of smuggling weapons to Israeli settlers, it was also Michael Iskikoff of Newsweek. I don't know if that can be specifically defined as terrorism, but it certainly was a scandal as it was one of Jack Abramoffs front companys.

So if you want to debate the Napoleon article go ahead, but the I see no reason why Cole should be removed from the other articles. annoynmous 16:27, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I should make clear that you should discuss the dispute with the other editor you argued with. That's not license to just revert it automatically. Cole is a scholar on the middle east an regardless of wheter or not you consider him notable his views deserve to be heard. annoynmous 16:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Just let you know that I intend to add him back until you give a reason why a scholar on the middle east is not allowed to express his opinion. Outside of the U.S. and Iran relations page you gave no reason for removing him other than "Who cares what Juan Cole thinks".

I also agree with the Napoleon removal because for that particular page it doesn't seem relevant, but other than that there is know reason to remove his commentary from articles that deal with middle east issues. annoynmous 21:41, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Also so what if he isn't the head of the department. So that means he's not a respected scholar.

On the habbush letter, well just because he didn't write extensively on it doesn't mean his opinion on it isn't relevant.

On the Capital Athletic Foundation, you seem to forget I mentioned that Michael Iskikoff of newsweek also reported that weapons were shipped to israeli settlers. annoynmous 21:51, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Compromise to avoid edit war

It seems like where heading down the road to an edit war across several articles and I frankly don't have the strength for that. I was recently involved in another lenghty edit war on another article that left me burned out and I would like to take a break from wikipedia.

I have removed the Capital Athletic Foundation from the Charities connected to terrorism article sense Israeli settlers technically don't count as terrorists. I feel they should be, but that is another matter.

The ones where I feel Cole should stay are The Lancet Report, Christopher Hitchens, Current History and The Habbush Report.

I also feel Coles own article should stay the same for now.

I'm willing to consider removing Cole from the Lewis Libby Pages and the 1996 Quana page.

I would rather we try to settle this dispute in a dignified manner and I will start by saying I'm sorry if you found any of my comments above offensive and will try to watch my tone from now on. I hope we can both address each other in a dignified manner. annoynmous 23:18, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I've decided to give up on the Quana article because another editor is objecting to it and I don't want to get it two edit wars with two editors. I feel the Lewis Libby source should stay sense it was written in Salon. annoynmous 00:30, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I shortened the views section on Juan Coles page some. I took out his views on Turkey, Kashmir, Syria and Darfur. In the future I'll try to shorten it some more. annoynmous 00:49, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Well I'm glad you think I'm Juan Cole, but it doesn't make it true. I am not Juan Cole. Yes I am from Michigan, but I am not him. Sorry to burst you bubble on that. I am just an average person, not a university professor. If you want full disclosure I live in essexville michigan which is next to Bay City which is very far from the University of Michigan.

Second I reverted some of your edits because they seem to have been based purely on the fact that you didn't like coles opinions. Wikipedia policy allows blog comments if they come from a scholarly source, and Cole is a respected scholar on the Middle East.

Finally I made a series of edits to coles article that shortened and summarized the page and removed a lot of fat from the article. I tried to address your problems with the article because I agreed it was a little long. I made a compromise offer for the future so we could avoid a back and forth edit war that might extend over several articles. I thought I was being reasonable.

I feel that I have addressed those grievances and consider the matter closed. Truly If I was Juan Cole why wouldn't I admit it? annoynmous 21:14, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Also I would like to say that I agree that Juan coles opinion on everything shouldn't be cited, but on matters regarding the middle east like the Lancet report and the habbush report his opinion should be included. On Lewis Libby and Christopher Hitchens his opinions are written in Salon which is a respected online news organization. The rest I don't care about and you can debate the Napoleon and charities accused of terrorism articles with other editors.

