| Revision as of 02:39, 15 January 2008 editGwernol (talk | contribs)94,742 edits →Warning: edit warring on Mitt Romney: new section← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 23:43, 17 February 2023 edit undoMalnadachBot (talk | contribs)11,637,095 editsm Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)Tag: AWB | ||
| (22 intermediate revisions by 10 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| == I know you're pissed... == | |||
| {{welcome}} ] (]) 02:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Re: ] == | |||
| ...and I have no idea what your disputes have been to put you in such a mood or drive you away, but leaving inflammatory comments is clearly disruptive. This block will expire in 24 hours. | |||
| Text in article: | |||
| <div class="user-block"> ] {{{{{subst|}}}#if:{{{time|}}}|You have been ''']''' from editing for a period of '''{{{time|time}}}'''|You have been temporarily ''']''' from editing}} in accordance with ] for {{{{{subst|}}}#if:{{{reason|}}}|'''{{{reason|reason}}}'''|]}}. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to ]. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may ] by adding the text <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "nowiki" tags. --><nowiki>{{</nowiki>unblock|''your reason here''<nowiki>}}</nowiki><!-- Do not include the "nowiki" tags. --> below. {{{{{subst|}}}#if:{{{sig|}}}|— ]'']'' 04:43, 15 January 2008 (UTC)}}</div><!-- Template:uw-block1 --> — ]'']'' 04:43, 15 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| <blockquote>] is Obama's fourth cousin four times removed, and Obama and ] are 11th cousins. They both share the same great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great grandparents in 17th century Massachusetts. Obama is an eighth cousin of Vice President ]; they have a common ancestor who migrated from ] in the 17th century.</blockquote> | |||
| Text in source: | |||
| <blockquote>Still, it's worth noting that President Truman is Obama's fourth cousin four times removed, and Obama and the current President Bush are 11th cousins, sharing the same great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great grandparents in 17th century Massachusetts. Obama and Cheney have a common ancestor who migrated from France in the 17th century.</blockquote> | |||
| == Apology accepted. == | |||
| My mistake, it ''is'' plagiarism, and I will reword it. The only part in the text that isn't in the source is that Obama and Cheney are eighth cousins, which, if you'd like, can be sourced to any number of articles penned . —] ] ] 02:37, 17 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| I wish you well. <span style="background-color:#218921; color:blue;font-family: Monotype Corsiva">Table</span><span style="background-color:#121298; color:white;font-family: Monotype Corsiva">Manners</span><sup>]·]·]</sup> 05:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Sorry, I didn't look that close and was only looking for the lack of sources. Thanks for catching the plagiarism. ] 02:39, 17 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == I hope that you'll come back == | |||
| == Al Gore == | |||
| I |
I hope that you'll come back after your block is lifted and that we and others will be able to continue to work together in good faith. It's terrible when we lose good editors to something like this. Keep your chin up! ] (]) 06:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC) | ||
| :Agreed. For what it's worth, my reservations, which are still quite strong, are about the existing consensus seeming to have been based on the input of only editors who were previously involved in the article. I have contacted the Mormonism project, the 2008 election project, the Biography project, the politicans work group of that project, the Fringe theories noticeboard (the only place to leave undue weight concerns, even though for these purposes it is badly titled), and anyone else I could think of. As one of the more involved editors in the Biography project, I can say that to my eyes, having gone through probably too many biography articles, I cannot remember having ever seen such a section dealing with a dependent part of the subject's later career so early in the article, even before the content relating to that later career directly. To my eyes, as unfortunately one of the more knowledgable editors in that area, it very clearly does violate other extant wikipedia policy, and a consensus to violate an extant policy is at best dubiously a consensus. These concerns are particularly important considering the subject is also a living person, with ] entering into it as well. | |||
| :I've been called worse, and hold no grudges about namecalling. Like I've said earlier, I've done it before myself. Please realize however that there is possibly a fundamental problem with this article about potentially placing too much content on the religion subject in the parent article about Romney. I don't myself doubt such content deserves a very prominent place in the article on the campaign. But that is a separate article. The biography article is supposed to cover the ''life'' of the subject in a balanced, neutral way. Those interested specifically in the campaign, including its mudslinging, can go to that article. So far as I can tell, the subject's religion was not discussed particularly widely prior to his political career. On that basis, it seems to be dubious at best to place a lot of emphasis on something about other eras of the subject's life which were never emphasized during those eras themselves, even during his business career and role with the 2002 Olympics. We are not supposed to cater to what we think individuals ''want'' to read in the article, that's a violation of OR and POV. We are supposed to present a neutral, balanced, objective, verifiable summary of the subject. There are serious questions from several parties about whether including such a section so early in the article places it very much out of balance. | |||
