User talk:Floridianed/User:Floridianed/Archive

Key West for German's

Welcome everybody and thanks for visiting;

Here is the issue:

My goal is to enhance the German Wiki-page about K. West. I'm a "fresh water conch" but moved about 2 years ago.

Here's my request:

I need up-to-date info about things only people living in Paradise know, (things I used to know back then).

Locals! Please leave your comments here!

Thanks a lot, --Floridianed 01:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

About User talk:88.8.104.231

I noticed that you have posted comments in a language other than English. When on the English-language Wikipedia, please always use English, no matter to whom you address your comments. This is so that comments may be comprehensible to the community at large. If the use of another language is unavoidable, please provide a translation of the comments. For more details, see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Thank you. --Regebro (talk) 18:48, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

You're right. I forgot! I translated my comments there now. Thanks for pointing it out, --Floridianed (talk) 19:28, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

• I started to check out all his reverts or contributions. A lot doesn't seems right to me, but some does. Since I'm working mostly on the German Wiki it might take some time to do so. --Floridianed (talk) 19:55, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, great. I can only see that he is vandalising a lot, and have reverted everything unless it's an obvious improvement. :) --Regebro (talk) 19:57, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Keep reverting it till there is some sence and/or proof that he is right. You did a good job regarding this so far  ;-) --Floridianed (talk) 20:01, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

• I made a new "catalonia" stub to solve at least one "problem" but need some help to make it work in the right place(s). I'm clueless when it comes to uploading pics.

You can find it here [1]

Floridianed (talk) 00:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, man :) I'll try to review some more of the edits he made. It seems that he made some useful contributions that are being reverted because of his attitude. I hope that this situation can be defused and Granadin can become a good contributor. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:36, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

You're reading my mind!  ;-) --Floridianed (talk) 22:39, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Results of the 2008 Democratic Party presidential primaries

You asked for a source, but for what? If for the superdelegates, as the reference in the table shows, these come from DemConWatch, and this is the source that editors have been relying on for months because it not only has the numbers but names exactly who is being counted and provides links to document each superdelegate - it is currently reference #4. The other numbers in the general results table are tabulated from the state results in the second table, which in turn are stated to derive from the individual state pages (linked by clicking on the state name) and the state pages are individually referenced, either for the individual numbers or for the delegates column of the relevant tables, or even for the entire table, usually from the Green Papers, but sometimes from other sites. Agricolae (talk) 23:40, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. I'll check on your claims what seems like I should have done before w/o bothering you. I'll check later or tomorrow and hope you accept my apologies regarding my remarks. Still, very pleased and thankful for your seemly comprehensive answer. --Floridianed (talk) 00:21, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Barack Obama edits

I added a very legitimate reference to a New York Times article about his cultural image among the Muslim community within the appropriate category. This is not vandalism by any standard. Please feel free to refer to third opinion or editors for dispute resolution. It seems you are censoring legitimate information for political reasons -- please see earlier laudatory references of a similar nature that have not been taken out (such as Peggy Noonan reference)

Thanks Saleemhali (talk) 03:07, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Were you able to check as mentioned in your last message? I would like to put back the NY times reference.

Thx 72.92.138.24 (talk) 14:25, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks for deleting the warning. I will put it in the presidential campaign article.

Saleemhali (talk) 14:27, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Confusing.

So in your mind, Noroton can single-handedly veto Rick Block's proposal because he likes the word "criticism," but it doesn't work the other way around? With all due regard, I don't think so. Every editor save Noroton was fine with Rick Block's proposal, which derailed its implementation. I don't appreciate the double-standard, nor the threat that you'll steamroll my objections while offering total deference to Noroton's. Shem^(talk) 03:05, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Shem, believe me I'm not happy with Noroton's standings either. It seems to me that as long as the word "criticism" stands he'd would go with it and so my intention was to give him this with the word "some" included even so I'd prefer your approach to the issue as I showed off and on at the talk page. I'm willing to compromise as far as needed as long as it doesn't make my head burst. You and Noroton have two very different view points and that makes it very hard to reach any consensus. Let me be clear, I'm not pointing the "blame finger" at you even so it may look so and there is no double standard from my side. Trust me in this. --Floridianed (talk) 03:50, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I hope you realize why your comments about "leting it fly" despite my objections were confusing. Noroton has singlehandedly obstructed the implementation of Rick's consensus version via his objections, and I'd appreciate the same respect for mine. Shem^(talk) 05:43, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

K4T response

If you intend to accuse me of being a "meat puppet" (no matter to whom) I suggest you bring it directly to my talk page thus I see it as a "cheap" insult to my person and good faith discovering such remarks somewhere I'm only able to find and respond by coincidence. Thank you. I'm glad you agree that making meatpuppet accusations is a cheap insult under those circumstances. Please notice that I spoke of you hypothetically to illustrate my point: essentially, if I'm a meatpuppet, then so are you. Shem made the original accusation on my Talk page and that was my response. Like you, I was "discovering remarks somewhere ... by coincidence" on the George Stephanopoulos article. Kossack4Truth (talk) 11:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Still, I dislike your comparison but let's just lay it to rest in peace. I have a question regarding part of your response here: What remarks where there made about you? I couldn't find them but am curious about and would be appreciated if you can point them out for me. Thanks --Floridianed (talk) 19:03, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Please look over the current options for Rezko language and pick one to help us get to consensus

Hi, I've noticed you've been a part of the Rezko discussion but haven't said which of the options now on the table you'd prefer. It would really help us to get to consensus if we could get your input on that. There's been plenty of discussion, but if you have questions, I'm sure other editors would answer them. The four options now on the table are the three in Talk:Barack Obama#Straw poll and Talk:Barack Obama#Scjessey-preferred version (which doesn't contain the word "criticism"). So far, the two most popular versions seem to be Clubjuggle's Version 3 and Scjessey's. Please help us try to wrap this up. Noroton (talk) 17:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Inappropriate conduct (add-on: true/false? --Floridianed (talk) 22:33, 13 July 2008 (UTC))

(References for my personal use):

• Edit in question (not given by accuser) starts here [2]
• Other edit(s) in question (not given by accuser): ????

