User talk:Wikidemon/Archive 7

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Wikidemon. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

cool down

You don't know me. I was never gonna 3RR, never gonna insult your ancestry, etc. I was just showing the degree to which I believe your position is a very harmful error, representing a very serious threat to the integrity of the encyclopedia.
Rmv'ing it won't do any good. I'm probably gonna go RfA'ing in a month or so; folks will dig it up anyhow. Might as well leave it there.
Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 03:30, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Oi, what is Hu Xiao Mei an "improbable typo" of? Looks like good pinyin to me... oh, OK, no prob Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 03:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I think it was the comma at the end of the name. It's actually quite probable if you're clumsy.... Wikidemon (talk) 03:36, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Henry Siegman

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Henry_Siegman

Yup - I think the CAMERA issue should be consolidated and discussed. Not sure where it's appropriate, though - perhaps WP:NPOV or WP:BLP or WP:COATRACK - the extreme bias and background of the group seems to indicate that it could justifiably be an issue in any/all of the areas. Hrm - how did you manage to find the other places it's used as a source? Wikinoob... GrizzledOldMan (talk) 10:34, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Eep - I thought I had problems with ignorant/abusive/single-digit-IQ editors... After skimming through this page - I've had it easy... GrizzledOldMan (talk) 12:12, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

It's been pretty rough...given that these editors make all manner of accusations of bad faith and that it's flaring up again, the most behavior (as opposed to joking about their obvious lack of comprehension of Wikipedia policies) is in order. If you're concerned that a particular source is being misused, or that a single coatrack is inserted into a bunch of articles you can type the article title or URL of the source into the "search" bar on the left of the page, or go to Special:Search for a more refined search. There is also a special feature for checking external links to different places, so if you think someone is spamming links to a commercial business or partisan organization you can check them. Google is also useful for searching Wikipedia. And "what links here" if you suspect spam Wikilinks. Wikidemon (talk) 22:16, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

apologies

Apologies for plagiarism here. It was a nice summary and I nicked it. GrizzledOldMan (talk) 05:52, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

And again...

And again... you really should be getting royalties...

FYI, you might want to look at this and this edit. Note the incomplete sentence in the first? *sigh* Really, do I need to type out my thoughts? In the interest of civility guidelines, I'll just gag myself. GrizzledOldMan (talk) 09:15, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Historicist problems

I noticed your comments on WP:AN/I regarding Historicist (talk · contribs). I suggest that you raise this at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement and cite the arbitration sanctions imposed in WP:ARBPIA. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Having started a thread as is, I don't want to drag this out or forum shop, so if nothing comes out of this latest incident I may simply advise the editor of my intent to refer any future trouble there. Also, I don't know that he has specifically been warned of arbitration enforcement, which looks to be a prerequisite to those sanctions. Wikidemon (talk) 00:06, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

How much is enough?

Your edit here - how many references do you want? 3 isn't enough? You want me to dig out another dozen or so, to extend the page length? GrizzledOldMan (talk) 03:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll respond on the article talk page. But one that actually supports the claim would be sufficient. The first sentence in that paragraph is an attempt to write a summary lead but it doesn't actually match the content of the paragraph precisely, except by offering a bit of a synthesis / judgment / opinion on it. Wikidemon (talk) 04:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

UMB

Can you check this change I reverted?

I poked around, and can't find any evidence to support Historicist's claim that it's a type of construction. It's a building type, in all the documentation I can find.

You made the article, though - comments? GrizzledOldMan (talk) 10:43, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Gosh, that seems kind of obscure. Well, it's really a description of the building's construction. Load bearing masonry walls without steel or wood frame structure to reinforce it. You could say it's a type (or classification) of building, but I suppose you could say it is a way of constructing buildings. It does have some construction implications.[1] But as the term UMB is used, it is often a classification scheme by governments to assess risk or require seismic upgrades. I wouldn't sweat this one.... do you really want to be harsh on Historicist in an area that is not POV? It's good to see he's paying attention to an uncontentious topic. I think my original "type" is a little more correct, but it does not matter much either way IMO. Wikidemon (talk) 10:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Your problem with sourcing

Wikidemon, your accusation that I placed poorly sourced derogatory claims on Rashid Khalidi's page is extraordinary. The source I sued was the New York Times, which took three weeks to investigate and give Rashid Khalidi time to provide a source for a direct derogatory quotation, before concluding that this widely cited quotation cannot be found in nthe interview where Khalidi claimed that he found it, nor anywhere else. If a three week long, New York Times investigation of an assertion is inadequate sourcing, I cannot imagine what you would accept as adequate. Also, please stop threatening men and please stop edit warring and please stop removing sourced, significant material from articles merely because you don't like it.Historicist (talk) 20:34, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Removing BLP violations is not edit warring. Inserting them is. WP:RS and WP:V are not extraordinary. They are, respectively, a key Wikipedia guideline and a key Wikipedia policy. You have yet again violated WP:BLP and WP:EW by adding poorly sourced information to disparage Khalidi, something that is explained on the article page. I did not remove the portion that was well sourced; I deleted the part that was supported only by the partisan attack editorial and that was not supported at all, e.g. that the material was "apparently fabricated." That is all discussed in the article talk page. The caution is a courtesy notice in hopes that you will stop before administrative intervention is necessary, and instead discuss any proposed addition if you wish on the article talk page. Wikidemon (talk) 20:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Removed again.... GrizzledOldMan (talk) 22:06, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't want to clutter up the talk page of the relevant articles, I just want to understand what is going on.
These are the facts I've gathered from the NYTimes article and WP discussions:

Khalidi presented an apparently nasty Moshe Ya'alon‎ quote in a NYTimes opinion piece
This quote was subsequently widely cited
The NYTimes was not able to substantiate that quote and printed a follow-up to clarify this
There is some evidence, not reliably sourced, that CAMERA intervened to request the NY Times follow-up

Is that all there is to it, or am I missing something? Thanks. cojoco (talk) 23:26, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I would put it as follows:

Khalidi writes New York Times editorial, includes quote by Moshe Ya'alon that sounds very callous towards Palestinians
New York Times subsequently appends editor's note to the editorial saying they cannot verify the widely cited quote, that it did not appear in the piece to which it is generally attributed, that the original source has not been found, and that they should not have printed the quote
Various pro-Israeli (for want of a better term) think tanks, blogs, editorialists, etc., gear up to attack Khalidi and accuse him of spreading a "bogus" or "fabricated" quote, among other things. They congratulate themselves over having caught the New York Times and made it do their bidding.
Pro-Israel camp's version things, sourced to these partisan sources, added five places in Wikipedia

I'm not sure what relevance there is to CAMERA claiming they pressured the New York Times to do something, or what CAMERA has to do with this issue at all - it sounds like banging the drum for their own troops and sponsors. They live in a very different world than journalists, in which everything is a battle between the Truth and the biased liberal media, so every time they can claim a victory they do. It is only expected that they boast about their successes and not reliable at all. The Times did not report why it retracted the statement. Obviously there are politics at the Times and real humans make real decisions, but the decision on whether or not to retract an inaccurate or unsupportable statement is not likely to be made because a conservative think tank growls at them. If the quote is inaccurate anyone could have pointed it out, probably multiple people familiar with the issue. Unless someone from the Times explains, we will never know the exact course of events.Wikidemon (talk) 23:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I tried to dig up some information on the issue, and have come to the same conclusion. CAMERA questions the accuracy of the quotation, but I have been unable to find any neutral, 3rd party sources which pick it up. If it were indeed a fabrication, surely there would be multiple sources critical of the professionalism of anyone who used it? However, all I've found is deaphening silence. Nobody seems to be questioning the quotation except for extremist pro-Israeli groups. I think the lack of response says it all. GrizzledOldMan (talk) 23:46, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm perfectly willing to believe the quotation is inaccurate - it would not be the first. Even if it were inaccurate, to call it a "fabrication" or "hoax" one would have to figure out who fabricated it and where, as opposed to it being a mistake. The articles are painting Khalidi as a bad guy and intimating that he's dishonest. But I see no convincing proof, and certainly nothing up to WP:RS standards. Wikidemon (talk) 23:57, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I have more or less the same view on the subject. It may be a mistake. It may be a question of translation (assuming the statements weren't in English). It may very well be as inaccurate as Historicist's sources claim it to be. However, given the history of the sources he uses, I believe it's inappropriate to use them as reliable sources. If it were picked up and investigated by neutral, 3rd parties - then fine... but it hasn't. Deaphening silence from the journalist community on the subject. GrizzledOldMan (talk) 00:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

FYI - you might want to correct the link here to this. GrizzledOldMan (talk) 00:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Alas, the edit war continues to exact its bloody price. Moshe Ya'alon article once again suffers from the crossfire. I tried to clean it up and remove the inflammatory wording, as opposed to a complete revert. See how long it lasts.... Sorry for cluttering up your talk page, but Historicist's butchery of the English language was just so painful, that I had to go and vent my frustration somewhere. Apologies. GrizzledOldMan (talk) 07:05, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Just one more point on this whole sorry saga: I had a look at the source for the original quote, and the whole Ha'aretz connection looks like a bit of a red herring. This is from the article by Arnaud de Borchgrave which allegedly started it all:

"Civilians -- and civil worldviews -- have been totally excluded from any involvement or influence in the diplomatic process," according to Ha'aretz. "The Palestinians must be made to understand in the deepest recesses of their consciousness," Gen. Yaalon is reported to have said, "that they are a defeated people."

The "according to Ha'aretz" doesn't actually seem to be joined to the Gen. Yaalon quote at all. Yaalon was only "reported to have said" the quote, without any citation. As "editor-at-large" for The Washington Times and UPI, Borchgrave looks pretty reliable. cojoco (talk) 20:35, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Response to edit war warning

Please do not insert poorly sourced material into articles that has been challenged as a violation of WP:BLP, as you did here.[2] You should be aware from the article talk page, on which you commented,[3] that the material does not have consensus, is challenged as poorly sourced, and is a matter of discussion not only on the talk page but at WP:BLP/N and WP:AN/I. Also, please be aware that articles relating to the Palestine-Israel conflict are under WP:general sanctions. Per Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement I am requesting that an administrator provide a formal notice of general enfocement, available here {{subst:Palestine-Israel enforcement}}. Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 17:35, 5 February 2009 (UTC) Copied by Mhym from Mhym's page - Wikidemon (talk) 09:24, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I think some politeness is in order and I consider this type of comment as border line intimidating. I am a semi-dormant editor too busy to get into WP fighting. All I am trying to do is correct an obvios bias. The BLP's are explicitly allowed both praise and criticism as long as they come together and neutral in nature. When I created and wrote much of the this article, I made special effort to be neutral and include both praise and criticism with reliable sources. One-sided removal of the criticism section is a clear evidence of bias, which I am sure you are aware of. My guess is that most people who have these lengthy silly discussions on the talk page are pushing their own political agendas and uninterested in NPOV. That's a shame. But trying to intimidate an honest editor to push him/her to stay away from the article is really creepy. Care to explain yourself? Mhym (talk) 07:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

