Misplaced Pages

User talk:Anythingyouwant: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 06:31, 2 January 2009 editJbarta (talk | contribs)9,777 edits →Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories← Previous edit Latest revision as of 00:05, 19 November 2024 edit undoMediaWiki message delivery (talk | contribs)Bots3,141,424 edits →ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message: new sectionTag: MassMessage delivery 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Attempting_wikibreak}}
==Archives==
: Beginning of Time to 14 March 2007 (plus one comment by Ferrylodge on 27 September 2007).


:
14 March 2007 to 14 May 2007.


⚖️
: 14 May 2007 to 15 June 2007.


== Help with adding to Talk page ==
: 15 June 2007 to 11 September 2007.


I would like to add a sentence to the Hunter Biden laptop controversy article. I see that you have made edits to the page. The page is protected, so I went to the Talk page
: 11 September 2007 to 13 November 2007.


]
: 13 November 2007 to 30 November 2007.


and clicked "Click here to start a new topic", then composed my suggestion. But when I click "Add topic", it just shows moving slanted lines for a second, and then gives up. I have tried this several times. What do I need to do to actually add the topic? ] (]) 03:20, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
: 30 November 2007 to 31 December 2007.
::I reported the glitch at ]. I assume you’re not a registered user, but if you become one then it will likely work for you.] (]) 05:07, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
:::I have a login, Swan2024, which I created several hours ago in case that was the reason I couldn't add the topic. Is that sufficient for "registered user"? ] (]) 05:21, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
::::Should work without logging in, but almost certainly will work when you’re logged in, ]. Good luck. The likely cause of your difficulty is that you were trying to add a topic with just one or two words in the header, and/or one or two words in your comment. Misplaced Pages requires more words from users who aren’t logged in, so as to filter out spam.] (]) 05:56, 12 September 2024 (UTC)


== Regarding ] ==
: 31 December 2007 to 19 February 2008.


First, thank you for restoring the text I mistakenly removed. I have restored directly from Carguychris' edit. If you believe your version is better, than just revert my last two edits.
: 19 February 2008 to 15 June 2008.


], here is my perspective. You made a claim there are not reliable sources, which was refuted. You made a claim that it was the media that amplified the hoax, which has not been proven outside unreliable sources like Fox News. When you provide your list of sources, then we can see your perspective and discuss. Until then, it looks like the three of us don't agree with your perspective. Alternatively, if you want to suggest alternative wording, then go ahead and do so. I already made one such change when you didn't agree with the word 'they' and am willing to work together on wording. I just am opposed to the removal of details about what happened. --] (]) 04:39, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
: 15 June 2008 to 27 June 2008.


:To explain why I didn't get your other ping and seemed to be ignoring your message, you put your signature on a newline. As noted at ], "he edit must be signed by adding <code><nowiki>~~~~</nowiki></code> to the end of the message." The system acted as if you had made two messages and ignored the ping to me in the first message. Hope that clears things up a bit. --] (]) 05:02, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
: 27 June 2008 to 1 September 2008.
:], thanks for visiting my user talk. Regarding nazis, please see ], which says, “The first paragraph should define or identify the topic with a neutral point of view, but without being too specific.” You say above that you’re “opposed to the removal of details about what happened.” But I don’t object to putting nazi details in the article body, or even later in the lead if people feel strongly about it. Just not in the opening paragraph. As far as I know, nazis had no effect on what happened in Springfield, nor any effect on what GOP politicians did. What a horror show Misplaced Pages’s articles on political events would become if they all began with commentary from the nazis on the left, and the Marxists on the right.] (]) 05:12, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
::Sources say that neo-Nazi groups were spreading the message along with far-right groups. Given the prominence in reliable sources, we are following a ] by mentioning it in the lede. As for the order of stuff, the only thing I could see that has a shot would be splitting off everything after the first sentence of the first paragraph into a new second paragraph and moving all of the old second paragraph into the first paragraph following the first sentence.
::{{Blockquote|text = Starting in September 2024, baseless claims and rumors spread online that Haitian immigrants were stealing pets in Springfield, Ohio, and eating them. Springfield and county law enforcement said that no credible reports or evidence support the claims, and the city's mayor, the city manager, and Ohio Governor Mike DeWine have all denounced them. The claims were widely described as racist. Fact-checking website Snopes called the claims unfounded, while others characterized them as a hoax or a lie.<br />The claims began with a local Facebook group post sharing a neighbor's story that her daughter's friend's cat had been butchered, then spread quickly among far-right and neo-Nazi groups. These claims were amplified by prominent figures in the American right, most notably Republican vice-presidential nominee JD Vance whose constituency includes Springfield, then by his running mate Donald Trump, along with allies such as Laura Loomer, and X owner Elon Musk. The person whose Facebook story started the controversy later admitted she never spoke to the cat owner and admitted the story lacked credibility.<br />The pet-eating claims spread amid existing racial tensions in Springfield, where recent legal Haitian immigration reversed population decline, but strained some public resources. There had been previous incidents of hostility towards the local Haitian community and unfounded local rumors of Haitians stealing waterfowl and food. After the claims spread, dozens of bomb threats prompted Springfield officials to close public buildings, including the city hall and elementary schools, and DeWine deployed state police to conduct daily sweeps of the facilities.}}
::I don't know if it could be considered an improvement or not as it waits until the second paragraph to explain what is debunked, though it does put more emphasis that the claims are false. Other than that, I don't have much of a suggestion outside of this other one:
::{{Blockquote|text = Starting in September 2024, baseless claims and rumors spread online that Haitian immigrants were stealing pets in Springfield, Ohio, and eating them. The claims began with a local Facebook group post sharing a neighbor's story that her daughter's friend's cat had been butchered and rose to national prominence by Republican vice-presidential nominee JD Vance whose constituency includes Springfield, followed then by his running mate Donald Trump, along with allies such as Laura Loomer, and X owner Elon Musk. The person whose Facebook story started the controversy later admitted she never spoke to the cat owner and admitted the story lacked credibility.<br />Springfield and county law enforcement said that no credible reports or evidence support the claims, and the city's mayor, the city manager, and Ohio Governor Mike DeWine have all denounced them. The claims were widely described as racist and having been spread quickly among far-right and neo-Nazi groups in the area. Fact-checking website Snopes called the claims unfounded, while others characterized them as a hoax or a lie.<br />The pet-eating claims spread amid existing racial tensions in Springfield, where recent legal Haitian immigration reversed population decline, but strained some public resources. There had been previous incidents of hostility towards the local Haitian community and unfounded local rumors of Haitians stealing waterfowl and food. After the claims spread, dozens of bomb threats prompted Springfield officials to close public buildings, including the city hall and elementary schools, and DeWine deployed state police to conduct daily sweeps of the facilities.}}
::If either of the two work for you, then go ahead and try it. --] (]) 07:58, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
::Oh and I am ]d to this discussion, so feel free to ping or not as I will know either way. --] (]) 08:00, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
:::I always prefer being chronological where possible, which helps people to comprehend what happened, one step at a time. That’s why I generally like the opening paragraph as it stands now: it summarizes the major developments one step at a time, in a clear manner. Except that I just think the nazi detail needs to be moved lower in the lead or removed from the lead. As I explained here at my talk page, I am not aware that any nazis affected what happened in Springfield, or affected how GOP politicians reacted to the whole thing. When nazis spread rumors, they typically do so on nazi websites and other places where nazis hang out, but AFAIK they’re not able to spread rumors into the mainstream, and the latter might be significant if it happened, but I’m not aware that it did happen.] (]) 10:37, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
::::Understood. I did reply on the talk page about what they did in Springfield. As for lowering it in the lead, try it and see if it works. --] (]) 20:48, 18 September 2024 (UTC)


== Invitation to participate in a research ==
== ] ==


Hello,
You've clearly done some good things for the article, so I should not have lapsed in my ]. But please, let's agree that ] means summarizing points, not one side of the story. ] (]) 00:50, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Misplaced Pages, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this ''''''.
:re: edit summaries... you are right, I have gotten lazy/hasty because of too many edit conflicts, but sorry. ] (]) 20:23, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.
You created a comma splice in your Palin Revision as of 17:29, 4 September 2008. Commas cannot be used to seperate dependant clauses. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) </small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its ] and view its ] .
::I've never been accused before of being a comma pusher! I would agree with you that semicolons should not be used to separate dependent clauses, but I disagree about commas. BTW, I assume you meant to say "separate dependent" instead of "seperate dependant". Cheers.] (]) 18:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.
== Sarah Palin ==


Kind Regards,
That picture is awful. I thought mine was better. ] (]) 03:28, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


]
== Palin talk ==


Thanks for pointing me to the discussion - I'm replying there. <strong>]</strong>/<small>]</small> 06:37, 2 September 2008 (UTC) <bdi lang="en" dir="ltr">] (]) 19:27, 23 October 2024 (UTC) </bdi>
<!-- Message sent by User:UOzurumba (WMF)@metawiki using the list at https://meta.wikimedia.org/search/?title=UOzurumba_(WMF)/sandbox_Research_announcement_list_for_enwiki_Potential_Admins&oldid=27650229 -->
:Yeah - fast-changing has taken on a while new meaning. <strong>]</strong>/<small>]</small> 07:02, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
{{User:Bedford/userboxes/Palin}}
::LOL! -- <b>]</b> 13:53, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
:::Thanks.:-)] (]) 14:29, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


== ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message ==
== ] ==


<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; background-color: #fdf2d5; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; ">
You reverted my edits, as is appropriate if you don't feel consensus. I wonder, though, if you think that it's just a bad idea to make the connection I made at all, or if there could be some way to phrase it loosely enough to be reasonable but specifically enough to be meaningful? ps. you can respond on the talk page there. ] (]) 16:33, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
<div class="ivmbox-image noresize" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;">]</div>
:I replied there. Sorry about the delay. So much going on.] (]) 16:48, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
<div class="ivmbox-text">
Hello! Voting in the ''']''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2024|end}}-1 day}}. All ''']''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.


