Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:19, 1 May 2008

kinda funny

you're in the national media bitching out Andy for POV. hi-larious... 72.0.180.2 (talk) 06:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Blogs as sources

FYI in general, MSM blog entries are sometimes allowed as sources, see WP:V footnote 5. This has become common in this presidential election, e.g. MSNBC's FirstRead, the NY Times' The Caucus, and others of that ilk are okay to use. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:01, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Look at something like this. It's a straight NYT news story, not an opinion piece, but it happens to be filed under their politics blog. Same with this. There's no reason these can't be used as WP:RS. That's the trend that footnote 5 is covering. I'm not saying this with respect to any particular edit you've made, just as a general FYI, because some editors are under the impression that nothing ever associated with a blog is allowed. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Review of Barack Obama's status as a featured article

Barack Obama has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Stifle (talk) 17:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I like how we get no answer to this. Pathetic. Grsz 11 18:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you mean...

"when God created the Big Bang" (lol) 72.0.180.2 (talk) 21:39, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

well it's common sense that if God created Nascar then He (definitely a he) must have also invented the big bang. but I know thats a little pov. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 21:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Socks

I think I'm gonna head to Wal-Mart and look for socks, wanna help? Grsz11 16:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Innocent until proven guilty

Is that the standard we are using for rezko, as far as descriptive words like tainted or now-indicted? 72.0.180.2 (talk) 21:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Obama concerns

Hi there. As an editor who seems to watch the page closely, I wonder if I can get your comments on some of the issues I left on the talk page; I know that you have commented on some of them and I thank you.

I just find it appauling that not many of the concerns are even considered "concerns" by some editors. Thanks for your time. Best, Happyme22 (talk) 02:51, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I'm a non-admin helper at the 3RR noticeboard. I've posted a comment there noting that the 3RR policy says that multiple reverts may not constitute a breach of the policy if they are "reverts to remove clearly libelous material, or unsourced or poorly sourced controversial material about living persons (see Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons);". This seems to me to apply in this case, although that's just my opinion. Thanks for keeping unsourced and poorly-sourced statements out of the article. You might want to consider listing the article at Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard to get more people helping. --Coppertwig (talk) 23:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Re your message at the 3RR page: I wouldn't worry too much about that 3RR report, because you have both BLP exemption and the fact that quite a bit of time has passed since your last revert, each of which would probably be a reason in itself for admins not to block you. However, as a point of information for future reference – and I'm just giving you this information in an attempt to be helpful – note that the 3RR rule applies per editor per page: you might be reverting 4 different things from 4 different other editors and it would still be a violation if it's within a 24-hour period.

Also, the fact that you hadn't received a recent warning is generally not considered an excuse either. It's considered courteous to warn a user, but not necessary unless they're a new user who might never have heard of the 3RR. Once you've been warned once, you're supposed to monitor your own reverts and can be blocked without warning -- though in some cases some admins might not block if there had been no warning in the specific situation, I suppose. 3RR warnings from a long time in the past are sometimes referred to to demonstrate that the user has knowledge of the 3RR, and I think these are generally accepted (or even other evidence of knowledge, such as you mentioning the 3RR yourself.) The WP:3RR policy doesn't say there has to be a warning.

Hmm. In the example report at the bottom of the 3RR noticeboard page, it used to say that the diff of 3RR warning was required for new users; now it doesn't say that. But I assume that's still the case. Or perhaps each admin has their own way of taking into account whether there was a warning or not.