| :I have added a section to the RfC which allows for an easier determination of how many editors hold certain opinions on the matter. I should have added it at the beginning, and apologize for having not done so. I very sincerely hope that you will place your own comments there as well. ] (]) 16:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Michael Bloomberg external links == | |||
| : I think you're right, that we don't want to document every possible bit of pop culture that references Gore. At the same time, I think we would want to include major references to him... I think the south park episode is a fairly major one, since I believe it directly influenced how a lot of people perceive Al Gore. We may also want to describe how he was portrayed in, say, SNL... for much that reason. In any case, things added should be sourced. It's important to show how other people perceive him, rather than how he wants himself to be perceived. | |||
| : (I also think we should include the bit about his daughter being a Futurama writer, as it explains why he was willing to voice a character for that show.) — ] (]) 21:00, 17 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Could you offer your advice regarding ]'s repeated reversion of my removal of several non-notable, unsuited for inclusion, Bloomberg draft sites? Can he be blocked because they are clearly spam, or is this a case where it has to be discussed? With his last edit, he ignored a message I had placed on his talk page saying to discuss additions of links on the talk page before adding them. And, by the way, he is the creator of RunMikeRun.com. --]<sup>]·]</sup> 20:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==]== | |||
| It's not six months, it's two months, and if two months ago the page was better, why not return to it? People commented on the talk page that they did not know why Paul didn't deny the allegations in a 1998 NY Times article. Here's the informative explanation. What is your compromise version? It can be summarized a bit better, but as far as giving information goes, this version is clearly better.--] 04:44, 18 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :It's also far too long giving the section undue weight. I'll dig up the compromise version. ] 04:49, 18 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Here: | |||
| == Hillary FA status == | |||
| The FA nomination process for ] has restarted. Please consider voting on this issue. Thanks - ] (]) 20:36, 1 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::A 1996 article in the '']''<ref name=HoustonChronicle>{{cite news | title=CAMPAIGN '96 U.S. HOUSE Newsletter excerpts offer ammunition to Paul's opponent | url=http://www.chron.com/CDA/archives/archive.mpl?id=1996_1343749 | author=Alan Bernstein | publisher=Houston Chronicle | date=1996-05-23 | accessdate=2007-05-20}} also accessible </ref> alleges that Ron Paul made comments about race in a 1992 edition of his ''Ron Paul Survival Report'' (a newsletter that he had published from 1985), including disparaging remarks about fellow congressperson ]. The article quoted the newsletter as stating that government should lower the ], saying: That's true for most people, but black males age 13 who have been raised on the streets and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such." And also further remarking that a low percentage of blacks "have sensible political opinions" and commit crimes "all out of proportion to their numbers." | |||
| ==]== | |||
| ::In a 2001 interview with '']'' magazine, Paul acknowledged that the comments were printed in his newsletter under his name, but said that they did not represent his views and that they were written by a ]. He further stated that he felt some moral responsibility to stand by the words that had been attributed to him, despite the fact that they did not represent his way of thinking."<ref name="texasmonthly2001">{{cite web |url= http://www.texasmonthly.com/2001-10-01/feature7.php|title= Dr. No|author= Gwynne, S.C.|date= 2001-10-01|publisher= '']''}}</ref>''Texas Monthly'' wrote at the time they printed the denial, "What made the statements in the publication even more puzzling was that, in four terms as a U. S. congressman and one presidential race, Paul had never uttered anything remotely like this." <ref name=texasmonthly2001/> | |||
| ] has been nominated for a ]. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the ]. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are ]. Reviewers' concerns are ]. --] (]) 05:15, 13 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==Comment regarding talk pages== | |||
| Hi Turtlescrubber, | |||