No bias - the material is inappropriate per WP:BLP, WP:WEIGHT, and WP:NPOV. Criticism, and praise, has to be reliably sourced, and adding examples just because notable partisans on the subject wrote them does not count. When I did find the reliable New York Times news article that put the Alan Dershowitz "criticism" in context, for example, it turns out to be a very different matter than you would get just by reading Dershowitz quote out of context. That's the danger of primary sourcing criticism, you cannot establish weight and you lose context. You are entitled to your own opinion on the matter, and that is what the talk page is for, but BLP covers this very issue. Did you truly not notice from the article and talk page that there was an edit war going on on this and other articles, that editors were raising BLP objections, and that there is an administrator's notice board case over the issue? I'm sorry if I misperceived that you did this intentionally... a simple "I didn't mean to do that" would suffice. But reversions with summaries like "reads as an advertisment to the person", "criticism section is urgently needed", and now calling me "creepy" all set off alarm bells with me. Wikidemon (talk) 09:24, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I see. You are trying to bully people out of editing articles to try to preserve the NPOV, use the BLP as an intimidation tool to keep one side but not another (check out "leading U.S. expert on the Middle East" quote), don't show any appreciation for having written 90% of the Henry Siegman article as it remain even now, and most amazingly expecting me to apologize. Nice. Hope your alarm bells continue ringing - might distract you from future content removal. I am off the WP for now - have more pressing problems. Mhym (talk) 00:29, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

You're assuming bad faith, rather belligerent, and asserting WP:OWNership of an article, all over content inappropriate for Wikipedia, so best just take my caution at face value and don't do it again - I don't have any desire to talk further about my role in this. It isn't a two-sided issue; I'm maintaining peace here more than I am trying to favor one interpretation over another. There has been some content pushing by a very difficult editor across several articles and you happened to step in on his side, intentionally or not. The "leading expert" comment, incidentally, is from a reliable source but I have questioned the praise as well and requested a citation for another section. Wikidemon (talk) 00:59, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey

If you continue to post on my talk page harassing me I will resort to a legal threat against all of wikipedia for continued copyright infringement of my works. Resorting to WP: No legal Threast will only help my case against you. Wikipedia is NOT exempt from the law. 68.38.147.199 (talk) 23:33, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Note - the above editor was trolling, and has been blocked for legal threats. Wikidemon (talk) 01:16, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

A liberty

Looked at your contribs today, guessed you're done. So i went ahead and did this. [[4]]. BestBali ultimate (talk) 23:48, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Amusing chap, isn't he? Wikidemon (talk) 01:17, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Tort reform

Thanks for the shortening work. It's better. Would you like to weigh in on this conflict of interest posting ? Wik idea 21:54, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Sure... I don't see what the fuss is about though. Wikidemon (talk) 21:58, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi

Hadn´t spoken directly with you in a while, thought I´d say howdy.Die4Dixie (talk) 08:44, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi to you too. Thanks for the note. We're like talk page elders by now, huh? I hope you didn't mind my gratuitous use of y'all the other day, I have an affinity for the South too... Wikidemon (talk) 09:12, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Not at all. Seems that most people with whom I agreed with were sockpuppets or perma banned. You might try and encourage that fellow to go to the RS board. If they are in agreement then the article should just say Hawaii. If they are fringy then Just leave it. I think the naming of the hospital is agenda driven, but I don´t feel strongly about it. It might get a little hot there as I do think that the Wright controversy should be linked to somewhere. Doesn´t have to be long or drawn out, but in a BLP, it is conspicious by its abscence. You were good and patient with that fellow. I probably overreacted to his comments on my talkpage, but I picked a tough name when I started for people who haven´t stood far enough away when they looked at it. Most end up accepting it and it doesn´t come up later. Some folks look at my page and think I am off the cast of Deliverance, and so because I´m Southern I hate Obama and smoke a corn cob pipe an´ choo to-bachy. I don´t like socialism. I don´t want an editor thinking because of a userbox or two I´ll knee-jerk support something that he supports because of politics. You should have seen my early edits and the shitstorm they provoked at Sean Hannity when they had his natioanlity as Irish. I pissed a guy off so bad there that I probably agree with on 90 percent of the issues. He then reported my username and it got ugly. Oh well, I´m rambling now. Take it easy. Maybe the fellow will come back tomorrow.Die4Dixie (talk) 09:59, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I do try to cut the sincere hotheads some slack, as opposed to people who are just playing with us. I guess your username is conjuring up the southern rebel thing, and some people are probably seeing confederate flags and segregation. I hadn't thought about Deliverance...some people don't understand southern pride, and people in the north / east / west have their own passive-aggressive kind of chauvinism. All good, though, it's better than everyplace being the same. RS is a good idea, although in my experience people on BLP, RS, and other non-administrative noticeboards tune out really fast and aren't of much help if it looks like people are squabbling. Can't say I blame them. Nobody wants to jump in the middle of a cat fight, especially if it's not their cat.Wikidemon (talk) 20:53, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

New sock?

User:Eclectix, with only one previous edit on another subject, has jumped right in to the Obama talk page. His/her fourth Wikipedia edit is an RFC. I think we need to be wary of possible sock (and certainly SPA) activity. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:58, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmmmmmm..... True. I didn't learn about RfCs until several months of editing, it's not exactly the most obvious or easy to master piece of Wikipedia procedure. Yet the pattern does not seem like any of the familiar recent socks. A premature RfC after failing to gain consensus on a relatively trivial but POV technical issue does smack of newbie-ness.Wikidemon (talk) 20:56, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Pikacsu is suspect as well. It's almost like the sort of thing Dereks1x used to do. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:13, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

That one is flaming out today... I wonder if it's worth filing an SSP or RfCU. Maybe wait until he's blocked and if another account begins disrupting we can request a CU on the lot of them. Wikidemon (talk) 20:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Barack Obama

Could you direct me to the living person "Large Family" please. I have never heard of this person. Landon1980 (talk) 20:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The comment in no way insults, the Obama's, African American's, and not even large families. This is ridiculous, the same little group of article owners make it impossible for anyone to comment unless they praise Obama. Landon1980 (talk) 20:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be on some kind of polemical mission here. The comment you and the IP are inserting accuses George Obama, half brother to the President, of being a "criminal", and you're edit warring on a pages that is on probation (not to mention removing a warning from another editor's talk page) to try to prove that point - when there's no chance of the material getting into the article. You need to take a step back if you want to avoid being blocked for disruption. Please direct your efforts on productive work likely to improve the encyclopedia. Wikidemon (talk) 20:05, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

No, the comment does not accuse Obama of being a criminal. I'll not revert anyone any more, but to say that comment is an insult is very far fetched. Landon1980 (talk) 20:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The comment says that in such a large family one half-brother being a criminal is not significant of the article. Landon1980 (talk) 20:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. That's why it is inappropriate. It could be phrased in a way that does not assume that the allegation is true. Wikidemon (talk) 20:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

You would not have removed the comment under any other circumstances, you did it in pure spite of me. If the small group of you are going to control that article you need a thicker skin. Try assuming good-faith from time to time. It is only the talk page, making a reference to large families does not violate BLP and you know that. Landon1980 (talk) 20:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Is this a cut and paste? You accused another editor of exactly the same thing. At last count at least three different editors removed the comment on the same basis and you seem to have violated WP:3RR to restore it. Why should I spite you? I have no interaction with you that I'm aware of. The comment does accuse a non-notable living person of being a criminal. It's not the biggest BLP vio in the world but it is unproductive, and it's in a now-closed conversation on a subject that is very unlikely to lead to a change to the article. I see you're already on notice of article probation, and there's an AN/I report right now. BLP, and article probation, apply to article talk pages as well. Probably best to take a deep breath and, as I said, concentrate on improving the encyclopedia rather than drama.Wikidemon (talk) 20:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I said you couldn't stand me based on your comments in the past calling me a "problematic- editor," and some other comments you made. Do you not remember the long and drawn out thread on the Obama talk page about his race? So you are telling me if you saw that comment you would remove it? Calling someone arrested over drug possession charges a criminal is not a BLP violation, and you know that. Landon1980 (talk) 20:31, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't remember that but I'll assume it's correct. But Wikipedia is a collaborative user-generated encyclopedia, not a WP:BATTLEGROUND. I deal with disruption all the time and don't carry any grudges, but if this new flare-up is any indication there is indeed something problematic going on. Wikidemon (talk) 20:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

You were also deleting my comments in the past, an admin had to start the thread for me because of you and two other editors. There is no point in discussing this further. Yes, I am aware of the article probation. Also, I am aware of WP:3RR, so if you feel I need blocked to prevent disruption voice your opinion on the thread at ANI. Landon1980 (talk) 20:38, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Did it ever occur to you that if I truly was "edit-warring to restore blatant BLP violations" I would have been blocked? Calling someone a criminal when it can be reliably sourced is not a violation of any policy. Your acting as if that comment was in the article itself, it was on the talk page for crying out loud. The only admin that got involved called the comment a "borderline-offensive comment" wikipedia is not censored. From what I've seen you have a bad habit of tampering with other's comments, and I'm betting I'm not the first to tell you that. When you were removing my comments in the past an admin had to step in to get you to quit, had to start the thread for me because of you. You would delete everything I posted, which was in good faith and did not contain any personal attacks, etc. Landon1980 (talk) 15:57, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

That makes no sense at all. You are in no position to complain about my edits, which are just fine. I'm not going to debate you and I have no interest in continuing this discusion. I've cautioned you. You were wrong to do it. This isn't a close case. Don't do it again or you will likely be blocked.Wikidemon (talk) 16:46, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Who do you think you are, you are not the community or an admin. Your block threats are ludicrous, just don't worry about what I do. You have no business threatening me over something I stopped doing hours ago. Remember, you are not an administrator, as such you threatening blocks really is pointless. Landon1980 (talk) 17:10, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to discuss this anymore. I've done my best to warn you. The rest is up to you.Wikidemon (talk) 17:23, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

You are correct there is no point in discussing this. I don't want or need your advice. I have a clean block log, and if I were as disruptive/problematic as you say I am I would have a block log a mile long. The only thing I did wrong was edit-war, I should have reported you and provided diffs of your history of tampering with other editor's comments. You would even remove certain parts of my comments, rearrange them and everything. It took two different admins stepping in before you would knock it off. I stopped reverting that comment a long time ago, so your threats are getting closer and closer to personal attacks. This is your talk page, so go ahead and get the last word in. I'll not waste my time on this any more than I already have. However, if/when I see you deleting good-faith comments, rewording them, etc. I will deal with it appropriately. Landon1980 (talk) 17:42, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

For goodness sake, you were the problem in both instances, not me or the other editors. Your reading of what happened in both instances is seriously off. You stand to be blocked if you behave that way. Ignore that at your own peril. Wikidemon (talk) 17:50, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Until you are an admin I will take your threats as what they are, empty threats. I stopped reverting that comment a long time ago. Your threats are personal attacks. Let's just drop this. You understand you need the tools to block other editors don't you? If I remember correctly, in the earlier instance mentioned your behavior along with two other editors was frowned upon on the ANI thread. An admin started the thread for me and you all were told to leave it alone. Landon1980 (talk) 18:05, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

No personal attack, just a caution against disruptive editing. Turning that into a complaint about me is pretty far-fetched. Occasionally there are some misguided people at AN/I who have a knee-jerk reaction against refactoring talk pages, without looking into exactly what happened. But the Obama page requires a lot of policing and a lot of refactoring. I've just found the old issue to which you were referring - you were on the Obama talk page calling people racist for saying Obama is African-American, or something like that, then went to Grz's editor review page Wikipedia:Editor review/Grsz11 to accuse him of incivility. I agreed that Grz ought to keep his cool even in the face of that kind of thing, even though you were off base there on the talk page. Anyway, I really don't carry grudges or try to remember any run-ins with an editor from one issue to the next - best to treat every new day as a fresh start for all.Wikidemon (talk) 18:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Why was the following fact and verifiable reference with an AP (Associated Press) photo not good enough for Wikipedia that you had to tag it with a RS (Reliable Source) and BLP (Biography of Living Persons)? Does Wikipedia have a personal political agenda in censoring facts that refute the P.C. view of Obama as a "Christian" and was registered in elementary school as a Muslim by religion and Indonesian by citizenship?

