Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:40, 10 March 2008

15 January 2025
From the editors: Looking back, looking forward Traffic report: The most viewed articles of 2024 In the media: Will you be targeted? Technology report: New Calculator template brings interactivity at last Essay: Meet the Canadian who holds the longest editing streak on Misplaced Pages Opinion: Reflections one score hence News and notes: It's a new dawn, it's a new day, it's a new life for me... and I'm feeling free Serendipity: What we've left behind, and where we want to go next Op-ed: Elon Musk and the right on Misplaced Pages In focus: Twenty years of The Signpost: What did it take? Arbitration report: Analyzing commonalities of some contentious topics Humour: How to make friends on Misplaced Pages
Single page Front page About Subscribe Suggestions Archives

Archives

1, 2, 3

Obama fundraising

Better? --HailFire 23:15, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Obama discussion page

I would like to explain to you that this is not a forum for the selling of products or the electioneering of political candidates. Misplaced Pages is a neutral place, and the discussion section is not the place to call folk names, and not for quashing discussion, I am going to report you for vandalism. John5Russell3Finley (talk) 00:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Disam of Evangelist

How many of these did you do? I find it hard to believe anyone could confuse the Four Evangelists and Evangelism, but you have managed it. Please check your contribution & correct the mistakes. Johnbod (talk) 02:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Yup, periodically I mess up.:) But thanks for the rather non-descript problem report. Perhaps if you gave an example of an article where I messed up I might be able to actually do something about it, but alas, your problem report is crap.;) --Bobblehead 02:28, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

See any of my recent contributions before I gave up correcting yours - I was a bit harsh - I see you got better as you went along. Johnbod (talk) 02:34, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Media coverage of anti-Obama whisper campaigns

That's certainly a better way to handle it. Thanks. --HailFire (talk) 01:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Mike Huckabee Merge Proposal

Please comment on merging Mike Huckabee controversies into Mike Huckabee here ] Jmegill (talk) 09:54, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Lou D'A

Thanks. Never seen that before (but can never say that again). Cheers --AndrewHowse (talk) 18:43, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Is it possible?

I know Misplaced Pages is uncensored, and I personally have thick skin, but do you think it's possible that you could make your point without saying Jesus fucking Christ? If it was about any other religion, say, "Mohammed fucking Islam", you could easily be blocked for racism, or at the very least insensitivity. Please consider toning it down. I've never edited Mitt Romney, I don't have a problem with you, or the article, or your contribs, I simply stumbled into your comment and was struck by your irreverance. Cool it, dude. This is a volunteer project after all, no need for the added drama. Lay off the "goddamns" , etc... Keeper | 76 22:17, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Heh. No prob. The usage wasn't religion related, just the ole profanity for profanity's sake.;) Mostly did it to get their attention. The article had just come off a full edit-protection and they went right back to fighting in edit summaries rather than actually discuss the edits. So figured I'd give 'em a good slap to get their attention. --Bobblehead 22:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

re: Comments on Talk:Hillary Clinton

Mactographer, I would also suggest that you apologize to the editors of the Hillary Rodham Clinton article for your rather uneducated comment about them being sockpuppets of the Clinton campaign. If you take a look at the edit history for the Giuliani and McCain articles you will find that many of the editors on the Clinton article and talk page were also the ones (particularly Wasted Time R) that were in large part responsible for the dismantling of the Criticism section and/or articles in those articles. What you see reflected on the Clinton article and on many other politician articles, is a general dislike of criticism sections that has been applied across party lines and without regard to a person's political beliefs and/or practices. --Bobblehead 23:57, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

You are reading into my comment. I didn't suggest ANY particular Wiki editor was a sock puppet. But as we have proof that IP addresses from the Clinton campaign have been used as sock puppets, it's not a stretch to imagine the same thing might be happening here. Yet to state such was ill advised of me to post, so for that I apologize. And yes, some editors have started to dismantle GOP candidate criticisms subcategories ... now that it has become painfully obvious that, for the sake of ostensible fairness, they need to be addressed in the same fashion as the democratic listings which have been so zealously protected. --Mactographer (talk) 00:35, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

