User talk:ObiterDicta

This user may have left Wikipedia. ObiterDicta has not edited Wikipedia since 27 January 2017. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

Please click here to leave me a message. or here to send me an e-mail. Thanks.

This is a Wikipedia user talk page.

This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this talk page belongs to may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. The original talk page is located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:ObiterDicta.

See Help:Talk page#How to keep a two-way conversation readable. When you begin a new message section here, I will respond to it here. Likewise, whenever I begin a message section on your Talk page, I will watch the page for your response. This maintains discussion threads and continuity.

Thanks

The idea that I have an anti-orca POV is so preposterous that I'm not the least bit offended, and actually it's the funniest thing I've heard in a few days, but thank you. It's always nice when someone speaks up for you. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 06:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't think you'd be bothered by it, I was just trying to talk the nominator down. But thanks for the message. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 22:52, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question regarding Jesus

I have requested a clarification of the prior ruling here. John Carter (talk) 22:09, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll keep an eye on it. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 23:00, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We have been told that the restriction is to wikipedia in general at the above page. Should you believe that the party in question as acted outside the parameters set in the decision, please provide evidence at WP:AE for enforcement. I am watching the page in question now, as well. John Carter (talk) 14:29, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hovind

As a result of your revert under the heading "non-creationists," it says he debates old Earth creationists. Additionally, under "creationists" it says he debates old Earth creationists. My removal was to get rid of this contradiction, but you reverted it. Paper45tee (talk) 05:12, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CHICAGO survey

WP:CHICAGO

You have been marked as an inactive member of WP:CHICAGO since you have not updated your status at Wikipedia:WikiProject Chicago/members. If you consider yourself either an active or semi-active member of the project please correct your status. If you consider yourself a member you may want to get involved in the Wikipedia:Meetup/Chicago 3. Also, if you are a member, be advised that the project is now trying to keep all the project's WP:PR, WP:FAC, WP:FAR, WP:GAR, WP:GAC WP:FLC, WP:FLRC, WP:FTC, WP:FPOC, WP:FPC, and WP:AFD discussion pages in one location at the new Wikipedia:WikiProject Chicago/Review page. Please help add any discussion you are aware of at this location.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:49, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Criticism of Bill O'Reilly (political commentator)

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Criticism of Bill O'Reilly (political commentator). We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of Bill O'Reilly (political commentator) (3rd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:27, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strom Thurmond's daughter

As an attorney, wouldn't you think word use is critical in getting your point across? That Senator Thurmond paid Miss Williams in cash or through a nephew with checks seems to imply a sort of blackmail. Even thought it does so in what seems covertly. I hope I'm explaining this correctly. It jolts when read because it implies something ugly.

My father gave me money (in cash) often, and mostly when I was an adult. Sometimes he did it because I needed money on the spot and other times he did it because my mother would have hit the roof. Not because I was blackmailing him or we were involved in any type of conspiracy. This was during my time in college that I'd hit him up because I was often broke and short of my share of rent money.

As an adult, he gave me money to help with my household as a single parent. Cash. I'd go see him at his office and cry the blues. I don't think I know of one person who hasn't gone home and begged a handout. I live in a different world from you, quite possibly. But Miss Williams is an old woman who out of fear (my belief) of losing the only level of recognition from her surviving parent, kept her mouth shut. I'm sure she felt that by telling she wouldn't get much more from him by way of love or affection. And quite possibly, he'd cut her off at the knees emotionally. This woman wanted to be recognized by her father, and accepted and loved. Instead, she settled for keeping his secret and tolerating his hatred of her people. How tragic is that, and how ugly was he over his own shame? Shame and fear. Hatred and secrets. Not manipulation and cunning as the wordage implies. At least to me.

Thanks for offering feedback, and I apologize that I didn't have information on the supposed "agreement".

O. Mira —Preceding unsigned comment added by Omira (talk • contribs) 16:09, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't think the language implies what you think it does, but if you think it needs clarification, go for it. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 14:10, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Snoopy, Ascii art and You

Snoopy 2009

Snoopy 2009

Mr. Obiter

Those of us who spent nights in the computer lab "hate" people like you - who use the code but don't know or understand the work and tens of thousand of man years it takes to make all this possible. Yes Wikipedia is a code depot -- hence what I'm doing now..

And I hate grocer's quotes. Your point? ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 14:57, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Petrodollar warfare

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Petrodollar warfare. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Petrodollar warfare (3rd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:09, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Soccerpulse

Back in 2006, you contributed to the AFD discussion for this article. The article has since been re-created, and I have re-nominated it for deletion. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Soccerpulse (2nd nomination). Robofish (talk) 16:07, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Coskel University for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Coskel University is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coskel University (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. BigJim707 (talk) 14:57, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look at this article, do you suspect sockpuppets?

I reviewed your vast experience and wanted to contact you about helping to resolve a dispute. I'm being teamed up against by a group of self-avowed libertarians. I don't care that they are libertarians (or if you are) except for the fact they are using their ideology to skew the Koch Industries article. When I post positive things about Koch, they don't blink an eye, but if I dare put up anything critical, it gets deleted and frowned upon without balance. I'm trying to round up some disinterested third party input so I'm not getting steamrolled by biased editors. My goal is to make the article more informative and encyclopedic and that's it. Here's the current critical part of the Talk Page. They've used sockpuppets in the past, and I'm wondering about that now again too. Thank you. Cowicide (talk) 21:55, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA Thanks

This user helped promote Helen Shiller to good article status.

On behalf of WP:CHICAGO, thanks for your editorial contributions to Helen Shiller, which has recently become a WP:GA.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:23, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

creation–evolution controversy

An article you have edited List of participants in the creation–evolution controversy has been nominated for deletion. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_participants_in_the_creation%E2%80%93evolution_controversy FYI --Kaptinavenger (talk) 09:04, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, ObiterDicta. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]