The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the ]. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
== NYT article ==


If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review ] and submit your choices on the ''']'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>] (]) 00:05, 19 November 2024 (UTC)</small>
Having just read the New York Times article (a la the ]), I wanted to say "Kudos to you, sir!" for your excellent work! Thank you, both for improving the project and its public image!! --] (]) 18:13, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


</div>
::Thank '''''you'''''. :-) ] (]) 19:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
</div>

<!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2024/Coordination/MM/01&oldid=1258243333 -->
== Sarah Palin ==

Didn't see that story had been updated ... thanks for the tip. ]] 22:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The AIP welcome speech is significant because you can't just up and decide to give a speech to a political group. I doubt that the group currently meeting in St. Paul, MN would let anyone speak unless they saw that person as an ally. --] (]) 01:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I am quickly becoming concerned that the of the Sarah Palin page have made Pro-Palin edits 99.9% of the time. No matter the circumstance, the three of you have always been Pro-Palin thought the talk page discussion and that fact that you are having a disproportionate amount of edits seriously calls into question the neutrality of the article at this time. ] (]) 18:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

::Please indicate an example of a particular edit of mine today that you find troublesome. It is very difficult to respond to generalized grievances. Thanks. Broadly speaking, I don't think I'm under any obligation to make edits that make Palin look bad, especially if others are already going overboard in that respect. My goal is to make the article neutral and accurate, and I don't think my edits have puffed up or exaggerated her attributes or her faults.] (]) 18:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
:::You are under an obligation to work toward a NPOV, but every edit (I MEAN EVERY EDIT) that you have made has been Pro-Palin. It would be one thing if it was just you and there were only a handful of edits made, but the reality is you have the most edits by far on the page and the next two editors on the list hold the same values as you (which could be perceived to make the bio read like a McCain/Palin campaign flier.) I appreciate that you feel you are striving to be neutral and accurate, but you are not achieving that lofty goal in my honest opinion. Specifically, your stated political positions (NYT) bring in to question your ability to edit the article in a fair and balanced manner - ]. ] (]) 18:34, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
::::Give me a diff, please, and then we can discuss it. Not a whole bunch of diffs, but just one diff that you think exemplifies your point. If you give me a whole bunch, then I'll just pick the one I like best, because I don't have time to go through a whole bunch of diffs right now. Thanks. Incidentally, my first edit to that article after I woke up today was . Are you seriously criticizing it? And the last edit I made last night before going to sleep was . You really want to criticize it?] (]) 18:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::That is one of the most minor edits I have seen, but you wanted it to be ''very clear'' who the person making the death threat was even though it was already implied and easily understandable. I am not saying it is a bad edit, but I know why you made the edit (like all your edits.) I am not saying you are making absurd changes. What I am saying is every edit you make is for the expressed reason to better hone "the message." ] (]) 18:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
::::::Please show me a diff of a bad edit I have made to that article. Are you really arguing that all Republicans who support John McCain should not be editing the Palin article?] (]) 18:59, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::::I am not calling out any particular edit being it is the sheer weight of ''all'' the edits you have made. It might only be a word of two with each click of the mouse, but over time it begins to shift the neutrality of the article (and it definitely has.) I personally think it would be best if you recused yourself from direct edits to the article. ] (]) 19:09, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

(undent)Civility forbids me from describing what should be done with that request. And Zredsox, I would strongly advise you not to sneak in edits with the claim that they are "minor." You did it to compare Sarah Palin to Dan Quayle. Another editor objected , saying it was a POV comparison. So what did you do? You , using the camouflage of a "minor edit." This pretty well illustrates your POV, while violating more Misplaced Pages guidelines than I care to mention. And this is just scratching the surface.

Is there any way that we can restore that article to some semblance of neutrality?] (]) 19:30, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

:There was no "sneaking" and you ''should'' assume good faith. I was unaware that minor edit was checked by default and will be honest in saying I am not fully apprised of the ways of the wiki. I have since updated my preferences per a helpful user suggestion. As for my edits, I have made a handful of them. You have made a horde. That being said, I don't think it is productive to go any further with this although it is clear that the majority of edits are now being made by a pro-Palin contingency that has claimed ownership of the article (which I personally feel is moving it further from neutrality on an hourly basis.) ] (]) 20:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

::BTW, I assume you're from Boston. Me too! Let's be friends. :-) ] (]) 19:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
:::So you are that conservative I heard was bandying about town! And I just thought it was lore... ;) ] (]) 20:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

(undent)Okay, I'll assume good faith on the "minor edit" thing, and hope you'll do likewise. Although from Boston, I live in Connecticut now. The guy you heard about must have been either Ray Flynn or William Shatner. :-) ] (]) 21:25, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

==Orphaned non-free media (Image:McCain-Palin_2008_logo.jpg)==
] Thanks for uploading ''']'''. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a ]. However, it is currently ], meaning that it is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. ] if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see ]).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "]" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any '''articles''' will be deleted after seven days, as described on ]. Thank you.<!-- Template:Orphaned --> — ''']''' <sup>|''' ]'''</sup> | 01:21, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

== RFAR alert ==

One of the arbitrators has asked that every admin who is arguably involved in the events at ] be notified of an arbitration case covering it. I therefore draw your attention to ]. In your case, you are, like me, one of those who made an edit to the article while it was full protected. ] 18:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

::Thanks for the info, GR. This article is developing quite an interesting history. :-) ] (]) 19:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

::: What a complete and total embarrassment to Wiki, particularly the garbage on Young Trigg's page. ] (]) 05:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

== Any interest ==
What I really came here for: any interest in ]? ] (]) 05:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

:::No, no, no! The invitation is much appreciated, but you tried that after the Roe v. Wade FAR too. No, no, no. Sandy, I'm begging you, look at the wikibreak tag at the top of this page. I've got to get out of here or I won't be a lawyer much longer (at least not an employed one). I'll think about your kind invitation after I'm all caught up at work. :) ] (]) 05:31, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

:::: No problem whatsoever :-) Forget I was here, it's only an article, and it's not changing anyone's life :-) Best, ] (]) 05:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

::::: Oh I see, it's just one particular article, rather than some kind of ongoing thing. No, no, no. :-) ] (]) 05:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

:::::: Go away now :-) ] (]) 06:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
<- Wikibreak, hah! ] <sup>]</sup> 06:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
: Look who's talking ! You've been busy, too ! Sorry I wasn't around to help out, been traveling. ] (]) 06:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
::No problem! Let's chat on Ferrylodge's talk page and annoy him with irrelevant orange bars. :) ] <sup>]</sup> 06:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

<- Ferrylodge, is a convenient list. ] <sup>]</sup> 19:31, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

::Interesting, thanks. Only 54 so far.] (]) 19:35, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
:::And it doesn't even have the polar bears and beluga whales (though it does have the wolves). ] <sup>]</sup> 19:45, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
::::A friend of mine is concerned that aerial culling causes a lot more suffering for the wolves. He says that a hunter who shoots a wolf at close range on the ground is much more likely to kill the wolf instantly, instead of a slow death or maiming. I don't know if my friend is correct or not. I'm an environmentalist, so I hope Palin wouldn't be too severe on the Beluga Whales, the Polar Bears, and the wolves. But she does seem to have other favorable attributes that outweigh my environmental concerns, and McCain seems fairly green. :)] (]) 19:49, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::We eventually probably need to balance the statements on the polar bears and whales. I only did some cursory research, but it looks like her point was that the people of Alaska are more expert at managing their conservation than people from Washington. Right now the articles kind of make it seem that it's strictly so that the animals can be slaughtered if they inconvenience oil-drilling crews. ;) ] <sup>]</sup> 20:00, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

===Palin Talk===
The "damaging" quote you were seeking can be verified in troopergate's reference #45. you can just use ctrl+f to search for the word damaging in the article, but I'm sure you knew that.

cheers. :)

] (]) 20:31, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

::Okay, I see it. That's a good quote for that article. But it doesn't need its own section.] (]) 20:38, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

== Wooten interview ==
Had you seen already? ] <sup>]</sup> 05:47, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
::Yup, Wooten also did an interview with WaPo.] (]) 05:53, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

== 'Mayoralty of Sarah Palin' listed for deletion ==

A page that you have been involved in editing, ], has been listed for ]; you may wish to participate in the ]. Thank you. ] (]) 20:05, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

== 'Asserts' versus 'argues' ==

Hi, I'm glad we've kept that edit war on ] relatively constructive, but I really would suggest you look up the word 'argues' in a dictionary, particularly if you are indeed a lawyer! The McCain entry contains large passages of what essentially amount to subtly worded propaganda, and, as a non-US citizen, this kind of campaigning material serves me no purpose. You can't forget that some people are still trying to use Misplaced Pages as a reference tool, not a means of getting their favoured candidate elected. I understand that the situation is similar on the ] page, and both the VP candidates, but two wrongs don't make a right. We should be endeavouring as responsible editors to consider the facts objectively. You know full well, as a lawyer, that a single psychoanalytic study and a single op-ed in the Chicago Tribune can't establish truths that are beyond question. It is disingenuous to claim otherwise.--] (]) 08:27, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

::It would probably be better to discuss stuff like this at the article talk page. I generally have no objection to the material that you inserted into the article, though I think your suggestion here at my talk page about "propaganda" is a bit over the top. The article has lots and lots of negative material about McCain. ] (]) 16:49, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

:::I would still suggest that you might benefit from looking up the word "argues" in a dictionary. And "argument" for that matter. I am beginning to assume bad faith on your part. Your edits are invariably tendentious. I suggest that, as a trained lawyer, you fully comprehend many of the concepts which you wilfully ignore when editing Misplaced Pages: objectivity, integrity, reliability, and factuality. I will be keeping a close eye on your edits. Some of us would like this place to remain as an encyclopedia, not a campaign tool. --] (]) 18:26, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

::::I'm not going to continue this discussion here. Please take it to the article talk page. You're saying that the word "argue" would be better than the word "assert". This is a dispute that belongs at the article talk page, not here.] (]) 18:32, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

== Destructive edits in ] article ==

I don't know if you are the editor responsible, but I noticed that there is a red cite error message coming from the the Mayor of Wasilla section. You were the last person making substantial edits to that section. --] (]) 23:29, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