P.S. However, for what any and all editors are doing now to remove ALL criticism sub categories, they are to be commended. --Mactographer (talk) 00:49, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Your comments were obviously aimed at the editors of the article in general and were inappropriate regardless of the actions of the Clinton campaign off-wiki (who are not alone in using sockpuppets to spread propaganda on their candidate's behalf). As for the reasons behind getting rid of the criticism sections in the other articles, it had nothing to do with "fairness". We were just tired of other editors coming to the various talk pages to whine about X not having a criticism section when Y does have a criticism section and then not actually doing anything fix the other articles. It is not the responsibility of the editors of the Hillary Clinton article to fix the problems on the Mike Huckabee or GWB articles it is up to the editors of that page. If you are an editor on those pages, or feel that the articles need to be improved, it is your responsibility to fix the articles, not ours. However, if you need assistance with the removal of these sections, you are more than welcome to come to any of our talk pages (or Clinton's talk page) and notify us of your actions and we will be glad to assist you. --Bobblehead 01:03, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

In the broadest sense of who my comments were aimed as, yes... but your original comment pointed out particular editors as if I was aiming it directly at them. And I already agreed that one portion of my comment as ill advised and I apologized as seen above. How many pounds of flesh do you want from me? As for whining about X vs. Y, I've seen the same in Y vs. X ... you even make the point for me by whining about "others" uses of sock puppets. --Mactographer (talk) 01:28, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I didn't notice your redaction on Hillary's talk page until after I had posted my message. ;) You're more than welcome to tell anyone that complains on an article's talk page about the content of another article to take it up with the editors of the other article and/or fix the other article themselves. --Bobblehead 01:36, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

TfD Romney Giuliani

I agree with your TfDs of the redundant Romney and Giuliani templates, but I don't think you got the formatting right on the TfD nom. I'v done it before and there is some automated code somewhere (like AfDs) that formatts it so the names are clearly separated. I'd try and do it, but 1. I'd probably screw it up, 2. I don't know if you meant to do it the way you did. If you'd want me to restart it, preserving yours and Justmeherenow's comments, I'd give it a shot. Mbisanz (talk) 06:46, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

OK

Justmeherenow (talk) 22:16, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

John Edwards

I was not stating the article as fact - I was simply stating that the Enquirer reported it. It is up to the user to decide if the article is true or not, I was simply stating the fact that it was reported. 5minutes (talk) 22:53, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, according to Misplaced Pages Guidelines, "Material about living persons available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all in biographies of living people, either as sources or via external links". As I made no claim as to the article being true or false, the simple report of the report cannot be considered derogatory. Besides, I don't see "The National Enquirer" on any list of "not allowed" sources. Could you point me to a list of sources not considered "OK" so I know in the future? 5minutes (talk) 23:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Again, no list of "don't use these sources". How about The Daily Mail? (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=503463&in_page_id=1811) How about FindIt News (http://news.finditt.com/NewsStory.aspx?id=30959&cat=5)? I can understand you guys being so cautious about sockpuppets, but come on. It wasn't a statement of fact. It was a statement that a tabloid had reported it. No conclusions. 5minutes (talk) 23:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Your accusations

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Bobblehead, at my talk page, you made a lengthy accusation against me, including this: “Your first three edits on the article were clear BLP violations for using an unreliable source that heavily edited a reliable source to advance a position.”

I would like to kindly ask you to reconsider and withdraw your accusation, please. The so-called “unreliable source” that you accuse me of using is an Associated Press article here (including an attribution to the San Jose Mercury News at the bottom). This so-called unreliable source is verbatim identical to the same article published in USA Today. Do you really want to accuse me of deliberately using an unreliable corrupted version of an article?

While you've been somewhat uncivil to me in the past, I hope we can have a fresh start.Ferrylodge (talk) 07:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