START QUOTE There Obama, then known as "Barry Soetoro," an Indonesian by citizenship and Muslim by religion,^[1] END QUOTE

Thanks, if you reply and give a logical, coherent explanation on why these facts were expunged. No thanks if you ignore this valid complaint on blatant censorship of a valid fact. Katydidit (talk) 17:24, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:FAIL - Wikidemon (talk) 17:48, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Obama talk

You just topped it of nicely (in your edit summary) :) .--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 03:20, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I had emailed you much earlier about the topic. I think that my directing the user to the appropriate page for the info if he could find reliable sources was sufficient without arbitrarily scrolling my comments. The above users comments were excessively antagonistic in addition to his puerile comments on his summaries were not particularly helpful.Die4Dixie (talk) 04:41, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry - I don't often check my Wikipedia email but I was trying to give it the benefit of the doubt because of your involvement. TMCK lives up to his name IMO across many articles, gleefully and with a bit of sass mopping up editing problems. Personally, I think it was Sceptre's comment about "bullshit" that was over the top, which is why I reworded the closing message. I think it's beating a dead horse at this point though. Now we're having a discussion not about ACORN but about when threads should be closed, politely declined, or just deleted. The IP editor is blocked at this point BTW. Wikidemon (talk) 04:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough . BTW, I removed the wrong section. I had intended to remove the section that I had so stupidly named. I see that you have renamed it , and I thank you for it. The other comments could be added back , but I am done with it. It was beginning to cause me some stress. I really don´t want any trouble with you nor Clean keeper. Suffice to say I apologize and I´ll come abck tomorrow when I don´t feel as contary.Die4Dixie (talk) 05:08, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Next narrative segment

Hi. Could you replace the bullet symbols with numbering? Or give me permission to do that? It would then be easier for me to refer to your points. Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:44, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Sure. For the future I don't mind formatting / organizational changes to any of my talk thread posts.Wikidemon (talk) 04:01, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Obama is the first President of the United States to have been born a British Citizen since William Henry Harrison.

WHY DID YOU UNDO THIS CHANGE ON THE OBAMA PAGE? IT IS ACCURATE, INTERESTING AND SUPPORTED BY FACTUAL REFERENCE. IT IS IN NO WAY OFFENSIVE, DEFAMATORY OR PROFANE. Natwebb (talk) 05:53, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Obama is the first President of the United States to have been born a British Citizen since William Henry Harrison.^[2] When Barack Obama Jr. was born in 1961 Kenya was a British colony. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status and the citizenship of his children was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948 (Part II, Section 5): "Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth." Therefore, at the time of his birth, Barack Obama Jr. was both a U.S. citizen (by virtue of being born in Hawaii) and a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (or the UKC) by virtue of being born to a father who was a citizen of the UKC.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Barack_Obama#Obama_is_the_first_President_of_the_United_States_to_have_been_born_a_British_Citizen_since_William_Henry_Harrison.Natwebb (talk) 07:02, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

The identical comment, posted to Talk:Barack Obama, has already been answered and resolved on that page, so I will not respond here. Wikidemon (talk) 07:52, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Alternative to notability

Hello! I am working on an objective alternate to notability in my userspace. Please read User:A Nobody/Inclusion guidelines and offer any suggestions on its talk page, which I will consider for revision purposes. If you do not do so, no worries, but if you wish to help, it is appreciated. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 01:55, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality funny

Seen this? -- Scjessey (talk) 15:37, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Mossad

Seeing your edits at CAMERA, I wondered if you had any knowledge of Mossad. Perhaps you could check out my talk page post there. Grsz¹¹ 03:46, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: February 2009

Below warning copied by editor from their own talk page

Welcome to Wikipedia. Do not do this[5][6][7][8][9][10] again. It is a fairly serious breach of Wikipedia policy. As a strict matter of consensus you should not edit war to insert content that is disputed, in this case by five different editors who reverted you on the article page and an additional editor who disputed the edit on the article talk page. For more information on the consensus process see WP:Consensus and WP:BRD. Random policies and arguments you cite to justify the material do not overcome the need to establish consensus. However, this particular material disparages an active Wikipedia editor based on reliable sources having little to do with the subject of the article, so it is not a matter for consensus. Also, you should note that Israeli/Arab subject matter is covered by "General Sanctions", described here. Persistently disruptive editors may be blocked and/or banned from editing articles on the subject. If you continue to revert this material into the encyclopedia I will bring the matter to the attention of administrators, who may choose to temporarily block you from editing the encyclopedia to prevent disruption. Wikidemon (talk) 07:17, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you actually stated a policy that necessitates the removal of this material that the material is a serious breach of, because you have so far failed to do that. This material is not covered under the WP:NPA. It would help if you read the relevant line in the policy "Pointing out an editor's relevant conflict of interest is not a personal attack" or WP:BLP because it isn't biographical material in any way shape or form. Taking out well sourced material, that is not abusive in any way, and that there has not been a consensus reached on to exclude is a violation of WP:NOTCENSORED and WP:YESPOV. But thanks for the warning bud, its nice to know when people can't justify position they resort to just resort to threats. Thanks again champ. TWilliams9 (talk) 13:52, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I may respond on your own page, if you've commented there. Wikidemon (talk) 18:16, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Ratttso

[[11]] has bee editing the user page for ratttso, might want to keep an eye on this user. He has said he is a computer science teacher and can evade blocks, I imagine he has been blocked before. I don´t have the patience for him now[[12]].Die4Dixie (talk) 08:36, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

If that were true, he would be risking his job to pointlessly vandalize Wikipedia. And you don't have to teach computer science nor is that kind of Internet application even the subject of CS, anyone can figure out how to do that after a few minutes on google. More likely a weird kid using the worst threat he could dream up.Wikidemon (talk) 19:12, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Agree and amplify - in my experience, computer science teachers are the most dramatic possible example of the axiom "Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach others how." If he really wanted to scare us, he would say he's a weird kid with a little knowledge and too much time on his hands. arimareiji (talk) 19:29, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I wonder if Ratttso is the same editor as User:Cc2po. They're both editors with little history and similar writing style, meatpuppeting each other's obscure fringe content and defending each other's extreme peculiar behavior. Ratttso is obviously not on the level. Why another editor would rush to his defense and parrot his fringiness is beyond me, it doesn't add up. Wikidemon (talk) 21:47, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

No, it does add up... we're just not supposed to say it out loud. arimareiji (talk) 23:22, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Thought you might be amused by the update, if you didn't already know: He tried to complain about you et al at AN/I, only to get sockblocked. arimareiji (talk) 13:57, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Wow, that's maybe the 12th sockpuppet who's filed an AN/I on me in the last year. I wonder if some of those are related or if it's just something that sockpuppets like to do.Wikidemon (talk) 19:41, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

User talk:71.114.8.82‎

71.114.8.82‎ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Using the talk page as his outlet for the ACORN rant. Does 3RR apply, or is such a rant considered vandalism? I did mention this at WP:ANI, but I don't know if anyone's watching. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:39, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't know. The material is clearly not appropriate to a talk page, particularly a blocked user. You're well-known around AN/I so I doubt anyone would knee-jerk block you for it. Best is to ask someone to block the IP for a while. Failing that I would seek some positive encouragement from AN/I and then add a link to the AN/I discussion next time you revert - that way anyone looking into your edits would see that you've already sought guidance on it.

"is based loosely on" vs "is loosely based on"

It's the match of the century!

In this corner, weighing in at 4 words: "is based loosely on" . (cheers, cheers, cheers)

In the opposite corner, the challenger, weighing in at 4 words: "is loosely based on" . (cheers, cheers, cheers)

I googled the two phrases and got: 91,400 hits for "is based loosely on"; and 541,000 hits for "is loosely based on" .

It looks like the challenger wins by decision, but it wouldn't surprise me if the less popular version is more grammatically correct. I don't know what the relevant grammar rule is. Also, it may be better reading to use the more popular version. My preference is "is loosely based on". Forgive me if this might sound silly to discuss such a small issue, but I'm curious. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:01, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

As far as I know either is correct. With "is loosely based", the adverb "loosely" modifies the adjective "based", meaning that is a specific kind of basing. With "is based loosely" the adverb modifies the word "is", meaning that it is normal basing, but its status of being based is a loose one.Wikidemon (talk) 22:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Abbarocks et al

has a 99% chance of being a sock -- see [13]. I had a user before use the same m.o. named User:Brendan19 though not quite as blatant <g>. At the time I suspected wither the late User:Writegeist or User:Mattnad was also involved as they appeared (sometimes mysteriously) in the same discussions with the same vocabulary. As a wizop for many years, finding "alternate personas" was almost a sport. Mattnad appeared in Business Plot with this [14] having been initially logged in as 98.331.28.245 (indicating he logs on and off at about that time). Brendan19 five minutes prior made a similar type of post at Union Banking Corporation [15] Neither had been on either of those pages previously, hence the concern that the two are related. Abbarocks has been the main person reverting on Union Banking, while Ikip is the one on Business Plot. I suspect you are well familiar with Ikip at this point. Thanks! Collect (talk) 03:09, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, gosh. I just hadn't been paying attention. Still, if you get into arguments with socks on talk pages they win. Best to collect evidence quietly until you have enough to convince someone to do a CU or a block. Good luck. Wikidemon (talk) 03:35, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Barack Obama/weight

Hey, what exactly does this measure? Grsz¹¹ 03:36, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

This was from autumn 2008, when various difficult editors, were advocating for inclusion of disparaging material about Obama. Specifically they wanted to add or expand treatment of the matters of Bill Ayers (the supposed "unrepentant terrorirst"), Reverend Wright, and Tony Rezko. Because the issues came up every few days, often by repeated attempts by the same editors (later found out for the most part to be sockpuppets) to introduce the material, I wanted to create a stable page rather than trying to re-argue the issue every time. The objective here was to show the amount of coverage given in this article, and in another comprehensive account or two, to the various people and events in Obama's life. In an XXX word account of Obama's life, YYY sentences were given to a job he had for ZZZ years, AAA sentence were given to a relative, and so on. That would help keep the matter of a distant political ally, a pastor, and a political affiliate, in perspective. Wikidemon (talk) 08:04, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

And, rewritten

Hi. At WT:NOR, I responded to your last message there in the section And, written. I'm not sure if you saw it. Could you say over there whether or not it is OK with you to just replace the first sentence for now, as I suggested? Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:39, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MZMcBride

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MZMcBride/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MZMcBride/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Tiptoety ^talk 02:40, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Them Terribles

A tag has been placed on Them Terribles requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a band or musician, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for musical topics.

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. ╟─Treasury Tag►contribs─╢ 08:11, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

March 2009

Please do not remove speedy deletion notices from pages you have created yourself. Please use the {{hangon}} template on the page instead if you disagree with the deletion. Thank you. ╟─Treasury Tag►contribs─╢ 08:17, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Please stop adding the speedy tag to the article, and be more careful next time. Check out my edit history - I'm not a novice editor. The article has an inuse tag and I'm working on it.Wikidemon (talk) 08:20, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you remove a speedy deletion notice from a page you have created yourself, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. ╟─Treasury Tag►contribs─╢ 08:38, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Given that you're not a novice editor, I don't need to give you so many warnings. Stop removing the speedy-tag. The instructions clearly say not to. If you disagree with it, follow process. But if you remove it again, you will be blocked. ╟─Treasury Tag►contribs─╢ 08:38, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Why the heck would you want to waste your time and mine, and disrupt the encyclopedia, by repeatedly nominating an article undergoing active editing by an experienced editor on a notable subject for deletion, even after the editor has asked you to stop. I'm working on it. I don't write speediable articles. Because of the ridiculous so-called "last warning" I must take this matter to WP:AN/I - an even more pointless waste of time. In the meanwhile you might want to review some pages like WP:IAR, WP:AGF, WP:TEND, and WP:DTTR. Wikidemon (talk) 08:42, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, please let me know when you list the issue on ANI, with the {{ANI-notice}} template on my talkpage - thanks. ╟─Treasury Tag►contribs─╢ 08:47, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I've just done it. I'll leave a courtesy notice after I finish a minor clean-up of my post. Wikidemon (talk) 09:00, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

You seem to have found the discussion so I will refrain.Wikidemon (talk) 09:26, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Shiny things and related...