• Copy edit from user:Trilemma's talk page:

Political positions of Barack Obama

Note that another editor recognized the unencyclopedic nature of your edit. I don't wish to argue, I only wish to notify you that your conduct is inappropriate. Trilemma (talk) 22:05, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Then stop arguing and work on improving the article, rather than highhandedly scolding other users and escalating conflict. Your last edit to the article was itself rather manipulative and editorializing. Would you like me to enumerate the ways for you? — goethean ॐ 22:17, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

(--Floridianed (talk) 22:24, 13 July 2008 (UTC))

---

(Accusation starts here! --Floridianed (talk) 22:50, 13 July 2008 (UTC))

In the past 24 hours, you have made a misleading edit summary and reverted to an objectively inapropriate edit (that is, the use of the term 'the rich' to describe people who would be subject to tax increases under Obama's tax plan). You have also failed to behave in a manner consistent with assuming good faith. This is a warning. The next time you violate policies or behave in a dishonest manner, I will report you to wikiquette. Trilemma (talk) 21:53, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about? It is your edit which, in addition to falsifying the article by dropping the word "billion," inappropriately editorializes beyond what the source says. Pot, kettle. Beam/eye/speck/neighbor, etc. — goethean ॐ 22:01, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Note that another editor recognized the unencyclopedic nature of your edit. I don't wish to argue, I only wish to notify you that your conduct is inappropriate. Trilemma (talk) 22:05, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

We don't say "many" and I guess you know this so please stick to facts and don't editorialize. By the way, I just reverted you and didn't insert "the rich" (what is clearly more precise than "many").

One more thing: This editor is talking about YOU, not me, so please don't give me such warnings. Thanks --Floridianed (talk) 22:17, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

PS: Thanks user:goethean for your comment here. --Floridianed (talk) 22:17, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

'The rich' is not more correct than many. Your edit is incorrect and misleading. Your lack of cooperation and POV warriorism is inappropriate. Trilemma (talk) 23:05, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I accept your apology --Floridianed (talk) 23:16, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

• Copy edit from user:Trilemma's talk page:

POV/bias etc.----- false/wrong?

Trilemma; If you wish contact me about "bias" (yours?/mine?) by e-mail. Maybe we can work this out this way. I'm making this offer while reading an edit of yours in which I'm not involved at all (w/o including any details here). It's up to you to take and respond to my offer (or not). --Floridianed (talk) 00:43, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

(--Floridianed (talk) 00:55, 16 July 2008 (UTC))

Bahia

(copy from Opinoso's talk page to keep it togher and in context. --Floridianed (talk) 02:35, 14 July 2008 (UTC):

Personal question about Bahia

Oi, Opinoso. Regarding your edit here [3] :

I know from my stay in Salvador da Bahia about the importants in history of the state of Bahia (and of course Salvador) but do not know anything when it comes to comparison to the rest of Brazil. Can you give me a brief comment on this for my own understanding? A personal note: On my first visit to Salvador (quite a while ago by now) I fell in love with Bahia, especially Salvador and went back to live there (unfortunately only) for a short time. I still have and always will have "saudade", you'll sure understand. Obregado, --Floridianed (talk) 01:27, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

PS: I didn't answer about the "pardo/brown"-"mixed" discussion yet but I'll do so at some point. Till then I'm satisfied with your explanation (which I know it's true). And you're right.Skanter isn't really helpful in that matter. --Floridianed (talk) 01:27, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

---

Hi.

What exactly do you want to know about Bahia? Opinoso (talk) 01:30, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Wow. That was quick.

You wrote: "...it's only comparable to Pernambuco...". I would like to know a little more about it since I must admit, that I don't know anything about Pernambuco. As I said, keep it brief so I don't take to much time of yours and with more first hand basics I'll find out more by myself. --Floridianed (talk) 01:40, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to answer in Português. I'm sure I'll understand it. --Floridianed (talk) 01:52, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I didn't wrote that part about Pernambuco! I reverted that part, it was written by a vandal user (actually, by a Skanter's IP. Opinoso (talk) 15:34, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: BigVinu

Please take a look at WP:RFA and read through it a bit. My question had nothing to do with Vinu's likelihood of passing, but rather how he was going about doing it. When an editor wants to run for adminship, they dont simply create the nomination page and link it from their user page. They have to transclude it at WP:RFA where it is monitored by the community and will run for a set period of time. As of now, his RFA wouldn't be considered legit even if he was getting support. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 03:01, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

See, I just learned something and appreciated your response on my talk page. I already apologized in case I missed something and would like to reinstate it again now that I do know better. Thanks, --Floridianed (talk) 03:10, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

No apology neccesary. My comment/question to Vinu may have come off as a little crass, which was possibly some of my intent. It appears he should've "known better" because of his apparent interest in RfAs and a recent questionaire he created regarding them. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 03:13, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

As I commented on his application I stated my personal encounter with him and opined that he is not ready yet to get a run as an admin. Your comment here shows me that there are even basic things he should be aware of (things I'm defiantly not). Regards, --Floridianed (talk) 03:21, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Happy's RfA

(copy from Happyme22's talk page to keep it togher and in context.--Floridianed (talk) 05:27, 15 July 2008 (UTC):

Your RfA at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Happyme22

Hi Happyme22. Just in case you missed or will miss my question I bring it to your talk page and would be apreaciated if you could give an answer at the Requests for adminship page. Here are my posts:

First comment and question here:[4]

Little disruption in between (just to keep the timeline) and second attempt:[5]

Little side mark; Not really important so but I "dump" it for you here:[6]

Thanks, --Floridianed (talk) 04:37, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah, of course Floridaned. I was going to respond to you but I had to log off (and I logged off haha) to go to an optometrist appointment. Then I had dinner. And now I will be happy to address your concerns at the RfA page. Best, Happyme22 (talk) 04:44, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey, thanks, but there is no rush at all ;) --Floridianed (talk) 04:51, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I've whipped something up at the RfA page. Best, Happyme22 (talk) 05:47, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

