Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:53, 27 July 2008

Wine Project Newsletter

The Wine Project Newsletter! Issue III - March 18, 2007

In this edition: News & Notes New look for Wine Project Page; Wine Article assessment; Operation Stub-killer; New Template for Australian Wineries; New wine stub categories proposed. Wiki-Winos This issue's feature Christopher Tanner, CCC Wine Improvement Drive - Pinot Gris plus update on last WID article Languedoc wine

This newsletter is sent to those listed under Participants on the Wine Project page. If you wish to no longer receive this newsletter please include Decline newsletter next to your name on the Participant list. If you have any Misplaced Pages wine related news, announcements or suggestions drop a note in the Comments/Suggestion area of Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Wine/Newsletter.

Wine Project Newsletter

The Wine Project Newsletter! Issue IV - April 1st, 2007

In this edition: News & Notes New Grape Infobox; Standard Grape article format; Wine photos; New wine stub categories created; Wine related deletion notices; and more Sub Projects Updates on Operation Stub Killer Wiki-Winos This issue's feature Steve Moulding. Wine Improvement Drive - Sauvignon blanc plus update on last WID article Pinot gris and comments on the new B Article Adoption

This newsletter is sent to those listed under Participants on the Wine Project page. If you wish to no longer receive this newsletter please include Decline newsletter next to your name on the Participant list. If you have any Misplaced Pages wine related news, announcements or suggestions drop a note in the Comments/Suggestion area of Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Wine/Newsletter.

Wine Project Newsletter

The Wine Project Newsletter! Issue V - April 15, 2007

For a million random unrelated things, you deserve a...

(barnstar is on holiday...moving to my user page)

WP:TRIVIA

Could you accompany your assessment with a reply on the talk page? I dorftrottel I talk I 14:52, November 23, 2007

WP:WINE newsletter

The Wine Project Newsletter! Issue VII - December 8th, 2007

WP:WINE newsletter

The Wine Project Newsletter! Issue VIII - December 22nd, 2007

WP:WINE newsletter

The Wine Project Newsletter! Issue IX - January 7th, 2008

WP:WINE newsletter

The Wine Project Newsletter! Issue X - January 31st, 2008

WP:WINE newsletter

The Wine Project Newsletter! Issue XI - February 21st, 2008

WikiProject Food and Drink Newsletter June 2008

WikiProject Food and Drink Newsletter June 2008

--Chef Tanner (talk) 17:03, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Request for comment

FWIW, Wikidemo, I've an identical discussion going on here. — Justmeherenow (   ) 06:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. I've commented there too. Wikidemo (talk) 06:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Bill Ayers election controversy

You appear to be involved in an edit war at Bill Ayers election controversy. Please slow down on the reverts and use the talk page and dispute resolution pathway instead of repeatedly reverting. Edit-warring may result in the page being protected or in blocks for participants. MastCell  19:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice but there's no edit warring on my part that I can see. I made a single revert, spread out over several edits, to restore sourced content fundamental to the article and remove a bunch of junk that had recently appeared, thanks to a single tendentious editor. I did not revert any single part of it more than once, but there were so many edits over a period of time that my reversion also took several edits over time. As far as I can see the other editor involved was doing the same. The article has been stable for some time, so a reasonable effort to counter the effects of an editor making a complete mess of it isn't really edit warring. Wikidemo (talk) 19:35, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Obama vote

Hi would you mind simplifying your reason for your vote. Youve added a lot of stuff that isnt relevant to this specific issue. Dont worry though, you will be able to make your other thoughts when we come to those issues. --— Realist (Come Speak To Me) 01:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure. I'm not sure that the "divide and conquer" approach is really going to guarantee a smooth or legitimate outcome, but I'm game. Wikidemo (talk) 02:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Cheers, i see your concerns, but i think this is the closest we have ever come to peace, i have faith in it. — Realist (Come Speak To Me) 02:07, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Weigh in?

Perhaps you can take a look at: Template talk:Barack Obama. It's rightfully protected, but it seems like a clear editprotected matter (both of them). LotLE×talk 19:49, 4 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)

Ha! I feel like Mr. Obama has personally reached out to me here on my Misplaced Pages page. Wikidemo (talk) 00:39, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Racists