::Thanks for the heads up. I fixed it.] (]) 02:05, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

::: That's some section heading: I thought you called her a pig with lipstick or something. ] (]) 02:58, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

:::: I'm happy to report that there is a Misplaced Pages article titled ]. The encyclopedia is now complete, and we can all go back to doing what we were doing before. :-) ] (]) 04:38, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

== Thanks ==

Yup, I munged my posting at the AFD for the Palin Mayorality; thanks for asking about that. I went back and fixed it. -- <font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">] </font> ] 21:21, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
:Hey Ferry, totally with you on the extra religion section in Palin's article: the first half should be under personal life (her upbringing and church memberships), the second should be dispersed into views/political positions. Do we generally divide a politician's views according to whether or not their religion inspires them? However, right now I appear to be in the minority as far as consensus. I await your return. ] (]) 17:15, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
::Ferry, keep cool in the face of heated argument. It NEVER helps to raise the volume here.(] (]) 22:32, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

== Palin format ==

Heya...It looks bad to me at 1280x1024 with the large gap between the top paragraph(s) and the rest of the content, separated by the thin content index. I've done this for a few other pages as well, but only on pages that are longer than most pages are, or have exceptionally long content indexes. Now, I can't claim to be the ultimate authority on what looks good, but I do think the wide blank space beside the content index looks ungainly. So, I won't object to others disagreeing with the reformat and undoing it, but when I see cases where the gap looks unusually bad, I will continue to 'fix', IMO. Thanks for the note on this. --<span style="background: #CCEECC;">]</span>-<span style="background: #CCCCEE;">]</span>-<span style="background: #EECCEE;">]</span> 23:37, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
: PLease don't take this as an objection, but since you undid both, but agreed with the reasoning for one, I'm curious as to why. What resolution are you running at? --<span style="background: #CCEECC;">]</span>-<span style="background: #CCCCEE;">]</span>-<span style="background: #EECCEE;">]</span> 23:46, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
::Sorry, meant to say that you undid the one it sounded like you agreed with. --<span style="background: #CCEECC;">]</span>-<span style="background: #CCCCEE;">]</span>-<span style="background: #EECCEE;">]</span> 23:47, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

== Just a little note re. Palin ==

If the "canvasser thought I'd vote for support s/he took a crab shot by him/herself (and you too, if I may say that).
But there is no need to discuss further from my side. Best Regards, --] (]) 00:26, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

:Something nice? Is it x-mas already? *smile* --] (]) 00:40, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

::Oh, Ferrylodge. That is nice for "them" but they're not "my guys". You can think what you want in this matter but you'd be wrong. I don't see/have the need to "defend" myself but I wish, not everyone gets "branded" as a supporter of any side. When I'm on WP I'm on my side and believes (as I am most of the time in real live) and no politician can take this away from me because I think for myself. Anyway, thanks in the name of the Obama "community" that won't be able to see this, and thanks in the name of all other "communities" for the work you do, especially the WP community. Kindest regards from an editor who was called pretty much everything "available" (like REP, DEM, liberal, and so on...), --] (]) 01:09, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

:::As I said earlier, it's all ok and good. No need to apologize. Just keep up your good work ;) --] (]) 01:31, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

== Thanks ==

, and your way sounds fine. --<span style="background: #CCEECC;">]</span>-<span style="background: #CCCCEE;">]</span>-<span style="background: #EECCEE;">]</span> 04:43, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

== Canvassing ==

Canvassing is when you ask people to vote a certain way, not when you inform them of an upcoming vote. I checked up on the matter before doing so.] (]) 06:24, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

::Evidently, you are unfamiliar with the term "vote-stacking".] (]) 06:27, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for taking the time to link that. ] (]) 16:38, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

== summary ==

I was just about to put it there. ] (]) 19:48, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

== "Earmarks" ==
I'll look at it later, but I think we need to do a general POV scrub on the Palin articles for the term "earmarks". Quite a few people have labeled all federal funding requests with the "earmark" term, when in most cases it's inaccurate. ] <sup>]</sup> 17:18, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

::Yeah, I've been avoiding that. My understanding is that there are two kinds of earmarks: ones that are handed out by Congress, and ones that are handed out by the Alaska state government. I think Palin's stance has been different for these two types of earmarks.] (]) 17:20, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

== Typo fix ==

Thanks for taking care of for me. I just reread my work and went to fix it, but you beat me to it. ~ '']'' (]) 23:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

::Sure, no problem.] (]) 23:29, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

== Good teamwork ==

I like your responses to my edits on the PSC section. You may want to take the "9/15 filed arguments" idea to the subarticle, which is where I got the "9/15 requested end of investigation" idea. ] (]) 21:02, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
::Okay, I'll check sub-article. Thanks.] (]) 21:05, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

==Cropped image==
Hey, Ferrylodge! I noticed that you cropped ]. I was wondering - would you mind reverting to the original version at Commons, and then uploading your cropped version under another name? works great for this. This leaves the original uncropped image available for anyone who wants to use it. Thanks! ] <sup>]</sup> 16:40, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

:Oops, sorry, no problem at all. I'll get right on it! ] (]) 17:01, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
::Sweet! Oh, I almost forgot - the former lead portrait on ], did you have permission on just the crops you uploaded, or for the full original versions at Flickr? If the latter, we should probably upload those so people can work with them if they want to. ] <sup>]</sup> 17:16, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

== Long comment on my talk page ==] (]) 23:58, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

==Palin image==
Per wiki edit policy, the direct cited quote has been edited for corrected grammar context, using brackets. Everything you edited away was valid, except that adding the numbered date required changing "in" to "on". I did that as well with brackets, the correct method when using quotes of more than 3 words. ] (]) 00:06, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

ugh... Homunq altered the quote again, and I'm pushing 3RR. That 3-word quote of her's should be there. ] (]) 02:07, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

::Which three words?] (]) 02:16, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Nevermind, I think Homunq is helping. I'm talking to him about a compromise ] (]) 02:19, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

==If I make any change on the bridge you disagree with... ==

Let me know. Come to my talk page and let's discuss it. Perhaps you and I can agree on a compromise solution before we enter the lion's den of the talk page. Right now, I'm mostly just returning the original deleted sources and not restoring anything that has had a lot of talk page discussion (like the alternate Anchorage-Wasilla route or the title). For example, I put back in the quotes from the Palin press release cancelling the bridge where she blames lack of federal funding. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 01:09, 20 September 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Favorite ] photo ==
I'm actually in love with of McCain by ], when she went out on her fraudulent photoshoot for the Atlantic. It's bad-ass. "Now, Barack Obama, you and your pathetic MSM friends will witness the power of this fully armed and operational Republican Party! I'm John McCain and I approved this photo, bitches." :) ] <sup>]</sup> 02:25, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

::Kelly, I love you. I don't know your gender or your identity, but I love you. However, you will have to spell things out for me more, because I really don't understand what Jill Greenburg did or did not do here.] (]) 02:28, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
:::Ah - if you missed it. ] <sup>]</sup> 02:30, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
::::Thanks, I miss a lot. :-) What a creepy photographer!] (]) 02:35, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::Heh - yeah, but I do like that photo. Who do you want facing down Putin - this guy, or the Magical Lightworker? :) Obama would probably try to surreptitiously flip off Putin, like he . Putin would whisper to his aide "]", and then we'd end up with President Joe Biden. :) 03:01, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
::::::I agree, it's a great photo of McCain. Not PD though. :( Please don't ever say to me again those last three words. Thx.] (]) 03:21, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::::I'll just replace them with these three words - Headed for bed - see you tomorrow, Ferrylodge. Probably doing some Flickr cruising and Commons stuff, but I'll check in here. Goodnight! ] <sup>]</sup> 03:28, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
::::::::Good night, Kelly. Thanks for hanging in there with us at the article in question.] (]) 03:33, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

== Weasel ==

I understand your concern. Just so you know, I've never made the WW charge on any other issue than Palin. I've never seen it happen to this degree on any other page, and I work on Israel-related articles, some of the most contentious you can imagine. Here is the definition of weasel words: "an informal term for words that are ambiguous and cannot be substantiated by facts. They are typically used to create an illusion of clear, direct communication" it also refers not just to individual words, but the way they interact to strip phrasing of meaning. "The expression "weasel word" is named after the egg-eating habits of weasels. An egg that a weasel has sucked will appear intact to the casual observer. However, the egg is actually hollow." Weasel words suck content out of a sentence, leaving only a shell. ] (]) 04:53, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

== Questions on the Bridge ==

I was reading WP:Dispute Resolution and I found this: "When you find a passage in an article biased or inaccurate, improve it if you can. If that is not possible, and you disagree completely with a point of view expressed in an article, think twice before simply deleting it. Rather, balance it with your side of the story."

Unfortunately, much of the original consensus version was deleted without going to the talk page so I never knew why. This was disconcerting because of the weeks spent developing that consensus. As you know, I tried to work it out this morning by detailing each of the changes made and why I supported the status quo but no one wanted to read it as "too long."

I know you made many of the changes, but I'm not sure that it was you that did the actual deleting, so pardon me if I ask you a question about an edit that you didn't make. If you did make the changes, I'd like to go through them with you, on my talk page or yours if you like, just to know what you were thinking and why you deleted rather than making an attempt at balance.

1) If it was you, would you care to tell me why you deleted "Don Young's Way", the name of the Knik Arm bridge?

::Not me] (]) 06:13, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

2) Did you say this? "In light of the fact that the budget for the bridge was greater than the congressional earmarks, Palin expressed unwillingness to provide state funding to cover the difference" That's not true the bridge was less than the $442 million transportation earmarks. Palin just decided to use the money elsewhere because she didn't want to devote state funds to the project.

::Not me.] (]) 06:13, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

3) did you say "both at one time received some support from Palin"? Those would be strange words given she still supports Knik Arm and didn't give some support but whole-hearted support for Gravina in her Gubernatorial campaign. How about reverting to the old way of saying it? "supported by Palin in her 2006 gubernatorial race"

::Someone wrote that they are both supported by Palin, which is false, so I tried to rephrase. Someone kept reinserting that the bridges are supported by Palin in the first sentence, even though she has not supported the Gravina Island Bridge for a long time. I agree with you that the language I used is "strange" but I was in a strange position, not wanting to revert but trying to rephrase instead. IMHO, saying what Palin supports is done amply later on, and should not be mentioned in the first sentence at all, because it's very awkward there.] (]) 06:13, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

4) Also, did you delete the referral to the rest of the bridge information in the campaign section? If so, why?

