Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:40, 23 July 2008

Key West for German's

Welcome everybody and thanks for visiting;

Here is the issue:

My goal is to enhance the German Wiki-page about K. West. I'm a "fresh water conch" but moved about 2 years ago.

Here's my request:

I need up-to-date info about things only people living in Paradise know, (things I used to know back then).

Locals! Please leave your comments here!

Thanks a lot, --Floridianed 01:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

About User talk:88.8.104.231

I noticed that you have posted comments in a language other than English. When on the English-language Misplaced Pages, please always use English, no matter to whom you address your comments. This is so that comments may be comprehensible to the community at large. If the use of another language is unavoidable, please provide a translation of the comments. For more details, see Misplaced Pages:Talk page guidelines. Thank you. --Regebro (talk) 18:48, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

You're right. I forgot! I translated my comments there now. Thanks for pointing it out, --Floridianed (talk) 19:28, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

• I started to check out all his reverts or contributions. A lot doesn't seems right to me, but some does. Since I'm working mostly on the German Wiki it might take some time to do so. --Floridianed (talk) 19:55, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, great. I can only see that he is vandalising a lot, and have reverted everything unless it's an obvious improvement. :) --Regebro (talk) 19:57, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Keep reverting it till there is some sence and/or proof that he is right. You did a good job regarding this so far  ;-) --Floridianed (talk) 20:01, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

• I made a new "catalonia" stub to solve at least one "problem" but need some help to make it work in the right place(s). I'm clueless when it comes to uploading pics.

You can find it here

Floridianed (talk) 00:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, man :) I'll try to review some more of the edits he made. It seems that he made some useful contributions that are being reverted because of his attitude. I hope that this situation can be defused and Granadin can become a good contributor. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:36, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

You're reading my mind!  ;-) --Floridianed (talk) 22:39, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Results of the 2008 Democratic Party presidential primaries

You asked for a source, but for what? If for the superdelegates, as the reference in the table shows, these come from DemConWatch, and this is the source that editors have been relying on for months because it not only has the numbers but names exactly who is being counted and provides links to document each superdelegate - it is currently reference #4. The other numbers in the general results table are tabulated from the state results in the second table, which in turn are stated to derive from the individual state pages (linked by clicking on the state name) and the state pages are individually referenced, either for the individual numbers or for the delegates column of the relevant tables, or even for the entire table, usually from the Green Papers, but sometimes from other sites. Agricolae (talk) 23:40, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. I'll check on your claims what seems like I should have done before w/o bothering you. I'll check later or tomorrow and hope you accept my apologies regarding my remarks. Still, very pleased and thankful for your seemly comprehensive answer. --Floridianed (talk) 00:21, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Barack Obama edits

I added a very legitimate reference to a New York Times article about his cultural image among the Muslim community within the appropriate category. This is not vandalism by any standard. Please feel free to refer to third opinion or editors for dispute resolution. It seems you are censoring legitimate information for political reasons -- please see earlier laudatory references of a similar nature that have not been taken out (such as Peggy Noonan reference)

Thanks Saleemhali (talk) 03:07, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Were you able to check as mentioned in your last message? I would like to put back the NY times reference.

Thx 72.92.138.24 (talk) 14:25, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks for deleting the warning. I will put it in the presidential campaign article.

Saleemhali (talk) 14:27, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Confusing.

So in your mind, Noroton can single-handedly veto Rick Block's proposal because he likes the word "criticism," but it doesn't work the other way around? With all due regard, I don't think so. Every editor save Noroton was fine with Rick Block's proposal, which derailed its implementation. I don't appreciate the double-standard, nor the threat that you'll steamroll my objections while offering total deference to Noroton's. Shem 03:05, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Shem, believe me I'm not happy with Noroton's standings either. It seems to me that as long as the word "criticism" stands he'd would go with it and so my intention was to give him this with the word "some" included even so I'd prefer your approach to the issue as I showed off and on at the talk page. I'm willing to compromise as far as needed as long as it doesn't make my head burst. You and Noroton have two very different view points and that makes it very hard to reach any consensus. Let me be clear, I'm not pointing the "blame finger" at you even so it may look so and there is no double standard from my side. Trust me in this. --Floridianed (talk) 03:50, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I hope you realize why your comments about "leting it fly" despite my objections were confusing. Noroton has singlehandedly obstructed the implementation of Rick's consensus version via his objections, and I'd appreciate the same respect for mine. Shem 05:43, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