I just happen to be a fan of the mans blog. I'v never met the man or taken a class taught by him. In fact politically he's probably more mainstream than I am. I just felt his expert opinion should be defended in certain articles. annoynmous 21:27, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

My point is that it says that the subject, in this case Juan Cole, has to have his material published by a third party. Your completely misenterpreting the guideline by saying the blog entry itself has to be published by a third party source. annoynmous 19:56, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Here is an excerpt from Coles blog:

"First of all, Iraqi Muslims don't believe in embalming or open casket funerals days later. They believe that the body should be buried by sunset the day of death, in a plain wooden box. So there is no reason to expect them to take the body to the morgue. Although there are benefits to registering with the government for a death certificate, there are also disadvantages. Many families who have had someone killed believe that the government or the Americans were involved, and will have wanted to avoid drawing further attention to themselves by filling out state forms and giving their address."

Now that's him giving his expert opinion on how Iraqis bury there dead.

Plus here are his credentials:

1975 B.A. History and Literature of Religions, Northwestern University 1978 M.A. Arabic Studies/History, American University in Cairo 1984 Ph.D. Islamic Studies, University of California Los Angeles 1984-1990 Assistant Professor of History, University of Michigan 1990-1995 Associate Professor of History, University of Michigan 1992-1995 Director, Center for Middle Eastern and North African Studies, University of Michigan 1995- Professor of History, University of Michigan

Plus the guidelines don't say that the blog entry has to be picked up by a newspaper, only that it is preferrable. In this case, Coles particular opinions in this regard weren't picked up so this is the only place you can find them, which is exactly what this exception was made for.

annoynmous 20:10, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

To end this dispute would you be willing to compromise and let the second Cole entry in if I agree to to the deletion of the first. annoynmous 20:29, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Let me think on it and get back to you tommorow. Bonewah (talk) 20:43, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Charities accused of ties to terrorism

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

Please use the talk page and do not remove content until consensus is formed. --neon white talk 17:46, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-04-27/List of charities accused of ties to terrorism

Hello. I'm a mediator who has had a look at this case, but there is inadequate information as to what the dispute is. MedCab has undergone some work to improve it today, and I'd like to see if the new format works. Could you re-fill out the case page, which asks for certain info, and I will see what I can do to help. Thanks, Steve Crossin ^Talk/₂₄ 04:10, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Parodies of Sarah Palin

Bonewah, you recently made an remarkable series of edits:

• 15:24, 14 May 2009 this, in which you removed the "See also" link to Parodies of Sarah Palin from Saturday Night Live parodies of Sarah Palin, with the edit summary Removing now dead see also. (The link was blue, and live.)
• 15:25, 14 May 2009 this, in which you removed the "See also" link to Parodies of Sarah Palin from The Masked Avengers' prank on Sarah Palin with the edit summary See also: now just a redirect. (Yes, and a redirect to an article that included much of what had been in "Parodies of Sarah Palin".)
• 15:26, 14 May 2009 this, in which you added "{{rfd}}" to Parodies of Sarah Palin (then a redirect to Sarah Palin) with the edit summary This redirect has been listed on Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. (TW).
• 15:26, 14 May 2009 this, in which you added Parodies of Sarah Palin to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 May 14 with the comment No longer used. (Thanks to your very recent deletions, no longer used within en:Wikipedia; it may be linked from elsewhere.)
• 17:09, 14 May 2009 this, in Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 May 14: in response to a question How do you know [the redirect] is not being used? you say I know its not being used because i checked the "what links here" tool on the redirect page. (True, but how much more informative this summary would have been if you had added "and removed the links to it".)
• 18:44, 14 May 2009 this: You say in Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 May 14 that I see now, its so you can actually get to the previous page (history and talk).

Yes, it's so that people can actually get to the previous page: its history and talk. It's also so that people can actually get to the material to which it points.

As you know, Parodies of Sarah Palin underwent an AfD. As it happens, you and I were major participants: you the nominator, me the most prolix opposer. There was not a single "delete" vote (other than your own); there were several "keep"s, and about the same number of "merge (and redirect)"s. At the end of all this, the verdict of the closing admin was merge to public image of Sarah Palin. If there had been other arguments the conclusion might have been something like reduce this material to an inoffensive minimum, and make this an inconspicuous sentence or two within Public image of Sarah Palin; however, it was not. There's instead a clear intent to retain much of the "Parodies" article.