::The referral was moved to the heading, and someone else removed it from there. Frankly, I'm not a fan of internal cross-references in an article, but I was prepared to leave it.] (]) 06:13, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

About the only thing I do on Palin is the bridge. Knowing why you've done some things would help me figure out which edits to keep and which ones to compromise on. And if it wasn't you who made these edits, I apologize.

I'm asking you here so as to avoid the incivility that bombards me whenever I raise these issues on the talk page.

Also, it looks like you're changing it so much now it may be a 3RR violation. Don't worry, I won't report you or suggest it to anyone. But after what I've been through today, I thought you should be careful.] (]) 06:06, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your responses and feel free to delete this, of course. On 3, I thought it should be in the first sentence to show how the bridge section relates to Palin in good journalistic style, like the first sentence in a newspaper article, with details to follow. In any case, if it's there in the first sentence at all, do you agree that "supported by Palin in her 2006 gubernatorial race" is accurate and appropriate?

::No. This section ought to be completely chronological, because otherwise it's going to be very difficult for people to understand. It's not a simple yes-or-no question whether she supported the bridge(s). The really controversial thing about the bridges was the federal funding, and that was already obtained by Alaska before she ran in 2006, so it was not an issue in her 2006 race whether to ask the feds for gobs of money. She did not campaign in 2006 in favor of grabbing hundreds of millions of dollars from the federal Treasury; that was already a done deal. The only question was how Alaska would spend the money (no sane person in Alaska was advocating handing the money back to Uncle Sam). She did campaign in 2006 in favor of using the money to build both bridges, but that doesn't mean she campaigned in favor of the federal funding.

I supported the cross-reference in 4 because a large chunk of the bridge article was moved to the campaign article (against my better judgment but I lost). Interestingly, I see now that others are bringing back similar information in the bridge section.

Thanks for responding. Have a good night.] (]) 06:22, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

==Good catch==
Thanks for letting me know about my misstep...Advice---should I cross it out?..is that a method of apology? thanks.../(The CUbs clinched the playoffs...Im a little tippsey)--] (]) 00:38, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
::Totally up to you, but I think the apology is sufficient.] (]) 00:39, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

== On the Bridge Title ==

I'm posting here so I can be a bit more presonal without being "public." Feel free to delete after reading. I honestly don't get your comment on POV. Is "Bridges to Nowhere" pro-Palin or anti-Palin? Got me. It was the original name created by a pro-Palin source (Young Trigg). Palin talks about it all the time. She and McCain are proud she stopped the "Bridge to Nowhere." So maybe it's pro-Palin. But she still supports Knik Arm. So maybe it's anti-Palin. I don't care whether it's pro- or anti-. It's accurate. Now it's insulting to the people who support the bridges. That's true. So put in the text how it is an insulting nickname. Fine by me. You want a separate title for Knik Arm? I'm OK with that too. "Bridge to Nowhere" and "Don Young's Way" But let's please move on. I really don't want to spend all night here.

What surprises me is I think you're standing still on some kind of principle and not because you actually object to the name. You were on wikipedia, on this article, prior to August 28 and you never changed the name until September 19. For 22 days, it' existed. For 17 days, it's had it's own section. I don't think you really objected to the name. I wonder if you're upset at me and others and want to "get even." And I respectfully ask that you ask yourself if that's your real motive.

I'm really trying to be flexible here, and I fear I'm just causing you to dig in deeper because psychologically, you don't want to give in. But I'm telling you that whatever your choice, singular or plural or (s), quotations or not, I'll support you. That's seven different choices. You've offered me one.] (]) 04:16, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

If we get nowhere, I'll have to turn it over to formal mediation.] (]) 04:16, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

::You say, "I honestly don't get your comment on POV." Really, it would be very helpful if you would provide a diff or a quote, because I do not know which comment you are referring to.

::Regarding the bridge section, I did not get invoved with it '''''at all''''' for weeks. That does not mean I approved of it. How could I approve of it when it was in a state of constant flux?] (]) 04:20, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

The title was not in a state of flux. But go back to the talk page. I'm ready to back down. I'm typing there.] (]) 04:24, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

This is what you said re POV:

''No, I haven't changed my mind. People have not eased up on trying to slant this section of the article, and I haven't seen you lift a finger to stop it. For example, just a few moments ago, the caption on the image was slanted, from NPOV to POV. I was willing to compromise and go with "Bridge to Nowhere" if people would stop trying to slant the text. Why should I keep my part of the bargain if others will not keep theirs? I do not think that "Bridge to nowhere" is a good title, because it lacks quote marks to distance us from the name. I do not think that "'Bridge to Nowhere'" is a very good title, because it is singular and the quote marks are liable to be removed. The way to avoid removal of the quote amrks is to have something in the heading that is quoted alongside something that is not quoted. I do not underatand why you refuse to accept "'Bridge to Nowhere' proposals" but I'm happy to waste my evening and yours waiting for some sign of flexibility from you.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:46, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

And frankly, I'm not sure what you would have me do. This is the first time I've been on in 24 hours. I don't want to go on all night, though. Are you going to make the change to the way you want it? ] (]) 04:35, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

::I provided the link . It shows a change from NPOV to POV. What's there not to get? Regarding your new suggested heading, I've responded at the article talk page.] (]) 04:42, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Why can't the caption say both (and I've tried to shorten both): In September 2006, Gubernatorial candidate Palin told Ketchikan the Gravina Bridge was essential for the town's prosperity. A year later, she cancelled it.

Does that convey what both of you wanted to convey? If so, I'll put it in the edit myself.] (]) 04:51, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

::That would be great. It should say both.] (]) 04:53, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

No problem, and while I'm editing the caption, do you also want me to change this sentence?
Original:

The nickname "Bridge(s) to Nowhere" has been used for the Gravina Island Bridge alone or, more rarely, both bridges.

Change:

:The nickname "Bridge to Nowhere" has been used for the Gravina Island Bridge, while the less common nickname "Bridges to Nowhere" usually refers to both Gravina and Knik Arm.

I'm happy leaving the original sentence alone, but I know you hate the (s), so if you want me to make the change I will.] (]) 05:00, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

::Change "usually" to "sometimes", and that would be fine. "Usually" makes it sound like people usually use the less common nickname.] (]) 05:05, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm....Bridges to Nowhere is more rare than Bridge to Nowhere, but when the plural is used it normally refers to both bridges.....let me think how to say it better.

:The derisive term "Bridge to Nowhere" usually refers to the Gravina Island Bridge, while the less common phrase "Bridges to Nowhere" normally refers to both Gravina and Knik Arm.

I've never seen "Bridges to Nowhere" refer to anything but those two bridges, and I've seen about six plural sources. I could also add "derisive term" to make clear that wikieditors aren't insulting anyone, that it's the name opponents gave] (]) 05:13, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we should move this back to the main talk page? :-D] (]) 05:14, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

::Okay, but please do go ahead with the caption.] (]) 05:16, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Done ] (]) 05:21, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I put sentence change under our bridge title discussion.] (]) 05:25, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

::Thanks. This article drives me nuts. We now have TWO infoboxes. Sheesh.] (]) 05:25, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

== Palin Image - New and Improved ==

Hi Ferrylodge,
Here ] is a link to the latest version of the Carson City pic that I did some minor work on in Photoshop. I reduced the color saturation and blurred the background of the image. This helps reduce the clutter and makes the hand less apparent. When you blur the background, it makes the subject look sharper. I also removed the white paper at the bottom. If you like it, you will have to upload it - I can't. '''IP75''' ] (]) 05:08, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

::Thanks, I put it with the other three at the article talk page.] (]) 05:44, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Ferrylodge- Due to the concerns raised by other editors regarding the Carson City image (clarity, head size, background, and color saturation) I have created two new versions from the original. They are both tightly cropped and the quality is much better. One is more square and the sign at the top has been removed - very clean.
The other version is longer and has more of the mics at the bottom and the sign at the top. Here are the links:
Carson_City_Crop_1_adj.jpg]
Carson_City_Crop_2.jpg
] '''IP75''' ] (]) 21:14, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
::OK, thanks, I'll get going with the upload, and will report back momentarily.] (]) 21:33, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
:::I picked the one without the sign removed, because I don't think the small portion of the sign detracts much from the image, and I'd prefer to keep it as real as possible. It's at the top of the article now. We'll see what people think. Nice work.] (]) 21:57, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

::::Your image has been reverted. I think you might have better luck if you would simply upgrade the existing image, without narrowing the crop.] (]) 22:30, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

:::::I spent quite a lot of time working on these new versions and the one that you liked looked great at the top of the article. Two other editors have commented on the improved quality. The editor who reverted thought it was 'grainy' and it looked fine. This is the same editor who 'requested comment' and they seem to want another image and are looking for justification. If I had the time to work on another wider crop there would be complaints about the background or something else. I'm glad you and the other editors like it. Do you think we should post it on the talk page? '''IP75''' ] (]) 00:12, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

::::::Sure, you can post it at the talk page if you like. However, it seems clear that the editor who reverted preferred the wider crop. Considering what an immense improvement you made in the narrowly cropped picture, it seems pretty clear that you could also make a vast improvement in the wider cropped version, which is already preferred by the editor who reverted (and also by the people at the Graphics Lab). I wonder if it might be appropriate to move a sign to cover the arm.] (]) 00:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

:::::::Thanks for posting the image to the 'Proposed Pics' section. I noticed that the section has been archived and editors can no longer see the proposed pics or refer to the previous discussion. Regarding the editor's preference to the wider crop, the following comment indicates that he does not like it and his vote and recent comment indicates he wants a return of the 'looking away' image. "Even after IP75's excellent photoshopping efforts, I'm still bothered by the middle "fuzzy" picture -- the "ALIN" and the strange hand in the background don't look professional at all. Also, the picture is really zoomed-out due to the wide crop, so it's harder to see her face, unlike the other two photos...". Since the new version was only there for about thirty minutes and counting ourselves four editors preferred it, I think we should revert back to it until we have a consensus. '''IP75''' ] (]) 05:44, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

:::::::::You are free to revert the image at the top of the article to your most recent narrowly-cropped version, but I think that would just lead to a pointless revert war, with the end result being that a completely different picture might be put at the top of the article. Alternatively, you could put your most recent narrowly-cropped version at the talk page for discussion.

