User talk:Newsroom hierarchies

Mike Huckabee Merge Proposal

Please comment on merging Mike Huckabee controversies into Mike Huckabee here [[1]] Jmegill (talk) 10:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Paul Revolution

I would like to know why this article Ron Paul Revolution is being considered for deletion?--Duchamps comb (talk) 19:19, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Paul blimp

Fine I'll keep the first quote out but keep the image, it is need and nice to see....--Duchamps comb (talk) 23:05, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

crystal ball

Well, I guess TIME http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1678661,00.html is also looking into the nonsensical future, and not credible?--Duchamps comb (talk) 00:43, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may wish to reread the post to which I was directly replying. My point was that we don't create articles "before their time" or before their subjects become notable. --Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 01:08, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

--I understand your POV however when mainstream media use the phrase (Repeatedly) I believe it is "notable".--Duchamps comb (talk) 01:45, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see [2] about Ron Paul quotes on violence and the Glenn Beck interview.--Ducha mps_comb MFA 20:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3rr Ron Paul campaign developments, 2008

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute 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. --Ducha mps_comb MFA 20:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted once, I believe. Please don't stick one of these on my talk page when you're the one who's reverted three other editors and about to violate WP:3RR--Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 21:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ota Benga

I think we can compromise. The last version of Ota Benga which you edited seems fine to me, I no longer have any serious disputes. I'm glad this worked out, thanks for remaining civil and following Wikipedia policy throughout the issue. --RucasHost (talk) 22:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, cool. For what it's worth, I completely agree that many evolutionists of that time period used the idea of evolution to racist ends. --Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 22:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh

Drama. Can I get a sanity check (candidly) from you about what I've been doing with the campaign article? --- tqbf 01:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I ended up commenting on DC, which may or may not have been a good idea since it was "your" ANI. I think we share pretty much the same view of that article--it's way too long, and the pro-Paul editors are often a little too eager to insert what we consider fluff and trivial items. That bias stated, I haven't seen you commit any obvious breaches of WP policy or norms. Where you think you have, you've been quick to take it to the other editors' talk pages. You're pretty frank at times, but you haven't made personal attacks or been inappropriate. Hell, you and Terjen were even cracking Ron Paul jokes with each other (maybe that means you both need a break, but I'm not going to judge...). Hardly the actions of a "POV warrior," I'd think. --Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 02:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I appreciate the feedback. Have a good weekend! --- tqbf 02:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Debate coverage

When you get a moment, check this diff (or just eyeball the two revisions). I cut several thousand words from the debate coverage by removing redundant information, eliminating play-by-play debate coverage, condensing paragraphs, and general copyediting.

What's left is a string of subsections that are each (mostly) less than 4 sentences each; the next step is to condense the whole sequence into a single prose section.

When you cut away the crap, most of these debate sections had virtually nothing to say about the debates, except that Paul was (or wasn't) there, and that he did (or, more likely, didn't) appear on TV afterwards.

--- tqbf 22:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've been following the changes throughout the day--looks good to me. I did revert Goon Noot's reversion of you just now, so you might want to check to see that that didn't mess anything up. --Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 23:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Carol Paul AFD

Sorry 'bout that, tried using Twinkle to do it and I must have messed it up. Burzmali (talk) 00:34, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Paul coming in 2nd in Louisiana

Saying he came in second is false; he came in third, behind a candidate and a platform. Stating that he came in second among candidates, however, is correct. Nice work finding a good way to word it. —X S G 18:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I can't pretend that I have any real grasp of how the LA caucuses work. The wording Terjen put in seems to mirror how the sources have phrased it though, so that's good enough for our purposes. --Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 18:16, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of political positions, etc...

A prod is a great first step on that article. Remember, though, that if the prod is removed, it'll probably have to go to AfD. But, you're correct - prod is probably the appropriate action to take. Thanks! - Philippe | Talk 17:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vicki Iseman

You expressed interest in merging this article. Somebody has formally proposed the merge:

Talk:Vicki_Iseman#Merge_this_with_John_McCain_presidential_campaign.2C_2008

--TS 20:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DTTR

You should be aware that you should not spam experienced editors' talk pages with notices such as the one you added to mine. You need to start assuming good faith, and read WP:DTTR. - Diligent Terrier (and friends) 20:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You made three reversions and you're not using the talk page--in short, you are edit warring. You should avoid such behavior if you don't want "spam" notices. --Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 20:28, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marriage article