How is this comment as referenced immediately above an example of Bobblehead being uncivil to anyone, let alone you, Ferrylodge? He was explaining a comment he had made elsewhere and in fact specifically stated when you asked if it was directed at you that his comment was not directed at any one editor, but at the group. So why are you bringing this up here now as an example of incivility to you? Tvoz |talk 07:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Ferrylodge, you have seriously got to stop mislinking to unrelated comments and saying it supports a statement you make. I've seen you do it several times in the last 48 hours and I know you have done it repeatedly throughout your editing career here on Misplaced Pages. It is extremely frustrating to have to explain oneself in order to counter one of your incorrect linking and ultimately sends people down pointless bunny trails. It is best if you stop doing it altogether, because it ultimately hurts your position. But on a constructive criticism front, you are an exceedingly difficult editor to work with because of your consistently inaccurate characterization of events and "convenient" forgetting of explanations when you drag up your inaccurate characterizations and you need to work on not drawing conclusions from unrelated events and including it to further a point your trying to make. But since you have mislinked again and "forgotten" my explanation, I will explain it to you again. Keeper76 was more concerned with my choice of words and had nothing to do with any incivility towards you or any other editor, so using Keeper76s comments has nothing to do with me being uncivil towards you. As I explained to you on Mitt Romney's talk page, the choice of wording was not aimed at you or any other editor specifically and as I explained to Keeper76, the wording was done to get the attention of those participating in the edit war preceding the comment and was not about getting hot. --Bobblehead 08:07, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Bobblehead, you said that your "Jesus Fucking Christ" comment was directed to "all involved," which includes me, and you were rightly chastised for it. I'm sorry you don't seem to realize that.Ferrylodge (talk) 08:11, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I would like to thank you for supporting my point of you inaccurately characterizing something by linking to something that does not have anything to do with what your saying. Keeper76 chastised me for the wording, not for being uncivil towards any editor. Now bugger off, this discussion is over. You are more than welcome to post on my talk page on any other topic, but you are not welcome to continue this discussion on my talk page. --Bobblehead 08:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

BLP != wrecking ball

Re: "First and only warning" to Ferrylodge: do not use BLP as a wrecking ball in an edit dispute: . Adding that someone filibustered a bill is not a BLP issue; and neither is senate.gov an unreliable site. The Evil Spartan (talk) 09:36, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't an editing dispute, or at least, I didn't think it was, it was more Ferrylodge being Ferrylodge and trying to force his wording onto an article prior to actually discussing the content. As far as the BLP violation, there is no disagreeing that Obama voted against cloture, that was not the BLP violation. The BLP violation occurred when Ferrylodge used the reliable source of the Senate and the reprint of a reliable source from an unreliable source that I incorrectly thought had been heavily edited (found the article in another source and it was longer with more detail) to make it appear that Obama was being contrary to his stance on filibusters by voting against the cloture. It was this synthesis of two different sources to further a point that was a violation of BLP. I included in an edit summary I considered Ferrylodge's construction to be a synthesis, which is not allowable under BLP and his response was to add a period between two halves of the sentence and called it good. There was a bit of a timing issue at this point as Ferrylodge was leaving a message on the talk page asking what the C portion of A+B=C was, I was reverting his addition as a synthesis again. Then, as per usual with Ferrylodge, rather than wait for a response on the talk page, he re-added his content while I was responding to his question about what position he was furthering. Unfortunately, my talk page comment never actually made it on the talk page because I got an edit conflict from his follow on talk page message saying he'd resolved the synthesis, so I spent some time investigating his claim and then looking for reliable sources that could be used to include Ferrylodge's content in a manner that wasn't a synthesis rather than saving a talk page message that according to Ferrylodge wasn't necessary any longer. --Bobblehead 21:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

2008 Democratic candidates

Thanks Bobblehead. After having checked those numbers, Clinton definitely is the 'current' front-runner. GoodDay (talk) 19:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Obama's tempate

Thanks for pointing that out. I'll look through these a bit to sample how others have handled it. If I can't improve on the previous design, I'll self-revert. --HailFire (talk) 20:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Done now. Thanks again for the gentle guidance, always welcome. --HailFire (talk) 21:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Ferrylodge

Is edit warring on the Mitt Romney page again. As part of the consensus agreement I was wondering if you would weigh in? Turtlescrubber (talk) 02:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

So, I am leaving wikipedia. Turtlescrubber (talk) 03:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Reindexing (Mc to Mac)

I understood, based on notes such as:

"Please index as Mac----, i.e. with an 'a', to assist category sorting"

on other articles that this was necessary for "category sorting"; I'll hold off until an admin OKs this, but the reindexing on surnames starting with O' (O'M or O'H, for instance, to Om or Oh) has already been completed by other editors, so I was sticking to the "Mc" surnames. Yellow-bellied sapsucker (talk) 18:42, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I first became aware of the Mc/Mac situation on Martin McGuinness' article. I did the research back and found the entry (see ) from 22:45, 15 April 2006, where the note first appeared about the category sorting (Mac, not Mc). Yellow-bellied sapsucker (talk) 20:16, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Ann's Picture