		The Template Barnstar
		For introducing a new template, {{increation}}, which shall help to get less new articles deleted before they are finsihed. --Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 23:14, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Great work. Now just make sure it will be linked to and from Wikipedia:How to create a Wikipedia article and other more frequently visited pages (wherever it fits and editors will look for when searching for an answer). Just try to make it easy to find incl. the welcome templates). ;) . Again, great work and you did spend your time wisely.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:55, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

...and besides that, you did get what I consider "the nicest closing of an ANI thread" I'm aware of: "tea and sympathy for Wikidemon". With other words, you went from "getting a hard time" to "getting the best" in one day. How much better can it get? :) --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:09, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Article probation

I'm not sure I've actually seen it in action before. I'm impressed. Guettarda (talk) 02:14, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Kfedup (talk · contribs)Another article probation notice needed? Guettarda (talk) 03:11, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Yup....and when we're done, perhaps a WP:CHECKUSER on some of these editors. Wikidemon (talk) 03:12, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Whoops. Looks like we were working the same case at User talk:Neophytesoftware#Article probation notice, and I happened to block during the time you were giving him a final warning. Do you want to rescind, or shall I? I smell sock accounts nevertheless... seicer | talk | contribs 03:14, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Rescind the warning? The block is likely the way to go - the warnings and reversions only egged him on to be more tendentious. I doubt my warning would stop him, particularly given the climate established by the editorialist inciting the fringe loyalists to view the article as a dictatorship of the cabal. Wikidemon (talk) 03:16, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Is there any way to remove my user name from the notification list? I was just trying to be helpful. SMP0328. (talk) 03:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Don't take it personally - we're all on the notification list... I'll make a comment on your page to that effect. It's no stigma, and being on the notification list does not make you any more likely to get blocked for good faith editing. Article probation has generally been used as a tool to come down in real time on high-intensity disruption. Wikidemon (talk) 03:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. SMP0328. (talk) 03:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Please let me know if what I wrote is okay - I can nice it up some more if that helps. If it were a regular warning I might strike or remove it, but we have no precedent for un-notifying people about article probation. It's just a notice, it means you're aware. Wikidemon (talk) 03:39, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

3rr warning

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. NDM (talk) 11:47, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks tit-for-tat retaliation from a misguided user who wants to use a talk page on article probation for a soapbox. Wikidemon (talk) 12:01, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Sleeping

Man I go to sleep and miss all the fun! I should stop sleeping and maybe then I'd be able to see the weirdness start! Brothejr (talk) 11:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

One needs to do a sanity / reality check. We went from a quiet, stable article to complete mayhem, socks, and a couple dozen or more editors singing the same tune, proposing the old nonconsensus edits, crying censorship, etc., all in one day. One tries to explain this in simple terms but then that's too much to be a mere coincidence. If the New York Times had published an expose on Wikipedia I doubt it would have influenced editing this much...Wikidemon (talk) 11:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I look at it as an attack by the far right wingers who are still sore over losing the election and are pissed that WP does not cover all the conspiracies like Conservapedia does. Basically in their minds, if it does not tilt toward the right and their views, then it is inherently biased. One thing that a Republican said (I forgot who) a couple weeks ago was that this country is inherently a center-right country and I could not stop laughing at that. The conservatives truly think that their way is the majority! That is what we are seeing here now. I'm expecting this to take a couple days to sort itself out. Brothejr (talk) 11:49, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I only wish that Wright line that had been added stopped most of the weirdness, but I don't think even one line would stop them. Brothejr (talk) 17:53, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

This looks to be a replay of last fall - scores of meatpuppets and possibly sockpuppets making the same claim again and again while edit warring, crying censorship, insulting editors, calling the article a whitewash, etc. It may very well be the same people. The sudden influx tells me that someone probably put them up to it - behind the scenes emails, newsletters, etc. This camp has demonstrated before in the field of Arab/Israel disputes that they're willing to game Wikipedia - they're in the business of no rules espionage and sabotage in the world of journalism, so when they set their sights here it's no surprise. Plus they've convinced a number of Wikipedia's regular editors to go south as well.Wikidemon (talk) 17:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

True, I did notice a couple editors who normally would not care seem to be speaking up for the weirdness. Brothejr (talk) 18:03, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Just a note

I happened to read this and just thought I'd mention that this is the same editor who simply insisted the project's featured articles were incredibly flawed and called them "crap" and threw a huge fit because editors took exception to her insistence that the term "icon" should appear in the lead to Tina Turner without any supporting documentation and that "the whole article supports it." She didn't seem to get the concept that such an unsupported statement was POV and seemed really insistent on concentrating on Turner's legs vs. her comeback from nothing and a life of abuse to being a huge star. She also challenged the use of the term "businessman" in Michael Jackson because just buying a song portfolio (Northern Songs) and managing it for years didn't make him a businessman. Despite the efforts of editors to demonstrate that his having bought the portfolio was a smart business decision and that Jackson had parlayed it into his main source of income, she persisted, then finally retreated to her area of comfort before apparently entering the world of politics. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: your note

Hey, thanks for the note. I agree completely with your view - the Obama article is nicely neutral, includes links to the daughter articles that Klein conveniently forgot to look at, and so forth. I did look over the article for links to the contentious stuff, and didn't see it at the time I checked, that's about the only complaint I could possibly have had about it at the time. I'm just getting annoyed by the frothing, at this point. Hopefully it dies down shortly and we can go back to dealing with the encyclopedia, instead of the influx of Freepers and dittoheads. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Investigation

Hello, I have added more information to your investigation begun here [16] TharsHammar (talk) 23:18, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

You might also be interested in reading the full letter from Klein about Jerusalem21, [17] TharsHammar (talk) 23:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

CSPI

Thanks! Neutrality^talk 02:32, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Huff Po article

Dunno if you saw this, but it made me laugh. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:16, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

San Francisco Police Officers Association

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. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 13:40, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Please review WP:BLP and WP:DTTR - note that the editor who just templated me is the one edit warring across five editors to include a poorly sourced accusation of murder against a living person, after being cautioned not to do so.Wikidemon (talk) 13:42, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Poorly sourced - For more information, please see;

San Francisco Chronicle - S.F. police union accuses Ayers in 1970 bombing

The Politico - Group puts Ayers back in spotlight

Fox News - Report: Police Union Accuses Ayers in Deadly 1970 San Francisco Bombing

WorldNetDaily - Cold case: Will Ayers be brought to justice?

Fox Business - San Francisco Police Officers' Association Supports Effort to Bring Charges in 1970 Bombing Case

FrontPage Magazine - A Murder Revisited

KGO-TV - Union accuses Ayers of 1970 bombing

The San Francisco Examiner - Police union targets ’60s radical

Chicago Tribune - San Francisco cops target Bill Ayers

Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 13:53, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Please don't robo-cut-and-paste pointless stuff to my talk page. The problem is your edit warring of BLP-violating material into multiple articles simultaneously. If you want to make a case that this material should be in more than the one article where it makes the most sense, you're welcome to use the talk pages to make your proposal - currently the BLP noticeboard where this got consolidated. Wikidemon (talk) 14:07, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the warning!

I was not aware that "Talk:Barack Obama, is on article probation." 15:40, 15 March 2009 (hist) (diff) Talk:Barack Obama ‎ (→Bad faith all around). Although I should have. I have ready the article probation information and see I am to late to help. I wish all of you the best and only hope that everyone remembers that we all pay for what we do and don't do in due time. Everything is always done one group at a time. And it will be your time some day. That is why I protect even what I sometimes do not agree with, because they have rights too. And once you take them from one group it is easier to take them from others. Gama1961 (talk) 16:48, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea what that's intended to mean, nor do the repeated comments on the Barack Obama talk page make much sense. This is an encyclopedia, not a place to get into a debate about free speech. Talk pages are for constructive discussion about improving the article in question. You are not supposed to use the talk page of an article as a place to vent about what's wrong with Wikipedia or the editors on it. Maybe brush up on Godwin's Law too? It's odd that someone would create a new account and use it so far only to vent on the Barack Obama page about censorship.Wikidemon (talk) 16:55, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

It is not "odd that someone would create a new account and use it so far only to vent on the Barack Obama page about censorship". It is the first place I noticed your censorship. And it is the one thing I can not let go by unnoticed. Plus, it was brought to me by a concered adult becasue I often send my students there. But my classed and I will be looking for it from now on. And the fact the you find it odd, speaks volumes. Gama1961 (talk) 17:42, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

"Odd indeed" - you confirmed my suspicions. So you have never edited Wikipedia before, or have you edited before from a different account? Assuming you are indeed a teacher, new to the encyclopedia, and sincere in your intent to fight censorship, there are some things you need to understand first. Please review the welcome message and read the pages on the links for advice on how to be a constructive editor. You should also take a look at WP:NPA, WP:AGF, WP:NPOV, WP:TALK, WP:POINT, and WP:SOAP regarding your edits. Please be humble when approaching new projects that you do not yet understand, and don't come here with an agenda. Note that it is against Wikipedia policies to edit the encyclopedia as a class project. Also, if you are teaching students you should learn a bit more about what censorship is before throwing around the term loosely. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a public forum, and editing articles invariably involves a choice of which version will be approved. That is not censorship, that is editing. If you just happen to be an opponent of Obama who wants the article to be more negative about him, I hope you are being fair and allowing your pupils to make up their own minds. If you came here due to the fake scandal initiated by that right wing agitator Aaron Klein you ought to pay some heed to what actually happened.Wikidemon (talk) 17:55, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

BLPN discussion/ANI

IMO Noroton is just (again) trying to provoke you to make "mistakes" s/he did and (in part) led to his/her topic ban. Don't fall for it and don't overreact. You should and do know better.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 22:25, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I haven't made any mistakes. Is Noroton topic banned? I think the admins gave him a 3 week block as a more effective alternative. Wikidemon (talk) 22:41, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Re. mistakes.. No, not really but even if reasonable to collapse his edits (with his history in mind) I wouldn't have done it since (as you can see by now) he reversed it.