Am I wrong in guessing that you are unhappy about the retention and accessibility of this material? If I am wrong, I wonder what was on your mind when you were deleting links rather than amending them, and doing so with evasive edit summaries. (A desire to reduce clutter seems implausible as a reason for so complex a series of edits towards reducing so very little clutter.) If I'm right, then perhaps you are dissatisfied with the "merge" verdict for "Parodies of Sarah Palin". If you are indeed dissatisfied with this and can present a convincing reason for change, you should bring up the matter up openly, perhaps at WP:DRV. As long as you cannot do so, you'd better learn to live with the verdict. -- Hoary (talk) 10:18, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Bonewah. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bobby Kerr (businessman).
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

CargoK ^{user talk} 17:48, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Big Green Tractor

Stop it! There's nothing wrong with the article! It is just as perfect as any other song article! If you post it for deletion one more time, i will report you to the administrators! Ryanbstevens (talk) 18:57, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

• I agree, but in a more civil fashion. The song is a charting single, and it does have a couple reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:09, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

• It still has a couple decent sources, so I'd give it the benefit of the doubt for now. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:34, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

• Would you be interested in withdrawing this nomination? I think WP:SNOW would certainly be applicable here. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

My Apologies

I am very sorry about my comments that i had made above. I just wasn't in my better moods. I didn't mean that as an attack. Forgive me? Ryanbstevens (talk) 19:31, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Naomi Elizabeth

The page in question was vandalized maliciously. Hence it looked like it needed to be deleted. It has, as of now been reverted to its original state, which I will repost here if that's ok. I expect that it may be the subject of this problem again. Feel free to delete the text from the talk page if it is cluttering things up. Thanks so much Hhtttt (talk) 16:48, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• I snipped out the copy-paste job as a GFDL violation. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Meg soper

A tag has been placed on Meg soper requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, interwiki link, rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

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 page 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 page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:22, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Looks like the page was deleted while you were using Friendly to add the advert tag. KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:24, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

African Heritage Studies Association

How did you decide that African Heritage Studies Association is not notable? A quick check at Google Books "African Heritage Studies Association" shows otherwise. Articles should not be deleted for being stubs. --Apoc2400 (talk) 16:13, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

re: Tara Mason

Ha! We both hit submit at the same time, thanks for catching that. - 2 ... says you, says me 19:08, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Dan Choi

I have deleted the tag. The article is, as you said yourself, adequately sourced. Choi is as notable as Leonard Matlovich, Joseph Steffan, and Margarethe Cammermeyer, and several other who also have articles.THD3 (talk) 19:26, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

It's a bit of a other stuff argument, notability has to be established on its own. If anything, I would argue that all of those people should be merged into dont ask dont tell as examples of criticisms of and failures of that policy. Im not saying that information about Dan Choi should be expunged from wiki, just that it might not be suitable for a biography. Bonewah (talk) 19:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

List of mainstream musicians that have dealt with Christian themes

This is far too controversial a deletion for the ProD process. It will most certainly be contested, for which is what WP:AfD exists. Bearian (talk) 19:49, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Malcolm Rae

Hi. I have tried to improve the article. Can you re-review and see if it is better. Thanks. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 20:05, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Notability tag

Tags are useful to flag issues that need to be addressed, but adding tags alone doesn't fix any problem. However if there's a dispute over whether a problem even exists then the placement of the tag can become contentious. Fighting over tags is an unproductive effort. (As a verteran of some edit wars over POV tags, I can attest that they're a big waste of time.) I'm not aware of any requirement for a consensus to add a tag, but tags can be removed without a consensus too, so it's a wash. In the end, if you you have the attention of other editors it's better to focus on fixing the problem rather that focussing on the tags. The specific notability tag that you're asking about has this text:

• This article may not meet the general notability guideline. Please help to establish notability by adding reliable, secondary sources about the topic. If notability cannot be established, the article is likely to be merged or deleted.

