Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:02, 25 June 2008

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

OOPS!

Lol, cheers. --— Realist (Come Speak To Me) 01:22, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Despite our differences of opinion I must state that I think what you have done is very mature and civil, I like your attitude on this and hopefully we can come to something that settles reasonably well with everyone. --— Realist (Come Speak To Me) 18:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I think we will get a happy medium, its probably going to leave both sides feeling medicre but I think it'l be enough that edit wars stop. I think its important that both sides respect whatever the decision is and try to protect that consensus. I certainly dont want that article to loss its FA states, as hillary lost im guess im gonna have to support the guy lol. --— Realist (Come Speak To Me) 18:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

It a bit too late for this one but when we go onto the next topic we should have a seperate section for votes and a seperate one for comments. Its a little messy and really had to pic out the votes. Some people havent bolded them either which is a nightmare. The blocked editer cast his vote from his talk page, ive provided links. Cheers. — Realist (Come Speak To Me) 23:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Ill take a look, ive only just got onlone and my watchlist is going crazy, everything seemed fine when I went offline last night, ill take a look asap. Cheers. — Realist (Come Speak To Me) 16:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, firstly dont let ips vote, they shouldnt. I think we need to let it chill, #3 will be the consensus, its just a matter of when. There is a lot of partisan talk from both sides, both sides need to consider that #3 is the balanced opinon. Ill leave further comments at talk page. — Realist (Come Speak To Me) 17:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I would just wait, if these are socks they will be banned, their votes can be removed and a consensus of #3 will push through relatively easily. — Realist (Come Speak To Me) 18:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I cant even look at that discussion anymore, too much is going on. — Realist (Come Speak To Me) 16:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion

Just a suggestion, don't respond to Andy's comments on his talk page (or other peoples' talk pages) about you for now. He's imploding well enough on his own right now and the last thing that is needed is for someone to accuse you of baiting him. Not that I'm saying you are baiting, but it's best to leave this as a disagreement between Andy and several admins. --Bobblehead 21:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Just as an FYI, people generally only get in trouble with canvasing if that person only contacts contacts people that are more likely to agree with their opinion, not just because they spam multiple article talk pages. So if Noroton had only put his message on the talk pages for Republican articles and user talk pages for people he thinks will agree with him and not on the talk pages for Democratic articles and the user talk pages for people that will not agree with him, then there'd be a case for canvasing. However, he seems to have hit both Dem and Rep articles and several "neutral" locations. I could have done with a better wording of his message, but as far as where he left his messages, I don't think he's in trouble with WP:CANVAS. --Bobblehead 17:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Obama

See my comment on the talk page of the article regarding the archiving issue.--JForget 01:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Image facing

Ah, now I see. Hadn't occurred to me. Thanks. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 20:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Article ban

Hi Simon, I was thinking, perhaps it's best to take a break from editing the Barrack Obama article? I mean, this edit warring business is silly especially with that Andy user. It's completely voluntary, of course. It's up to you, my friend. Regards, Pat. Scarian 15:26, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Request for your opinion

		Please Vote For Change We Can Believe In Or Even No Change at Obama Article
		Requesting your final opinion on the Bill Ayers language You previously !voted (here) on what language to use at the Barack Obama page. We're trying to get a consensus now. Please take another look at how the discussion has progressed (especially here) and consider what option might make the best consensus, then !vote again at Talk:Barack Obama#Call the question after detailed discussion: Option 3 or not?. Please keep in mind the discussion has been long, so if you can accept what seems to be a likely option, please do. This is one of Misplaced Pages's most prominent articles. Thank you. Noroton (talk) 23:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

3.99 GPA

I must know, what cost you the last hundredth? Shem 01:40, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Quartermaster chiming in on Obama article and Rezko edits (as well as other stuff)

You come across as an exquisitely honest editor regarding the Obama article. You're a good shepherd. I will tread lightly per your suggestions. Have a barnstar.