If you perpetuate a racist ideology, you are a racist. Calling a racist "racist" is not a personal attack: it is an accurate description of his/her character. 71.195.153.149 (talk) 17:37, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Someday you may realize how misguided that is. Meanwhile, whatever you may believe in your heart do not call editors on Misplaced Pages racists for honoring the overwhelming majority of sources, including the candidate himself, that refer to mixed race people like Obama an "African American". Wikidemo (talk) 17:44, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the light has blinded me from seeing that most wretched day. So, I still stick by my claim that if you perpetuate the one-drop rule, you are indeed a racist. There is no denying it. Also, please don't live biased commentary under my post. ;) 71.195.153.149 (talk) 18:07, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. Nobody is going to stop you from believing what you want to believe. I think I understand, and might even agree wit you in an abstract sense. People who accept and use racist language are racist in that they're perpetuating racism, even if they don't have any active malice in their hearts. The classic example is people who fly the confederate flag, claiming it isn't about slavery. I personally don't think that's the case here because our job here is to report the mainstream of thought, not to make judgments about it. But even if it were, it's simply against the rules and upsets the cooperation we need to edit an encyclopedia, if you call people racist here. Certainly you've been in situations where you have to hold your tongue and others where you don't. You can't reasonably expect that you're going to convince people to stop using the term "African-American" on the Obama page, or in the campaign. The best you can do is make them aware, and plant some doubt in their minds. If enough people find the term offensive and speak up, for long enough, the language and awareness could change. I think you'll get to people faster if you don't personally call them racist. You could say the same thing, probably get to people faster, by simply saying that you find the term racist and wish people wouldn't use it.Wikidemo (talk) 18:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't find the term African-American racist: I find people calling someone with just as much "white blood" as "black blood" solely African-American racist. I understand what you're saying about causing disruption in the already turbulent talk-page; however, approaching this acquiescently hasn't proven the least-bit useful in the past. Every time there has been something in the article's introduction explaining his biraciality (w?), it ends up getting removed by some editor. It's just frustrating. 71.195.153.149 (talk) 18:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Understood about the distinction. I think usefulness has to be judged in small increments. You're kicking a very heavy object if you want people to call Obama biracial, like playing soccer with a bowling ball. Practically, I doubt you could get that to replace "African American" in the first sentence of the lead, but you might find people agreeable to including the term somewhere in the lead, and more detail elsewhere. As with everything around here, the best support is to find good sources that describe it and make te distinction. I think America (and with it, those Americans on Misplaced Pages) are just coming to terms with race in the first place. Many aren't even aware that there are multi-racial issues as well. Wikidemo (talk) 18:48, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Re edit

@ Ayers. While I experience disinclinations to specify what the business of Weatherman was and therefore the whys of notability as rendering text that's pretty leathery and colorless, I suppose others experience prose that pointedly summarizes controversial material as sensationalistically juicy and rare. — Justmeherenow (   ) 22:26, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Point taken. It depends on the specific article and the word in question...dry prose is sometimes a good way to avoid dispute. On the other hand if writing about something noncontroversial like a cartoon rabbit one can be a little more evocative without anyone minding. Cheers, Wikidemo (talk) 22:52, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Rezko

Please self-revert your Rezko-related edit. It is factually-inaccurate (media scrutiny came before conviction) and lacks a reference. Furthermore, the indictment and conviction of Rezko is not at all related to Obama. Mentioning these details in the biography implies wrongdoing on the part of Obama, and therefore is a pretty serious violation of WP:BLP ("do no harm", details should only be about the subject of the article). -- Scjessey (talk) 16:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

If it's inaccurate I'll change the description. However, stating that the deal lead to scrutiny of the relationship seems to e misleading. The relationship and the deal were both scrutinized because of Rezko, not because they happened. No plausible BLP vio there, and the citation already there is the source. BLP does not exist to protect Obama against controversies arising over his Presidency, and as a convicted public figure Rezko doesn't have an interest in hiding his convictions. Note that I didn't add the material, I'm scaling back a bold removal of the material that seems to have happened without and perhaps against consensus.Wikidemo (talk) 16:59, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, after reviewing the sources in the paragraph it's clear: (1) Rezko was under indictment at the time of the transaction; (2) the scrutiny (and Obama's view of it) goes both to dealing with a corrupt person as well as dealing with a campaign fundraiser; (3) I could find no way to word it that did not seem to implicate Obama so I re-added the part that Obama was never accused of wrongdoing; and (4) the scrutiny is not over a "relationship" but over the dealings and potential for quid-pro-quo that occurred in that relationship. I think the coverage as rewritten captures that. It was rather bold of you to condense that material in the first place. I would have done the same. Consider this a correction that may lead to consensus and stability, not an attempt to introduce anything new that is controversial. Wikidemo (talk) 17:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I am in agreement with your assessment, and I think your changes are appropriate. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, moot point now - they've been reverted. Wikidemo (talk) 18:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Please follow up

This has been sitting around for a while. Please respond to it. Noroton (talk) 19:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

I appreciate your comments. I think I've said this before, we may disagree on some things but I trust your sincerity, too, and every now and then I think you're going to convince me about something. All I'm doing is going through the articles I've found and adding whatever seems to fill a gap in the article, positive, negative or otherwise. The thing about Ayers is that there's a simplistic positive view and a simplistic negative view out there, and neither is correct. I think some criticisms of him are devastating, and some defenses are the same for the critics, but I'm going wherever the sources take me. Noroton (talk) 02:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, believe it or not my personal opinion of him is not at all positive. But I do think that if the facts are presented in a neutral way people can come to that conclusion for themselves. Thanks again, Wikidemo (talk) 02:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Obama Article