---

Ah, of course Floridaned. I was going to respond to you but I had to log off (and I logged off haha) to go to an optometrist appointment. Then I had dinner. And now I will be happy to address your concerns at the RfA page. Best, Happyme22 (talk) 04:45, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

You got my support by now ;), --Floridianed (talk) 00:57, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

RfA thank you

		Thank you!
		Floridianed/User:Floridianed, it is with deep awareness of the responsibility conferred by your trust that I am honored to report that in part to your support, my request for adminship passed (87/14/6). I deeply value the trust you and the Wikipedia community have in me, and I will embark on a new segment of my Wikipedia career by putting my new tools to work to benefit the entire community. My best to you, Happyme22 (talk) 05:05, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Re:POV/bias etc.----- false/wrong?

(copy from Happyme22's talk page to keep it togher and in context.--Floridianed (talk) 02:09, 17 July 2008 (UTC)):

Trilemma; If you wish contact me about "bias" (yours?/mine?) by e-mail. Maybe we can work this out this way. I'm making this offer while reading an edit of yours in which I'm not involved at all (w/o including any details here). It's up to you to take and respond to my offer (or not). --Floridianed (talk) 00:43, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

---

I'm not sure what you are referencing, and I'm unfamiliar with how to email people through wikipedia (yeah, I've been a member for quite a while and have made plenty of edits, but emailing is something I haven't done through here). This can't be discussed through the talk pages? If you wish to keep it private, just let me know (along with a how-to that admittedly I should know by now) and I'll try to oblige. Trilemma (talk) 21:56, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Trilemma; I appreciate and welcome your positive response. I sure think it will be better to discuss this in private so we both can talk more freely. I will give you all the information you'll need to use the e-mail function as soon as I have the time. Till then, regards, --Floridianed (talk) 02:01, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Terrific. Just a heads up that I will probably be away from computer access from Friday until Thursday, so there may be a bit of a delay in response. Trilemma (talk) 02:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

No problem at all. There is no rush and I myself will need some time as I mentioned ;) --Floridianed (talk) 02:19, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to the 2000 Primary Group!

You were one of three other editors that encouraged me to re-write the 2000 Primaries section of the George W. Bush article after I commented that it was a disjointed section about Rove, church, polls and that a more historical and factual summary would be better. So far, there has been no opposition.

If we have a "2000 Primary Group" of us four, perhaps we could propose certain ideas to get a feel of how acceptable they might be to the Wikipedia community? It would just be like first discussing things among friends informally, with no binding decisions, just discussion among rational people (rational, judging from the 2000 Primaries discussion.).

The new question is that there is a "cultural and political image" section in several politicians articles. Some of these are better written than others. However, there's a philosophical problem that hasn't really been addressed much or at all.

viewpoint A:
Should there be such a section at all? After all, it's just someone's opinion but that they have written it as a political commentator for a major news source (so it become sort of "reliable source" in Wikipedia terminology). Is it in the George W. Bush article? No. (retort could be "other crap exists").

If it is there, should all the major cultural and political images be reported, at least the most widely reported ones? (for example, Gerald Ford's image of being clumsy was very widely commented on). If not, isn't this subtle POV?

viewpoint B:
Or should an encyclopedia have none of this subjective rubbish and only facts?

From a practical standpoint, viewpoint B is less contentious because there would be no debate to what is included after it's decided not to have it. On the other hand, viewpoint A would report on commonly reported images (opinions) of the person which does have some historical and biographical value.

Let me know what you think? Chergles (talk) 15:09, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey thanks. I'll answer when I have more time (hopefully ASAP) --Floridianed (talk) 01:13, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Chergles; First of all, thank you for contacting me. As I mentioned on the George W. Bush talk page, his article really needs a "facelift". Even so he is one of the least likeable Presidents with terrible public opinions ratings doesn't give allowance to be bashed with POV in WP. That was my main concern when I answered to your proposal there. Now, I must admit that I usually try not to get involved to much in writing/rewriting articles but instead prefer to have an eye on them, giving my opinion sometimes or reverting controversial edits. Guess I'm some kind of "moral cop" (and yes, I make mistakes sometimes).

But now, after all that "soap" I should give you some answers to your request. For your first edit I already gave you a positive response on Talk:George W. Bush if you remember.

To be fair I also should tell you by now that I'm definitely not a fan of W. Bush but consider myself fair and neutral when it comes to encyclopedic entries like here in WP. I dislike sources that call themselves "neutral" and yet tell me what to think. I prefer to get the facts and make up my mind by myself and therefore I'm not pleased with the George W. Bush article. Ok, point made.

Now I finally get to your "Welcome to the 2000 Primary Group!" questions.

Feel free to ask or point me out to any question "in question" that comes up and/or you're not sure if an edit would "pass the skeptical/critical or just plain bias WP-community". I'll certainly will help to keep any reasonable NPOV edit stand.

About the "cultural and political image" sections in several politicians articles:

In general I personally dislike them since the Title leaves them open for all kinds of perspectives to edit. But they are there and so I guess we have to deal with them, but I think that most of those paragraphs inside those sections could be easily included in other sections while creating other new sections for issues that just don't fit anywhere else (but with a more specific section subtitle. --Floridianed (talk) 06:23, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I think viewpoint B is the best. The other member of our unofficial "2000 Primary Group" agrees with us. Wikipedia should just stick to the facts. Do you want to join part of a collective to eliminate the cultural and political section? The target to our effort would be both John McCain and Barack Obama. We would do it to both to eliminate the appearance of favoritism.

The alternative would be to include common cultural and political images that are also well sourced. The 2 articles omit some of these, possibly because of POV efforts of some people.