		The Anti-Flame Barnstar
		Thanks, Mom! Quartermaster (talk) 20:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Revert war

Please accept my caution that revert warring on either side of the Barack Obama article could be seen as disruptive. Given the heat on this article you might want to take a step back. A number of administrators are watching, and probably growing increasingly impatient. They'll clean up the mess sooner or later, and just as a prediction you probably don't want to be one of the people they see in a revert contest or talk page flame war when they finally take action. I happen to agree in substance with your edits and your reasoning (mostly) so the purpose of this notice is not to object. Just urging you to keep cool. For every person participating in the drama, there are probably twenty or more watching on the sidelines, and ten thousand reading the article daily. Those people are the real audience here, and they will respect patience over verbal fighting. Thanks, Wikidemo (talk) 02:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Media coverage

Hey, Jessey. I'm afraid it's just one of those things that're notable simply because the media's decided they're notable. Do I personally think it's fair to dedicate an entire paragraph to media coverage of an incident wherein Obama's accused of no wrongdoing whatsoever? Certainly not, but the media's Rezko obsession made an impact whether I find it fair or not.

From a wider perspective, I'm more worried about a certain serial polygraph-failing con artist being given a platform at the National Press Club today (see Talk:Larry Sinclair). What's Misplaced Pages to do if the media gives substantial coverage to unsubstantiated, certifiably libelous allegations? I worry the project's BLP policy is on track for a head-on collision with the media's recent low standards. Shem 01:05, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't change others' talk page comments

Don't do it unless you know there's a specific part of Misplaced Pages policy or guidelines that allows you to do it. WP:TALK specifically tells you that you can't do it, and what the exceptions are. It's considered disruptive. Noroton (talk) 00:31, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you understand that this isn't helpful or going to be considered acceptable. I'm not commenting on the merits of your views, but how you chose to make them. The second time you made your view was through the usual method, and I see no reason why this could not have been done in the first place. You need to be willing to be collaborative for less drama and better articles. It may have been more appropriate for Noroton to fix a separate section header/sub-header/sub-sub etc. but in the current version, that's done already. Ncmvocalist (talk) 01:49, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

socks

Done. Tvoz/talk 19:54, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes we can?

I've taken a look at the Barack Obama talk page and read the entire recent Rezko discussion. Discussion has deteriorated fairly quickly which is obviously not a good thing. Both you and Noroton are obviously very smart editors committed to the project, but you might want to somewhat disengage from one another for a little while. Your marking of a particular talk section as being under WP:CRYSTAL was particularly unhelpful, and if you step back for a moment I think you could acknowledge that (I have criticisms of Noroton and other editors as well as you'll see in my edits before and after this one). I mentioned this at some point earlier in the talk page discussion, but in the grand scheme of things I think this Rezko issue is fairly trivial, and even you and Noroton are not all that far apart. I hope we can all calm down some of the recent tensions and come to some agreement on it fairly soon because there are more important issues to discuss.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 09:15, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for correcting my spelling on the Obama talk page. Guess I have a "witch" haunting me :) --Floridianed (talk) 16:07, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of which, though I think the IP editor / likely sock was just playing games by warning you, you should probably take a deep breath and avoid fighting fire with fire on this one regarding strong language and refuting positions. I don't think we can keep peace and deal with these issues without administrative help, and as before neutral administrators who see two sides sparring may not take the time to first figure out who is the legitimate editor or who started it. It's probably best to step back and let the contentious editors run amok for a day or two until and unless they start making problematic changes to the mainspace article (and if that happens, avoid edit warring and leave the fix to the admins). Wikidemo (talk) 15:32, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

You seem to have a fan...

You seem to have attracted a fan. I was just looking at my watchlist and noticed Scjessey02 (talk · contribs) on it. If this account is you, you may wish to identify it as an alternate account on the user page, if it is not you, may I suggest paying a visit here and reporting them for a block until they get a new username. --Bobblehead 23:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Your misconduct has been reported at WP:ANI

Your continued false accusations, snide remarks and deliberate provocation of a renewed edit war have been reported here. Feel free to participate in the discussion. Kossack4Truth (talk) 12:02, 25 June 2008 (UTC)