Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:03, 25 June 2008

Archives

Old page. Archive 1. Archive 2.

• User talk:Noroton/Archive to June 2007
• User talk:Noroton/Archive June 2007 to August 2007
• User talk:Noroton/Archive August 2007 to November 2007
• User talk:Noroton/Archive December 2007 to early April 2008
• User talk:Noroton/Archive early April 2008 to early June 2008

Friendly reminder

It would serve you better to keep it cool. Shem 01:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Canvassing again

Thanks for the note Noroton. I trust the other comments, already archived, were sufficient to fix in your mind that "canvassing" of any kind should always be performed very intentionally and thoughtfully and that talk comments should be as neutral as possible toward the choices available. I'd only add that, as an example of neutrality, not all editors like to have the man's picture on their talk pages. Thanks again for your consideration! JJB 16:17, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Feedback

Thanks for your comments and feedback regarding the situation at Barack Obama. I noticed your earlier attempt to channel Andyvphil toward a more productive method of addressing his concerns, and I appreciate your effort there. Like I said, I don't think that Andyvphil or Kossack4Truth are wrong across the board on content issues, but the behavior was just too counterproductive and intransigent to continue. Like I said, I see this as a starting point and I recognize that those two were not the sole issue at the page, nor were they operating in a vacuum. Anyhow, I hope your efforts to move the page back toward a constructive discussion of the real, underlying content issues is successful. MastCell  20:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Ayers article

Regarding your edits to the Bill Ayers article, good work. You've significantly improved the article by dedicated, thoughtful, unglamorous editing. Although you and I have disagreed from time to time there and elsewhere on some matters of weight and balance, I can see you're a good editor doing a lot to help out. Thanks, Wikidemo (talk) 02:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Toxic combustion chamber of editors behaving badly

Just saw that. Well put. Shem 19:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: Barack Obama

I am taking a voluntary 30-day Wikibreak from this entire topic. I am confident that you will be able to argue the inclusionist side in a non-combative and constructive manner. Some sort of compromise has to be made. Please see my messages on other users' Talk pages, especially User:Bigtimepeace, where I have written in detail about where I'd like the article to go. You are one of the more level headed and respected, and I look forward to peeking at your work during the next 30 days. I'd like to continue the dialogue on this page if I may. Cheers Kossack4Truth (talk) 11:55, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

*laugh* That was hardly uncivil. Leave the civility patrolling to uninvolved admins. --Bobblehead 15:51, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I completely understand your intentions for removing the comment, but as an involved editor, you really need to leave the removal of such things to an uninvolved admin, or leave a note on the discussion page for the user that made the comment asking them to modify it. Outright removal of comments by involved editors is only called for on blatantly uncivil and offensive comments because the removal of marginal comments by involved editors have a tendency to erupt into edit wars over the comment and can increase the discord on the talk page as editors start to go into each other's comments and remove anything they find potentially offensive/uncivil. --Bobblehead 16:40, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Changing comments

I didn't. I highlighted it so that I could comment. See my reply, and don't leave BS messages on my talk page. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:42, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Ideally, it may have been more appropriate to create a new sort of section (like in the current version of the talk page) for such a long list of quotes so that they could be discussed separately - but that's been done now.

Beyond that, if he wanted to respond to your list of suggestions (content-wise), he should've responded either the normal way like he did the second time or he could've asked you to make it into a separate header so he could respond (or if he was bold and did it himself in an objective manner, then there probably would not have been any objections, and he could've responded in the usual manner). I've told him something to that effect on his talk page.

It's resolved for now (I think he'll get the message, but let me know if otherwise), so there may not be a need to dwell on it any longer. Hope that helps so more progress can probably be made on consensus-based discussions. Cheers for letting me know. Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:07, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Rezko at Talk:Barack Obama

Please transclude the following statements of support/opposition at Talk:Barack Obama for the three versions of the Rezko paragraph currently under discussion.