K4T response

If you intend to accuse me of being a "meat puppet" (no matter to whom) I suggest you bring it directly to my talk page thus I see it as a "cheap" insult to my person and good faith discovering such remarks somewhere I'm only able to find and respond by coincidence. Thank you. I'm glad you agree that making meatpuppet accusations is a cheap insult under those circumstances. Please notice that I spoke of you hypothetically to illustrate my point: essentially, if I'm a meatpuppet, then so are you. Shem made the original accusation on my Talk page and that was my response. Like you, I was "discovering remarks somewhere ... by coincidence" on the George Stephanopoulos article. Kossack4Truth (talk) 11:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Still, I dislike your comparison but let's just lay it to rest in peace. I have a question regarding part of your response here: What remarks where there made about you? I couldn't find them but am curious about and would be appreciated if you can point them out for me. Thanks --Floridianed (talk) 19:03, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Please look over the current options for Rezko language and pick one to help us get to consensus

Hi, I've noticed you've been a part of the Rezko discussion but haven't said which of the options now on the table you'd prefer. It would really help us to get to consensus if we could get your input on that. There's been plenty of discussion, but if you have questions, I'm sure other editors would answer them. The four options now on the table are the three in Talk:Barack Obama#Straw poll and Talk:Barack Obama#Scjessey-preferred version (which doesn't contain the word "criticism"). So far, the two most popular versions seem to be Clubjuggle's Version 3 and Scjessey's. Please help us try to wrap this up. Noroton (talk) 17:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Inappropriate conduct (add-on: true/false? --Floridianed (talk) 22:33, 13 July 2008 (UTC))

(References for my personal use):

• Edit in question (not given by accuser) starts here
• Other edit(s) in question (not given by accuser): ????

• Copy edit from user:Trilemma's talk page:

Political positions of Barack Obama

Note that another editor recognized the unencyclopedic nature of your edit. I don't wish to argue, I only wish to notify you that your conduct is inappropriate. Trilemma (talk) 22:05, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Then stop arguing and work on improving the article, rather than highhandedly scolding other users and escalating conflict. Your last edit to the article was itself rather manipulative and editorializing. Would you like me to enumerate the ways for you? — goethean ॐ 22:17, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

(--Floridianed (talk) 22:24, 13 July 2008 (UTC))

(Accusation starts here! --Floridianed (talk) 22:50, 13 July 2008 (UTC))

In the past 24 hours, you have made a misleading edit summary and reverted to an objectively inapropriate edit (that is, the use of the term 'the rich' to describe people who would be subject to tax increases under Obama's tax plan). You have also failed to behave in a manner consistent with assuming good faith. This is a warning. The next time you violate policies or behave in a dishonest manner, I will report you to wikiquette. Trilemma (talk) 21:53, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about? It is your edit which, in addition to falsifying the article by dropping the word "billion," inappropriately editorializes beyond what the source says. Pot, kettle. Beam/eye/speck/neighbor, etc. — goethean ॐ 22:01, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Note that another editor recognized the unencyclopedic nature of your edit. I don't wish to argue, I only wish to notify you that your conduct is inappropriate. Trilemma (talk) 22:05, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

We don't say "many" and I guess you know this so please stick to facts and don't editorialize. By the way, I just reverted you and didn't insert "the rich" (what is clearly more precise than "many").

One more thing: This editor is talking about YOU, not me, so please don't give me such warnings. Thanks --Floridianed (talk) 22:17, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

PS: Thanks user:goethean for your comment here. --Floridianed (talk) 22:17, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

'The rich' is not more correct than many. Your edit is incorrect and misleading. Your lack of cooperation and POV warriorism is inappropriate. Trilemma (talk) 23:05, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I accept your apology --Floridianed (talk) 23:16, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

• Copy edit from user:Trilemma's talk page:

POV/bias etc.----- false/wrong?

Trilemma; If you wish contact me about "bias" (yours?/mine?) by e-mail. Maybe we can work this out this way. I'm making this offer while reading an edit of yours in which I'm not involved at all (w/o including any details here). It's up to you to take and respond to my offer (or not). --Floridianed (talk) 00:43, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

(--Floridianed (talk) 00:55, 16 July 2008 (UTC))

Bahia

(copy from Opinoso's talk page to keep it togher and in context. --Floridianed (talk) 02:35, 14 July 2008 (UTC):

Personal question about Bahia

Oi, Opinoso. Regarding your edit here  :

I know from my stay in Salvador da Bahia about the importants in history of the state of Bahia (and of course Salvador) but do not know anything when it comes to comparison to the rest of Brazil. Can you give me a brief comment on this for my own understanding? A personal note: On my first visit to Salvador (quite a while ago by now) I fell in love with Bahia, especially Salvador and went back to live there (unfortunately only) for a short time. I still have and always will have "saudade", you'll sure understand. Obregado, --Floridianed (talk) 01:27, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

PS: I didn't answer about the "pardo/brown"-"mixed" discussion yet but I'll do so at some point. Till then I'm satisfied with your explanation (which I know it's true). And you're right.Skanter isn't really helpful in that matter. --Floridianed (talk) 01:27, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi.