| Please don't revert talk page removals, as you did . I understand that you're upset at being sworn at, but ]. Clearly, the user has already read your comments if he is removing them, the removal is a sign that he is annoyed, and replacing them will only annoy him further. This is a general guideline that helps keep the peace on Misplaced Pages. I'm not even sure how this dispute started, but it won't be solved by restoring comments that are clearly unwanted. <font color="#0000FF">]</font> 03:50, 3 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Well, it also won't be solved by user acting in a completely unacceptable manner, swearing and name calling. If you are going to admonish me then you should admonish OM also. Where is the fair play here? All I was doing was looking for a proper citation. I used the talk page. I stopped reverting to prevent a war. All I tried to do was add a pov tag and user called my edits pov. How does that work? Admonishing me but OM's behavior is fine? There is a definite double standard happening here. ] 04:14, 3 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::I've asked him to remove the comment, and he has... twice now. I also to refrain from swearing at you. I've asked you both to abide by Misplaced Pages rules. <font color="#0000FF">]</font> 04:21, 3 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::So calling another editor a troll is okay with you? ] 04:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::No. <font color="#0000FF">]</font> 04:25, 3 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Well he keeps doing it. It's on his talk page. Calling me "the troll". I don't find that acceptable at all. This is a crap situation and it all started from editors lack of civility and inability to assume good faith. I don't think any editor should be allowed to make personal attacks against another editor without some sort of admonishment. ] 04:26, 3 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Nor do I find namecalling acceptable. It's a clear violation of ]. What I'm trying to do here is de-escalate the situation. Get the focus back onto the topic which started the disagreement, rather than focusing on who called whom what, and what so-and-so did first. The content of the encyclopedia is what matters the most, right? I know you're with me on that. :) <font color="#0000FF">]</font> 04:31, 3 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Yeah, so it's fine for people to be incivil towards me and call me a troll whenever they feel like it. No warning necessary. I guess I am completely in the wrong here and I should just accept people calling me names. If an administrator like yourself feels that I deserve it. Sure. That's great. Makes me feel welcome here on wikipedia.] 04:38, 3 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::I've already linked to where I asked him to stop. Getting back to the article, it looks like you {{tl:pov-section}} to the article, which results in a box that states "The neutrality of this section is disputed." But is the neutrality of the section really disputed? Or does it just need better sourcing? The comments on the talk page indicate it is the latter. It is great that you are working on this article to improve the quality, but it doesn't seem to quite be the right tag for the article. Then when OM reverted that tag, you . I will be glad to try to help you find better sources for the section, if you'd like. <font color="#0000FF">]</font> 04:49, 3 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::SO he can call me a troll all he wants. So he can revert every edit of mine that he wants to. So he doesn't have to use the talk page, which I have. He has called me a troll five or six times now. He has removed the pov tag without discussion multiple times. I am not a procreationist religious editor if that is what either of you are thinking. All I care about is sourcing and I am getting the short end of the stick from everybody, and especially from you. As an administrator you should hold yourself to a higher standard than this. I am obviously some kind of troll in your eyes and you should be ashamed of yourself as an administrator of wikipedia. Check the sourcing, it sucks. Check the edit history, it's on my side. Removing a pov tag without discussion by an editor that chose not to engage in an edit war is vandalism. Punishing one editor when allowing another editor to do whatever he wants shows a definite lack of integrity. I am done with all of this and will stop editing that article. I assume that is what everyone wants. Please fix the sourcing on that citation. Please read my comments on the talk page. Please warn OM to be civil and stop calling people trolls. Please remember why you became an admin in the first place. ] 04:56, 3 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::I have already asked OM to abide by Misplaced Pages policies. Now I am asking you to put your anger behind you and move on. I do not believe you are a troll ("I am obviously some kind of troll in your eyes") and I have already offered to help find better sourcing ("Check the sourcing, it sucks.") As I indicated before, I have already read your comments on the talk page ("Please read my comments on the talk page.") I haven't "punished" anyone at all ("Punishing one editor when allowing another editor to do whatever he wants shows a definite lack of integrity.") and removing a POV tag without discussion is not vandalism ("Removing a pov tag without discussion by an editor that chose not to engage in an edit war is vandalism.") Please read ], the official policy on what vandalism is and is not. Nearly every accusation you have leveled in the last paragraph is untrue. Please calm down, TS. <font color="#0000FF">]</font> 05:17, 3 