I'm sorry but i'm fed up of it as a 'mixed' race individual, and so is most of the mixed race population. We should determine how we label ouselves, not the media, not black or white people or even Obama himself. It is accurate to say he is of dual heritage whether others like it or not. There shouldn't even be an issue about this... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Invertedzero (talk • contribs) 03:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, true. But Misplaced Pages is not at the forefront of social change - it brings up the rear. There's plenty of room in the article, and even the rest of the lead, to talk about his mixed heritage...if you can find some strong, reliable coverage of the issue. There must be some. There is no question of his immediate ancestry, but all the major media are reporting that he is the first AA major party presidential candidate and that seems to be how he publicly self-identifies. So I think it will be a hard case to make as a primary adjective to describe Obama in the first sentence. There's a longer term issue of changing the discourse and awareness in the United States and the world. More power to you if you can, just be careful...and please don't edit war. You might notice there's an edit war brewing on another issue, and I have a feeling a number of editors are going to be blocked or even banished over that. You probably don't want to be on the scene in your own dispute when that happens. Wikidemo (talk) 04:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Huh?

• Also: Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Lulu_of_the_Lotus-Eaters - an odd sock puppet that could be another piece of this puzzle - Wikidemo (talk) 04:35, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• • That report, you must know, was a puerile game by an actual sockpuppet. Whateeevar! LotLE×talk 04:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Read between the lines. If the SSP report is as baseless as you think, then the administrators at AN/I will figure that out for themselves. They hardly need me to tell them. So the word "odd" says all I felt like saying about it. The more I protest about what's going on at the Obama article the more I look like part of the problem. So I'm laying low and urging cooperation...a simple link is enough. Cheers, Wikidemo (talk) 05:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. LotLE×talk 16:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

AN/I silliness

Have you seen this nonsense yet? The funniest bit is when the single-purpose agenda account demands that we get slapped with a six-month ban. Anyway, I wanted to thank you for the comment you left on my talk page. I was going to take a three-day wikibreak this weekend, but I might just start it now. I'm tired of being accused of being biased, when all I want it to make sure the article follows Misplaced Pages's policies. I can't even vote in the election, so I'm at a loss as to why these editors should describe Bill Clinton as "my man". I'm a Thatcherite, for goodness sake. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

You may wish to plead your case. By which I mean acknowledge that your reverts, which you intended in good faith, might be perceived as being part of the edit war and promise not to do it again. You might want to do that without lashing out against (but without validating either) some of the bizarre nonsense you mention. I think the administrators know that one group of editors has been a lot more belligerent and problematic, but as I noted in cautioning you last night, at the moment they decide to do something, anyone left fighting, or expressing hostility, at the moment is perceived as a problem and is going to get a time out. Think of it as being spotted in a fight the moment police arrive. They perceive their immediate role as breaking up the fight, not to figure out who started it or whose underlying grievance is legitimate. I would hope some of the administrators take the time to review the edit histories of the people involved for possible sock puppetry and long-term tendentious editing, problems that go beyond just getting people to stop a revert war. Sometimes that wider review happens; usually it does not. Wikidemo (talk) 17:10, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks.

I was about to write up the 3RR report, but I'll let you handle it. I'm noticing suspicious similarities between certain users' edit summaries, and may submit an RFCU in the interim. We've clearly got a large group of good-faith editors (so-called "inclusionsts" and "exclusionists" alike) willing to build the article, but there're a couple who've got no regard for the Talk page whatsoever. Don't worry too much, things'll be fine once they've been dealt with. Shem 18:14, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I re-opened the last 3RR report, if that is possible. At least I tried to. I'm very unclear on the procedure....I'll see what happens. I'm preparing to notify the AN/I and a courtesy notice to Workerbee74 about the 3RR report. Wikidemo (talk) 18:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Probably best to re-file it separately down page, for the ease of the reading administrator. Shem 18:20, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Will do. Wikidemo (talk) 18:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Er... I filed a new report a little while ago. I didn't notice that you had reopened the old one. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:36, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Reliable sources

I find some of your remarks ("I imagine we would deride most popular music there as simplistic and uninspired...") on Misplaced Pages talk:Reliable sources sufficiently off-base that I thought I'd come over here to discuss them rather than respond in such a public forum. To me, your remarks read as if you are just imagining what academic literature would be without ever reading any, and I figured I'd come over here so I could say this a bit more privately.

For example, in my experience, musicologists give death metal more respect than anyone other than metalheads, and an American Studies professor who focuses on the 20th century is going to have at least as much to say about Leiber and Stoller as any music critic. Not to say there isn't a certain amount of bullshit on popular culture to be found in academia, but in my experience it is more likely that academics will "discover" non-existent depth in a piece of popular music than dismiss it as "simplistic and uninspired".

As for "discuss social problems in terms of oppression of the majority culture", it's hard to say much more that "huh"? Are you saying that academics tend to defend the status quo and view the mainstream as somehow oppressed? No doubt some do, as do some of any other group. I'm sure you can find some Indian academics among the ranks of the BJP, and so forth, but in the U.S. and many European countries far more critical questioning comes out of academia and academic presses than out of the newspapers or (certainly) television.