What do you think? (For this effort, I support WP and support a good encyclopedia. That's my reason for doing this.) Chergles (talk) 17:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I was planning to make a proposal like B (but be nicer and not call things "rubbish"). I will only do it if we have a united front (of 3 editors) agreeing to this common belief that such section is not suitable for wikipedia. So that it is not partisan, I was going to pick one Republican and one Democrat to do this. The choice of persons can come later (mutually agreed upon). Will you join me in this suggestion? Chergles (talk) 23:53, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Copy-edit from my comment made at Chergles talk page.:

Hi Chergles. Sorry for not having responded yet to the issue. I'll promise I'll do so soon (maybe this week-end?). But one important question I do have to ask you. You wrote: "I was going to pick one Republican and one Democrat ". I hope you don't mean me by that because I'm neither. Maybe I gave you the impression I'm a Democrat because I disagree with W. Bush? Anyway, if you meant to pick me for balance as a Democrat or Republican you picked the wrong one. Still, that doesn't mean I reject being part of the "2000 Primary Group". I think it's a good idea and I certainly "be honored" to be part of it (even so without much time on hand). Regards, --Floridianed (talk) 03:16, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

No, you misunderstood me. I propose to eliminate the section for the articles of one Democratic and one Republican. I don't make judgments to whether our group has Democrats or Republicans. Chergles (talk) 21:37, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

My new suggestion is that I plan to hold off for a few days and discuss possibilities with everyone in our group. If deleting the section is unsuccessful, should we consider making it fair and comprehensive? Or just be stubborn and say "no, no, no section"? I have purposely not looked at it for at least a week so I would not be biased. However, last time I looked, there were major cultural and political images that were missing. Some of these were positive and some negative. So should the backup plan be to figure out what are the 5-6 most common images and to add those and delete the obscure images (opinions, not photographs)? Once again, I see the main purpose in our group is to have another layer of level heads to consider that our ideas are very neutral and encyclopedic to insure high quality editing. Chergles (talk) 16:40, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Obama basketball

If I added a reference would it still be trivia? From, Smuckers ^{It has to be good} 07:55, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello Smuckers. Sourced or not, I consider it trivia. We all know that Obama is a good basket ball player but that doesn't make it worth to mention every goal he achieved. I won't reverse you again at the article but I bet some will do so. My point: It just doesn't have a change there, honestly. Best regards, --Floridianed (talk) 08:12, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL

Please refrain from edit comments that assume an abusive tone. As you will see on Talk:Barack Obama, User:Jacoplane who added the two images of Petreus to the Obama article concurs that the duplication is unnecessary and excessive. If you feel that for some reason these two largely duplicative images are necessary to the article, please make the case for that on the article talk page rather than adopting intemperate edit comments. LotLE×talk 06:40, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Please don't "advise" me on civil manners and again, don't point me out to the Obama talk page which I was paying attention to and therefore know, that there are it this point only two editors (and one of them is you) thinking two pics would be extensive. You see, I make mistakes like everyone does at times without bad intentions but I DID pay attention to the talk page and you seem to missed my comment there (like you missed at WB's ANI Wikidemo's in my opinion rightful remarks about Die4Dixie. Your not on my personal "hit list" but if you keep bringing up false allegations regarding my "online personality" I might change my opinion and trust on you. If you want to keep it civil please keep it civil by yourself. I could point out misleading edit summaries of yours in a blink of an eye, yet, that is and will be not my intention. To wrap this up: I have no bad feelings about you as a person and anything seen as "criticism" by you coming from my side, is nothing more than (and meant to be) "constructive criticism". Regards, --Floridianed (talk) 07:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Your comment on the talk page did not address the duplication, and in any case, your edit comment was a violation of WP:CIVIL. I'd really appreciate it if you avoid insults in edit summaries and comments. I wasn't concerned about the inaccuracy of your edit comment; perhaps you missed the fact there were two Petreus images, despite the edit history and comments. My concern is with civility. LotLE×talk 16:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Floridianed: I saw the edit summary in question and it was good for a much-needed laugh. This editor is in the habit of doing whatever he wants in the article mainspace and, when called on it, vaguely gesturing in the direction of the Talk page and its 30 archives, where you'll find nothing that justifies what he's doing. Well played. WorkerBee74 (talk) 21:35, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, WorkerBee74. It certainly makes me feel food if I can give someone a good laugh, even so in an instant where I lost a little bit control over my temper. But please no further remarks about it here on my talk page. Thanks and regards, --Floridianed (talk) 03:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello there

Regarding this edit, what do you mean by Now I am kind of wondering? From, Smuckers ^{It has to be good} 18:49, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, considering this and other edits you made (and you're sure aware by now how controversial they were) I'm especially wondering why you don't give specifics in your edits. It would be like me answering your question with "because", just to give you an example. Sure, sometimes a simple remark counts for a thousand words but they did not do so in yours. Did this answer your question? If not feel free to come back and ask for more. Regards, --Floridianed (talk) 01:24, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your response but I have a question..I was not aware one of my Obama (or any) edits were controversial, which one? (unless you're referring to the "joke" edit misunderstanding on my talk page). Also, you sound angry with me. I hope you are not mad at me. From, Smuckers ^{It has to be good} 04:45, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

No, Smuckers, I'm not mad at you at all. What gave you that impression?

Regarding your question: Yes, one part is the "joke-edit-issue" but that seems to be cleared up by now so no need to talk about this anymore. But another edit you made at a certain page (no need to mention it here) is the "WP:STALK" edit without giving any context. It is "old news" by now but since you've asked I point it out to you.

Smuckers, don't worry or else. You'll learn by mistakes as we all did and still do. Just keep an open mind (and your smilie face)  ;)

Regards, --Floridianed (talk) 04:11, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Spanish in United States Virgin Islands

My mistake. Sorry. The Ogre (talk) 03:07, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

By the way, you misspelled Portuguese in your user page (and if you can read Brazilian Portuguese, you can read European Portuguese as well...) :) The Ogre (talk) 03:10, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

No sorry needed. I checked it out before so I knew.