:::::::::At this point, like I said, I think most editors prefer the wider crop of this image to the narrow crop. Also note the comment below (on this talk page) by Wasted Time R, who says the head size in the current photo is not a problem; the problem is image quality. If you'd rather not spend time upgrading the image currently at the top of the article, that's understandable since you've already spent a lot of time on this whole thing. On the other hand, I'm sure you could greatly improve the quality of the image that's now at the top of the article, because you clearly have great photoshop skills. Cheers.] (]) 15:31, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

::::::::::Putting the images on the talk page for discussion seems like the best option at this point. If the current wider crop remains, I will work on it when I have more time. Thanks, '''IP75''' ] (]) 16:39, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

:::::::::::OK, I put it at the talk page. Good luck! :-)] (]) 17:05, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

== Palin pix ==

The top pix on the article now isn't sharp, I would gong it on that grounds, not the head size. But then again I think having three pictures in the article of her being overseas (Kuwait, German) is total misleading BS. I had been to twice as many countries by the age of ten as she has now. ] (]) 01:31, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

:Only one pic now indicates that she's on foreign soil. As for your history of childhood globetrotting, I'm sure that you would not be much worse off without it (maybe better off!).] (]) 02:41, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

== Would appreciate your comment ==

at ]. Am posting this RFC to you and MastCell for balance. Cheers. ] (]) 20:55, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

::Yes, I can't say that Mastcell and I are on the same side of much.] (]) 02:38, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

== Please don't make it personal ==

You know that everything I write on Palin is strictly based on sources.] (]) 13:41, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
::Of course.] (]) 02:37, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

==thank you==
Thank you for your advice and comments on my user talk page. I am not particularly interested in John McCain (or Barack Obama) so I anticipate my involvement as minimal. The dates as Congressman, however, strike me as either inaccurate or confusing.

The Lebanon vote was brought up because I knew it before and thought it was an omission. Later, John McCain brought it up in the debates which probably sends some people scurrying to Misplaced Pages (and to find nothing mentioned) so I put it in. I don't mind others editing it because it just confirms the wisdom of my putting it in in the first place. ] (]) 02:41, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

==Bridge Again==

Hey Ferrylodge, I think it was you (correct me if I'm wrong) who removed the reason WHY the Knik Arm bridge has also been called the bridge to nowhere ("Don Young's Way" and the land owned by Young and Stephens family and associates on the other side of the bridge.) That didn't take a lot of space and it explained exactly why the Knik Arm bridge has been so criticized. Yet you've left in two sentences that appear to me to be virtually identical and therefore redundant:

According to the Alaska Department of Transportation & Public Facilities, the project's goal was to "provide better service to the airport and allow for development of large tracts of land on the island".The goal of the Gravina project, according to the Alaska Department of Transportation & Public Facilities, was to "provide better service to the airport" than the current ferry that serves 350,000 passengers per year, and "allow for development of large tracts of land on the island."

So two mostly repetitive sentences -- and support the idea the Gravina bridge was not to nowhere -- you've left in, while the only sentence that criticizes the Knik Arm bridge you took out. I was wondering if you could elucidate the reasons for your decision, if it was your decision.] (]) 17:08, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

::Can you please provide a diff of an edit of mine that you think was problematic? That would help me to focus on it. Thanks.] (]) 20:11, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

==What needs citing==
] says "All quotations and any material '''challenged or likely to be challenged'''" need to be verified. That bolding is in the original. That means obvious and undisputed facts, which nobody is really challenging, do not need to be cited. And tendentious challenges don't count. It may not ''hurt'' to cite them, except that by doing so one feeds the trolls. And I do think that excessive referencing of obvious facts does harm the encyclopaedia. When I see an article that contains such references, I think that it must be written by some school kid who hasn't quite got the hang of what needs to be supported with references and what doesn't. -- ] (]) 19:55, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

== accusation on talk: sarah palin ==

Alert. On Talk: Sarah Palin see:
:"Looking through the edit history, I can also see that Ferrylodge had a burst of activity nearly coincident with YoungTrigg's, that day/night before the announcement. This included polishing the blatant POV pushing / borderline crystal-balling original research YoungTrigg was posting. It suggests the possibility that Ferry, despite having an established Wiki account and a history of working on that article, may also have been a campaign operative preparing for the big announcement. That certainly concerns me.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 05:26, 30 September 2008 (UTC) "
I think this may violate WP policies? ] (]) 11:50, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

::Thanks for the info. I replied there.] (]) 15:01, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

:::Hello, Ferrylodge. I may have over-stepped proper WikiPedia behavior and for that I apologize. It was never my intent to imply that your early editing at Sarah Palin was underhanded or devious. It was just something I noticed almost a month ago. I felt like a detective that had uncovered a golden nugget of info. So, right from the start, I felt that the article was in good hands...on both sides. And that is the point that collect misses in defense of his/her position (that there are no "official" spokepersons involved)
:::Both sides are here. I can't help it ...that's what I think. I don't think I am out of line. But, what may be out of line is how my comments may be misinterpreted regarding you. You are a safe-guarder of the page. You just happenned to get here before others! Sorry if I stepped on your toes.--] (]) 02:56, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

::::No problem.] (]) 00:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

==Palin asking librarian about censoring==
Hi - Thank you for your good faith contribuations. The section of this article as you edited it is misleading. It fools the reader into thinking that Palin merely "did not think the book belonged there" and doesn't indicate her query regarding the librarian's thoughts on censorship. Please stop removing important content, or edit the section such that it is no longer misleading (as I had done, with unimpeachable references). Thank you ] (]) 23:21, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

::Sorry, but I believe you are way off base about this. You wanted to insert the following sentence into the section about her city council service: "The ] reported (September 4, 2008) that after becoming mayor, Palin 'asked the city librarian if she would be all right with censoring library books should she be asked to do so.'" I reverted. My edit summary stated: "Please don't put information about her mayoralty into the section on city council. This info is already in mayor section."

::Palin served as Mayor '''''after''''' she was on the city council. The section on her mayoralty has long contained the following language: "According to city librarian Mary Ellen Emmons, Palin inquired in October 1996 as to whether Emmons would object to library censorship." It would be redundant and undue weight to include this virtually identical information twice in the article, and it would be false and misleading to put it in the city council section given that the information is pertinent to her time as mayor rather than on city council. I don't know how much more clear I can be about this.] (]) 03:00, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

::: Agreed, thanks! ] (]) 22:16, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

== Thanks ==

Thanks for defending my position in the discussion "Yankee Division Highway", during my absence. Unfortunately, I can't always be near my computer. I like to think I can make one statement and have it taken at face value, but it appears that some read only the parts they like. Thanks again.] (]) 00:39, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

::Sure, no problem. :)] (]) 08:17, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

== unfair ==

FL, would you please strike this out:
:::::::That statement by Slrubinstein is very very wrong. If editors believe that inserting some material would violate ] or ] or some other policy, then the material should not be put into the article without consensus. Failure to adhere to this very simple principle can turn Misplaced Pages into a very unpleasant experience for everyone, as you are demonstrating again and again and again.] (]) 05:04, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
You make a charge against me that is false, I did not way what you say I said. ] | ] 18:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

::I've replied at the article talk page. No offense intended.] (]) 19:22, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - I assumed you either had the name wrong or the link wrong. I don't mind anyone disagreeing with me!! But I couldn't respond when it wasn't clear. ] | ] 19:35, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

== techman9 ==

Saw you reverted his vandalism before i could. Mind if I give a warning, or were you going to?--] (]) 23:59, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

::Sure, go ahead. I usually do, but it wasn't very outrageous. I should have, but have been busy. Thanks.] (]) 00:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
:::Done, IP's sometimes I let slide myself, but once You register I believe you need to straighten up quick. Good editing to you.--] (]) 00:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
::::Good advice. Thanks, and good editing to you too. :-) ] (]) 00:13, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

== Thanks ==

I'm just getting to know Misplaced Pages a bit, so I've encountered frustrating obstructions and seemingly endless dramas. Even so, many of the most contentious articles have a lot of good balanced content in them. So I am somewhat in awe when I see what it takes to achieve this, but obviously devoted editors like yourself have a lot to do with it. Thanks. I'm off to write new articles on Levi Johnston, The Rape Kit Controversy, Aerial Hunting and Excorcisms in Politics Today...(] (]) 18:50, 14 October 2008 (UTC))

::Nice to hear from you, thanks. Editing here is kind of like self-], which actually is still very common in the Philippines and Latin America. Some monastic orders (e.g. the Carmelites) still practice it using a "discipline", which is a cattail whip made of light chains with small spikes or hooks on the end; they fling it over the shoulders repeatedly during private prayer. :-)] (]) 19:40, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

==FAQ==
Hey, Ferrylodge. I don't get what you want me to notice in FAQ at the McCain page. I know your trying to help me learn something but I'm missing the lesson. What did you want me to focus on? Thanks--] (]) 22:25, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

::The second question in the FAQ seemed to address some of your concerns.] (]) 02:37, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
:::Got it! Excellent! I must have clicked wrongly before. Great tool. Did you do the entries? --] (]) 17:13, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

::::I just did a small part of the FAQ. Glad it works for you.] (]) 17:30, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

==Have we been on the same "side" lately??==
Hi Ferrylodge, it seems that we have been in some agreement lately? Didn't we butt heads awhile back over at Fox news or maybe elsewhere? Anyways, none of that matters, as it shouldn't, since hopefully we want to improve this project and keep it free of persons pushing agendas. Anyways, thanks for your efforts and take care......until we disagree, of course, and then I'll take back everything nice I said :) Cheers! --] 20:34, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
::Not sure about the history. We'll have to investigate sometime. :-)] (]) 20:46, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

== Your opinion on NPOV ]? TAKE TWO ==

Please post at talk, thanks.] (]) 03:36, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

== Request for opinion ==

Would you mind looking at this AfD My contention is that this is a fan-boy piece about a totally non-notable candidate whose sole claim to fame is that he is running against a guy who used Obama's middle name (gasp) at a Palin rally. One editor keeps trying to make the focus of the article that "evil" use of the name "Hussein" because otherwise, nobody would even know who Christian Maister is. ] (]) 23:59, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

::Sorry I didn't get around to this. Looks like you got the result you were after.] (]) 02:36, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

== Palin comments ==

The last edit I made on the board was a mistake...I thought I was removing the section for which there was no consensus to add.