If a lack of sources is the real problem then perhaps one of the sourcing tags would be more appropriate. If you feel that the subject isn't notable then no amount of sourcing will fix that, and an AfD is the better route.   Will Beback  talk  20:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Zanella

You added two tags to Zanella but didn't say anything on the talk page. Could you add a note to the talk page saying what specifically the issue is?

re:List of charities accused of ties to terrorism

I'll happily relist it under the current date :-)

What ends up happening is we get drive-by mediators who really don't do much, and never make a comment to other medcabbers about what's going on. I rarely relist them as new, because nobody picks it up since it's listed as being requested in May.

In the future, just leave a message on MedCab's talk. Much easier to get the ball rolling that way :-) Xavexgoem (talk) 13:59, 20 July 2009 (UTC) Also, I recommend restarting the discussion, and then complaining to us. We tend to pick up cases quicker that way ;-)

Your comment as of 11 June says "Im going to work on my responses over the next week or so, and, as such, this will be a work in progress. (ill remove this notice and let the Mediator know when im finished)". It's been 6 weeks. Want to remove this notice? --GRuban (talk) 14:56, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, did that. Bonewah (talk) 19:53, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. --GRuban (talk) 19:54, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Bushism

You have reverted my correction of vandalism back to the vandalism. Pepso2 (talk) 14:16, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Boyce Richardson

Hi Bonewah,

I'm the original author of this article. I'd like to restore the references to B.R.'s 'Supercompanies' NFB film, it is indeed a prescient study of the role of multinational corporations in our society. Likewise for my reference to his blog 'BoycesPaper' as one of the earliest (1996) examples of an online journal of a type that has become ubiquitous (and its got the retro HTML to prove it). What say you? I realize the article does not conform to Wikipedia's norms for biographies - it was written prior to such straitjackets being introduced.

Macadavy (talk) 01:02, 19 August 2009 (UTC) Macadavy

My Apologies

Sorry for reverting your edit(s) on the Political positions of Sarah Palin article.--David - (Wikipedia Vandal Fighter). 19:27, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Your Welcome.--David - (Wikipedia Vandal Fighter). 02:55, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of six Radical Middle articles

Dear Bonewah, -- You have just removed six articles I posted from Radical Middle Newsletter; one on the One-State Solution for Israel-Palestine, one on Spiral Dynamics, and reviews of books by Thomas Friedman, Paul Hawken, George Lakoff, and Wendy Shalit. In doing so you stated that I appeared to be spamming and that my articles did not meet Wikipedia's guidelines.

I respectfully disagree, and I hope you will reconsider.

First of all, I have no need to “spam” on Wikipedia or anywhere else, since the Radical Middle Web site and many of its articles have done extremely well on Google for many years now without any spamming or advertising. Besides, as a personal matter I find spamming repellent.

Moreover, before posting those articles I thoroughly read Wikipedia's guidelines, and I chose those articles (and 12 others yet to be posted) with those guidelines in mind. Specifically, I picked articles that were (a) professional reviews and / or (b) provided insights or information beyond what the Wikipedia article contained. (In addition, most of them provided views beyond what the other “External links” contained.)

Radical Middle Newsletter was published from January 1999 through June 2009. It generated 120 articles in all. Most of them are substantial in length (generally 1,500 – 5,000 words) and substantial in content, too. A book based on the first five years of the newsletter won the “Outstanding Political Book Award” for 2004 from the Ecological and Transformational Politics section (Section #26) of the American Political Science Association. (You can’t get more “professional” than that!) If you read the articles I attempted to post, I think you will find that their quality, their clarity, and their use value is extremely high.

I posted those six articles (and would like to post 12 more) because I think Wikipedia viewers would benefit from the unique analyses, insights, and information they contain. I hope you will reverse your decision and allow the articles to be posted to Wikipedia. Sincerely, -- Vautrin (talk) 22:41, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Astroturf and 2009 Tea Party Protests

Upon further examination, we have only established the labeling of FreedomWorks and the 2009 Tea Party Protests as "astroturf" by various news organizations. You are correct in removing the link from the bottom of the article, as this would seem to assert the consensus of the media as "fact". However, I don't appreciate the accusation of POV-pushing that you wrote in your edit summary. Please assume good faith. Thanks and god bless. — Mike :  tlk  17:11, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:TPO

93.86.164.168 (talk) 16:57, 21 September 2009 (UTC)