"Is Noroton topic banned?". You know, I'm not sure now that you're asking. Could be that he evaded it by "resigning" but I'm positive about that restrictions were "applied" to him either by force or for him to decide to do so freely. So I guess you're right with a "more effective alternative" which at the end comes down to the same as a topic ban, only that he's not in violation of it therefore.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:15, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

That's fine - I'll revert his re-insertion of the personal attacks. He has no leg to stand on with that. Wikidemon (talk) 23:16, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

With or w/o a leg or two [artificial legs I'm thinking w/o offense to anyone], I wish and hope editors/admins that where involved and remember the whole thing (from last year) would kick in (at ANI).--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:36, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. It will happen soon enough. Problem being, the new influx of novice POV editors, and likely the accompanying socks, could force a repeat of last fall unless people take a hard line on this nonsense. Wikidemon (talk) 23:38, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't see POV editors (in general and from both "sides") as a problem since we can deal with them. I'm only discussed if they need socks. Very disgraceful. But anyway, I don't think last fall's repeating but if so, I'm out of here... :) --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:04, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Weatherman article

Hi Wikidemon. I actually wouldn't include any mention of Obama in that article myself, but it should at least shouldn't be made into an attack on Palin and should be similar to the Ayres article. Anyways I have commented on the talk page as you suggested. Please feel free to delete this or respond here or continue on that article talk page. Tom 03:05, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Arb

Hey, for some reason I can edit any page but ArbCom, could you post this under my section:

As this case is suppose to be about Steve's behavior, yet he only provided alleged wrongdoings against him, i'll put out the same evidence that I offered William Connonlley last night: Opening pointy ANI threads without the slighest hint of attempting to resolve the situation ([18], [19], [20]); edit warring on a talk page; edit warring non-constructive comments back into DRV ([21], [22]); edit warring at ANI to keep his disruptive sections open ([23], [24], [25], [26])

Steve has been around long enough to know that what he is doing is disruptive and inappropriate. If he were a newbie he would be identified as an SPA and indef blocked already. This isn't an issue for Arbitration, as administrative action under the terms of article probation could solve this. Grsz¹¹ 18:22, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Note to Clerks - Please move Steve's reply above to his own section. Just another example: he knows better, but chooses to be disruptive anyways. Grsz¹¹ 18:22, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, Grsz¹¹ 18:22, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm having my own trouble at the moment - I get a "server error" much of the time I try to post there. But I'll give it a shot. Wikidemon (talk) 18:27, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

That's what I was getting, but it was limited to that page. Plus some computer issues on my end. Thanks though, I wanted to get that in there. Grsz¹¹ 18:51, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Ping

[27] Was that the document? The convo at the bottom. rootology (C)(T) 23:20, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Obama articles

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Obama articles/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Obama articles/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Mailer Diablo 18:18, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

One thing you might want to add to your evidence on the whole FAQ event. After Stevertigo modified the answer,[28] my reversion,[29] his re-adding,[30] then PhGustaf's reversion,[31] he immediately went to AN/I without any attempt to discuss.[32] It may also be of note that as soon as the 24 hours of a 3RR would be up, Stevertigo hopped in feet first on a separate edit war over the question[33][34] The later link includes a tit-for-tat personal attack via edit summaries between Sceptre and Stevertigo.--Bobblehead ^(rants) 05:04, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Please assume good faith

I undid your archiving of a discussion item at WP:IAR characterizing it as disruption (also because I wished to comment on it as well). JustGettingItRight (talk) 21:17, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

The issue has nothing to do with good faith. Please see my comment in that discussion area. The matter is being discussed in arbitration, and it should remain closed on the policy page.Wikidemon (talk) 21:46, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I would agree if someone were editing the project page. The talk page is designed to solicit comments, no matter how out of the mainstream they are (see WP:TALK). When a proposal out of the mainstream is opposed by consensus, then the policy itself is validated. JustGettingItRight (talk) 22:18, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's a definition of trolling - trying to get a reaction out of people by proposing something that is not on the level one knows will provoke them. We're not obliged to comment on something just because an editor wants to chat. If he has a real proposal he's free to bring it up, but not by goading people. Wikidemon (talk) 22:22, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

WD, I'm always open to discussion, so lets carry it on here if you don't object. You may wish to consider removing the edit you made at an archived section [35] and perhaps moving it here also - but that's totally up to you, I'm not fussed either way. I personally don't ever add into an archive, seems to me that you either unarchive it to continue the discussion, respond below the archive, or just drop it. But whatever.

As to specifics, well first of all I had no idea that you would consider my comments to be an attack. I stand by my comments equally as you. The objective facts seem to me that I am quite capable of holding my own in wiki-converse, I generally resist all forms of baiting and provocation, StVert was making reasonable responses and in fact it was yourself and Sceptre who brought an argument from elsewhere. The manifestation was reversions (including reversions of my good-faith edits, which I don't vastly appreciate) and in your case a long screed about your perceived grievances and deficiencies in others. I'm sorry if you disagree, but that's what I see, having no flea performing in the current arb-circus.

This perhaps reflects one of the big gulfs in understanding between different wiki-editors. I see a straightforward commment that I made, you see an attack. I'm not right to say "oh grow up!" and neither are you right to cry "I have been wounded!" We just approach things differently, and we need to find middle ground. Preferably not a battleground. Nevertheless, if you perceive an attack in my comment, I will apologize that you see it that way, and I'd ask for clarification as to esactly what I said that was an attack.

I'll re-iterate though that it's not necessary for you to pre-manage disruption. There are many other editors with eyeballs, thoughts and access to edit and undo buttons. It's important that you confine your disputes, else we risk chaos. I'd also ask you to trust my judgement. Regards! Franamax (talk) 00:08, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I believe my statements and actions on the IAR talk page were correct. Please reread what you said on that page, and here on this page. You take sides, not only against me but to criticize me for my attempt to explain the situation, tell me I am "getting worked up here", and tell me I shouldn't try to protect you from yourself or bring trouble from elsewhere (which has nothing to do with the issue). I responded because you chastised me just before the page was archived and it was a meta-comment about me, not about the proposal. Quelling disruption is indeed an important thing to do. Disruptive proposals are routinely shut down across the encyclopedia, and when an editor forum shops or attempts to expand disruption, they get shut down elsewhere. Here Stevertigo made an unserious proposal to do away with one of Wikipedia's core policies - that is about on the level of nominating a featured article for deletion. Stevertigo did not come out of the blue to make that proposal, as I explained. He was on a roll of provocation across a number of pages that started on the Obama page and landed in arbitration. It was not a fair proposal. Some of his various other actions on other pages were also summarily reversed - an article he was promoting was speedied, for instance. There has been a constant cloud of disruption lately on, and emanating from, the Obama articles and it's all we can do to keep things atable. Wikidemon (talk) 00:37, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, let me try to take these in order. I try very hard to not take sides, I try to see both sides and got a "consummate mediator" tag once, so I'm not too worried. (Note that I could claim a personal attack there :) The "getting worked up" bit relates to the sheer length of your post, which generally indicates an emotional rather than rational response. I did not mean to chastise you personally, although perhaps I used the "royal you" to refer yourself and Sceptre, two parties deeply involved in a wiki-squabble with the OP. My "meta-comment" was indeed about the responses to the proposal which I thought disproportionate. Quelling disruption is certainly important, but I can't help but observe the frequent contributors to WT:IAR and ya know - I haven't seen you there much. OTOH, check the history, I do believe that I have a little more stature on deciding what constitutes disruption on that page. Maybe you could ask Chillum or Father Goose about that - we've all spent lots of time on the issue. So yeah, be WP:BOLD in your edits, but rest assured that between us we've got it all handled. We don't all agree but we manage the situation, again don't bring your "management" of disruption to places where you aren't even checking to see who the existing managers are. Like I said, thanks for the input - other people than yourself are equally capable of closing discussion, editors not involved in current disputes.

Did I miss anything? As far as StVert and the ArbCase - don't care. Please take it up there. Not taking sides. I'll offer reasonable discussion to both sides. Just please don't extend disputes beyond the areas where they started. StVert caused no disruption in the WT:IAR post, beyond provoking reactions from involved parties. No-one else was harmed at all and StVert acted reasonably. The storm came from elsewhere. You take offense when I suggest you're getting worked up, but I'll still suggest that you calm down. Regards. Franamax (talk) 01:21, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

And possibly to clarify: Wikidemon, just because I disagree with you at a particular page at a particular time, doesn't mean that I disagree with everything you say, or think you're wrong on the underlying issue or feel compelled to attack you as a person. It just means I disagree with your particular expression of ideas. Odds are that I will be agreeing with you somewhere else within a matter of hours. Unless you're a troll, which eviodnce I've never seen and do not believe exists. We're just two editors with strong ideas. Again, apologies if you perceived any personal attack. Franamax (talk) 01:28, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

The length is an attempt to explain a fairly involved situation in detail, aware that we are in an arbitration case and that any action or statement can and will be subject to scrutiny and accusations. I have not been deeply involved in a wiki-squabble with Stevertigo, no more than any of the other few dozen disruptive accounts on the Obama pages this year, although he has sought made it so. On my part it is a matter of responding to simple disruption, something we do several times per day in the Obama articles. When trouble spills out to other pages, editors patrolling Obama-related pages sometimes go there to clean up. Nothing wrong with that. Dealing with disruption as if it were normal consensus editing, or as if each page were its own island, is impractical. Stevertigo created a rapid-fire series of pointy disruptive edits to a number of articles, and viewed in context his quasi-suggestion to do away with IAR policy looked like and probably was trolling. It now looks like he may have been deliberately stirring up trouble so that he could make an issue of it. Simple reversion of pointless disruptive edits is usually effective as a first line of response in dealing with this, as is closing meaningless discussions. Whatever the situation, it is subject to resolution in the arbitration case. If you are indeed skilled at mediation, surely you know that if a party is truly worked up telling them to calm down does not help things, and if they are not upset, telling them that they are being irrational because they are upset may be a self-fulfilling prophesy. Wikidemon (talk) 01:40, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Teleprompter

The only problem with this is that I had already requested temporary full page protection for this article, so it is conceivable that this version will get protected. I appreciate the 3RR heads-up though - my previous edits were "yesterday", but still within a 24hr span. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:58, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. Well, sometimes it's the wrong version. As goofy as the edit is, it just makes Wikipedia look sophomoric... it is not a great BLP harm. Wikidemon (talk) 16:00, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

What is your thoughts on this user. Think its a sock puppet? TharsHammar (talk) 17:09, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

This[36] was obviously not the person's first ever edit to the encyclopedia. Speaking of which, you (TharsHammer) seem like you've had experience before your account creation date. What gives there? Wikidemon(talk) 17:17, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Time for a little detective work. I don't think any of the usual suspects are that good at English or Wikipedia article layout. Wikidemon (talk) 17:21, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I had about a hundred edits on my IP address before signing up. I found out about geolocate and whois and I realized I didn't want people being able to trace me. TharsHammar (talk) 17:29, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough...just wanting to be careful. Wikidemon (talk) 17:31, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

It is pretty clear that Dermus is around only to create articles about Obama's teleprompter use. TharsHammar (talk) 17:34, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, WP:SPA is not as bad as being a full-blown WP:SOCK. If the person who created it is a longstanding editor who wants to hide behind a second identity to create POV articles, and especially if that person is using both accounts to try to participate in AfD and other discussions, or edit wars, that's a very serious behavioral problem that can end up causing a lot of trouble. Gotta say, I agree with the sock on this one though.[37] TOTUS, in all capital letters, is obviously a different thing than Totus in lowercase. For example, ACORN versus the woefully inadequate Acorn. Wikidemon (talk) 17:37, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I checked, and if you type in Totus it goes to the same redirect. I don't think the search feature distinguishes by capitalization. TharsHammar (talk) 17:42, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Overlawyered

It meets WP:WEB, and shouldn't be a redirect. See WP:COIN#Overlawyered for RS. THF (talk) 20:07, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer...I've created the beginning of an article, but it still needs some work. That should hold it for now, though. Wikidemon (talk) 20:59, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

NOR

Re: this edit: thank you. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I was confused - I thought Bob had added your version with a "slight modification", not his version - that's why I reverted SlimVirgin. I thought Bob had finally come around and we all agreed, and that SlimVirgin had misunderstood the discussion. I was confused that SlimVirgin would have reverted summarily. Now that I see what happened, I understand. I'm fine with either version... I hope I haven't made a mess. I wasn't trying to start any trouble. Wikidemon (talk) 02:51, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

thanks

Thanks for responding in the RfA (the Teleprompter one). I'm never sure what constitutes a "new" user ... lol. I haven't been here that long, but I didn't just sign up yesterday either. Looking back, I'm thinking it may have been directed to another user who seems to be a SPA, and newly created account just a few !votes up from me. I do appreciate you taking the time to reply though - thanks. ;) — Ched ~ ^(yes?)/_© 10:18, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Good, better, best