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| OM's repeated name-calling (as recent as ) is clearly inappropriate and needs to be addressed. However, Firsfron is quite right that antagonizing him on his talk page is neither appropriate nor worth the trouble. --] (]/]) 05:20, 3 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Firsfron is also correct, TS, that you need to settle down. --] (]/]) 05:24, 3 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Both editors need to settle down. These 3RR warnings, constant talk page warnings, etc, aren't helpful. They distract from the original dispute, which concerned better sourcing for the article. <font color="#0000FF">]</font> 05:28, 3 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Sorry guys, all of this is completely my fault. I seem to have done everything wrong by trying to improve wikipedia and by keeping a semblance of civility. My intense frustration at the inciviliy, profanity, name calling and edit warring is completely my fault. Firsfron is obviously right that this is all my fault and OM should probably get a troll fighting barnstar (obviously me). ] 05:31, 3 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Your frustration is understandable, TS. We are trying to encourage you to ] if you think someone is behaving inappropriately. If you do, you'll find support. --] (]/]) 05:53, 3 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Civility == | |||
| Comments like are unnecessary and inflammatory. Please try to stay ] when discussing with other users. Keep comments based on edits, not editors. <font face="Broadway">]'']</font>'' 23:22, 3 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I agree. I already apologized and will stay away from similar comments in the future. ] 23:27, 3 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Ron Paul 1996 campaign controversy == | |||
| Thank you for your help improving the Ron Paul article. I would greatly appreciate your opinion as to the recent edits made by Vidor and Terjen under "1996 campaign controversy". I am unable to characterize them neutrally right now and, if formal WP complaint procedures are applicable, I would rather not be the one to initiate them unless I am sure I have the right forum. For now your immediate comments and helpful edits would be highly valuable. Disclosure: I am sending this message to exactly 5 editors. ] 16:58, 11 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == For toughing out the unjustifed attacks by OM == | |||
| <div style="border-style:solid; border-color:blue; background-color:AliceBlue; border-width:1px; text-align:left; padding:8px;" class="plainlinks">] | |||
| {{{1|]}}} has smiled at you! Smiles promote ] and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! {{{2|}}} <br /> Smile at others by adding {{tls|Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message. | |||
| </div><!-- Template:smile --> | |||
| == Firefly Minor Characters == | |||
| There has been a call for deletion of the ] article. Since you've commented on the call to merge all the major characters, I thought you might be interested. ] 15:21, 2 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==== | |||
| Just wanted to let you know that I couldn't tell the difference between the IP's edits and those made by trolls so I have removed everything. This includes your replies which I apologise for as you were involved in a good faith discussion with them. Thanks. ] ] 11:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==I Apol0gise for having an aversion to the future tense== | |||
| I don't want to jinx anything. There was an article saying a sports scompetition will occur at place X at time Y but there were these terrible infectious bacteris or visurs and they cancelled the location. After that, I've tried to remove any future tense that looks like prideful predictions. ] (]) 23:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == 2008 Pres. Election == | |||
| There is nothing on talk page referring to the tag. What's the point of removing it any way, it's not even controversial material. Almost 100% of 2008 election pages use the tag. ] 03:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Mike Bloomberg == | |||
| Interesting how you are now claiming Draft movement efforts are "external link spam", when all three efforts are registered FEC organizations developed for the draft Bloomberg movement. Any reason why you felt the need to remove them? | |||
| :Because they add nothing to the article and are free advertising for the many websites listed wherein. If you are going to linkspam wikipedia at least get the formatting correct. Do not put external links into the body of the article. Do not plug the websites. At least try to write it like it has something to do with an encyclopedia. | |||
| "In December 2007, the Draft Bloomberg 2008 campaign site relaunched as providing a blog and collecting signatures for the Draft Bloomberg 2008 movement.<ref> includes blogs, , videos news and commentary as well as up to date information on the activities of the Draft Bloomberg for President movement." | |||