Ok. But please fix it so that it does not mess up the text. The easiest way is to put it at the bottom but I agree with your point. Can you fix the text so that it moves back up where it should be? Anappealtoheaven (talk) 19:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Can you clarify what you mean by messing up the text? I'm sure it has to do with the resolution of your monitor, because I'm not seeing anything wrong with the text, but if you tell me what is wrong with the text, I can try and fix the issue for you. --Bobblehead 19:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Response

I have decided to outright indefinitely block the user for long-term abuse. I'll alter the comment in just a second. But thank you for your comment.--Jersey Devil (talk) 21:21, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: re-reverted

I'm confused. The table says that its sources include the New York Times and CNN. CNN does have the South Carolina delegate counts, and the table does not specify which source is for which column yet you think that the particular column in question should only use the New York Times as a source. Why?--Margareta (talk) 05:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I see. Thanks. I wonder if there is a way of clarifying this?--Margareta (talk) 06:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the note.

And you're right. I shouldn't have replied to him. I got a bit pissed off when he threatened to drag the article into mediation if he doesn't get his way, and felt obliged to respond. But I do realize it didn't accomplish anything, and I won't be responding to him again, unless or until he chooses to disrupt the main article, or drag the thing to mediation. -- Bellwether _C 21:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

for your help fixing my references Corey Salzano (talk) 23:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Seattle MLS categories

I think we should keep

• Category:Major League Soccer teams
• Category:Sports in Seattle

both are relevant categories, even if they are higher level. Oh Snap (talk) 06:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I added Category:Seattle Major League Soccer team to Template:Seattle Major League Soccer team and then added Category:Major League Soccer teams and Category:Sports in Seattle to the Seattle MLS category. This means that adding MLS teams and Sports in Seattle to the article is redundant because Seattle MLS is a sub-category of those categories. If you'd like we could move the Seattle MLS category off the template and put it on the page to make the category visible on the page, but adding the other categories to the page seems redundant to me. --Bobblehead 07:10, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Edwards

Here is a source saying he ended his campaign. HoosierState 22:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I just read further down the article and then it talks about him suspending his campaign. That article contradicts itself, I'm confused now.... HoosierState 22:44, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

mmm good point

but quoting sources properly is important to the whole 'sourced' thing --<*poof*> 22:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.235.64.30 (talk • contribs)

democratic delegate counts

put off any decision on removing NYT from sources till tommarrow.

Due to different allocations of superdelegates, and other numbers, this template has always had multiple sources. NYT takes more time than other sources to adjust their counts, due to the complex rules of each states delegate calculation. The only reason to move to CNN at this hour would be that they currently give BO higher numbers than HC. All sources will reflect new numbers in the morning.--68.243.140.63 (talk) 04:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Michelle Obama GA

Thanks for contributing to the effort at Michelle Obama. You may want to put this on your user page:

This user helped promote Michelle Obama to good article status.

--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 01:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Hillary Clinton

Please take the difference of opinion on Hillary Clinton with User:Zzalzzal to the talk page. I've asked Zzalzzal to stop edit warring and go to the talk page, too, warning that he's close to being blocked. --TS 19:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Your behavior towards me and others on the Hillary Clinton page violates[REDACTED] rules and policies