What exactly do you want to know about Bahia? Opinoso (talk) 01:30, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Wow. That was quick.

You wrote: "...it's only comparable to Pernambuco...". I would like to know a little more about it since I must admit, that I don't know anything about Pernambuco. As I said, keep it brief so I don't take to much time of yours and with more first hand basics I'll find out more by myself. --Floridianed (talk) 01:40, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to answer in Português. I'm sure I'll understand it. --Floridianed (talk) 01:52, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I didn't wrote that part about Pernambuco! I reverted that part, it was written by a vandal user (actually, by a Skanter's IP. Opinoso (talk) 15:34, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: BigVinu

Please take a look at WP:RFA and read through it a bit. My question had nothing to do with Vinu's likelihood of passing, but rather how he was going about doing it. When an editor wants to run for adminship, they dont simply create the nomination page and link it from their user page. They have to transclude it at WP:RFA where it is monitored by the community and will run for a set period of time. As of now, his RFA wouldn't be considered legit even if he was getting support. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 03:01, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

See, I just learned something and appreciated your response on my talk page. I already apologized in case I missed something and would like to reinstate it again now that I do know better. Thanks, --Floridianed (talk) 03:10, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

No apology neccesary. My comment/question to Vinu may have come off as a little crass, which was possibly some of my intent. It appears he should've "known better" because of his apparent interest in RfAs and a recent questionaire he created regarding them. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 03:13, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

As I commented on his application I stated my personal encounter with him and opined that he is not ready yet to get a run as an admin. Your comment here shows me that there are even basic things he should be aware of (things I'm defiantly not). Regards, --Floridianed (talk) 03:21, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Happy's RfA

(copy from Happyme22's talk page to keep it togher and in context.--Floridianed (talk) 05:27, 15 July 2008 (UTC):

Your RfA at Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Happyme22

Hi Happyme22. Just in case you missed or will miss my question I bring it to your talk page and would be apreaciated if you could give an answer at the Requests for adminship page. Here are my posts:

First comment and question here:

Little disruption in between (just to keep the timeline) and second attempt:

Little side mark; Not really important so but I "dump" it for you here:

Thanks, --Floridianed (talk) 04:37, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah, of course Floridaned. I was going to respond to you but I had to log off (and I logged off haha) to go to an optometrist appointment. Then I had dinner. And now I will be happy to address your concerns at the RfA page. Best, Happyme22 (talk) 04:44, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey, thanks, but there is no rush at all ;) --Floridianed (talk) 04:51, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I've whipped something up at the RfA page. Best, Happyme22 (talk) 05:47, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah, of course Floridaned. I was going to respond to you but I had to log off (and I logged off haha) to go to an optometrist appointment. Then I had dinner. And now I will be happy to address your concerns at the RfA page. Best, Happyme22 (talk) 04:45, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

You got my support by now ;), --Floridianed (talk) 00:57, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

RfA thank you

		Thank you!
		Floridianed, it is with deep awareness of the responsibility conferred by your trust that I am honored to report that in part to your support, my request for adminship passed (87/14/6). I deeply value the trust you and the Misplaced Pages community have in me, and I will embark on a new segment of my Misplaced Pages career by putting my new tools to work to benefit the entire community. My best to you, Happyme22 (talk) 05:05, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Re:POV/bias etc.----- false/wrong?

(copy from Happyme22's talk page to keep it togher and in context.--Floridianed (talk) 02:09, 17 July 2008 (UTC)):

Trilemma; If you wish contact me about "bias" (yours?/mine?) by e-mail. Maybe we can work this out this way. I'm making this offer while reading an edit of yours in which I'm not involved at all (w/o including any details here). It's up to you to take and respond to my offer (or not). --Floridianed (talk) 00:43, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are referencing, and I'm unfamiliar with how to email people through wikipedia (yeah, I've been a member for quite a while and have made plenty of edits, but emailing is something I haven't done through here). This can't be discussed through the talk pages? If you wish to keep it private, just let me know (along with a how-to that admittedly I should know by now) and I'll try to oblige. Trilemma (talk) 21:56, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Trilemma; I appreciate and welcome your positive response. I sure think it will be better to discuss this in private so we both can talk more freely. I will give you all the information you'll need to use the e-mail function as soon as I have the time. Till then, regards, --Floridianed (talk) 02:01, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Terrific. Just a heads up that I will probably be away from computer access from Friday until Thursday, so there may be a bit of a delay in response. Trilemma (talk) 02:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

No problem at all. There is no rush and I myself will need some time as I mentioned ;) --Floridianed (talk) 02:19, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to the 2000 Primary Group!

