| Revision as of 22:14, 2 December 2007 editBobblehead (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users35,705 edits →Obama fundraising: A little OR seems to indicate at least Edwards got a larger percentage of small donors.← Previous edit | Revision as of 21:10, 6 December 2007 edit undoSilence (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users12,687 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 29: | Line 29: | ||
| I don't see anywhere in the source that says the 29% of Obama's total 2nd quarter fund raising is a larger percentage than any other candidate. I see where it mentions the 29%, that Obama has the largest number of total donors above the $200 measure for the first 6 months, and the highest number of maximum donors, but I don't see anywhere in the source where it mentions the percentage he raised in comparison to total value is the largest. Can you point me to where it mentions it being the highest percentage? --] <sup>]</sup> 22:04, 2 December 2007 (UTC) | I don't see anywhere in the source that says the 29% of Obama's total 2nd quarter fund raising is a larger percentage than any other candidate. I see where it mentions the 29%, that Obama has the largest number of total donors above the $200 measure for the first 6 months, and the highest number of maximum donors, but I don't see anywhere in the source where it mentions the percentage he raised in comparison to total value is the largest. Can you point me to where it mentions it being the highest percentage? --] <sup>]</sup> 22:04, 2 December 2007 (UTC) | ||
| :A quick check of the numbers for John Edwards seems to indicate that Edwards had 33% of his total value for 2nd quarter from small donors. According to the Politico article Edwards raised $3 million from small donors in the 2nd quarter and according to this CNN article Edwards raised a total of $9 million in the second quarter, that's 33%.--] <sup>]</sup> 22:14, 2 December 2007 (UTC) | :A quick check of the numbers for John Edwards seems to indicate that Edwards had 33% of his total value for 2nd quarter from small donors. According to the Politico article Edwards raised $3 million from small donors in the 2nd quarter and according to this CNN article Edwards raised a total of $9 million in the second quarter, that's 33%.--] <sup>]</sup> 22:14, 2 December 2007 (UTC) | ||
| == Accidental mass revert == | |||
| You made a significant error in back in mid-October, when you attempted to revert a hatnote change I made but accidentally reverted all of my changes, including numerous pipelink and grammatical fixes to bring the early article more into accordance with the MoS. Please be more careful with reverting in the future, as I didn't notice your mislabeled change and my corrections might never have been re-implemented if I hadn't taken the time to carefully go back through the edit history archives. When in doubt, use "compare changes" to make sure you aren't altering more than you intend to. | |||
| Also, as it happens, your intended change in this case was probably not needed: ] is already listed under the more general disambiguation page ], which has the advantage of including more options people may be looking for should they misspell, for example, "Barak", "Barrack", or "Baraq" as "Barack". ] is thus a much better safety net for those users who are not certain of which spelling is correct for a certain term—especially considering that such foreign terms commonly have many variant spellings. One could even make the case that we would be wise to provide hatnote links not only to ], but also to ] and ]; however, I don't think that this is necessary so long as the latter two pages are linked in ] anyway, since we should avoid cluttering the top of the ] article. Your thoughts? -] (]) 21:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 21:10, 6 December 2007
IPs
This is a good reason in favor of sprot on high-visibility vandal-target articles, don't you think? What good would be the series of warnings and blocks that you favor in cases like this where different people are editing? Usernames, on the other hand, are at least accountable in some small way for the multiplicity of a person's edits. (It's a rhetorical question, although I am always interested in your thinking on this subject as our concerns seem to be quite different.) Cheers - off to watch the Yankees (gulp). Tvoz |talk 22:28, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
AIV report
You made a report at WP:AIV about four IPs vandalizing the Hillary Rodham Clinton article. However, when I checked their contributions, none of them had made recent edits. Either the warning messages worked, or they changed IP addresses. (I also checked the RDNS for their IP addresses, and it looks like there were different locations, like Massachusetts, Maryland, and Minnesota.) AIV is intended to stop vandals that are actively vandalizing or that are likely to vandalize again in the near future. I don't think blocking those four addresses would have prevented any further vandalism to Hillary Rodham Clinton. I understand your frustration, but there are times when blocks aren't always effective. --Elkman 03:35, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
mother's name
When did we go back to Stanley? I must have missed that - I mean, it is correct, but I thought we had abandoned it for the name she was more commonly known as. Your call - other than the annoyance of the likely reversions to Shirley, doesn't matter to me. Tvoz |talk 06:32, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
WP:UNDUE
I saw the reference to UNDUE. It applies only if someone wants to put a huge section on Cheney being Obama's cousin. 1 sentence is just right, even according to most people on the talk page. What's the big fuss on you trying to get rid of it? Even one person said "things you learn in wikipedia". The way you have it, people will not learn these things. The fact that they are cousins isn't saying that Obama is bad because his relative is Cheney.
It's just something that I learned which is why I put it. I'm really not that interested in your article (you put your name as being the co-head of the article). Member - Society of Dog Lovers 21:29, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- No one is getting rid of anything - it has already been included in the article footnotes which is appropriate weight. Same thing applies to the Cheney article. Tvoz |talk 07:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Obama fundraising
I don't see anywhere in the source that says the 29% of Obama's total 2nd quarter fund raising is a larger percentage than any other candidate. I see where it mentions the 29%, that Obama has the largest number of total donors above the $200 measure for the first 6 months, and the highest number of maximum donors, but I don't see anywhere in the source where it mentions the percentage he raised in comparison to total value is the largest. Can you point me to where it mentions it being the highest percentage? --Bobblehead 22:04, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- A quick check of the numbers for John Edwards seems to indicate that Edwards had 33% of his total value for 2nd quarter from small donors. According to the Politico article Edwards raised $3 million from small donors in the 2nd quarter and according to this CNN article Edwards raised a total of $9 million in the second quarter, that's 33%.--Bobblehead 22:14, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Accidental mass revert
You made a significant error in this edit back in mid-October, when you attempted to revert a hatnote change I made but accidentally reverted all of my changes, including numerous pipelink and grammatical fixes to bring the early article more into accordance with the MoS. Please be more careful with reverting in the future, as I didn't notice your mislabeled change and my corrections might never have been re-implemented if I hadn't taken the time to carefully go back through the edit history archives. When in doubt, use "compare changes" to make sure you aren't altering more than you intend to.
Also, as it happens, your intended change in this case was probably not needed: Barack (brandy) is already listed under the more general disambiguation page Barrack, which has the advantage of including more options people may be looking for should they misspell, for example, "Barak", "Barrack", or "Baraq" as "Barack". Barrack is thus a much better safety net for those users who are not certain of which spelling is correct for a certain term—especially considering that such foreign terms commonly have many variant spellings. One could even make the case that we would be wise to provide hatnote links not only to Barrack, but also to Baraq and Barak (disambiguation); however, I don't think that this is necessary so long as the latter two pages are linked in Barrack anyway, since we should avoid cluttering the top of the Barack Obama article. Your thoughts? -Silence (talk) 21:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)