You removed the sentence, "ACORN encourages government-based housing trusts rather than a market-oriented approach to expand public housing.", and the corresponding citation. I also considered removing it, but then I read in that source that Clinton did propose just such a trust fund, and an ACORN spokesperson indicated they were pleased with it (even though it didn't go far enough). So I left the sentence in, figuring I would get around to wording it more accurately. I think I much prefer your solution, per your edit summary. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:08, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

RFC regarding WP:TERRORIST

Hi: You're probably watching the WT:WTA talk page, but if not, I wanted to let you know I've set up an RFC to get some outside discussion there, and to encourage slightly more formal statements than our more freewheeling discussion thus far. Ray^Talk 17:53, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

BLPN post

Right after you posted to my query on the BLPN, I slightly reworded my original post to clarify what I was asking. I don't think it will affect your statement, but I wanted to let you know about the change. Horologium (talk) 20:39, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Drudge

Hi Wikidemon! I see you censored my discussion entry within minutes of posting. I just wanted to drop you a line and say keep up the good fight of censoring dissent. I know some people say dishonest editing make for a dishonest institution, but what do they know? At any rate, hopefully we can collaborate in the future to suppress detractors' influence on our MOB TRUTH. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chipdouglas (talk • contribs) 17:38, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

(2): I actually agree, and I see you referred me to "What Wikipedia Is Not." It is ironic, however, that I am being chided for not adhering to Wikipedia virtues on articles that even more egregiously fail to adhere to editing criteria ("Wikipedia Is Not" for "advocacy" or "opinion pieces."). This is not on you, as review suggests you restrain your views more than the average Wikipedian editor, but hopefully you can appreciate the absurdity of enforcing pedantry while ignoring serious offenses and contradictions. It is like making a citizen's arrest for stepping over the threshold of private property while that property is looted and burned by others. Just out of personal curiosity, what is your POV on the inclusion of "conservative" for Drudge even while such titles are omitted for the aforementioned openly liberal pundits? Chipdouglas (talk) 18:47, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I have mentioned on the article talk page that it is not good for the first sentence of the lead because that is used to identify the subject - that suggests that conservatism is a defining characteristic of the Drudge Report, which is not really right per the sources. However, it is not useful and against the rules to use talk pages to accuse editors of ganging up, censorship, etc. You will find nobody listens to those arguments, and they do not build an encyclopedia. Wikidemon (talk) 20:22, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

ANI

I have filed a complaint against you for removing other editors comments and for WP:BITE [38] CENSEI (talk) 02:31, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

WD, I think CENSEI has a crush on you. He sure likes following you around here. Grsz¹¹ 03:13, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

So does ChildofMidnight, another editor involved in the mess. Wikidemon (talk) 03:14, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh well, it's amazing he's even still around. Probably just best to ignore everything he does and pretend he doesn't exist. Grsz¹¹ 03:18, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Disengage from CENSEI

Please stop taunting and pushing buttons of User:CENSEI. Your contributions (and his) were disruptive and both of you are facing disruption blocks if this continues. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:38, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Please retract that warning. I am a productive, good faith editor acting in a role to avoid disruption and keep the peace here. I have not taunted CENSEI or pushed any buttons. When a problem editor like CENSEI disrupts things, I help out. My actions have not been disruptive in the slightest, are attempts - which would have been successful ones - to calm disruption. Wikidemon (talk) 03:42, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I do not want to escalate this or pick sides - but both of you are over the line on disruption right now. And both of you know better. Any unbiased look at the ANI thread shows that neither of you are being constructive about this at the moment.

You are a productive good faith editor, yes. That doesn't excuse this little blowup, however. Please don't do it again, or make this case worse.

Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:50, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

What "blowup"? Grsz¹¹ 03:56, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm with Grsz here, I asked on ANI on the now-archived thread, and you have not answered. GWH, what has Wikidemon done which appears to you to be aggressive or a "blow up", or in any way inappropriate? You keep accusing him and have offered no difs and answered no requests for clarity. KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:53, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

(ec - addressed to Georgewilliamherbert): I'm afraid you must be jumping to some conclusions without having all the facts available. I am doing the right thing. I know what I did, I thought about it carefully when doing it, and I believed and still believe it was the best course to keep the discussion page orderly and on track. I am not blowing anything up or doing anything at the moment - the brief matter on the Drudge Report talk report is long over and I am simply asking for time while gathering diffs to explain what happened. I do not sek CENSEI out. If you look at the recent history and his topic ban I was more kind to and generous to CENSEI than almost anyone else around here. But given his record it seems very likely that he will cause further trouble to articles on my watch list. The problem with equating helpful editors with tendentious ones, and give them like warnings, is that it is discouraging and punishing to editors for trying to help out. It also emboldens those who would cause trouble. Just hold on a bit, I think this will be a lot more clear when I have a chance to explain. Wikidemon (talk) 04:03, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

The very fact that Wikidemon has kept his cool after being equated with CENSEI proves there is no danger of any kind of "blow up." This is as shitty as it gets, he tries to disengage a disruptive, pointy editor and gets reprimanded for it??? If anything he deserves a barnstar, definitely not a threat to "block for disruption." Landon1980 (talk) 05:12, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Kept his cool? He threatened to take me to ANI after he removed someone elses comments on the talk page. CENSEI (talk) 12:55, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

You are in error. He stated if you didn't revert your action, which was edit warring over an inappropriate post which was neither to you nor by you, he'd report it. You chose to beat him to the punch. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:00, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

69 ANI threads

Hi. As I wrote, CENSEI has reading problems. The list includes every 3RR report you've made and every comment you've made at ANI, regardless of who was involved in the incident.

The frightening thing is that, based on my experience with him, CENSEI "reads" sources as poorly as he reads search results. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 05:03, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Blunt Caution

Please do not refer to others comment as "ridiculous". If you disagree with someone you can articulate it without demeaning them in the process. I think the selection of photos all being one sided was noteworthy and not "ridiculous" as you state. Also, it is not "ridiculous" to point out that there are other interest groups who have an interest in the Obama page. Do you think that they don't care at all? Either way, you will not increase the integrity of the article by deleting discussion threads you don't like. Please refrain yourself in the future.

P.S. Please also sign your posts even on talk pages.

thank you. JohnHistory (talk) 20:54, 29 March 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory

No go, I don't need any advice here. I'll add my signature to my post but other than that I have given you blunt caution. You should read and heed it, or the advice of others, if you are going to stick around on this website. If not, fine. You won't last long.Wikidemon (talk) 21:21, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

E-mail

You've got a new one. Grsz¹¹ 00:18, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I see you aren't denying this WD...or should I call you Bryan! Grsz¹¹ 03:48, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Deny this! - Wikidemon (talk) 03:52, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Coultergeist

"Ann Coulter is a childhood friend of biracial American golfer, 2007 PGA tour leader, and unrepentant terrorist [[Tiger Woods]]"

Bwaaaahaaaahaaaahaaa! God, that was too damn funny. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Category sorting

Just a reminder that the DEFAULTSORT markup uses a colon, not a pipe; for example, {{DEFAULTSORT:Rigo, Pascal}} instead of {{DEFAULTSORT|Rigo, Pascal}}. —Paul A (talk) 01:47, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting that. Wikidemon (talk) 02:15, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I see your note on my page

I also see that you may be starting to see that my point #2 is correct. Support of Mrs. Clinton could be relevant information but the minor details of how is unimportant in the biography of President Obama.

Some people may say that even the Mrs. Clinton support is just a formality if it can be shown that the major candidates always support the winner in the end.

With Senator McCain, did Mr. Romney and Rev. Huckabee endorse him? Did Mr. Edwards endorse President Obama? Did Mr. Edwards endorse Senator Kerry in 2004? Did Mrs. Dole endorse Mr. Bush (W) in 2000? Even in the hotly contest 1980 race, Mr. Kennedy endorsed President Carter in the end (see "To get Kennedy's endorsement Carter was forced to make many policy concessions to the liberal senator" http://millercenter.org/academic/americanpresident/carter/essays/biography/3 )

All of the above is just commentary, not asking you to support any editorial changes. G7error (talk) 17:45, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes...of course. Thanks for making the effort to discuss with me. I never actually got to the substance before the conversation veered off the tracks. You'll find that if you reach out and are courteous, most (but not all) people will overcome any prickliness and they'll be receptive whether they agree or not. I took your two points as examples, not proposals, because that's what you said they were. Maybe your (to paraphrase) "I'm just commenting, not actually asking you make a change" self-introduction simply backfired because people are more afraid of comments than practical suggestions. Because it is an important article with many dozens of editors and thousands of pages of discussion over time, you'll find that modest incremental improvements like this one are a lot easier to address than issues that are bigger, more contentious, or impugn the sincerity or abilities of the body of editors. Anyway, feel free to participate in the discussion or editing - don't let us chase you away. Wikidemon (talk) 18:05, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Consensus test on university topics

You previously commented on the RFC on the notability of residences at colleges and universities. A consensus test has been posted to evaluate what, if any consensus, has been reached on the issue. Please go and comment at: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Universities#Consensus test. Madcoverboy (talk) 18:08, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Immigration

Have you warned the (very dynamic) IP of 3RR? Grsz¹¹ 23:56, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

They are wikigaming and at 3RR, whereas I am arguably at 2RR or 3RR.... 3RR is not a good way to get a dynamic IP because blocking doesn't help. The only defense is semi page protection, and they are gaming the system by trying to call it a content dispute and advocating for "dispute resolution". Dispute resolution takes a lot of time and is a complete waste when dealing with bad faith editors, but I'm afraid their pretense will make it hard to get semi-protection out of RFPP. Maybe you can take a look to see if you agree with my edits. It would take me an hour or two to write them all up and explain why each one is removing a statement that is unsourced, POV, or constradicts the sources given. Meanwhile, the tendentious editor is simply accusing me of bias, personal opinion, misbehavior and all that nonsense. Looking at the talk page history there has been concern here as on other immigration articles of IP-hopping socks. Wikidemon (talk) 00:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I've asked for community input [39]. Feel free to add IPs I missed. Grsz¹¹ 00:24, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Uh oh, do you think someone might accuse me of bias because I happen to like Matisyahu? Grsz¹¹ 02:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: MZMcBride arbitration

No, I'm not out of line so I find no need to refactor it, but I do note your concern. I've gone ahead and responded again. It seems you've done precisely what you did in your interpretation - took something too personally and way out of proportions from the actual words stated. [I also note that similar issues seem to have been raised above, on this very talk page of yours.] The criticism isn't due to you personally making your contribution to the case - I encourage as much participation as possible. But this is a criticism of your position and that particular way of looking at things, and if there is something personal about it, it would be the point about the manner in which you originally raised the position - it certainly wouldn't have been so verbose if it was done some other way. I'm not sure it'd be wise of you to assume that you should be defending yourself, as I'm certainly not putting your editing or reputation under the microscope. I also don't see the need to be threatening to "come down" on anyone, unless there is no response to the criticism posed. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I think what's actually lame is assuming I have any interest in combing anything to do with you; I responded on your talk page and noticed something before I navigated away. But I note that you should be careful about what accusations you fling - my impression of Franamax is far from a sockpuppet or SPA or anything along those lines. I have a respect for users who are harassed, but really, this doesn't excuse you repeatedly suggesting that this is something more personal than it actually is. As for the issues raised at arbitration, it seems you're not listening and rather than continue to engage in IDIDNTHEARTHAT territory, so I'm calling this for what it is - end of discussion. We're done. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:10, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