On a different topic, I find your note to me on my talk page to be quite aggressive and presumptive. Instead of assuming why I did things and what I think, you could ask. I have made my opinions on the matter clear on the talk page, though I understand that my incorrect edit would be confusing.] (]) 16:00, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

::My note to you '''''did''''' ask:

::<blockquote>Hi, I'm not quite sure I understand this edit of yours. Are you saying that the material in question (which I inserted and then subsequently removed) can be reinserted (by yourself) without any resolution at the talk page, even though it cannot be removed (by me) without any resolution at the talk page? Why is it that you're insisting I have no ability to revert myself? Insertion of the material was part of a compromise at the talk page, and the compromise involved removal of the POV tag. Why do you think it's necessary to keep the material in the article even though the POV tag has now been reinserted?</blockquote>

::Thanks for your reply.] (]) 17:09, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


:::And for clarity, I think the material should be omitted and the POV tag should be deleted.] (]) 17:35, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

::::OK, thanks for the clarification.] (]) 18:48, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

== 3RR ==

Hate to tell ya, but I've detailed your most recent 3RRs (twice this week), over . Good luck. ] (]) 18:09, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

::Next time will be less frivolous, I hope?] (]) 02:34, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

== Lack of civility ==

Recently when writing a comment about one of my edits, which introduced a minor inaccuracy, you placed my name "Factchecker" in quotes. The obvious intention was to question my reliability by suggesting it is ironic that I have "Factchecker" as a name, but accidentally introduced something that was partially factually incorrect.

This is only about the 100th incident of dripping sarcasm on your part that I've noticed, and I would absolutely love it if you would stop and make some attempt at treating me (and other editors) civilly.

And anyway: at least the mistake I made was in the course of making a substantive edit. I can think of at least one occasion where Collect introduced factual inaccuracies as a result of ''playing around with sentence structure''. After he complained that the passage was too long and I said that I had not found a way to make it shorter while maintaining NPOV, he mangled it up, introducing new factual errors, and smugly (and sarcastically) commented on the talk page about how easy it had been to do, without apparent irony at the fact that he had turned factual material into false material.

Your own edit history contains some questionable conduct, too. So, in addition to asking you to drop the snarky ad hominem comments, I'd like to remind you about people who live in glass houses. Thanks.] (]) 19:51, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

:A diff would help.] (]) 18:55, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

== FC ==

Our colleague is making statements which I think are inapt in ] under "is Palins position ..." As the colleague is bringing up his charges against you again, I thought you might like to be apprised of his posts. I think he does not quite appreciate my "thanks". ] (]) 22:13, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

::Thanks for the info Collect. I'll pass this time around.] (]) 02:33, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

== Palin's college career ==

Revision as of 00:04, 27 October 2008
Ferrylodge (Talk | contribs)
(→Early life and education: Source says friends went with her to Hawaii, but I don't see that they went with her to Idaho.)

They did, but the change you made is fine. But if you want warmer temperatures, low tuition, and student-oriented profs, go to Southeastern Louisiana University in Hammond. ] (]) 04:30, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

::I'm a bit past that stage of my life. You should have told me 25 years ago! :-)] (]) 15:05, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

== 3RR at ] ==

Hi Ferrylodge - just wanted to provide a friendly (and probably unneeded) reminder that you're sitting at three reversions in the last 24 hours at ], and that a fourth will be a 3RR violation. Cheers, ] (]) 20:19, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

:Thanks, I've got an eye on that.] (]) 20:27, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

== Dashboard ==

Hey, Ferrylodge. I was not aware of the dashboard. It appears to be outside of the project. I'm assuming any article can be dashboarded. I'm interested in statistics. Could you give me a little how-to on the feature? Thanx. --] (]) 01:12, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

:Hey Evb-wiki. I hardly ever use the dashboard, so I really don't know much about it. If you ever want to use it, just google "wikidashboard". Then just type in the article you're interested in. Cheers.] (]) 01:14, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

::Cool. Ya learn sumpin' new everyday. Thx agin. --] (]) 01:19, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

== ] discussion (Nov. 4) ==

Your name was brought up at ] as a main editor of ]. In particular, there is some support for having a double "Today's Featured Article" of McCain and Obama (see
]) on Nov. 4 or Nov. 5

There are some serious issues here inlcuding Obama being on TFAR 4 years ago, no precedent for a double TFAR, likely vandalism, various alledged biases, ...

If you wanted to nominate this, your nomination (especially if you haven't had a previous TFAR) might be the key. On the other hand, if you were opposed, that might have a major effect as well.

It's an interesting idea and I'd be glad to see what you think.

] (]) 15:33, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

::Thx, I commented there.] (]) 02:31, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

== RE: Candidate Article Protection ==

{{Talkback|L'Aquatique}}

== Wrong subarticle on the Pinochet draft ==

ssia ] (]) 01:44, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

::Thx, I moved it.] (]) 02:32, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

== Just a friendly reminder ==

I saw your Sarah Palin edit summary, and though that I'd just let you know that it's spelled "lead", not "lede". Best regards, ♪]]]♪ 17:33, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

::They're both okay.] (]) 17:37, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

== Links ==

Oops! Looks like I got carried away with the wikify tool. Thanks, I'll remove some of the excess links. ♪]]]♪ 21:43, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

::All's well that ends well.] (]) 02:32, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

== Good work! ==

{| style="border: 1px solid gray; background-color: #fdffe7;"
|rowspan="2" valign="middle" | ]
|rowspan="2" |
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''The Barnstar of Diligence'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | I may not always agree with you on everything, but your dedication to this project, particularly in the area of articles related to this year's presidential election, is unmistakable. Even though that area has so much drama, you still keep on keeping on, and I really appreciate that. ]]] 02:22, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
|}

::Neato! Thanks. I think I got a half barnstar once, but never a full one. Fortunately, I won't have to keep keeping on much longer! :-)] (]) 02:26, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

== AWESOME !! ==
{| style="border: 1px solid gray; background-color: #ffff00;"
|rowspan="2" valign="middle" | ]
|rowspan="2" |
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;"| <font color="magenta">'''The Barnstar of Awesomeness'''</font>
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 6px solid cyan;" | Amazing accomplishment. 'Nuff said. All the best, ] (]) 23:31, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
|}

: PS, archive the McCain talk page? ] (]) 23:46, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

::Hi Sandy, thanks so much for the barnstar. :-) I don't know much about archiving so can I leave that up to you? It doesn't seem like the McCain article is full-protected yet, but I expect it probably will be soon.] (]) 23:50, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

::: Raul will get to it soon. I hesitate to archive a page I'm not involved with, since I don't know what is still active. I'll leave a note there. Hold on to your hat :-) ] (]) 23:51, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

== Palin ==

Please do not do anything like this again, or I will block you. This page will be one of our top 10 hits in the next 36 hours. Deliberately inserting unencyclopedic content is beneath you. ] (]) 06:28, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

::I don't intend to do it again. However, the whole sentence is ]. None of the cited sources point out her use of the term. They simply quote it among lots of other stuff she said. So what I wrote was 100% accurate. I started a talk page thread about it, from which the motives of other editors are very clear.] (]) 06:31, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

:::I intended to ask your opinion regarding a current talk page topic on the ] page. However, I couldn't help but notice the exchange above. I have to say, that's the most ironically accurate, amusing case of ] I've ever seen. My night will undoubtedly be better now :) <b><font face="Arial" color="1F860E">]</font><font color="20038A"><sup>]<font face="Arial" color="1F860E">]</font></sup></font></b> 02:46, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

::::Well, it was election day. Everyone was a bit tense. :-)] (]) 02:52, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

== MoS: First Sentences - Format ==
"Use as few links as possible before and in the bolded title. Thereafter, words used in a title may be linked to provide more detail."
Therefore, not only are links within the lead paragraph not prohibited, but links within the bold text rephrasing the title of the article may be used, as reasonable. I hope you find this instructive. ] (]) 20:22, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
::Did I ever say that links within the lead paragraph are prohibited?] (]) 00:28, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

== Palin article for 'good article' class ==

Hi Ferry, I don't think it would take much to get Palin to good article class. Thought I would let you know, ] (]) 11:14, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
:Thanks for the info. Maybe I'll get to it later.] (]) 02:53, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

==Markham Robinson==
What makes Markham Robinson an elector? He may have been a ''candidate'' for elector, but since the American Independent Party doesn't get any electoral votes from California, he can't be called an elector. He ''is'', however, Chairman of the AIP, so I've added that information to the Alan Keyes article. <font family="Arial">]'']''</font> 21:22, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
::The Keyes lawsuit and Markham Robinson were mentioned in that Misplaced Pages article before I ever edited it. You're correct that Robinson is a candidate for elector rather than an elector.] (]) 21:34, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

== Opinion on footnotes ==

Hey Ferrylodge, it's good to talk to you again. I've been working on the ] article pretty recently and now it's up for GA. The reviewer moved all the footnotes within one sentence to the end of that sentence. Many sentences had multiple footnotes which supported different parts of the sentence. By moving them all to the end, readers and editors are unable to know which cite supports what in the sentence. I asked him why and he said it was to make it more "FA worthy", or something along those lines (see ]). I know that the Reagans and Pat Nixon don't have all the footnotes at the end of the sentences and I remember some discussion regarding this at John McCain. If it's not too troubling, could I get your opinion on the matter? My best, ] (]) 00:23, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

::Replied at your talk page. Cheers.] (]) 01:20, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
:::Thanks man. I'll talk to you sometime soon, hopefully :) --] (]) 01:28, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

== ] today ==

Well, fine. I'll check further after the Holydays.
Happy Holydays, --] (]) 23:54, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

== POV tag at Fetus ==

Hi; I saw that you replaced the POV tag at ]. I understand that you feel that there is an unresolved situation at the article. I feel that for a POV tag to remain on a page for over two months with no discussion -- that this is not a great situation. I feel that it is best to use the POV tag to indicate an active dispute at an article, and that in order for the tag to remain, there must be ongoing attempts to come to a state of resolution. Certainly, feel free to revisit the issues at Talk, but I ask that you will not replace the POV tag if you are not also taking steps to resolve the dispute. Thanks, ] (]) 16:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

:Regarding the POV tage at the ] article, I have made attempts to reesolve the dispute, as you can see at the talk page. Other editors such as yourself have not participated, and therefore the dispute is presently at a stalemate. My most recent comments at the talk page have not been responded to either by yourself or by any other editor.