About "Portuguese" spelling: I did indeed wrong in the English naming of the language but at least did right in the native spelling :). Regards, --Floridianed (talk) 04:04, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Could you point me towards this article. I lived in St. Croix for 2 years , and used Spanish there professionally. Regards,Die4Dixie (talk) 13:54, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

It actually just was about someone adding (mistakenly) the "Category:Languages of the United States Virgin Islands" [7] to the Spanish language article. Regards, --Floridianed (talk) 21:31, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Sean Hannity

I don't understand how my contributions to the Sean Hannity article could be considered "radical." I rearranged and rewrote information to make the introduction more succinct, but little information was added or omitted. Now the present version lacks important details (e.g., the network on which Hannity's radio show airs) and contains at least one punctuation error. Unless you can explain what was wrong with my changes and how they qualify as "radical," I am reverting to my version.

P.S. If you look at most other articles on Wikipedia about people, you will find that putting the birth date in the opening sentence is standard practice, even if it is in the info box.

Leroyinc (talk) (21:46, 26 July 2008)

I'm wondering why you'd bothered to comment on this on my talk page since you reinsert your edit shortly after, 3 minutes to be specific??? I'll respond anyway so you'll understand my point and we'll can work together on this.

First, you're right about the birth date inclusion in the lead. That was clearly a fast "crap-shot" from my side and I realized that shortly after but, regretful, didn't correct it. I sincerely apologize for it.

I assume you are aware that the lead should be a general overview of the biography to give the readers a basic feeling and knowledge about (in this case) Sean Hannity, so we don't have to discuss this point.

Here some of my concerns regarding your changes, (some of the ones I see as "radical" but maybe should've better called them "controversial"):

• You omitted "He first gained national recognition as co-host of Fox News Channel's Hannity & Colmes." and therefore leaving out a major part of his history.

• "...airs throughout the United States on ABC Radio Networks." The highlighted bold part is not necessary, a bit editorial and more importantly, is covered in detail in the article.

• "Hannity is also well-known as host of two popular television shows on Fox News Channel, Hannity & Colmes. Again, highlighted in bold a bit editorial and POV-concerns from my side.

My proposal (based on your edit) would be as following:

"Sean Hannity (born December 30, 1961) is an American radio/television host, author, and conservative political commentator. He first gained national recognition as co-host of Fox News Channel's Hannity & Colmes and is now known best as co-host of this popular show and the also popular television show Hannity's America on the same network. In addition he currently hosts his nationally-syndicated radio program, The Sean Hannity Show, on ABC Radio Networks.

He is also the author of two New York Times bestselling books."

Hope I didn't made a factual mistake. Regards, --Floridianed (talk) 00:27, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Userpage

Hi. Your command of English is impressive. I wondered if you would care for some constructive criticism to make part of it sound more natural? I see you have the same love of language that I do, and my offer is genuine. Let me know if I can help.Die4Dixie (talk) 14:24, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Impressive? I don't think so :), but I certainly welcome your offer to improve my user page. How would you like to handle this? If you wish, I give you my permission to play around on everything above the "For private use only" section, or otherwise just let me know what you would improve. Thanks for your offer, --Floridianed (talk) 21:30, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

You would need to use an infinitive instead of the gerund there in English. If you opt to use something, then you would have to insert "to be" as you did in the last example. :)Die4Dixie (talk) 22:05, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your grammar check, correction and explanation. Once I see it, it becomes sooooo clear and obvious to me. I admit, I'm slurring quite a bit in my writing. So anyway, thanks again and if you find more mistakes feel free to correct them. No need to ask me for "permission" to make me (or better said my writing) look better. I'm really appreciated and if I can pay you back somehow please let me know and I'll be delighted to do so within my knowledge. Regards, --Floridianed (talk) 01:49, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Glad to be of service. I'll run the risk of sounding pedantic and suggest "appreciative" instead of instead of "appreciated" above. Are you a native speaker of German? I also see you have an interest in Romance language, and I'm always a little curious about fellow Wikipedians who have similar interests. Die4Dixie (talk) 15:08, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Apologies for my late response. "It's good to be the King" (Mel Brooks) and it's good to have a nice "pedantic servant", thus I'm truly appreciative for your help here ;) ! Furthermore, I'm interested in languages in general even so I'm (unfortunately) not a linguist by profession or by any other means besides that I love the feeling and the soul of languages. As for my German: I grew up overseas but will halt further information here for my privacy. Hope you don't mind and take no offence. It is certainly not my intention!

But let me tell you how delighted I am about your interests in languages. Do you know that (American) joke:" How do you call a person that speaks only one language? An American!". Always glad to see that this joke has potential to fade away and become ancient history thanks to smart persons like you.

Regards, --Floridianed (talk) 05:12, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

cultural and political image

So what do you think about suggesting the elimination of the section if/when it meets resistance. Should the less desirable alternative be to make that section a summary of the most common cultural and political images, whether good or bad (of course, not smear anyone)? What's your opinion? I think flexibility is the key. To be stubborn and say "no such section, my way or the highway" is not very wikipedian. True, our idea is the best but how about this alternative strategy should our effort to eliminate the section not work (of course, I'll try to be persuasive and make the elimination)? Chergles (talk) 17:41, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

ANI report

You have been mentioned in a WP:ANI report here. You may wish to participate in the discussion. Curious bystander (talk) 17:39, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for given me notice even so I'm just a "side note" there (what I sure don't mind at all). I might take a look there off and on but don't intend to give any input there unless you or someone else is asking me to do so on a specific point. However, anything I said [talking about what you pointed out there] I stand for, but even so, I'll keep the right of interpretation of my comments if necessary. Regards, --Floridianed (talk) 00:42, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Your comment

I am calm. Badagnani (talk) 06:16, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Good for you and I really appreciate to hear that from your side. It's always important to keep your "cool". Kindest regards, --Floridianed (talk) 06:21, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Thnx

Thank you for the up load. The title is ok. :)Die4Dixie (talk) 14:01, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Bush, polls, majorities

Hi, replied here. thank you, Comesincolors2 (talk) 01:45, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

re:

I am indeed still around; I just took a bit of an extended sabbatical ;) I hope to be returning to regular editing levels now, though. Trilemma (talk) 16:39, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Flag of Valencia

First, I would like to apologize for me moving yours and other editors comments to another section in the talk page, but understand that they derived to another matter not related to that section (which was the possibility of renaming the article).