This is a warning regarding your violations of[REDACTED] policies and rules on the Hillary Clinton page.
WastedTime and Bobblehead have refused to engage in discussion and have simply asserted their will multiple times (by reverting changes (on Jan 18, 19, Feb. 1, 7, 18 - Bobblehead reverted the changes only on Feb. 18) I made – they refused to respond to my discussion attempts (made on Jan 6 and Jan 19) regarding reporting Iowa Democratic Caucus results to two decimal points). This and other actions of theirs have violated the law and spirit of[REDACTED] policies and rules, including “gaming the system”, “"Abuse of process “, “Attempting to force an untoward interpretation of policy, or impose one's own novel view of "standards to apply" rather than those of the community.” (see http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Gaming_the_system), and “clearly fail to respect "consensus" on this issue, given that no disagreements were expressed in the discussions on this issue I had initiated on Jan 6 and Jan 19 (http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Consensus. Additionally, both Bobblehead and WastedTime on Feb. 18 appear to have acted in concert so that neither one would be in violation of the “three revert” rule – which would also be a violation of the spirit of this rule. Yes, I broke the 3 reverts rule, unknowingly. In contrast, WastedTime and Bobblehead were aware of the rule and violated the spirit of it, as well as engaging in violation of the law and spirit of other rules and policies. It was very disingenuous of Bobblehead to have me blocked for violating the “three-revert” rule (and this prevented me from participating in the discussion they initiated on Feb. 18), when both Bobblehead and WastedTime themselves are guilty of violating it and other rules. Greater documentation related to this issue is on my Talk page. Zzalzzal (talk) 21:39, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Wow.. That's an impressive lack of good faith. For one, if you'd actually look at the talk pages that you cite, Wasted Time R and I both replied to at least one of your discussions. For two, your accusation of collusion between myself and Wasted Time R is just comical. For three, I reported you because you made four reversions on the article in less than an hour. That's after I warned you two times to take it to the talk page... All in all, here's a lolly, now head off to your other editing endeavors. ;) --Bobblehead 21:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

You replied to my discussion on Jan 19 on a completely different issue (whether or not the Kucinich recount request in NH should be on the Hillary Clinton page). You did not reply on the issue of carrying the results out to two decimal points. You did warn me about violating the "three reverts" rule (albeit disingenuously), but I had never even looked at my talk page before yesterday (wasn't even aware that it existed), wasn't even aware the rule existed or that I could be warned about it, and only saw the warnings a long time after being blocked. You, on the other hand, were aware of the rule, and reverted my edit, without engaging in discussion - a violation of the "three reverts" rule as well. I'm sorry you feel this is "lack of good faith" - it is not, although I have documented why I feel you have exhibited this. Zzalzzal (talk) 22:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages puts a nice orange bar at the top of your screen that says "You have new messages" any time someone leaves a message on your talk page. If you chose to ignore that message, then it is your fault. I gave you two warnings prior to submitting you for violating 3RR, one more warning than is required. --Bobblehead 22:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I now know that. But it doesn't change the fact that you, too, violated the spirit of the rule on Feb. 18, which is considered the same as an outright violation (WastedTime did this on multiple days), as well as violated other rules, as I have documented.

Whaaa?

(Although I'm myself left wing...) I must say, your offhanded "NewsBusters=blog=not reliable" is blatantly POV Wikilawyering!

Shakes head. In any case, Viva la revolution! lol. --Justmeherenow (talk) 23:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, overreacted. Got my G's (Government issues?) into a twist! :^)--Justmeherenow (talk) 00:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

It frustrates me that you would edit my signed discussion page contribution without expressing whatever your exact objection might be to it (and perhaps then first seeking others' input on the same, too) and I'd appreciate it if you would refrain from doing so in the future. Thankyou. --Justmeherenow (talk) 09:19, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Somebody who offhandedly says, "NewsBusters is not a reliable source" and refuses to acknowledge something as noteworthy that's been referenced in multiple sources - those considered prestigious among conservatives and those among liberals - comes across as a POV shill themself.

('Cause, basically: Any source is a venue! And, what NewsBusters is, is...another venue.

(Just as e-mail is. You can't say "E-mail is not a reliable source" ((...Well, you can, but not cogently!)); you must say, "Such-and-such source is doubtful because... " E.g., in the case of an e-mail, it can't be proven not a hoax in a particular instance; or, the person sending the e-mail is maybe biased; etc. But the FACT that the venue is an e-mail is besides the point.) --Justmeherenow (talk) 09:43, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Your comment above indicates that you have no concept of reliable source and self-published sources. Please review the guideline before commenting on the matter again. Newsbusters does not meet the criteria of a reliable source because it is self-published and has no concept of editor overview, therefore it should not be used on Misplaced Pages as a source... Regardless of the political leaning of a blog they do not meet the reliable source criteria. I would not expect MediaMatters or DailyKos to be used on Misplaced Pages as a source unless they were used in connection with the article about them. Your random posting of crap off of conservative blogs on the campaign's talk page is no more appropriate than if I were posting random crap off of progressive blogs on the campaign's talk page. --Bobblehead 23:03, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, Bobb, let's say somebody (I.) "self-publishes" some blather that (II.) nonetheless becomes of note in the culture, someway. Questions:

(A) Are the particulars of it as a primary source "controversial?" (Only in the sense of there being little contention that person A (I don't know. Ann Coulter?), within the venue in question (Handbills?), argued X (<sighs and wearily shakes head> That Christians are "perfected Jews"?)?)