| Here is an example. How many encyclopedias have you seen that in? And sign your comments. ] (]) 04:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :You also have an undeniable conflict of interest as you represent that particular site. ] (]) 04:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Absolutely, I have a interest in making sure the content is retained, and is not deleted because of other interests. I am happy to bring about a NPOV, but eliminating it without providing a warning BEFOREHAND sets off our thoughts that there is something else afoot. I am happy to make changes to be more NPOV.] (]) 04:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::And how does information about a Draft Movement NOT add information to the entry. As in the 2004 Election, the DraftClark and DraftWesleyClark efforts made it on Misplaced Pages.] (]) 04:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==Mike Bloomberg== | |||
| My complaint against ILikeBloomberg is that he refuses to consider evidence that Mike Bloomberg is not a fiscal conservative and insists on adding the assertion that Bloomberg is a fiscal conservative without evidence to back it up. Based on his pattern of behavior and his username, I don't think ILikeBloomberg has any business editing the Bloomberg article. ] (]) 05:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Romney == | |||
| No problem. I asked ThuranX to chime back in too. I think it should be noted that I doubt anything even remotely permanent will be decided, including what content goes where, as long as the RfC is ongoing, so don't worry too much about the existing state of the article, it is almost certain to be unresolved at least for a while. ] (]) 18:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Thanks for not being upset. I am starting to get a bit unraveled dealing with that page and that one editor. Have you noticed that user has already revamped a page to shuffle the information off and is now trying to use policy arguments to undue the section. What has it been, 48 hours? Seriously, just stand back and keep an eye on the situation for awhile. Regardless of any near future outcomes, Ferrylodge will not stop trying to dismantle the section until Romney either loses the primary or after Romney is no longer president. Seriously OCD. ] (]) 18:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Heaven forbid that anyone should "use policy arguments" at a talk page.] (]) 18:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::"FL, with all due respect, I have seen your RfCs and Arbcomm discussion. All I see is layer upon layer of dishonesty, lies and sleeze. Sleezy lawyer tactics, but the truth is dozens of other editors here on Misplaced Pages seem to have severe problems with you to the point of leaving Misplaced Pages altogether because of your bullying and harassment". Written by Filll. He says it better than I can. ] (]) 19:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::You know, with all respect, it would help if you did something to differentiate your repetitions from the existing text, as it makes it very hard to follow what is old conversation and what is new conversation. I know you're somewhat new, based on when you got the welcome notice. So here's a suggestion. Go to the "history" tab at the top of the page, which will show you the previous versions of an article. Indicate which were the first and last discussions you want to include by marking them, and ask the computer to display the differences. Then, copy the address of that page and insert it between single brackets like . That will make pursuing the current conversation a lot easier, and it's actually the preferred way to do that sort of thing, because it both takes up less space in memory and makes it easier to follow the current conversation. ] (]) 21:13, 12 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == E-mail == | |||
| I would be interested in e-mailing you. Please enable e-mail. Thank you. ] (]) 20:18, 12 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Done. ] (]) 20:24, 12 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Sent. My apologies for the delay. ] (]) 20:48, 12 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Civility warning == | |||
| Your comment, found , was uncalled for and clearly uncivil. Please remember that sort of behavior is inappropriate, and making negative personally comments directed at other users is in poor taste. And this goes for people with whom you disagree with even more. We can't force you to like other users, but we can ask you to treat everyone with dignity and respect. Always remember to comment on content, not people. Further hostilities will not be tolerated. I hope you understand. Thanks.-] </sup>]] 17:17, 13 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Ferrylodge threatening again to move Religious Background section == | |||
| FYI, in case you care to weigh in: ] (]) 00:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| == Warning: edit warring on ] == | |||
| {{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2015/MassMessage}} ] (]) 17:31, 23 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
| {{{icon|] }}}You currently appear to be engaged in an ]{{{{{subst|}}}#if:Mitt Romney|  according to the reverts you have made on ]}}. Note that the ] prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the ]. If you continue, you may be ] from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a ] among editors. If necessary, pursue ]. {{{{{subst|}}}#if:{{{2|}}}|{{{2}}}|}}<!-- Template:uw-3rr --> ] 02:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| <!-- Message sent by User:Mdann52@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Mdann52/list&oldid=692057745 --> | |||
Latest revision as of 23:43, 17 February 2023
I know you're pissed...