:Please consider this comment at your talk page a further effort to resolve the dispute. The tag should not be removed if there is a legitimate ongoing POV dispute. Another editor has unilaterally declared that ] is not a reliable source, without citing any source in support of that position, which I find amazing. Even more amazing to me is that no other editors besides myself have weighed in about it at the article talk page. I will restore the tag, because there most definitely is an ongoing POV dispute.] (]) 18:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

::Thank you for your response. I see that you have attempted to rekindle the discussion at Talk, this is appropriate for the replacement of the tag. I hope that the matter will be resolved. If the matter continues to go unresolved, I encourage you to avail yourself of the avenues for ] that are available to all Wikipedians, as I cannot be available to weigh in on this matter as you requested. ] (]) 18:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

== Statute 883.176 ==

Taking this off the Obama talk page since it's more a trip of intellectual curiosity than anything. There is no statute 883.176, but I'm assuming they just got the statute wrong because there is a 338.17.8 that covers the issuance of birth certificates for children born outside of Hawai'i. So while it is possible to request a birth certificate for a child born outside of Hawai'i, the birth location on the short form birth certificate would not list Honolulu as the birth location. That being said, according to 338.15/16 it is possible to alter a birth certificate if suitable evidence is presented to support such a claim. Of course, it doesn't actually list what evidence is needed to make the alteration. --] <sup>]</sup> 20:13, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

::Hi Bobblehead. I had not looked up any of these statutes, and was merely quoting from the Keyes brief. You're right though, it appears that there is not presently a Hawaii statute 883.176. If that statute did not exist in 1961 either, then it appears the Keyes brief was sloppily drafted.

::What does seem to be clear and indisputable is that a long-form Hawaii birth certificate from the early 1960s did contain a "Box 7c" that mentions a foreign location. But that appears to be the location of the mother's usual address, rather than the location of birth.

::The statute mentions registration of foreign births, but it was enacted in the 1980s. Not sure if it had a predecessor statute. If that happened, then one would think the 2007 short-form would not say he was born in Hawaii.

::In any case, I suppose that Obama's original long-form might indicate a home-birth or something like that which could fuel the suspicion that maybe he had been born abroad and registered later to avoid the hassle of naturalization. Not that there's any solid proof of that.] (]) 20:48, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

== ] ==

Ferrylodge. I'd really like to close that thread since it is leading nowhere right now and can be opened up again anytime when needed but I won't do it without approval of more than one editor involved. Can I get yours for now? And by the way, I guess we can somehow agree that ] is just forum soaping and not really helpful but rather doing the opposite of his intend?--] (]) 21:05, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm watching your talk so please answer here (to keep it together). I call it "clean-keeping" :) --] (]) 21:13, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

::As I mentioned at that talk page, I don't see any harm in keeping the thread open. It only started a few hours ago. What's wrong with letting it archive automatically? I don't intend to keep commenting right now, and of course you don't have to either.

::If that thread gets out of hand, then I could support closing the thread. However, that talk page is not being inundated with comments. I much prefer letting other people have their say, rather than terminating things. Other editors may come along with usefull things to say. Thanks for your concern, but I cannot call a thread stale that has been going on for only a few hours.] (]) 21:31, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

:::Ok. Fine with me. I'll leave it open for now.--] (]) 22:16, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

::::Guess I made a mistake. Won't happen again.--] (]) 00:25, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

*"''You think that mentioning creationism at the Evolution article is not relevant? I'm trying to show Scjessey that notable fringe theories not only can but must be mentioned if they are sufficiently notable.''"
:Then show him on his talk page where it belongs. Thanks and no hard feelings, --] (]) 01:15, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

::I've replied at your talk page.] (]) 01:37, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

:::I have a short reply for you here: --] (]) 00:44, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

== Linking to the conspiracy BS article ==

Rather than just trying to shove it in anywhere you can get away with, why not responsibly edit these instead?
*]
*]
-- ] (]) 15:54, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

::Well, thanks very much for that information. It's exactly what I've been hoping you would provide. Cheers.] (]) 16:20, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

**About your recent edit at ] :

:I'm in favor of your solution and should there any objection coming up please let me know on my talk page (in case I miss it) to throw in my 2 cent support. I'm asking you for notification so there won't be allegations of improper canvassing. Thanks,--] (]) 15:15, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

::Okay, will do, thanks.] (]) 15:36, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

== December 2008 ==
] Welcome to Misplaced Pages. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, {{#if:Natural-born citizen| including your edits to ],}} but we cannot accept ]. Original research also encompasses novel, unpublished syntheses of previously published material. Please be prepared to cite a ] for all of your information. {{#if:|{{{2}}}|Thank you.}}<!-- Template:Uw-nor1 --> ] (]) 16:21, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

::See .] (]) 16:40, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

== Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories ==

You caught me altering a quote. I didn't notice that it was a quote. My apologies and thank-you for catching it. ] (]) 09:39, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
:No problem, I figured it was an innocent mistake. Thanks for your note.] (]) 09:41, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Reading through this article and its history, as just another Misplaced Pages lover, I wanted to offer you my thanks and appreciation for the contributions you've made. It's a loaded topic and tends to elicit some pretty emotional opinions all the way around. Your efforts have risen above pure emotion and you've objectively gathered and organized facts and added greatly to the overall worthiness of the article. If someone is looking for a reasonable and accurate review of the topic, you have helped give it to them. You have my respect. ] (]) 21:14, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

:Thanks very much for the note. We'll see how long it lasts. Misplaced Pages stuff is very temporary, especially when there are efforts to slant an article.] (]) 21:53, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Fixed. ] (]) 23:36, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Have you seen ? ] (]) 16:58, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

::No, I hadn't seen that. But, I saw .] (]) 20:25, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I feel like a silly guy running around trying to warn everyone that they've been sprayed with a mind control drug and they just think I'm crazy. What are your thoughts? ] (]) 14:04, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

::My advice: seek a compromise. Allow "conspiracy" in the title, but also make it clear in the title that not everyone involved is a conspiracist.] (]) 17:15, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

:::Of course, I'm open to suggestions. Always have been. Perfectly willing to agree that that elements of the issue allege a conspiracy. But that's a far cry from labeling the entire article a conspiracy theory mostly for the purpose of derision. My proposal was "citizenship challenges and fringe theories". I figured that would acknowledge that some challenges are weak or have little support. And I don't agree that others wishing to retain the title are seeking a compromise. I think most folks, if they agree to acknowledge the issue at all, will do so only if the issue is painted with a thick coat of illegitimacy. Who knows, maybe I'm wrong. I've never been very good at convincing people against their will (or even concensus building for that matter). At any rate, if I see a proposal for title change that I think is accurate, I'll climb aboard. ] (]) 18:37, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

----

''It would clearly be a conspiracy if Obama, the DNC, his family, and Hawaii state officials all got together to lie about his past and forge a phony short-form birth certificate''

:You mentioned that in a recent post. If you're interested, I wrote this addressing this topic...

::''If things are not as advertised, certainly there may be other people who know for sure. Without a doubt his mother would have known. His grandmother would have probably have known. Close friends and relatives may know. But the idea that it requires great numbers of people to hide details that may be contained in documents sealed from public view is incorrect. Also, keep in mind the Hawaii Dept of Health said they have his "birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures". That's an interesting way to put it. To me all that says is they have his birth certificate... nothing more. Technically only Obama would have to misrepresent the truth and no one in the dept of health has conspired (they just don't confirm or deny anything). No one has to do much of anything... especially if there is no legal challenge compelling any action. Also, if I recall, there have been other documents that might shed some light on these things but Obama has chosen to keep those hidden as well. (I'm not sure specifically what those requested documents were... that's a gap in my knowledge of the matter... although some sort of school admission documents come to mind... don't quote me though) Add to that, there is virtually no checking by various organizations (DNC, FEC, SoS, etc) of any of this. So the notion that all this has been thoroughly checked by anyone is just plain not true. Without anything to compel him otherwise, Obama can just sit on the truth (assuming I'm not crazy and there is a truth for him to sit on) almost no one else is required.''