Second, about your last edit in that same article... May I indicate to you that your truly good faith additions are sadly not so correct. Let me explain:

• "2:3 ratio flag commonly used when raised and presented together with other flags": That is simply an invention from user Benimerin. What the flag Protocol says is that: "The Flag of Valencia can't be bigger than the Flag of Spain nor smaller than the flags of other entities" see this reference (Title V, article 10, paragraph 3. Sorry, spanish only). So the protocol speaks about the size of the flag, it never mentions the ratio.

• "1:2 ratio historic flag which is still in use": This part isn't exactly right either. The Valencian (region or Kingdom) historic flag is considered to be the Pennon of the Conquest (which is of ratio of a hardly 1:1), but if you refer to the Historic flag of the City of Valencia, then we are talking about this one (the "Crowned one" with the blue fringe), which is also displayed in the Council of the City of Valencia and which, being of ancient times (15th to 18th centuries), does not follow present days official international guidelines about ratios. Apart from being swallowtailed (when the current one clearly isn't). Note that neither of them fits exactly with your description of "still in use". If we also sum up the historical flags used in the 20th century (official flag from 1977 until 1982 and Purposed flag of the "Estatut de Benicàssim"), you'll see that both have 2:3 ratios. Really, believe me that there isn't any historical reason to use 1:2 proportions. On the other hand, I would like to point out that it is possible to a territory to have an unofficial flag in addition to the official. The very same European Union has an unofficial alternative flag with a ratio of 3:7, rather than 2:3, in the Strasbourg hemicycle. (see: [8]). This doesn't mean that both european flags (2:3 and 3:7) have to become a de facto version of each other as Benimerian claims. --MauritiusXXVII ^{(Aut Doce, Aut Disce, Aut Discede!)} 00:28, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

For these reasons I ask you, after repeating you again that I understand your good faith, to undo your last edit.

I'll be glad to chat with you any consideration you may have on this matter. cheers. --MauritiusXXVII ^{(Aut Doce, Aut Disce, Aut Discede!)} 23:31, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, Mauritius, I saw all that and more and so I came up with a "temporary solution" to stand just till the controversy of opinions and facts are solved, but if you see it different, it didn't serve the purpose and I'll revert it. Kindest Regards, Eduard --Floridianed (talk) 00:23, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your comprehension. About the "temporary solution", Just don't worry about me. As I already explained to User:Enric Naval, I will stop reverting Benimerin and let Enric take the reins (hope in English it means the same as in Spanish or French) of this situation. He is a very calm and methodical editor which, I'm sure, will bring this situation to an end. Of course, I invite you to participate in the discussion as it will only bring another enriching PoV. Cheers. --MauritiusXXVII ^{(Aut Doce, Aut Disce, Aut Discede!)} 00:44, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I respect Enric as well. That's why he is on my watch list and that's why I ended up in that "dispute" "lol". I still have to get more familiar with the issue but with a little bit of time I'll sure manage to give some helpful NPOV-input (not POV!) Cheers and regards, --Floridianed (talk) 01:04, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for helping, Floridianed :) --Enric Naval (talk) 01:10, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Just trying ;) --Floridianed (talk) 01:14, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Thany you of your interest about the article. You can see that all the drawings of the former flags of Valencian Country has made by me. I explained already in Talk:Senyera Reial why I've used 2:3 for those flags, and I've made 1:2 for the flag today used. Sincerely. --Benimerin - كُنْ ذكورا إذا كُنْت كذوب - 10:22, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi User:Benimerin. You have to give me more time to get familiar with this issue. I know a lot more about Catalonia even so Valencia is somehow connected to it (and I totally understand that most if not all Valencianos will strongly disagree). I'll watch all related pages and hope you or another editor will point me to any important update (on talk pages) if there is one. Thanks for sharing your thoughts with me, regards and Salu(d) :) , Eduard --Floridianed (talk) 03:50, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

The Obama Nation

We just had a big debate about WP:Coatrack on the talk page. Please don't add templates just to thwart community consensus.Wikilost (talk) 03:11, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

• Sorry, I missed that. Still, no editor needs consensus if s/he feels the need of such or similar template, yet I placed it on the talk page as you probably saw, as a reminder. Regards to you and the IP that rv. me too, --Floridianed (talk) 03:26, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Article probation notice

Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, that an article to which you have recently contributed, Talk:Barack ObamaThe Obama Nation, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Talk:Barack Obama/Article probation. Please accept this as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that you have violated the probation terms. Thank you. - Wikidemo (talk) 04:41, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikidemo! I did not made any comment at Talk:Barack Obama. I did however made one at The Obama Nation, article and talk page. Would you please point out the edit you're referring to so I can respond? Thanks, --Floridianed (talk) 04:58, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, thanks for pointing that out. I should have been more clear that the Obama Nation article is under the Barack Obama article probation terms as an Obama-related article. Well, new template. Has some kinks! Wikidemo (talk) 05:04, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Some "kinks"? Sorry man, but better throw it in the garbage before confusing other editors, too. Besides that: I still don't know which edit of mind you found not inside the guidelines. Would you please give me my deserved answer? Regards from a right now not very pleased --Floridianed (talk) 05:11, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I've fixed the notice I gave other editors with something like the modification I just made to yours.[9] As the notice says, "Please accept this as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that you have violated the probation terms." It is a templated way to quickly alert people that they are editing articles that are on special probation terms, so that they aren't caught unaware. We'll see how it goes but it's probably a far easier alternative to manual notices, contention in the article space, disputes or lack of clarity as to whether people are on notice, etc. Wikidemo (talk) 05:23, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

• Look, I know you meant good. See here [10] !