...and I have no idea what your disputes have been to put you in such a mood or drive you away, but leaving inflammatory comments is clearly disruptive. This block will expire in 24 hours.
— Scientizzle 04:43, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Apology accepted.
I wish you well. TableManners 05:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
I hope that you'll come back
I hope that you'll come back after your block is lifted and that we and others will be able to continue to work together in good faith. It's terrible when we lose good editors to something like this. Keep your chin up! Qworty (talk) 06:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- Agreed. For what it's worth, my reservations, which are still quite strong, are about the existing consensus seeming to have been based on the input of only editors who were previously involved in the article. I have contacted the Mormonism project, the 2008 election project, the Biography project, the politicans work group of that project, the Fringe theories noticeboard (the only place to leave undue weight concerns, even though for these purposes it is badly titled), and anyone else I could think of. As one of the more involved editors in the Biography project, I can say that to my eyes, having gone through probably too many biography articles, I cannot remember having ever seen such a section dealing with a dependent part of the subject's later career so early in the article, even before the content relating to that later career directly. To my eyes, as unfortunately one of the more knowledgable editors in that area, it very clearly does violate other extant wikipedia policy, and a consensus to violate an extant policy is at best dubiously a consensus. These concerns are particularly important considering the subject is also a living person, with WP:BLP entering into it as well.
- I've been called worse, and hold no grudges about namecalling. Like I've said earlier, I've done it before myself. Please realize however that there is possibly a fundamental problem with this article about potentially placing too much content on the religion subject in the parent article about Romney. I don't myself doubt such content deserves a very prominent place in the article on the campaign. But that is a separate article. The biography article is supposed to cover the life of the subject in a balanced, neutral way. Those interested specifically in the campaign, including its mudslinging, can go to that article. So far as I can tell, the subject's religion was not discussed particularly widely prior to his political career. On that basis, it seems to be dubious at best to place a lot of emphasis on something about other eras of the subject's life which were never emphasized during those eras themselves, even during his business career and role with the 2002 Olympics. We are not supposed to cater to what we think individuals want to read in the article, that's a violation of OR and POV. We are supposed to present a neutral, balanced, objective, verifiable summary of the subject. There are serious questions from several parties about whether including such a section so early in the article places it very much out of balance.
- I have added a section to the RfC which allows for an easier determination of how many editors hold certain opinions on the matter. I should have added it at the beginning, and apologize for having not done so. I very sincerely hope that you will place your own comments there as well. John Carter (talk) 16:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Michael Bloomberg external links
Could you offer your advice regarding ChrisG nyc's repeated reversion of my removal of several non-notable, unsuited for inclusion, Bloomberg draft sites? Can he be blocked because they are clearly spam, or is this a case where it has to be discussed? With his last edit, he ignored a message I had placed on his talk page saying to discuss additions of links on the talk page before adding them. And, by the way, he is the creator of RunMikeRun.com. --Michael White 20:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Hillary FA status
The FA nomination process for Hillary Rodham Clinton has restarted. Please consider voting on this issue. Thanks - QuirkyAndSuch (talk) 20:36, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Ron Paul
Ron Paul has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured quality. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. --Andrew Kelly (talk) 05:15, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:31, 23 November 2015 (UTC)