You were one of three other editors that encouraged me to re-write the 2000 Primaries section of the George W. Bush article after I commented that it was a disjointed section about Rove, church, polls and that a more historical and factual summary would be better. So far, there has been no opposition.

If we have a "2000 Primary Group" of us four, perhaps we could propose certain ideas to get a feel of how acceptable they might be to the Misplaced Pages community? It would just be like first discussing things among friends informally, with no binding decisions, just discussion among rational people (rational, judging from the 2000 Primaries discussion.).

The new question is that there is a "cultural and political image" section in several politicians articles. Some of these are better written than others. However, there's a philosophical problem that hasn't really been addressed much or at all.

viewpoint A:
Should there be such a section at all? After all, it's just someone's opinion but that they have written it as a political commentator for a major news source (so it become sort of "reliable source" in Misplaced Pages terminology). Is it in the George W. Bush article? No. (retort could be "other crap exists").

If it is there, should all the major cultural and political images be reported, at least the most widely reported ones? (for example, Gerald Ford's image of being clumsy was very widely commented on). If not, isn't this subtle POV?

viewpoint B:
Or should an encyclopedia have none of this subjective rubbish and only facts?

From a practical standpoint, viewpoint B is less contentious because there would be no debate to what is included after it's decided not to have it. On the other hand, viewpoint A would report on commonly reported images (opinions) of the person which does have some historical and biographical value.

Let me know what you think? Chergles (talk) 15:09, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey thanks. I'll answer when I have more time (hopefully ASAP) --Floridianed (talk) 01:13, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Chergles; First of all, thank you for contacting me. As I mentioned on the George W. Bush talk page, his article really needs a "facelift". Even so he is one of the least likeable Presidents with terrible public opinions ratings doesn't give allowance to be bashed with POV in WP. That was my main concern when I answered to your proposal there. Now, I must admit that I usually try not to get involved to much in writing/rewriting articles but instead prefer to have an eye on them, giving my opinion sometimes or reverting controversial edits. Guess I'm some kind of "moral cop" (and yes, I make mistakes sometimes).

But now, after all that "soap" I should give you some answers to your request. For your first edit I already gave you a positive response on Talk:George W. Bush if you remember.

To be fair I also should tell you by now that I'm definitely not a fan of W. Bush but consider myself fair and neutral when it comes to encyclopedic entries like here in WP. I dislike sources that call themselves "neutral" and yet tell me what to think. I prefer to get the facts and make up my mind by myself and therefore I'm not pleased with the George W. Bush article. Ok, point made.

Now I finally get to your "Welcome to the 2000 Primary Group!" questions.

Feel free to ask or point me out to any question "in question" that comes up and/or you're not sure if an edit would "pass the skeptical/critical or just plain bias WP-community". I'll certainly will help to keep any reasonable NPOV edit stand.

About the "cultural and political image" sections in several politicians articles:

In general I personally dislike them since the Title leaves them open for all kinds of perspectives to edit. But they are there and so I guess we have to deal with them, but I think that most of those paragraphs inside those sections could be easily included in other sections while creating other new sections for issues that just don't fit anywhere else (but with a more specific section subtitle. --Floridianed (talk) 06:23, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I think viewpoint B is the best. The other member of our unofficial "2000 Primary Group" agrees with us. Misplaced Pages should just stick to the facts. Do you want to join part of a collective to eliminate the cultural and political section? The target to our effort would be both John McCain and Barack Obama. We would do it to both to eliminate the appearance of favoritism.

The alternative would be to include common cultural and political images that are also well sourced. The 2 articles omit some of these, possibly because of POV efforts of some people.

What do you think? (For this effort, I support WP and support a good encyclopedia. That's my reason for doing this.) Chergles (talk) 17:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Obama basketball

If I added a reference would it still be trivia? From, Smuckers 07:55, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello Smuckers. Sourced or not, I consider it trivia. We all know that Obama is a good basket ball player but that doesn't make it worth to mention every goal he achieved. I won't reverse you again at the article but I bet some will do so. My point: It just doesn't have a change there, honestly. Best regards, --Floridianed (talk) 08:12, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL

Please refrain from edit comments that assume an abusive tone. As you will see on Talk:Barack Obama, User:Jacoplane who added the two images of Petreus to the Obama article concurs that the duplication is unnecessary and excessive. If you feel that for some reason these two largely duplicative images are necessary to the article, please make the case for that on the article talk page rather than adopting intemperate edit comments. LotLE×talk 06:40, 23 July 2008 (UTC)