Causation, as Redheylin accurately said in responding to you, is an explanatory principle, not a natural phenomenon.

"Jesus will save the oppressed": I have no idea where this came from. Are you saying that academics have a bias in favor of some kind of quietist Christianity? This just strikes me as bizarre. - Jmabel | Talk 21:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not an academic but I've read a fair amount of academic literature. Much is reasonable within its area of expertise, some is quite iconoclastic, biased, or nonauthoritative. Not academic literature but I recall a textbook my college classmate showed me on music appreciation that, as often happens, gave only a single chapter to 20th century classical and pop music. It concluded with a paragraph to the effect that most popular music is unsophisticated and of little interest, with the possible exception of the Beatles, who showed some degree of harmonic complexity in their works. I've found similar arrogance and bias in quite a few other fields - and in fact studied the issue a bit in academic pieces on history and philosophy of science. Perhaps a textbook is not a peer-reviewed journal piece, but the discussion in talk space was more broadly addressing the question of academic sources. The whole discussion over at WP:V is a bit arrogant and ivory tower. If you look at actual articles in article space, most of them are unsuitable for academic sourcing. It simply does not apply. I can understand the impatience with pseudoscience, fringe theories, etc., but most of the world does not look to academia as an unassailable source of knowledge. Our job as an encyclopedia is to present knowledge, not to favor one school or another. There are other regimes of understanding, e.g. law, news, and government records. As to you "huh" question the "of" is used in the sense of "by" - the majority culture oppresses minorities. That's dogma, and the predominant explanatory tool, in some circles of social science. Nothing wrong with that analysis, mind you, and perhaps true, but it's just one perceptual lens. It's a position, and not authoritative. And yes, much academic literature talks of causation as a natural law. It depends on the field. It's only when you get to philosophy of science, or metaphysics, some of those other things, that you actually get to a critique of causation. Of course in law, causation is something entirely different. I don't remember what I meant by the Jesus example, probably that in liberation theology that is the premise, something having to do with acceptance of Jesus or working of Jesus serving to liberate oppressed people throughout the world. You won't find that in most mainstream academia, but certain religious scholars for sure. Wikidemo (talk) 21:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Your agreement at Barack Obama

I have just posted the following in response to your offered agreement at Talk:barack Obama.

I am eager to not only agree, but to defend the agreement. I will do my best to keep the inclusionists (my side) from breaking the agreement. (I point out that this will mean I'm going to try to deal with such hot-tempered folk as Fovean Author and, when they inevitably return from their blocks, WorkerBee and Andyvphil.) You must, in turn, do your best to keep the exclusionists (your side) from breaking the agreement. (That includes Life.temp, Scjessey and Lulu.) Do you agree, Wikidemo? Kossack4Truth (talk) 23:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. I'll respond on the article talk page. Wikidemo (talk) 23:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

superstar

I left a few notes on the article talk page. I'm finding myself interested in improving the overall quality of the article. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 03:38, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

The weight of worlds

I've returned from my brief wikibreak and re-watchlisted Barack Obama. After reading through the discussions on the talk page, I am concerned at the way things are developing. It is clear that several editors are still trying to use Misplaced Pages to inflate minor controversies as much as they possibly can, and the lack of neutral editors is placing a lot of burden on your shoulders.

As you know, I voluntarily decided to take a two-week break from editing Obama and McCain-related articles, but that was predicated on the notion that the editors responsible for adding BLP-violating text would receive some sort of sanction. Unfortunately, the noticeboard debate has focused on matters of process, rather than matters of substance. Individuals responsible for tendentious and disruptive edits, like the single-purpose account WorkerBee74, have been allowed to continue their activities unchecked - perhaps even emboldened - by the absence of policy-driven editors like myself.

It disturbs me that a so-called "consensus" for the inclusion of contentious material is coming into being, opposed only by yourself and a couple of others. I note the frequent use of the word "compromise", but I think it is important to note that there can be no compromise when it comes to Misplaced Pages policy. WP:BLP must necessarily be strict because it involves people's lives, and how they are perceived by others. It is my opinion that specifically referring to Rezko's indictment and conviction of charges that are completely unrelated to Barack Obama is a clear violation of BLP policy.

I will continue to monitor the discussion from a back seat for the time being, but if I see things continuing to move in the wrong direction I may have to rethink that position. In the meantime, let me thank you for doing your best to maintain some level of sanity on the Obama BLP - it is much appreciated. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:24, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