But before placing your "new template" you should first look into users recent edits like these: [11], (the only real article edit I made [12] ), etc.: [13], [14], [15] and last one [16] !

Hope I could put some light in it. Kindest regards, --Floridianed (talk) 05:46, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Sure, thanks. We'll see how it goes. Wikidemo (talk) 05:55, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Now I'm getting even more confused (and maybe so do you). You still didn't answer my question about what edit of mine triggered your template-posting on my page and I don't think you've read the postings I laid out for you since you would know by now, that I am absolutely aware of the probation since I myself pointed it out on the page. Sorry, but I really don't get you unless just don't care about what I have to say. If so, just say it in my face, no problem and I won't take it personal and/or take it to any WP "court". So, for one more and the last time I ask you to respond to my questions that you triggered yourself and make it go away. --Floridianed (talk) 06:15, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I thought you were okay with it based on your last conversation. I'm not sure I understand your objection - are you objecting? I'm not accusing anyone of improper editing and not making any administrative complaint against anyone, just testing out a system for verifying that contributors to the pages got notice. I gave a non-accusatory notice to about ten people, on a test basis, who had made significant edits to two of the Obama articles in the past day or so. The edit of yours I saw was probably this one.[It was this one I believe.[17] I didn't make any judgment regarding whether the edits were disruptive, nor did I make any special effort to dig into their contribution histories to see whether they knew - in my opinion probation is only going to work if people are demonstrably alerted to page protection before, not after, they make a questionable edit, and issuing the first notice as a warning creates contention and defeats the whole purpose. That inevitably means that some people get told something they already knew, and plenty of people are alerted to rules they were not about to break anyway, but I don't see any harm to that. Wikidemo (talk) 06:58, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Everything is fine now! ;) Ed --Floridianed (talk) 01:54, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Misunderstanding

"mislead". By whom? By me? If so please point out the misleading part since it absolutely wasn't my intention. Thanks, --Floridianed (talk) 00:58, 19 August 2008 (UTC)" (Copy-edit from original Question from Blaxthos' talk page): "(title:) Talk:Bill O'Reilly (commentator); "youtube video" --Floridianed (talk) 02:04, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Regarding your query, no no... my response was more to you. Viral youtube videos are, of course, unacceptable sources. However, this isn't a "youtube video" in that sense... this is just a clip. The primary source is the Inside Edition episode itself, youtube is only the medium by which people saw the clip (analogous to a television set). We don't reference the TV set, we reference the show we saw on it. Now, youtube may be significant in that the video became viral, but that is covered by a reliable secondary source that covers the video (of which there are several). Sorry for the misunderstanding; I hope this helps clear things up. Cheers! /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 01:36, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

So I can tell you we meant the same but I just wasn't as clear (enough) as you laid it out here for me. I'll sure make "unclear" comments in the future but never to mislead anyone (besides a plain vandal maybe :) ). Thanks for your reply and kindest regards, --Floridianed (talk) 02:04, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

In the past other editors (one in particular) have tried to exclude stuff like this with the misnomer "youtube video" and no discussion... I was just trying to preempt having that discussion again. Sorry if I gave the wrong impression! /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, no apology needed. But I would like to make the following statement: I don't try to exclude anything from any article that I think is covered by the rules. Sometimes it is kinda tough, if you see something first hand (before anyone could've altered it) but you have to wait till other reliable sources cover and confirm it. Silly on one side but good on the other. You get what I'm trying to say, don't you. An example was the altering of pictures at FOX (now under controversies). One mentioned it on the side while talking about another issue and after I saw the whole thing by myself (on TV), all I could do is pointing out a video on MSNBC (a replay of the controversial part) to show that it' is real but we'll have to wait till we can "quote" written sources...!

Anyway, again, best regards, --Floridianed (talk) 04:18, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm inviting your comment

Here (and also, if possible, here?)  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 05:33, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Wasting your time?

First, I never claimed citation in the Hannity article showed the other part either. I'm not the one who put it there. Second, if you feel removing unsourced OR is a "waste of your time", you might want to re-think your time here. Third, I didn't give you an attitude and I gave no indication of needing yours. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:50, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. It was late (my time) and I wanted to quit and then you came up with new reason (absolutely rightful) reason to take the edit out again. I should've said (if at all), "...don't have time to fix it now..." or similar. I sincerely apologize for my harsh remark. Kindest regards, --Floridianed (talk) 23:21, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

No problem. It's all good. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Glad you accepted my apology. Regards, --Floridianed (talk) 23:48, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

What is your problem?

I was not vandalizing Obama. I added the information about his voting record. I even added a reference from a government website and you still reverted it. Jimmy Carter Barack Saddam Hussein Osama Obama bin Laden has done very little voting for this congress (thank God), and not representing this information would be less than factual. You do not have the power or the right to alter reality just because there are a bunch of you hippies out there supporting the Democrats' Confederacy utopia. Do not revert the change again. --Gefreiter (talk) 01:38, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

F.Y.I to Floridianed: Wikipedia:UserPage#Removal_of_comments.2C_warnings. Users are allowed to remove warnings from their talk pages. Also, please don't call apparently good faith edits vandalism. Personally, I agree that Gefreiter's edit was not supported by the source, but that doesn't mean that Gefreiter was vandalizing the article. - Enuja (talk) 01:47, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

• I would've apologized for a minor mistake I made and would've corrected it by myself since I gave him a warning for a vandal edit of his (and not the one he is accusing me) that was outdated because I didn't pay enough attention, but since he doesn't pay attention on his own and 1. is accusing me of reverting him what I never did, 2. placing a personal attack against me regarding my political stand without even getting it right and 3., his comment above makes his stand and believes clear and I will leave it there for good as a reminder of his "good faith" and "NPOV". Regards, --Floridianed (talk) 03:58, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

You left me a warning that my changes had been reverted, and you called my edit vandalism, which it was not. Logically, I assumed that you reverted my change, since you were the one subtly attacking my political stance. I do not like the anti-Christ, and I found that writing the facts would be very unhelpful to his career. Gefreiter (talk) 15:47, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