:Actually, as I re-read that, I didn't make the distinction between the types of birth certificate so someone reading it might think "factcheck inspected his birth certificate so Jbarta is full of crap". Oh well. I know ''you'' know the details. It's clear in my head... getting it out coherently and completely is not always so easy. Anyhow, it's late, I just posted several more responses and probably caused yet a little more angst and more people thinking I'm going to get "banned" as if this were some sort of a Quake chatroom. Anyhow I'm rambling... later.
] (]) 06:31, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

== Monegan photo ==
Ferrylodge, any chance falls under the OTRS permission you got before for Palin photos, or can you get permission for it? Looking for a photo for the Monegan article. ] <sup>]</sup> 17:09, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
::Yes, that photo definitely is covered by the permission.] (]) 17:46, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

:::May I? If you go here you can see the permission requirements below the image and her or her is the description which will help you to find the right license at commons.--] (]) 17:51, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

::::TMCK, we realized that the permission requirements at Flickr were inadequate, and therefore we contacted the owner of the images directly. She provided explicit permission via email to Wikimedia Commons. Thus, we are not relying on the permissions at Flickr, but rather on the permissions provided to OTRS.] (]) 17:54, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

::::::Funny thing. I intended to help and the result was ''I was helped'' (and have to admit I had no clue what an OTRS license means; Never used one). Thanks for clarifying, --] (]) 18:21, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

:::::::Sure, no problem, and Happy Holidays to both you and Kelly (not to Monegan, however :-)).] (]) 18:37, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

::::::::::Thanks and same to you guys and girls. May the Holiday spirit enlighten ''US'' (and of course the rest of the world) and thank you, Kelly, for serving our country.--] (]) 19:12, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

::::::::Did you hear he's running for ? And Democrats are as Palin's 2010 gubernatorial opponent? ] <sup>]</sup> 18:47, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

:::::::::Nope, I hadn't heard that until you mentioned it. His party affiliation is not very surprising.] (]) 20:17, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
::::::::::Yeah, I'm sure the fact that he will come up in the campaign. If the Democrats run him against Palin, they're basically admitting they've got no mojo. ] <sup>]</sup> 20:23, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
:Thanks, Ferrylodge - uploaded as ]. ] <sup>]</sup> 18:11, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

== Trig Thutherism ==
Slight change of subject here...I noticed above above that you've done some work with the Obama Birther conspiracy theorists. I was thinking about writing an article on Trig Trutherism. Its most notable proponent is ] and some things have been written about by ] and some of the other writers at ]. I'm just tossing the idea around in my mind (I wrote about the ] when it was still ''National Enquirer'' fodder and that was a difficult experience), but was curious about what you thought. Palin herself has talked about the allegations in interviews, which was making me think the conspiracy theory might be notable enough in itself for an article. ] <sup>]</sup> 20:35, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
:I just emailed you about it.] (]) 21:28, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

== Just curious ==

How did you come to see my remarks on Happyme22's talk page? Especially as he deleted them quickly. You think Christians have a duty to respect Realpolitik? I'd be interested to know which scripture you got that from. Are you a Christian? But then I am an unusual Christian I suppose. I also listen to free music. Seasonal greetings to you. ]&nbsp;] 13:11, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
:I have his talk page watch-listed. And I merely think that Christianity and Realpolitik are nor necessarily inconsistent with each other. Season's Greetings to you too.] (]) 17:21, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

== Any thoughts? ==

''']''' is pissing me off. My argument could be completely wrong, but an outside view would be nice :) Merry Christmas, ] (]) 00:45, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
::Sure thing. ] (]) 00:49, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

== Season's Greetings ==

] (]) 01:37, 27 December 2008 (UTC)]]


==Obama==
I responded ater reading the policy to which you linked. My reading of the policy might be incorrect. Perhaps we could discuss this and you could point out my error. I promise to look at what you say and read whatever you poit me towards with an open mind. We could discuss this amicably here or there if you agree. I do appreciate your tone at the talkpage, and hope we can open a dialogue on this issue.Cordially,] (]) 04:08, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
::Sounds good, thanks. I responded at the article talk page.] (]) 04:11, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 00:05, 19 November 2024


⚖️

Help with adding to Talk page

I would like to add a sentence to the Hunter Biden laptop controversy article. I see that you have made edits to the page. The page is protected, so I went to the Talk page

Talk:Hunter Biden laptop controversy

and clicked "Click here to start a new topic", then composed my suggestion. But when I click "Add topic", it just shows moving slanted lines for a second, and then gives up. I have tried this several times. What do I need to do to actually add the topic? Swan2024 (talk) 03:20, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

I reported the glitch at Misplaced Pages:Village_pump_(technical)#IP_editor(s)_cannot_edit_talk_pages. I assume you’re not a registered user, but if you become one then it will likely work for you. Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:07, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
I have a login, Swan2024, which I created several hours ago in case that was the reason I couldn't add the topic. Is that sufficient for "registered user"? Swan2024 (talk) 05:21, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
Should work without logging in, but almost certainly will work when you’re logged in, User:Swan2024. Good luck. The likely cause of your difficulty is that you were trying to add a topic with just one or two words in the header, and/or one or two words in your comment. Misplaced Pages requires more words from users who aren’t logged in, so as to filter out spam. Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:56, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Regarding Springfield, Ohio, cat-eating hoax

First, thank you for restoring the text I mistakenly removed. I have restored directly from Carguychris' edit. If you believe your version is better, than just revert my last two edits.

Regarding the neo-Nazi debate, here is my perspective. You made a claim there are not reliable sources, which was refuted. You made a claim that it was the media that amplified the hoax, which has not been proven outside unreliable sources like Fox News. When you provide your list of sources, then we can see your perspective and discuss. Until then, it looks like the three of us don't agree with your perspective. Alternatively, if you want to suggest alternative wording, then go ahead and do so. I already made one such change when you didn't agree with the word 'they' and am willing to work together on wording. I just am opposed to the removal of details about what happened. --Super Goku V (talk) 04:39, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

To explain why I didn't get your other ping and seemed to be ignoring your message, you put your signature on a newline. As noted at Template:Reply to, "he edit must be signed by adding ~~~~ to the end of the message." The system acted as if you had made two messages and ignored the ping to me in the first message. Hope that clears things up a bit. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:02, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
User:Super Goku V, thanks for visiting my user talk. Regarding nazis, please see WP:OPEN, which says, “The first paragraph should define or identify the topic with a neutral point of view, but without being too specific.” You say above that you’re “opposed to the removal of details about what happened.” But I don’t object to putting nazi details in the article body, or even later in the lead if people feel strongly about it. Just not in the opening paragraph. As far as I know, nazis had no effect on what happened in Springfield, nor any effect on what GOP politicians did. What a horror show Misplaced Pages’s articles on political events would become if they all began with commentary from the nazis on the left, and the Marxists on the right. Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:12, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
Sources say that neo-Nazi groups were spreading the message along with far-right groups. Given the prominence in reliable sources, we are following a Neutral point of view by mentioning it in the lede. As for the order of stuff, the only thing I could see that has a shot would be splitting off everything after the first sentence of the first paragraph into a new second paragraph and moving all of the old second paragraph into the first paragraph following the first sentence.

Starting in September 2024, baseless claims and rumors spread online that Haitian immigrants were stealing pets in Springfield, Ohio, and eating them. Springfield and county law enforcement said that no credible reports or evidence support the claims, and the city's mayor, the city manager, and Ohio Governor Mike DeWine have all denounced them. The claims were widely described as racist. Fact-checking website Snopes called the claims unfounded, while others characterized them as a hoax or a lie.
The claims began with a local Facebook group post sharing a neighbor's story that her daughter's friend's cat had been butchered, then spread quickly among far-right and neo-Nazi groups. These claims were amplified by prominent figures in the American right, most notably Republican vice-presidential nominee JD Vance whose constituency includes Springfield, then by his running mate Donald Trump, along with allies such as Laura Loomer, and X owner Elon Musk. The person whose Facebook story started the controversy later admitted she never spoke to the cat owner and admitted the story lacked credibility.
The pet-eating claims spread amid existing racial tensions in Springfield, where recent legal Haitian immigration reversed population decline, but strained some public resources. There had been previous incidents of hostility towards the local Haitian community and unfounded local rumors of Haitians stealing waterfowl and food. After the claims spread, dozens of bomb threats prompted Springfield officials to close public buildings, including the city hall and elementary schools, and DeWine deployed state police to conduct daily sweeps of the facilities.

I don't know if it could be considered an improvement or not as it waits until the second paragraph to explain what is debunked, though it does put more emphasis that the claims are false. Other than that, I don't have much of a suggestion outside of this other one:

Starting in September 2024, baseless claims and rumors spread online that Haitian immigrants were stealing pets in Springfield, Ohio, and eating them. The claims began with a local Facebook group post sharing a neighbor's story that her daughter's friend's cat had been butchered and rose to national prominence by Republican vice-presidential nominee JD Vance whose constituency includes Springfield, followed then by his running mate Donald Trump, along with allies such as Laura Loomer, and X owner Elon Musk. The person whose Facebook story started the controversy later admitted she never spoke to the cat owner and admitted the story lacked credibility.
Springfield and county law enforcement said that no credible reports or evidence support the claims, and the city's mayor, the city manager, and Ohio Governor Mike DeWine have all denounced them. The claims were widely described as racist and having been spread quickly among far-right and neo-Nazi groups in the area. Fact-checking website Snopes called the claims unfounded, while others characterized them as a hoax or a lie.
The pet-eating claims spread amid existing racial tensions in Springfield, where recent legal Haitian immigration reversed population decline, but strained some public resources. There had been previous incidents of hostility towards the local Haitian community and unfounded local rumors of Haitians stealing waterfowl and food. After the claims spread, dozens of bomb threats prompted Springfield officials to close public buildings, including the city hall and elementary schools, and DeWine deployed state police to conduct daily sweeps of the facilities.

If either of the two work for you, then go ahead and try it. --Super Goku V (talk) 07:58, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
Oh and I am Subscribed to this discussion, so feel free to ping or not as I will know either way. --Super Goku V (talk) 08:00, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
I always prefer being chronological where possible, which helps people to comprehend what happened, one step at a time. That’s why I generally like the opening paragraph as it stands now: it summarizes the major developments one step at a time, in a clear manner. Except that I just think the nazi detail needs to be moved lower in the lead or removed from the lead. As I explained here at my talk page, I am not aware that any nazis affected what happened in Springfield, or affected how GOP politicians reacted to the whole thing. When nazis spread rumors, they typically do so on nazi websites and other places where nazis hang out, but AFAIK they’re not able to spread rumors into the mainstream, and the latter might be significant if it happened, but I’m not aware that it did happen. Anythingyouwant (talk) 10:37, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
Understood. I did reply on the talk page about what they did in Springfield. As for lowering it in the lead, try it and see if it works. --Super Goku V (talk) 20:48, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in a research

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Misplaced Pages, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:27, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:05, 19 November 2024 (UTC)