As you probably know, AN/I is all about process, not substance. They're trying to sort out behavior problems and edit warring, not what the policies and guidelines say the article should look like. At some point you might want to comment at the andyvphil page that you would like to rejoin the discussion page inasmuch as nobody seems to have been topic banned and you still have some things to say. I'd avoid making accusations or big characterizations, and simply argue your position on the content. I'm probably not as firm as you are on keeping material out. I think some things have their place, and my threshold is probably a bit higher. The relevance of Rezko's indictment to Obama is that the investigation was already in place as of the time of the land deal, and Obama went ahead anyway - saying he didn't know initially but trusted Rezko's assurances later. Although the specific counts is not relevant to Obama, nor is a list of all of a politician's friends and associates who have been convicted of crimes, what is relevant is that Obama as a politician (apparently) lacks or lacked the insight, steeliness, judgment, caution, or whatever, to distance himself from controversial associates to the degree that is expected of most politicians these days. I find that argument persuasive, and it certainly did get a non-trivial amount of press. You're welcome to your opinion about BLP and you're free to argue it, but I disagree and don't think the BLP argument will carry much weight. It hasn't with the crop of administrators and editors so far and I'm guessing it won't with other neutral people. The deal is that Rezko himself has very little BLP interest - he's already been convicted, and the conviction was widely publicized, so there is no protecting him from anything. Only a little bit, that we shouldn't drag him through the mud indefinitely to disparage other people. Obama has very little BLP interest because he is a public figure, and all of these scandals are well-reported. As you probably can see I think of it as more of a weight and relevance issue, with a dash of NPOV and avoiding forks / redundancy as a style matter. Those arguments have wider appeal. If you step back and look at the Rezko material, though, it doesn't make a heck of a lot of difference. If we're going to mention it at all, the difference between Workerbee's proposed version and mine, or what's already in the article, is not going to make a huge difference. It makes Obama look about 3% worse than he would otherwise. The POV problem and gaming is the cumulative effect of a lot of derogatory material - trying to add Ayers too, and each of the Trinity pastors, and perhaps every other controversy that rolls around. As a final note, I don't think the sockpuppet question has been fully sorted out. It's probably best not to keep mentioning it on the talk page, and I doubt that all of the people involved are sockpuppets, but they never really did a complete checkuser. Workerbee is indeed an SPA and so are others. It is legitimate, though, to start out one's Misplaced Pages career on a single important article like this if the editing is productive and in good faith. So unless any of these can be shown to be sockpuppets or meatpuppets, I think you just have to live with it. People with longer edit histories, less history of trouble, and who argue calmly and well DO carry more weight because they convince more people. I think we might just have to leave it at that. But it would be nice to close the sockpuppet accusations down, and to do that I think they have to take their course. Life.temp being a sock puppet threw me off guard, so I would say, run it on everyone accused on both sides. Cheers, Wikidemo (talk) 01:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I just want to clear up a couple of things. Firstly, I haven't been one of those accusing anyone of using sockpuppets, apart from this report that I filed today. I do not believe that any of these regular edits are socks, or even meatpuppets. Secondly, I think that the whole "public figure" excuse for shoehorning titillating tangential tidbits (I should trademark that awesome phrase, shouldn't I?) is a wee bit overused. It indicates a slight relaxation of the rules for the public interest, but it shouldn't change the overall philosophy. Your argument about duplication was particularly well made - blue links, especially in an article written in summary style, should provide a reader with the opportunity to go deeper into biographical details of Obama's associates. Obviously some mention is essential, but it really should be restricted to the campaign section - if it weren't for the campaign, Rezko would not have been notable at all. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:01, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure. I haven't been keeping score of who did what but I tend to agree, there are different people editing (though it's possible that one or more are sockpuppets of someone else, you never know). I'm curious to see where the article would go if we had a whole bunch of fresh editors on it. I've caught a number of sockpuppets on the project so I'm pretty alert to the issue. You'll find that the BLP policy is already pretty strong, and many people don't support it as it is. I won't try to convince you, just consider it friendly advice that I don't think your BLP argument is gaining much acceptance so if you lead with that, a neutral editor/administrator may disagree and then compartmentalize your concern as answered/invalid. I think a parallel concern is that we don't want Misplaced Pages to be a scandal sheet. Even if not for Obama's own good (as a Presidential candidate he's expected to take all challenges), we simply don't want to be a conduit of the nasty political nonsense. Well, my proposal does restrict Rezko coverage to the campaign section but it discusses the uncontroversial aspects of his home purchase, and his work for the law firm, in their appropriate places. That's putting everything where it belongs, IMO. Wikidemo (talk) 02:26, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: Barack Obama article

Regarding my "potentially contentious" edit to the Barack Obama article:

My 20:58, 19 June 2008 edit: (Revert mass reversion by US - Jimmy Slade done without any edit summary or discussion on Talk page to last version by HailFire) was to undo US - Jimmy Slade's highly disruptive massive revert to revision 212239461 by Scjessey of 00:12, 14 May 2008 from 5 weeks, 1 day, 18 hours and 14 minutes earlier, undoing 1,187 subsequent edits (including 23 of my edits), from which point editors could undo one or more of HailFire's edits and discuss them on the Talk:Barack Obama page.

Your 21:09, 19 June 2008 m edit: (Undid revision 220433224 by Newross (talk) restoring what seems to be stable version of article - will caution user to not edit war) did not restore a "stable version of article," it restored US - Jimmy Slade's highly disruptive massive revert to a revision from 36 days earlier which undid 1,187 subsequent edits.