@ user: Enuja: Thanks for your input and pointing out the "Removal of comments, warnings" section. Before I didn't know that rev. doesn't apply to all warnings. Now I now better and try to remember the next time. Kindest regards, --Floridianed (talk) 04:12, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

AfD

I've nominated Obama Republican and McCain Democrat for deletion. Northwestgnome (talk) 18:33, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Palin

Floridianed, after your edit, the Palin article now says: "On September 1, Palin hired a private attorney to defend herself and her staff in this matter.[91] The independent investigation into Palin's conduct should be completed in October.[84] On September 1, 2008, Palin hired a private practice lawyer to defend her in the investigation.[92]"

Do you see any redundancy there?Ferrylodge (talk) 05:24, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Thx.  :-) Ferrylodge (talk) 05:28, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I just removed it. Unfortunately it takes forever since the page is "overrun" by edits. Sorry for the inconvenience and please check if I removed everything you removed before. Thanks, --Floridianed (talk) 05:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

It sure is the wild, wild west over there. I'm calling it a night. Later.Ferrylodge (talk) 05:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

You're sooooooo right! Good comparison. LOL --Floridianed (talk) 05:37, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

There's a vote over at Sarah Palin

Please visit. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 22:30, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

The "C" word

No problem. And thanks for fixing the sandwiching. I'll go do something nice for your guys now. :-) Ferrylodge (talk) 00:28, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not much, but better than coal in the stocking.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:44, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, sorry about being presumptuous.  :)Ferrylodge (talk) 01:11, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Tom (Threeafterthree)

Just a little note. There is an admin user Tom. To prevent confusion (as I was confused about it) you might want to consider distinguish your user name from his, somehow. Kindest regards, --Floridianed (talk) 02:20, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

We don't cross paths often, but note taken. Thank you, --Tom 02:26, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

OhFloridianed

Sorry abt that "Oh"! When i stopped trying to figure out why you might copy your whole user page into the talk -- i stopped bcz i realized *i* had done the template equivalent -- i started typing "Oh shit!" as the summary for reverting myself. Without moving the cursor to the summary pane. Sheesh! Then, in the rush to correct it i didn't preview, and forgot to review the result after saving. Sorry, sorry, sorry!
I don't remember what brought me to Mel Fisher, but i edit a lot more articles than i follow, and won't promise either to continue to help, or to leave you alone.[smile] Just in case this is goodbye, thanks, it's been pleasant and worth while.
--Jerzy•t 19:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. I'm going to fix it again. Take it to the talk page. The country is definitely spelled 'Brasil'. 67.186.99.55 (talk) 23:59, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Bias

Why did you remove my edit of the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercedes-Benz_W463 ?? The article describes the usage of these SUVs as 'tabboo', which I edited by adding 'especially among liberals', which is certainly true! Driving an SUV is not a 'tabboo' among normal, sober, non-liberal people. --KpoT (talk) 17:15, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Because it is your unsourced personal opinion. You might have edited this part in good faith and I apology for calling it vandalism, yet, it doesn't belong in the article. Meanwhile another editor took a closer look and removed (rightfully) the whole paragraph. As a friendly note I also want to remind you of WP:Etiquette and wp:soap regarding this [18] entry of yours. Regards, --Floridianed (talk) 18:39, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Cool thx --KpoT (talk) 20:58, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

FNC Criticism

Hey, the issue with that section was that the source didn't match the quote, and I don't know what the heck you are trying to say. Almost all of the criticism within is biased opinion, if you want to start cutting based on that premise you will have to start chopping a ton of other stuff as well. Arzel (talk) 01:14, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Did I mention anything about the quote? No, I didn't[19]. Please pay more attention to edit-summaries to give a reasonable response. Regards, --Floridianed (talk) 02:12, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Relax, you undid my revision with that edit summary, when the reason it was originally removed was because there was a claim the comments didn't match the source, when in fact they really do. I was simply trying to figure out what you were talking about, and you come back with this snarky remark. Arzel (talk) 14:18, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

After your repliy, I had no choice but to check out your sources (what I didn't do before since I was just responding to what I knew personally and was not totally proper, but after your response on my talk page I checked on the sources you provided and must say, that unfortunately you didn't do a good job since you omitted part of the source and presented a more biased version than what I previously objected. I'll get back on this when I have more time and are more in the "mood" to do so. And by the way, my comment wasn't meant to be "snarky" at all. Regards, --Floridianed (talk) 00:29, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

You need to go back and check again. I didn't change anything. That section has been in its current form for at least a week. Arzel (talk) 03:53, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. I don't "blame" you for this section anyway; I just want to match the sources more accurate to clarify as I'm sure you're not opposed to this. There is some minor wording that's left out and I'll try to change it to match the sources as much as possible. After doing so (and I hope I get to it tonight, ET), I might ask you to take a look at it. Regards, --Floridianed (talk) 21:27, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Finally! I managed to make time to get to it. Want to check it out and give your 2 cents? You'll find my edit here [20]. Feel free to give me your input. I know it can still be improved. Thanks and have a nice day,--Floridianed (talk) 00:26, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Looks pretty good and balanced. Thumbs up! Arzel (talk) 04:48, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. Regards, --Floridianed (talk) 17:34, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Editing survey

Hi Floridaned. My name is Mike Lyons and I am a doctoral student at Indiana University. I am conducting research on the writing and editing of high traffic “current events” articles on Wikipedia. I have noticed in the talk page archives at Barack Obama that you have contributed to the editing or maintenance of the article. I was hoping you would agree to fill out a brief survey about your experience. This study aims to help expand our thinking about collaborative knowledge production. Believe me I share your likely disdain for surveys but your participation would be immensely helpful in making the study a success. A link to the survey is included below.

Link to the survey: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=P6r2MmP9rbFMuDigYielAQ_3d_3d

Thanks and best regards, Mike Lyons lyonspen | (talk) 22:17, 6 July 2009 (UTC)