(B) Has this person's argument (issue, contention, controversy) become of note?

If so, it can and should be contributed to Misplaced Pages. --Justmeherenow (talk) 03:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

If the secondary source is reliable, then you may use that, but you may not use the self-published source, because it is still a self-published source and not reliable. --Bobblehead 03:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

You: Never use self-published sources.

Misplaced Pages: Material from self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources in articles about themselves, so long as: it is relevant to their notability; it is not contentious; it is not unduly self-serving; it does not involve claims about third parties; it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject; there is no reasonable doubt as to who authored it; the article is not based primarily on such sources. --Justmeherenow (talk) 04:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't we talking about using Newsbusters as a source on Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008? You will also note that above I said "Regardless of the political leaning of a blog they do not meet the reliable source criteria. I would not expect MediaMatters or DailyKos to be used on Misplaced Pages as a source unless they were used in connection with the article about them." --Bobblehead 05:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Re Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008: Yes it gorshdamned IS in part about folks in the conservative blogosphere bitching - kvetching, if you will - about stuff during the course of the presidential campaigns. And in some case or another, we may well find that it is MediaMatters that we deem to be a good primary and/or secondary source about such said whining (or "kvetching" as it were). Dig?

That is, those principles that Misplaced Pages carefully lays out in relation to "self-published" sources means simply to be careful when using stuff substantially unvetted by "peers." So that in cases where such primary sources are the most applicable to the matter at hand, it is Misplaced Pages ourselves that is to vet them, that's all.

This encyclopedia project is about aiming for excellence by non-credentialed folks who are often amateurs. And, the rules we operate with around here aren't arbitrarily-drawn-up, legalistic compromises designed to be interpreted in their narrowest senses possible but rather are expressions of broad, guiding principles in The Search For Truth. Really! (Or I should say, toward an ever-balanced rendering of always-dualing views of this truth - with sometimes one camp considered mainstream and one or more others, while still substantial, being more the "minority" viewpoints.) --Justmeherenow (talk) 08:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

If the kveching/whining of self-published source makes it into a reliable source and is covered to an adequate measure, then the kveching/whining can be sourced via the reliable source. As far as "The Search for Truth", you may want to read the humorous essay WP:TRUTH. But, all in all, I think we're done here. --Bobblehead 17:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Bobblehead123

FYI, I just ran across a new User:Bobblehead123, whose one edit so far was a vandalism. Don't know if this is supposed to be a takeoff on you (which is a violation of some WP policy on usernames) or just a coincidence, but thought I'd let you know. Wasted Time R (talk) 19:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Probably a coincidence considering the article the user vandalized. I don't think I've ever edited the Gravel article. But thanks for the FYI. --Bobblehead 19:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Supersonics discussion

Hello. There's a new conflict between myself and User:Coz 11 on Talk:Seattle SuperSonics, which is related to the one you participated in several months ago. Care to offer a neutral voice? I would really appreciate it. Okiefromokla 21:17, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

You reverted me - why?

I am surprised that you reverted my talk page edit at Obama's page. Why would you do that? Are you trying to stifle discussion? I thought talk pages are all about talk and discusssion. I object to you reverting me like that. I have restored my edit. 66.197.129.69 (talk) 04:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:Barack Obama near Capitol.jpg

Hi, can you point to me discussion/info that states this image is copyrighted as it is on Wikimedia Commons which should only contain free licensed images? Thanks Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 02:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

It was on OTRS ticket. I'll try to hunt down the actual message itself. --Bobblehead 02:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Alright, here's the first of the edits that removed the image: A comment by the person removing it left on a user's talk page that questioned it: --Bobblehead 02:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Barack images