Please be more careful with your edits. Thank you. Newross (talk) 15:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

It was a complete mess. My comment about edit warring stands. Certainly you know of the discussion on the talk page.Wikidemo (talk) 15:40, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

It was indeed a complete mess. And your completely unwarranted lecture about "edit warring" to a regular editor of the article simply trying to undo US - Jimmy Slade's highly disruptive edit -- that accompanied your careless restoration of US - Jimmy Slade's highly disruptive edit -- was not appreciated and not conducive to maintaining a WP:CIVIL atmosphere.Newross (talk) 17:25, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

You're being needlessly confrontational here. I can understand the awkwardness of being cautioned about your edits, and I did try to keep up a courteous enough tone for that. I stand by mine. If Lulu had not jumped in to finish fixing things I would have. Sorry, Wikidemo (talk) 17:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Sock wearing armies

I note that in addition to Forvean Author being blocked for sock puppetry (is there a link to anyplace where that action is explained?) there are two other new reports, Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Improve2009 and Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/216.153.214.89. That makes a total of four SSP reports and two confirmed sockpuppet operators on the Obama page in the past several days. It's only natural to wonder if some of these are related, and whether a narrowly focused checkuser might miss some of the connections. Maybe it's best to ask for guidance from a seasoned admin / checkuser operator. With two confirmed sockpuppets on one of the most important articles in the encyclopedia at the moment, I think there's a good case to be made for sorting it out once and for all in an orderly way. Wikidemo (talk) 08:38, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I quite concur that there's something much more going on than only those socks I listed in this latest report. I actually think that one of the IP's I copied over to the second K4T checkuser request was an Andyvphil sock, not a K4T one, but it's hard to sort out. I'm not really convinced by the negative check on FA/K4T, but we have to go with what the admin found. WB/K4T I'm pretty sure about though.

Moreover, there is something very strange about the masses of "votes" on the Rezko language polls from IP addresses whose first contribution to the page are those votes. Even more so because they all vote the same way.

I don't really know how to deal with this. If you can grab a seasoned admin/checkuser by the shirt collar, that would be great. It's hard to pin them down at times though. I appreciate any efforts you make. LotLE×talk 18:55, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Pronoun Problem

You have been recently active on the WP:V talk page. Please visit this discussion on WP:VPP and contribute comments if you want to. Thank you. 208.43.120.114 (talk) 02:21, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Sock-IP-SPA issues

Thank you for your comment. It is definitely going to be difficult to move forward unless the "beastly horde" move to new feeding grounds. With the exception of reverting vandalism or correcting minor formatting/spelling errors, I have no plans to do any editing of the actual article, so I won't be getting involved in any revert wars. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:46, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Presidential Memorial Commission of San Francisco

Awesome. Just, awesome. I think Philadelphia needs to rename a garbage scow or something too! -- Scjessey (talk) 19:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Fark

Wikidemo -

I know you're not an administrator but you've been so amazingly level headed on the American Apparel stuff I was hoping you might take a look at the Fark article. I tried to rewrite the article and again am having similar problems with people editorializing an article that is for a real (albeit a funny) business. I could be totally wrong but I thought you might be able to look at it and tell us if there is a problem. I'm sure you'll at least know who to go to if there is. Specifically, it is the section about Fark TV and the vandalism by an unsigned user.

TheRegicider (talk) 03:01, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

RfA Review

Hello Wikidemon. I've noticed that you have a completed set of responses to the RfA Review question phase at User:Wikidemo/RfA review , but they don't seem to be included on the list of responses here. If you've completed your responses, please can you head to Misplaced Pages:RfA Review/Question/Responses and add a link to them at the bottom of the list so that they get included in the research. We have a closing date of midnight UTC on 1st July, so please add your link before this date. Once again, thank you for taking the time to participate in the Question Phase of RfA Review.Gazimoff _Read 16:50, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Do not remove legitimate requests for citation

You've removed legitimate tags requesting citations on the Stars (restaurant), your reason being "I don't think so".

The sources contradict the article, or partly contradict the article, in at least two places.

The article makes wild claims, almost entirely based on a couple articles from the same newspaper columnist. From a paper (or from the person themselves) that the Stars owner refused to speak to, according to one of the articles.

Many of the important (and questionable) statements appear to be founded on a single newspaper article, or come from other sources that are not named.

See the discussion there.

67.169.126.223 (talk) 16:08, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

The tags are farfetched. I reverted as a matter of course as seemingly misguided hit-and-run tagging by a new editor. I'll respond in more detail in the article talk page.Wikidemo (talk) 18:31, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Die4dixie

Setting aside who is right and who is wrong for a moment, I recommend you not remove his comments like that from his own talk. If they were made on your talk, you would have every right, but they were made on his talk. The whole issue of who is harassing/stalking whom can often be looked at based on what talk page the issue lies at. From what I see, he isn't coming to your talk and posting those things. He's doing it at his own talk. I'm trying to be fair here, and I'm not condoning some of his past reprehensible behavior, but I hope you can see my point. Regards, Enigma 08:59, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, for goodness sake! Don't equate a problem editor with one trying to maintain the peace. He has been harassing me and others, and playing tit-for-tat games on administrative notice boards as retribution over a simple civility warning that doesn't even involve me. It's a garden variety problem editor. Wikidemo (talk) 09:24, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say he was trying to maintain the peace. I'm suggesting that edit warring with him over a borderline civility issue at his talk page and then reporting him to AN/I was probably not the best course of action. Enigma 10:03, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