You did not identify Franamax among the sundry editors who stop by my page to complain and I'm not interested in defending my position on an unrelated matter that you think exemplifies my failings. I'm not suggesting that your comments were personal. They were, plainly and unnecessarily so. Are you so unable to see how they come off? I'll lay them out: "you yourself used unduly indecorous verbal theatrics", "[you] grossly exaggerated the extent of "damage" (if any)", "[your] view is much like users who consider", "you've failed to explain", "you've evaded", "I would not so strongly reject your view", "you really are comparing bread with oranges", "Is that how you describe street talk", "if you weren't accustomed with its nuances?", "you've somehow jumped to the assumption that someone is scolding you", "that's certainly not a collaborative outlook", "I respect the fact that you weren't happy as a child", "you insist on narrowly interpreting it in that way", "this is about having a bit of understanding, consideration, clue and common sense", "I really need not dignify your response with a reply", "you seem to be unresponsive to the actual comments raised,", "[you] have repeatedly tried to make out...", "you've made my point for me", "the very fact that you...says it all". Keep in mind that I'm not there on the arbitration page to talk to or about you. I was there to share my observations with ArbCom. The administrators proposed that the lolcat language was of understandable intent but "offended" several editors. You proposed it was intended as "ironic humor" that "understandably upset" some users who made "an implied assumption". I observed that the language would likely be interpreted as disrespectful whatever the intent. The three are very similar, and both yours and mine are personal opinions. What you think of my opinion, and what I think of yours, is not even relevant because what counts is what ArbCom thinks. So engaging me in a debate, much less a critique of my lack of cogency, is misplaced. If you feel that your assessment of the validity of my opinion is important enough that the arbitrators need to hear it, a simple "I don't agree" would suffice. Wikidemon (talk) 12:29, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

No, I didn't find the need to use names until you started flinging a series of accusations that really didn't get to the heart of the problem that I naiively thought you would understand. And as a btw, the level of respect I've had for you has been lost as a result of your reply; selectively quoting phrases out of context remains the sort of behaviour that I solely associate with tendentious problem editors, and rather than respond to the IDIDNTHEARTHAT reply with the same, I will disengage; anyone who reviews this can get the hint from the bolded part of my original comment (see here), compared to your reply above. What counts is what ArbCom thinks? We'll see. I see no value in a mere "I don't agree" or "I think this" that lacks any real justification. I wish I could say it was a pleasure interacting with you, but sadly, I cannot. So hopefully, this will be the first and last "occasion" where I will have to come to this page. Good luck! Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:51, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

You stated your opinion, I stated a closely related opinion with which you disagree. That should be it. My point, and simple request, has been that you leave me out of it. I don't really care at what point you decided to complain. Of course I quoted selectively. I selected each of the dozen and a half instances in the course of three successive posts there where you single me out rather than talking about the issue. You still say you weren't talking about me, and now you call me (logically parsing your indirect statement) a tendentious problem editor for trying to show this to you... and now grandstanding on my talk page for other editors who you think will come by and agree with you. This is getting weird. I don't mind your correcting a typo but I've unbolded the comment that was not bold when made because I get the message and do not wish to have my talk page marked up to prove a point. Please do disengage and take a breather. If you have no respect for me, your loss. I won't take it personally. Wikidemon (talk) 15:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Talk back

Hello, Wikidemon. You have new messages at QueenofBattle's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thank you for the comments at my talk page. We may be getting somewhere, albeit it more slowly with others. Unfortunately, we have much work to do, as evidenced by the knee-jerk reverting going on around here. QueenofBattle (talk) 00:21, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

That may be an issue before the arbitration committee in case you're interested -- the knee jerk reactions on the part of editors who think they are acting to keep the peace. Maintaining decorum, respect, cordiality, and AGF even when dealing with perceived disruption will probably improve things and help admins sort out who really is the source of any trouble that does arise. And if admins are stronger in that role there will be less temptation by non-admins to try to do it for themselves. Wikidemon (talk) 00:33, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Email

The topic of email between wikipedians seems to be all the rage today, so I'll try it out to see what all the buzz is about. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:04, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Pascal Rigo

On April 9, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Pascal Rigo, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Dravecky (talk) 10:52, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

James Cawley

Could you help me? On James Cawley page all I want to do is add he was an extra in the new Star Trek movie. I have been stopped everytime by this same person that is protecting him. I finally found a statement from James Cawley and to Arcayne (cast a spell) it is still not good enough. Please help me????

The reference being James own words....http://trekmovie.com/2008/11/12/editorial-james-cawley-on-the-new-star-trek-movie/

His post: "121. James Cawley - November 12, 2008 To those of you who feel I have sold out etc. You are dead wrong. NO ONE loves The Orignal Star Trek more than me. No one is more devoted to it’s look and feel, for Christ’s sake, I own a full scale bridge set and play Kirk in my spare time! I have poured more of my life into classic Trek than I care to discuss. Being an extra in the film has nothing to do with my opinion either. " Please tell me this is enough for you now and add that he was an extra. Thank you173.55.27.133 (talk) 12:16, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

re

Thank you for the advice. Soxwon (talk) 23:36, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Banducci and Angelou

This isn't important and doesn't matter but at the same time isn't something you hear every day. Just looked at the Enrico Banducci article for the first time in a while and noticed that you'd changed the description of Maya Angelou from an "ersatz Caribbean singer" to someone who "performed Caribbean songs." I knew Banducci extremely well and Angelou actually did pretend with audiences to be a Carribean singer during the period and he'd sometimes have remind her to drop the accent when they were talking in his office. Oddly, her mother and sisters were prostitutes, according to Banducci, but she maintains today that she had a typical suburban upbringing. Very interesting. As you get older, again and again you find that so many things are the precise polar opposite of what they at first appear to be. Storyliner (talk) 00:37, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Some thoughts

It's rather disappointing the sour taste the last couple months have left me, and I'm sure you as well. You're much more resilient than I am. Having to deal with various editors who can't even try and hide their motivations is likely to wear out anybody. I guess we thought it would be easier once the B4P sockfarm was outed, but now we're forced to deal with new ones that just seem to keep coming. Since the ArbCom I've faded out of the Obama articles, and really had no interest in being involved in the case. Now these last couple weeks have really drained me, and as much as I hate to let the lower levels of the wiki-world win, it's probably better that way in the long run. I'm tired of ANI, and the community's inability/unwillingness to deal with legitimate issues. I'll most likely be removing a lot of the high-traffic Obama articles from my watchlist in the near future. Hopefully, I'll still find chances to interact with you elsewhere. That being said, I won't be completely closed from that area, and if something major would come up, you are welcome to let me know. Thanks WD! Grsz¹¹ 22:12, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

It could be some of the same old socks. I too am disappointed that as soon as one problem disappears, another one appears. It was truly quiet and orderly in the Obama articles for a few months. Although the disruption is inevitable, two things that can change are the experienced editors who incite and shield disruption, and administrators' unwillingness to act - perhaps the ArbCom case can help that. Wikidemon (talk) 22:14, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

All this on top of a heavy off-wiki workload makes Jack a dull boy. Grsz¹¹ 22:20, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

FYI

Hey Demon. I just wanted to make sure you were aware of Teledildonix (sp?) recent postings on his talk page? I thought maybe you and Grsz or others who've worked with this editor might be able to offer some encouragement. He seems like a very nice guy and I'm sorry he's experiencing difficult and frustrating times. Thanks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:59, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Sure thing. I'll look into it. Wikidemon (talk) 22:07, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Obama political positions issue

After you commented here, the editor you were responding too decided to embark on some rather alarming changes. For example, Political Positions of Pres. Barack Obama: IRAN. You may wish to clarify your earlier statement in some way. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:49, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye on it... I noticed the changes, and the article does need significant work, but I assumed that the changes were merely to move various of Obama's political positions or perhaps presidency actions out to child articles so the article doesn't get too long, starting with Obama's position on Iran. Wikidemon (talk) 15:51, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm concerned about the choice of article title. If this is the way it is going to go, I think we need an immediate discussion of granularity. Having a specific article on Obama's political positions with respect to Iran seems overly specific. Perhaps it should be grouped under "foreign policy" or something like that? -- Scjessey (talk) 15:59, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree we should have a talk about naming conventions and organization. But it seems likely that we will have a bunch of child articles - the subject is important, more so for the presidency than the political positions, and given how much material we have after 3 months just imagine four years' worth. Likely there will be child articles about specific incidents and topics, some will go into articles like US-Iran relations, but there will probably be some like "Supreme court cases argued by the Obama administration" or something like that. Wikidemon (talk) 16:10, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Joke?

For your amusement! -- Scjessey (talk) 19:52, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Is that a serious nomination? Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:30, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

May want to add this one to your evidence. This is getting sad. Grsz¹¹ 00:10, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

It's a bit hilarious how misguided some people can be [40]. Grsz¹¹ 01:13, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Dov Charney and Woody Allen Lawsuit

While I agree with you that ORDINARILY a lawsuit should only be on American Apparels page, it needs to be in the Dov Charney wikipedia article, because Charney has been accused of far worse sexual imporpritioes than Allen. If is were the run of the mill business dispute I would agree with you 100%, but it needs to be examined in light of Dov Charney's behavior.

I would argue it would be in both articles; American Apparels and Dov Charney —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dann Dobson (talk • contribs) 22:28, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

That claim is made in the context of AA's defense of the Allen lawsuit - it does not concern Charney. Also, it's a claim made by an unreliable source - a party to litigation. The litigation strategy itself (blame the victim, blame the accuser, take no prisoners) is so common it doesn't bear repeating in every lawsuit where it happens. Moreover, without a source that ties as relating to Charney, this is all a BLP problem. Statements by lawyers and PR professionals claiming grave injury, offense, improper tactics, etc., are more or less completely unencyclopedic with respect to the parties involved. If there is ever an article about the lawsuit itself (it may be worth that someday, depending on how it goes) then these tactical matters, claims and counterclaims, might be relevant to that. Wikidemon (talk) 22:33, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Who made you God? This information was good enough for the New York Times, Google News and the AP, yet YOU call it unreliable and allegations of lawyers. Sorry, but it is jerks like you who do heavy handed editing that are killing Wikipedia and making people like me say, why bother posting here, if I spend an hour putting a post together and a jerk like you comes along and deletes it 5 minutes later. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dann Dobson (talk • contribs) 22:41, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Looks like we're done here. Look, I can understand the disappointment of finding that work you have done is rejected by others as not conforming to Wikipedia standards. We all have frustrating moments. The plain truth is that most significant content proposals are rejected, or at least modified, by the community. That is part of the collaborative WP:CONSENSUS process, and that back and forth is how we maintain quality. There is nothing terribly wrong with the subject matter, it just isn't pertinent to Dov Charney - and as the editor proposing it, it is your responsibility per WP:V to source it, show why it belongs, and unless and until it is accepted, stick to talk pages to gather consensus. I suggested above that it might be suitable for its own article about the lawsuit. If you want to review some guidelines and policies you might start with WP:SYNTH and WP:NPA. Cheers, Wikidemon (talk) 22:50, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

You first wrote that you were moving the article to the American Apparel article and I expected to find it there. Then you don't move it but deleted it completely. While I agree with the totally with the theory of consensus, there was no consensus here. You acted unilaterally. You didn't write me and ask what I thought and how we should handle it. That my friend is consensus. Consensus is getting agreement from all the parties involved. Sorry, but you did nothing of the sort. A unilateral decision by one party is not consensus. (DDD)Daniel D. Dobson 23:05, 16 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dann Dobson (talk • contribs)