Hi Bobbble. As you can imagine, I seriously disagree about removing set image sizes. I spent over an hour getting the layout of images on the Obama article to look decent. Different images have different properties and significances that require them to be sized differently to each other. This is the way it is in every single print publication and many major sites. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 03:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I believe there is a rule WP:IAR. In order to make the article look better, we need to follow that rule. Regards Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 03:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi I can't see anything on the IAR page that says it can never apply to featured articles. If you agree that the images look better, perhaps you'd help me in changing the policy page? Thanks Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 18:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Update on the Ohio campaign

So sorry, Bobble, that you deleted everything I added to the Presidential campaign section of Barak Obama, including a photo of Obama I had just taken 3 hours before at the Ohio rally I was trying to document. I was giving the photo of Barak to the Misplaced Pages viewers for free, and thought,moreover, that my documentation of the event - the first of its kind in the history of Dayton for an African American political candidate, was very important. The event, and the photo, had considerable merit. Probably more than the article that you let pass, about the turban, with sucn undocumented statements such as "The Obama campaign claimed that the Clinton camp intentionally leaked the photo, and that Obama was trying to be a nice guest." - without a footnote. Everything I had written, about Obama's very first visit to Dayton in this very important state, was documented.

Somalian garb sub article

Hi, Bobble. I'd like to request your help in creating the sub article about the Somalian garb controversy on the Barack Obama page. I also upload the photo below:

http://en.wikipedia.org/Image:25campaign-obama250.jpg

Thanks for your help: James Luftan 23:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, the campaign sub article. I understand what you mean now. Thanks James Luftan 18:01, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry about that. I should have said the campaign sub-article in my edit summary, not just sub-article. I knew what I meant, but obviously not everyone can read my mind. --Bobblehead 18:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Cantwell and Murray

Added requested citations, simple google news search on "Cantwell Superdelegate" provided four pages of articles. I picked one from Washington that was on topic. If that is insufficient in your opinion please let me know and I'll link another. Additionally, I think the fact that there are four pages of news articles on the subject shows that it is, in fact, worth of inclusion. I've heard it discussed several times on the radio and read articles in national publications on the issue, specifically in Washington State...since both Senators have thrown their support behind Hillary. Agrippina Minor (talk) 22:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

46 hits for Cantwell and 48 hits for Murray isn't really that many in the notability arena, but thanks for the reference add.--Bobblehead 22:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Your same rationale as before would make for a Delete here

Some believe edits making Misplaced Pages's navigation among political articles user friendly should be deleted due to its being a form of political campaigning. Other hyper Delicíonistas such as yourself have a pet peeve against multiple navigational pathways through your analogizing it with unnecessary redundancies in written text. Thus, you argued, when there appear two varying templates, editors efforts should have instead been dedicated to making one template or another a catch all; then when both should contain the same links, one or the other should be decided to be deleted. And last time, since all articles already have the the bottom nav bars, it was decided too keep only those and not supplement them with alternate ones at the top right (while I, of course, had pointed to the loads of WP articles that do have both placement of nav boxes with varying assortments of links between them, to absolutely zero avail!) In any case, to give the Delicíonista argument in this case its cogent (or conceivably even not-cogent??) due, shouldn't we cut and paste your and the rest's thought and your chorus of thoughts to Delete from the instance before to the talkpage at Template:JohnMcCainSegmentsUnderInfoBox, in order for all of our arguments to get a fuller hearing? --Justmeherenow (talk) 00:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

First you pasted links I had in the side bar that were missing from the bottom one. then you said,

Both Template:Romney and Template:Giuliani were created today and added to articles related to the two people resulting in situations where both templates exist on the same page. I've contacted the creator of the two templates and suggested they update the existing templates, but they have continued to work on the templates and place them on articles. I'm not particularly attached to either navigation box format, but there isn't a reason to have two navigation boxes for the same person that do the same thing, just different locations. So, just to be clear, this is not a nomination to delete all four templates, but rather to delete one of each set. I'm leaving it up to this discussion to decide which set to delete.

Do reprise your argument, should you still support it. --Justmeherenow (talk) 00:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I have never said that making navigation on political articles user friendly should be deleted for being a form of political campaign and referring to me as a delicionista is, frankly, a steaming pile of crap that you should really apologize for. Throwing strawmen and blatant falsehoods around makes a person sound bitter and unintelligent and is really something one should try to avoid in intelligent discussions. If you feel that your templates were incorrectly deleted, you may take your complaints to deletion review. --Bobblehead 01:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

"If you feel that your templates were incorrectly deleted, you may take your complaints to deletion review."