Anyway, that's my understanding of how it works. --Coppertwig (talk) 01:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, Stifle has declined the 3RR report and upheld the BLP interpretation for 2 of your edits. --Coppertwig (talk) 11:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

...although there's continuing discussion there. --Coppertwig (talk) 13:20, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

And I am not taking futher action, but please be very careful when editing a high-visibility page like that one. Stifle (talk) 14:59, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Damn, that was fast

My effort to give proportionate NPOV coverage in the Barack Obama article to the Wright and Obama contgroversies lasted exactly two minutes. There's a very good reason why people like Andyvphil, Happyme22 and TheGoodLocust have accused you of whitewashing the article. That revert is a perfect illustration of the reason. Consider the results of the Featured Article review. Kossack4Truth (talk) 23:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't hate Obama. I hate efforts to elevate him to some sort of sainthood in this article. There is no criticism in it. None whatsoever. Kossack4Truth (talk) 23:28, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Dealing with nuissances

In light of this edit, I propose either one of two options:

1. Some sort of report on him citing his edits and his disruptive behavior on the talk page, so an admin can deal with it, not us.

or

2. We agree simply not to acknowledge any post of his containing any unwarranted negativity/complaints of Obama or his article (and especially any mentions of POV or bias), or any other post from him that detracts from progress on the article or discussion thereof.

2 would be easy to do. The only problem for 1 is that I don't know where to report this to (but would like to know). It certainly wouldn't be hard to compile his edits for a report, that's for sure. --Ubiq (talk) 18:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me he is using a single-purpose account - to be a dick. Hope you don't mind my two cents. Grsz11 18:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Replied at User talk:Ubiq#The Plague of Locust -- Scjessey (talk) 19:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree with some things you said. I'm too against a silencing of him. Ideally, he'd find a way to stop/change his behavior, and start actually contributing to wikipedia as a whole. But somehow I don't see that happening unless something miraculous happens. I see no problem in ceasing from enabling him though in cases where his posts do nothing to contribute to the improvement of the article. No problem on the 3rr support, I'd be utterly shocked to see some sort of punitive action against you for that. --Ubiq (talk) 02:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Barack Obama

Please explain to me in what way this is a silly edit? It better be good.--Dr who1975 (talk) 01:39, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

It didn't warrant discussion on Hillary Clinton, John McCain, Ted Kennedy, Joe Biden, Robert Byrd, Ted Stevens, etc. So why does it warrant discussion There. I don't see why this would be complicated at all. --Dr who1975 (talk) 13:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure user:Johnpseudo reverted it because you called it silly... it's hard to tell because he didn;t give an explanation.--Dr who1975 (talk) 14:38, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I've worked on a new version of the Wright paragraph in Barack Obama, and I'd be interested in your thoughts at Talk:Barack Obama#New attempt by Josiah. Thanks. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Just in case you miss my edit summary of your tweak. --Bobblehead 21:11, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

In answer to your question here and the subsequent one to move "government" outside the quote, that's kind of a "grey area" in that those two words are actually used in the quote and the implication of moving them outside the quotes is that they are not. I understand why you are trying to get rid of the square brackets, but it really is common practice to use the brackets to denote the minor editorial change to the quote and to leave it at that. Heck, the quote they use in WP:QUOTE for when to use a quote does the same thing. --Bobblehead 21:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

And I totally agree with your opinion, btw. --Bobblehead 21:37, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

3RR for Andy

See: --Bobblehead 17:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

thanks on Obama article

yes, i knew the tool had a bug about inserting nbsp into the links but it also changed some of the letters from caps to lower case which you have now reverted. You've got beady eyes, you must really be watching this page closely. After you bringing to my attention, I now know about this other bug and thanks for not reverting the other edits. Tom (talk) 15:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Updating external links

I got told off for not checking each solution when using this on other articles so be careful but it should help if used wisely: . Tom (talk) 13:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Inclusion of Farrakhan endorsement of Obama

I feel your removal of Louis Farrakhan's endorsement of Barack Obama is not coming from a NPOV perspective. Louis Farrakhan is a longtime national leader of a well-know organization Nation of Islam. Both are noteworthy and have very detailed articles on wikipedia. This is a noteworthy endorsement. Also, Louis Farrakah is a significant well respected figure in his community and his endorsement does carry weight. Farrakhan's endorsement of Obama is more meaningful and will have more impact then the endorsement of ,Wouter Bos, Minister of Finance and deputy prime minister of The Netherlands, Toshio Murakami, Mayor of Obama, Japan, Fredrik Reinfeldt, Prime Minister of Sweden, which are listed under the foreign endorsements section of the Barack Obama presidential endorsements article. If the endorsements of Obama by these foreign leaders is noteworthy, how is Farrakan's endorsement not noteworthy. Fararakn is very much more noteworthy in the context of a US presidential elections and US new outlets have covered this story (as a referenced Chicago Tribune, MSNBC, and ABC. Please let me know. Very much appreciated. It is me i think (talk) 23:01, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