I would have added the material to the American Apparel article but it is already there. The burden of establishing consensus rests on the party wanting to add material - please review WP:BRD for a widely followed essay on that. There is also a WP:BLP component to adding things that are not sourced as applying to a living person, and that is not a consensus matter. This is actually a very common situation, where there is well-sourced material that an editor thinks belongs in an article because it is of some logical relevance given the situation. If you can find an appropriate source that makes the connection, then it is sourced (but still has to satisfy other policies like WP:WEIGHT, BLP, WP:NPOV, relevancy, etc). Without a source, though, an editor's own analysis of the issue is WP:SYNTH or WP:OR more generally. That gets us to the very problem we're having with the information. We can speculate something along the lines of "isn't it ironic that American Apparel is accusing Allen of sexual impropriety to challenge the monetary value of Allen's right of publicity, when American Apparel's own CEO has done at least as bad?" And the answer could be yes, but who cares? Or no, it is just a normal trial lawyer tactic that might or might not work but there is no intersection between irony and intellectual property cases. Or it could be any answer? Without sourcing, there is no basis for deciding anything. If one of the sources reported that Allen's team had used that argument in trial, or that this is what Americans are thinking, then the fact is sourced but it still isn't directly relevant to Charney -- it relates to the trial. What would relate it to Charney is if Charney participates and has to answer to his own behavior, or if there is a finding that it otherwise affects Charney's life or career. Incidentally, I see that sinebot is giving you warnings and signing your posts for you here - be sure to end your posts with the four tildes (~~~~) - Wikidemon (talk) 23:16, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Funny I was going to send you to the consensus link, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CON, because while you say what you are doing is consensus, it is not. You appear to be unilaterally deleting material and calling it "consensus". You write, "The burden of establishing consensus rests on the party wanting to add material". I read the consensus link and it says no such thing. Please point out where "The burden of establishing consensus rests on the party wanting to add material". It appears you are creating this standard on your own.

Consensus is the process of people working together.

The consensus section says, "Consensus as a result of the editing process When an edit is made, other editors have these options: accept the edit, change the edit, or revert the edit. These options may be discussed if necessary. See also: Wikipedia:Editing policy

Someone edits a page, and then viewers of the page have three options: accept the edit, change the edit, or revert the edit. Articles go through many iterations of consensus to achieve a neutral and readable product. If other editors do not immediately accept your ideas, think of a reasonable change that might integrate your ideas with others and make an edit, or discuss those ideas. You can do this at the talk page, as an edit summary, or as a note to others at a user talk page or other widely read pages, such as the Village pump.

You failed to follow this procedure.

You pointed to WP:BRD. That is a procedure to use after consensus fails, which you did not try to do.

If you had a problem with my edit, the proper procedure was to discuss it with me, not just delete it. From your talk page it appears that you do this a lot to other people. Daniel D. Dobson 15:10, 17 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dann Dobson (talk • contribs)

Please don't ~~presume to~~ lecture me on how to edit the encyclopedia. You are grasping at straws to try to find evidence of some kind of problem on my talk page. Again, I understand that it is frustrating to learn the ropes around here, which sometimes involves false starts and efforts that are not accepted. I am going far out of my way to be patient, and explain to you how it works work, and why your proposed edit is not right for the encyclopedia. If you have a question, or a proposal for how and where we should write up the Woody Allen / American Apparel case on the encyclopedia I'm happy to talk. If you want to try to turn the ocus on me and my editing we won't get anywhere at all. I'm not going to discuss that point further. Wikidemon (talk) 15:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Obama discussion

Regarding the discussion I recently started on the Obama talk page and your response to my suggestion, I tried to clarify my thinking on this here and in a followup comment to a couple of other editors later in the section. I was hoping you could weigh in again, but this time on the particulars of what I proposed adding.

I think perhaps the reason you somewhat recoiled at the proposal was that it sounded like criticism for criticisms sake which is not remotely my intention. The main reason I framed it the way I did was in an effort to show/model a more constructive way to suggest "criticism" or negative points of view that should be included (not because they are criticism, but because they add quality to the article and are in keeping with NPOV). Folks who are critical of the article obviously have not been doing a bang up job when it comes to rational discourse about how to work on it, and I'm attempting to illustrate how a serious discussion might get one further than simply complaining about POV and the unfairness of Wikipedia and all that (provided that the material one proposes to add is actually in keeping with our policies, obviously).

But the real reason, so to speak, that I bring this up is that I think we need to expand the presidency section a bit and part of that will almost certainly need to include a quick mention of the most relevant criticism to date (I think the most significant criticism of Obama, with which I personally disagree incidentally, is his perceived fiscal profligacy). Weeks ago I noted that the 100 day mark (which we hit in a couple of weeks) would probably be a good point to make significant revisions to the presidency section, so in a way this proposal should perhaps be thought of in that broader light. As I said I'd appreciate your further comments.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Sure. Thanks for reaching out. I'm a little busy in real life at the moment so it might be several hours or even a day before I can give this the attention it deserves, but I have some thoughts about this too. Wikidemon (talk) 20:39, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:50, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

ANI notification

Please be courteous and notify involved users - especially admins - when bringing their actions to ANI. Bringing my block of Jojhutton there and Sandstein (talk · contribs)'s endorsement without notifying either of us is disappointing. Toddst1 (talk) 22:38, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I was called away in real life for a 2-hour meeting just as I was hitting the submit button. Sorry if that lead me to be disrespectful, because my intent in filing the AN/I report was the opposite. I foresaw that if the block were allowed to run its course Jojhutton would have come to AN/I angry and charging admin abuse, as threatened on that editor's talk page. That would have caused drama and hard feelings. I was pretty sure if admins could either endorse or reject the block first that would be the most cordial for all involved. And, as I said, I do find the whole thing funny. But again, sorry - I normally try to be thorough and prompt to notify people. I'll check in at AN/I to make sure things haven't spun out of control. Wikidemon (talk) 22:44, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the follow-up. Cheers. Toddst1 (talk) 02:55, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Dead fowl

Doing recent changes patrol, I just noticed this edit of yours, and I couldn't help laughing and thinking of this timeless classic. RIP, Einstein. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:21, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, this whole Einstein parrot thing is kind of hard to source. The press is in the habit of calling many different parrots "Einstein". Also, since they don't take parrots seriously, even reliable sources feel free to make up stuff about parrots. The real Einstein (the parrot) spoke at the TED conference in 2006, and I think she may still be alive. Complicating things, Einstein the human had a parrot. He thought the parrot was depressed so he would tell it jokes. Is there a biography of living parrots policy? Wikidemon (talk) 15:29, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

In the UK, talking birds are often called "talkers"; however, a WP:BLT policy might confuse people and make them feel a wee bit peckish. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:39, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

State of my talk page

Wikidemon, hi. You commented, "I am confused by the state of your (GTBacchus') talk page". What's confusing about it? Maybe I can make some sense of it. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:37, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

When I wrote my initial comment your talk page looked like this.[41] Later I noticed that the most recent edit[42] had removed some comments of yours that might be germane, but I didn't understand, and didn't think it was a good idea to try to figure out, what was going on. Another editor subsequently reverted.[43] Wikidemon (talk) 04:59, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I just noticed that as well. Never fails to "explain" mistakes.. until this one.. nothing but silence from him. - ℅ ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 06:54, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Who are you talking about here, Allstar? -GTBacchus^(talk) 12:55, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't really want to speculate - none of my business really. I just wanted to mention that after I noticed it I became confused as to the state of a conversation to which I had just added a comment. Wikidemon (talk) 07:06, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Now I'm confused. How did that text get deleted? I'm looking into this. -GTBacchus^(talk) 12:54, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I looks like ordinary collateral damage on a busy talk page to me. I think all comments have been restored, a while ago. -GTBacchus^(talk) 13:04, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

And I'm sure that's how it would be explained if pressed on the matter. IMHO, I don't believe so. Too many random spots of "collateral damage" on one page.. but I digress. It was restored by another user but again, outside his usual M.O., he didn't show up in a flash to explain what, why or how - which makes it even further questionable in my mind. - ℅ ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 19:22, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

My only reason for making the comment about GTBacchus' talk page was to note that I had revised an earlier comment I had directed to GTBacchus at the illegal immigration in America talk page about an IP editor we are dealing with there, in light of my discovering that at the time I made that comment there had been some discussion of the matter on GTBacchus' talk page that I had not read due to the deletion of that material. I had earlier said I was unconvinced by GTBacchus' methods or conclusion about the IP, and I ratcheted that back in light of reading the now-deleted comments to say only that the conclusion left me unconvinced (i.e. explaining the IP's actions as a matter of understandable "frustration" to be ameliorated, which I think offers undue encouragement of actions that end up wasting the time of more productive contributors). ChildofMidnight's deletion of material on GTBacchus' talk page, though I cannot easily explain it either after some attempt, is something I do not want to get involved with one way or another because it is just not my business. Can we please avoid further speculation on my talk page about that? I'm sensitive to not provoking ChildofMidnight with this. My unsolicited advice is that you should probably let minor things like this drop, but if you do want to take it up there is probably a better forum. Wikidemon (talk) 20:33, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I support that. Allstar, I think that voicing those suspicions is quite possibly counterproductive. It certainly plays no role that I know of in getting past a dispute. If you want to talk further... my talk page? -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:45, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

RfC Collect

Could you give your impressions of Collect at his RfC based on your interaction with him at Drudge Report (include other if there is any thnx). The RfC is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Collect Soxwon (talk) 14:15, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I know your not an admin but......

I have a concern with a user who may be getting a bit loose with his comments . You know that I'm talking about User:ThuranX. I would give him a friendly reminder myself, but the last time I did, he completly let loose with a tirade aimed at me that eventually resulted in a block for him. Maybe we should keep an eye on this today? Thanks--Jojhutton (talk) 23:24, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the concern. I already left ThuranX a caution about that.[44] Good thing ThuranX and ChildofMidnight have some goodwill for each other[45] - I hope that's enough to keep things peachy. For all concerned it's best to just let things go and not get too excited. Wikidemon (talk) 23:47, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Why did you do that?

Why did you post messages on my talk page telling me to discuss this at Talk:Presidency of Barack Obama, but then when I did exactly that, you closed down the two sections that I was talking in? Grundle2600 (talk) 03:43, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I believe that is all answered on your talk page. I cautioned you to stop accusing editors of censorship, being afraid of the truth, etc., and advised you to engage only in civil collaborative discussions on the article talk pages. Wikidemon (talk) 03:52, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

The "joke"

No, I don't understand what he means by that. I didn't think it was funny at the time (see my edit summary). That being said, I see no point in perpetuating this particular issue. He obviously doesn't understand that what he is doing is wrong, and it doesn't seem to matter how many times this is explained to him. Further attempts to educate him would probably just be a case of banging our heads against a brick wall. Part of the problem is that he is being "coached" by our mutual friend of a nocturnal persuasion. -- Scjessey (talk) 06:22, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's a joke, because he had just put the exact same message on my talk page twice. "Welcome to wikipedia!" Ha ha, very funny! I'm not new here, and neither is he. Grundle2600 (talk) 17:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I already explained this to him on my talk page. His new thing is to repost the same message in a bunch of places, it seems. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:33, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I have asked for guidance via an AN/I report. I'm not sure exactly what is going on but I would close discussions that are clearly going nowhere, and delete redundant ones. Wikidemon (talk) 17:38, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

^ "AP photo of school register reveals "Barry Soetoro" as muslim Indonesian". Israelinsider. 2008-08-14. Retrieved 2009-02-14. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
^ 1

[1] "AP photo of school register reveals "Barry Soetoro" as muslim Indonesian". Israelinsider. 2008-08-14. Retrieved 2009-02-14. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

[2] 1

[1]

[2]