Thx for the advice! As, believe it or don't, that is actually what I was asking you for.

Part of what you are telling me is based on misunderstanding something I said, however. It's true I find the "politicking" argument unintelligent (although my comment didn't characterize it as such); however I do well remember it wasn't you who had made it. Note that I specifically said "some"...and I did NOT say you...believe nav boxes among political articles to be politicking. Still, I correctly note that you believe (believed?) more than a single nav box redundant. Hency my query. Do you still hold to this argument or not?

(Finally, Delecionista is simply Spanish for Deletionist---with no stigma attached. We all delete. Yes, it's also a play on Peronista, et cetera. Remember "Perotista"? lol. I came up with it 'cause I started to edit a bit on the Obama compaign article with some contributions that ended up quite appropriately removed---delecionista-ed, if you will---that contained info about the Che-flag controversy. Because, uh---Che Guevara was---Hispanic......) --Justmeherenow (talk) 02:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

You do not require my permission to go to DRV. --Bobblehead 02:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I meant to say, Thanks for the link and the suggestion. Seriously. Oh and thanks for telling me I wouldn't need your permission. (Less seriously, but still with a smile on my face and my eyes twinkling, good naturedly, 'cause I take your rhetorical fun at my expense through its means in this instance simply as, I guess---sparring.)--Justmeherenow (talk) 02:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

One more question. I went to Template:Giuliani---and there is no history! Still, can I just upload there yet again---and see if Delecionistas delete it, along with McCain's side nav bar? I mean, I know I don't need your permission. But it seems that Misplaced Pages is designed for me to be able to do just that, right? (If you just are irritated I'm continuing to pepper you with questions, though, rather than the fun, sarcastic sparring, just ignore my question. Thanks.) --Justmeherenow (talk) 03:01, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Okey-dokey, here's the McCain side nav box template's discussion page. I've put in my pro argument and invite you to reprise your neg one there, if you'd like. Thx. --Justmeherenow (talk) 03:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

When a page on Misplaced Pages is deleted the history is deleted along with it. If you want the templates to be undeleted, you need to go to WP:DRV and submit a request to have it undeleted. If you recreate the template, it will be speedied as a recreation of a previously deleted template. --Bobblehead 05:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Scrollboxes

I hadn't noticed. Last time I checked, the featured article, New York City, uses scroll boxes for references. It makes the page shorter, thus easier to navigate. But I'm too lazy to read another huge debate, so I'll listen to what you say and you can go check out the New York City article. --haha169 (talk) 23:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Update It was removed. Thanks for telling me that, but I'd like to point out that the time I added the scroll box was likely before the time the consensus was made. If I am wrong, correct me. Thanks! --haha169 (talk) 23:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Yes, I think there was a mix-up with the images possibly caused by the recent database slowness. Thanks. Ronnotel (talk) 17:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring

I can see that you are an experienced user, but please take care to avoid engaging in edit warring as per WP:3RR. Ronnotel (talk) 19:04, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

This is going to be a hot issue all year long. I am trying to help revert the vandalism as much as possible. Corey Salzano (talk) 20:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

for engaging in civil debate at Tony Rezko. At this point, I feel so insulted that I am reconsidering the use of my real name on this website. Corey Salzano (talk) 04:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

There is indeed some protection in the anonymity of using a screen name rather than a real name. As far as the comments on Tony Rezko, try not to let it get to you too much. I've been accused of being an Obama staffer, a Clinton staffer, a McCain staffer, and a Romney staffer so far.. Unfortunately the accusations come with editing "controversial" articles, so the sooner you learn to just point and laugh at the accusers, the better things will get for you. All that matters is that you're editing neutrally and try not to let your own biases influence your opinions too much. --Bobblehead 05:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Obama protection

Feel free to interject if you consider my request to lift protection premature. I've basically run out of threads around which to weave further discussion, so thought it might make good sense for the active editors to crawl out of their bunkers and see if the hostile/friendly fire may have calmed just a bit. I've also learned a lesson or two from this myself. Won't know unless we try. If the edit warring resumes, then I think the next step ought to be a third FAR, but if you have an alternate suggestion, I'd welcome it. Thanks. --HailFire (talk) 17:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)