What's wrong with the changes, especially the section about rights and obligations?Ewawer (talk) 03:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My objection is that it changes the lead to emphasize that marriage is a union between one man and one woman. The page has played host to a lot of argument and edit warring on this point and current consensus is that the lead we have now avoids this. If you change it again, I probably won't revert it--but I believe someone else watching the page will (I'm just quick on the draw). Anyway, I hope you'll discuss your proposed changes on the talk page first. Regards, --Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 03:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your point re the leader is taken, and I was involved at one time in the wiki ping-pong. But the changes to Rights and Obligations and Sex and Procreation are worthwhile.Ewawer (talk) 03:50, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, agreed on the changes you made to Rights and Obligations. You might consider making the ketubah image fit the section, but I totally agree it looks better on the right. You might also reconsider some of the changes to Sex and Procreation. You refer to illegitimate children suffering "disabilities" in society--not sure that's the right word. Also, I wasn't clear on why you made the change to the par on childless couples. My opinion, whatever that's worth, is that the wording was tighter before you changed it. --Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 04:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I too would probably have reverted the "most commonly" phrasing inserted recently, but only because it wasn't supported by any prior (recent) discussion. In fact that language would better serve to "orient" most readers of the article. (Of course most readers already *think* they know what a "marriage" is! ;-) Do you truly doubt that "one man, one woman" is currently the most common form of marriage? As a "fact", that isn't explicitly POV, is it? (sdsds - talk) 00:35, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, of course it's true, and I don't have a problem with noting it somewhere (pretty sure it is in there). But while most marriages are between one man and one woman, quite a few are not. That statement that I removed, positioned in that way in the very first sentence of the article, was certainly POV pushing. There are lots of marriage customs we could cite in that first sentence that are "normal". For instance, though monogamy is the most common form of marriage worldwide, societies/peoples that permit polygamy outnumber or rival in number those that permit only monogamy as a marriage pattern. Wouldn't a fact like that be inappropriate and POV in the first sentence?

In my opinion, there is nothing wrong with the current intro sentence as it encompasses all of the forms of marriage that exist. (The sentence that follows is pretty ethnocentric though.) --Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 01:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you're right: there is nothing wrong with the current intro sentence. But I think the intro as a whole could do a better job providing readers with clear understanding of the topic. Check out this version from a year ago, which was fairly stable for awhile. It feels a bit like we're losing ground! (sdsds - talk) 01:28, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that is a little better. I'm more or less fine with the way the 'most forms of marriage involve one man, one woman' statement is made there. I never did care for the same sex marriage bit though, since same sex marriages have existed since well before 2001. --Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 02:07, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Culture

Good job on addressing many of the issues in Culture. I am going to re-review the article on 7/18, so please address the remaining issues so that I can pass the article. If you can't find sources for all of the issues in the "needs citations" section, consider removing them from the article and readding them later when sources can be added. If you have any questions or need help on the remaining issues please let me know on my talk page. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 07:22, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, after quite a bit of excision, I think it's done. For some of the uncited stuff, I deemed a rephrasing of text and a wikilink rather than removal to be in order. You may disagree--if so, I can try again. Unfortunately, I don't have access to my library, so it was hard for me to come up with proper citations. Thanks for the note. --Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 18:08, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Second right brother

More update made based on AdelaMae's suggestion.--DoubleDate (talk) 02:25, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Straw polls for the 2008 United States presidential election

An article that you have been involved in editing, Straw polls for the 2008 United States presidential election, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Straw polls for the 2008 United States presidential election (2nd nomination). Thank you. Burzmali (talk) 17:49, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Paul

Ron Paul has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured quality. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. --Andrew Kelly (talk) 05:16, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quality of Culture article is challenged

Culture has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Articles are typically reviewed for one week. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here. --AlotToLearn (talk) 00:56, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Help!

beacuse too many cooks spoil the broth, the Culture article has been a disaster. And there were lots of valid criticisms on the talk page, and many sometimes ill-informed suggestions. I just did a major overhaul and would appreciate your checking it out. I hope you will not find cause to revert my changes. I hope you will see ways to improve them. My one request: just do not add missing information without thinking of the overall organization of the thing (otherwise, it will soon turn chaotic again) ... that is, if you think I did a poor job of reorganizing it, I hope we can discuss it and work out a better organization. Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 23:05, 19 January 2009 (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) 13:39, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]