If I were an admin I would have blocked him, or asked another to do so. As a non-admin, my recourse for personal attacks like that is to first ask the editor to stop and then report it to AN/I. This is an administrative issue. The editor is a long-term problem here with basically nothing but trouble in their edit history, and shows no sign of heeding warnings or moderating his behavior. How many warnings does the guy need to accumulate before being reported? I suppose I could have allowed the obnoxious comments to remain pending the outcome, but they're indefensible and it is unpleasant when a problem editor plays wikigames with bogus administrative reports or makes accusations about lying. Wikidemo (talk) 10:09, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

You would have blocked him? You're personally involved in a dispute with him. You don't block someone you're in a dispute with. That's sort of what got User:Tango desysopped. If you really thought what he wrote was a personal attack (even then, only parts of it were questionable, not the entire thing), I'm sure someone else would have removed it. Or maybe not, because nobody reads his talk page. Which begs the question, why does it matter so much what he says on his talk? I think you should take a step back. Enigma 10:18, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the patient explanations, that's very helpful. Administrators patrolling articles do block tendentious editors who try to stymie their efforts at keeping peace. It seems to happen all the time, although I do hear your point. It's a tough balance. On the one hand you have to be firm and not put up with nonsense that people throw out. If you disqualified yourself from a situation every time a tendentious editor accused you of administrative abuse, lying, bias, etc., you would give the troublemakers a free ticket to continue. On the other hand, I wholeheartedly agree with you that you have to keep a thick skin and can't bring your own ego to the table. I'm not troubled that the editor accuses me of bad faith, lying, douchebaggery, etc. I'm editing in good faith, not lying, and trying to do what's best. But I am troubled by the editor's abuse of the project here. They have caused a lot of disruption, and seem intent on continuing. This started out as a warning over edit warring and incivility on an important article. If they return to editing articles in that mode, they'll have to be dealt with. If this editor isn't warned and blocked over the latest talk page stuff, surely he'll just get into trouble as soon as he returns to editing articles. Wikidemo (talk) 10:34, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

The project has a way of policing itself. I admire your intentions, but if he truly is what you say he is, he'll be dealt with. Just let things take their own course. They tend to work out in the end. Enigma 10:43, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Let me just make this clear

I may have been unclear on this. Scjessey was confused by my proposal, and I notice you wrote "Adding a criticism section on the topic would be over the top." You do realize that I'm asking that the words "media scrutiny" in the proposed Rezko passage be replaced with "criticism from political rivals and others" with some added expansion in a footnote. This is a net addition of four words to the Rezko passage, and I'm not even proposing to name McCain or Clinton in the text. That's the entire weight we're adding. Noroton (talk) 23:49, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I'll take a look - is there any place where I can see the proposal? I'll look for it on the talk page in the next day or so. Take care, Wikidemo (talk) 00:13, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

The section is here Talk:Barack Obama#Let's fully discuss judgment/media scrutiny/other alternative language. I added a note on top of the original discussion (now marked by a bullet and boldfaced words saying The original discussion started here). You've already participated there, but if you thought I was arguing for a paragraph or section rather than a four-word addition, please look over the discussion. I'd like to know if you think four words (or, alternately, 7 words, as discussed) would be OK. Noroton (talk) 17:49, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay...Thanks. I am inclined to disagree with including it but would go along if that's the decision. You're absolutely right that as proposed it is not a whole lot of wording or weight. I'll participate there if I have some time later. -- Wikidemo (talk) 18:04, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

3RR vio

Actually, I inadvertently reverted the last time and immediately reverted my revert. I meant to restore my edits that were deleted by another editor . When I realized what I had done, I restored that which I had mistakenly deleted. At least I think I did. Additionallly, I viewed the section heading as a personal attack on those editors trying to find a WP:V, WP:NPOV way to present the material. No whitewashing intended....  :) Dreadstar † 07:19, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the help on George Soros. He has taken many controversial stands (in many areas, not just politics) and the article attracts many controversial opinions, misc. facts that are supposed to prove something, etc. The man himself draws many opinions, see e.g Karl Rove's contention in today's Wall Street Journal that Soros is one of 3 reasons that Dem's have a financial advantage over the Republicans. The article was locked up for 3 months last year over how to include a fact-free campaign by Bill O'Reilly against Soros.

Any help to maintain a NPOV would be much appreciated. I watch the article, but sometimes I think too closely - maintaining NPOV can't be a one person job.

Or perhaps you could ask others with a reputation for even-handedness to watch the article as well.