Version 1: Strongly Oppose. Kossack4Truth (talk) 23:39, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Version 2: Support if a sentence is added that briefly describes the January 2006 sale of a portion of Rezko's land to Obama. Obama admits that this was done after he knew that Rezko was under investigation, so I believe it is significant. Kossack4Truth (talk) 23:39, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Version 3: Strongly Support. Kossack4Truth (talk) 23:39, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Can we...yes?

I've caught back up with the recent discussion on the Rezko issue at the B. Obama talk page after a bit of an absence. One issue I think we need to think about over there is talk-page functionality. You have recently posted an enormous number of sentences on that page. A couple of days ago, my eyes glazed over when I started to read one of your comments which did, to be honest, put me off the discussion a bit longer than I otherwise would have been (and I'm hardly one to talk, I have a strong tendency to write overly lengthy comments myself). More than anyone else on the talk page right now you're bringing a lot of good links and citations to bear on the issue, but I think it might be helpful if you stuck a lot of that type of material in your userspace and just linked to it from the Obama talk page, thus allowing interested parties to look at your research without eating up too much talk page space (obviously talk page space is fairly limitless, but attention spans are not unfortunately).

Also it seems the conversation between you and Scjessey has grown particularly intense (you'll notice I left a note for that editor before you). I don't know the exact history between the two of you on this article and I don't necessarily care right now, but a bit of disengagement (in terms of direct back and forth) seems in order, even if only for a couple of days. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 10:16, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:StateDinnerProgramWhiteHouseKuwaitAmir1968.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:StateDinnerProgramWhiteHouseKuwaitAmir1968.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Misplaced Pages uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Misplaced Pages.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 20:09, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

canvassing

I noted with interest that you have been warned regarding canvassing on[REDACTED] more than once in the past. I also noted with interest that you have been leaving messages on user talk pages regarding the niggardly article.

I consider this to be in direct violation of[REDACTED] guidelines, if you want to discuss the niggardly article, do so on the relevant talk page.

If your canvassing results in any votes/false consensus/reverts then I will be reporting you for canvassing, citing the previous cases and requesting a lengthy block from editing. Sennen goroshi (talk) 17:46, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Best American Poetry series

hello....the basis of my rationale is that the title of the series is not Best American Poetry series, it is Best American Poetry. in most of the renderings i've seen thus far, the word 'series' is used as an adjective. even when searching the worldcat nothing comes up with 'series' appended. it follows that if 'series' is to be used in the naming of the article, the word should actually rendered as a 'qualifier' thus: Best American Poetry (series). however, since there's no other article with the same name, there's really no reason to add the qualifier....your thoughts? --emerson7 22:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Rezko

Hi - So as not to clutter the Obama talk page I thought I'd respond here. I've read enough of the references to come to the conclusion that this is primarily a campaign issue and that it's in the news because (perhaps only because) Obama is running for president. That's what I get out of the references. Suggesting no one else understands what's going on is not advancing your case. Greta Van Susteren works for Fox News which is about as neutral a source as Pravda (you're citing Fox News? seriously? what's next - quotes from Rush Limbaugh?). Judgment is clearly a campaign issue, advanced by the Obama crowd as a strength and being knocked (what about Rezko? what about Wright? what about Ayers?) at every opportunity by the Republicans and their sympathizers. Misplaced Pages can't be used by either camp to advance their cause. Your absolute insistence about this issue makes your neutrality questionable. Would anyone other than a McCain supporter argue this much for this long about this? How would your behavior be different if you were a paid McCain operative? I haven't spent a lot of time examining your edit history, but at a casual glance I don't have any particular reason to believe you're anything other than a passionate editor. Passion is fine. Tendentious editing is not.

Full disclosure - I'm an admin. I'm watching both McCain's and Obama's articles. My agenda is to make sure that neither one is hijacked for partisan purposes. -- Rick Block (talk) 04:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Scjessey's false accusations, snide remarks and deliberate provocation of a renewed edit war have been reported here. Kossack4Truth (talk) 12:03, 25 June 2008 (UTC)