About notability

Hi, Scjessey. I've noticed that you've recently been reverting some editorial additions with the justification "per WP:NN". That's not appropriate — the notability guideline is about whether a topic is of sufficient importance to merit an individual article on Misplaced Pages, not about whether individual details can be included in an article. See WP:NNC. That's not to say that there aren't other guidelines and policies which may argue against inclusion of the details in question — but the notability guideline isn't one of them. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 16:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that "run-of-the-mill lawyering" isn't particularly noteworthy. Of course, Andy would probably argue that "representing a slumlord against his tenants", as he would describe it, isn't "run-of-the-mill lawyering". I think that there's a bit of spin involved in either description, and the key would be to see how much emphasis reliable sources put on something like that. The answer, as far as I can tell, is that nobody's made a big deal out of that particular case, so it's probably not worth us mentioning in the main article. (It might have a place in Early life and career of Barack Obama, though.) Anyway, I just wanted to make sure you knew about notability. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 23:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for 3RR

HRC length

You may be interested in WP:ANI#Repeated extreme incivility by User:Ottava Rima. Apart from this, I'm interested in the comment you've made a couple of times that you think the article's a little too long. What sections do you have in mind, and what specifically do you think could be taken out? Wasted Time R (talk) 14:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I've got several objections to spinning off those early sections: it's a lot of work, it creates a lot of ongoing duplicate work going forward, the readership of those kind of bio subarticles is very low, and most of all, with HRC these were her most controversial years and it means burying either some of her controversies or some of her accomplishments in the subarticles, which is going to mean no end of trouble with pov/whitewash allegations. I've already had a taste of this with the Senate section, and with doing all this for the John McCain articles, but Hillary college-Arkansas-First Lady stretch would be much, much worse. I'd rather try to trim down what's there now some, by finding verbose wordings, a few things that aren't necessary, etc. As for the references, I've got several ideas on how to reduce those and the space they take, which I hope to work on some this weekend. We'll see how it goes. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

If the falloff between main articles and bio subarticles was on the order of 10-to-1, I would be more okay with it. But the falloff is almost always on the order of 100-to-1, which is depressing. Most of the lot of work I did on the McCain main article is now farmed out and being read by ... almost no one. I'm still doing the work on those subarticles, and am trying to figure out clever ways to make them more visible and get more readers. So far, not much progress. Meanwhile, editors object that McCain's temperment and history of blunt/offensive/whatever remarks is buried, and the complaints have some merit. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Peace

With appreciation for your efforts, --HailFire (talk) 21:09, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Malia Obama

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Malia Obama, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Misplaced Pages is not" and Misplaced Pages's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Bobblehead 16:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Considering the age the age of Obama's two kids, chances are they'll be offlimits to the press, so it's likely that they won't hit the WP:BIO barrier until they hit 18 or do something stupid.;) Jenna and Barbara Bush were both older than 18 when their father became president and were somewhat notorious for doing stupid things, but Chelsea was pretty much persona non grata until the end of Bill Clinton's second term when People kicked out its cover story on her and then started taking a larger role within the White House. --Bobblehead 17:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

discussion needed

Discussion is needed not just wiping out articles and references. If so, wipe out Barack Obama and redirect to Hillary Clinton, according to that logic. Watchingobama (talk) 19:18, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Discussion for deletion is a valid debate. Throwing the ARTICLE in the trash because of personal opinion is not. Throwing a person in the trash is murder. Watchingobama (talk) 19:19, 1 May 2008 (UTC)