Thanks again,

Smallbones (talk) 15:39, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

William Morris article

Thanks!11:13, 4 July 2008 (UTC) Could you help add the logo to http://en.wikipedia.org/Image:Wmalogo.gif? I don't have the authority... Thanks Breadandsocks (talk) 11:37, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. Someone apparently added a logo already but I just uploaded a new version that I think looks better. Wikidemo (talk) 12:02, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! I'd really apprciate if you can continue to help with this page.. i'll try to add more useful info tooBreadandsocks (talk) 12:03, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, regarding your suggestion on the lists, i actually had a past client list but was deleted. Should i reinsert?Breadandsocks (talk) 20:46, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I think a single list for current and past clients works. 2 lists means double the potential issues and upkeep... but if it gets way too long you'll have to trim it to the ones that are most notable and relevant, and say so in the heading, e.g. "representative list of notable present and past clients". Also, it's best to give a list a brief prose introduction if you can do so without appearing to be boosting the company, e.g. "WMA has provided talkent, a, and b representation for many notable clients in the x, y, and z industries." Wikidemo (talk) 20:51, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and Drink Newsletter July 2008

WikiProject Food and Drink Newsletter July 2008

--Chef Tanner (talk) 15:56, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Happy Independence Day!

As you are a nice Wikipedian, I just wanted to wish you a happy Independence Day! And if you are not an American, then have a happy day and a wonderful weekend anyway!  :) Your friend and colleague, --Happy Independence Day! Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 03:57, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Barack Obama Edit War?

OK, sometimes I get that sometimes these things whip up quickly so I'm going to assume that's how you came to be involved and then to leave a warning on my talk page. In good faith, I seemed to have stumbled into some kind of tempest regarding Martinevans123 and his repeated additions of Obama's Welsh ancestry. I checked the discussion page and there was no pending conversation on the matter, and one of the editors engaged in the add/RM cycle had stated that his/her objections were a) it was trivial especially in light of the b) already massive length of the article.

"Oh," says I. "Well, an offer of an official visit is not so trivial and there are ways to make this bit smaller and folded in more appropriately as a compromise edit." And thus I did. Which has since then seen me singed by the same flamethrower that's spinning about this article. My point (and I do have one) is that edits are NOT always edit wars, and no one does own this article - so differing points of view should be a welcome thing to process, yes?

This is a conversation that should have quickly been taken to the Discussion page and I, like others, failed to do so. In my case, a moment of poor judgment - but not, emphatically and loudly, any attempt AT ALL to engage in an edit war. My edits tried to make what seemed to be an important nugget of material more acceptable to its gatekeeping editors. It didn't work, and I've walked away. EBY3221 (talk) 20:04, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Indeed - I tried to leave a friendly, factual message and don't mean to imply at all that you were trying to cause trouble. I perceived you may still be tempted to keep reverting and might not know the history of the page and why it's particularly sensitive. If the admins who sometimes visit the page catch you at the wrong moment you get blocked for stepping into the wrong place at the wrong time. I'll leave a courtesy notice on your talk page for the record, if you haven't already, so nobody sees it as a bad mark. Wikidemo (talk) 20:51, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your civility, and your note. Thank you EBY3221 (talk) 21:18, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

deleted discussion

My discussions are not "unhelpful" that is a bias opinion of yours, please do NOT vandalize my posts or I will report you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.112.222.247 (talk) 10:12, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I deleted the contributions as racially inflamatory and not appropriate to the encyclopedic purpose of article talk pages, and cautioned you accordingly. You are on notice. I would not care to discuss it beyond that. Wikidemo (talk) 10:23, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

My discussions were anything but racist, they were non biased according to race. One should not be seen as African American only if he is a mix of both races, that is bias and that is racist. You are on notice that I will be reporting you to Misplaced Pages if you continue this bias opinionated editing without being civilized about it. For one, it was in discussion, I have freedom of speech for two I was not doing or saying anything wrong, incorrect or immoral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.112.222.247 (talk) 10:36, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Editor warned again; I will not respond here.Wikidemo (talk) 10:54, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

threaten me and accuse me falsely of racial slander. How can I be racist against someone who is my own race, it makes no sense. You are the one being racist! and you will get whatever karma is coming to you for your racist POV bias nonsense. Ban my IP, it's dynamic do you think I care? you are nothing but a racist, control freak communist who likes to twist things to falsely accuse others. You are on a power trip and need to be removed from your position in wikipedia and replaced with someone who understands the difference between comparison logic and racist bashing. I am using comparison logic, factual data which can be understood in a non-bias orderly way. you are taking it out of context and twisting it to make it seem like I am being racist. Prove to me logically that I am being racist, where am I being racist? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.112.222.247 (talk) 07:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but I am not going to respond to this kind of trolling on my talk page. Wikidemo (talk) 07:18, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

You have been reported to wikipedia for your power trips. I no longer have any use talking to ignorant power hungry "know it alls" like yourself. Goodbye. I only hope and pray one day you wake up from your ignorant controlling nature and become civilized and logical. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.112.222.247 (talk) 08:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

A "new" article for Malik Obama----

is sure to be nominated for deletion; so I've actually done so myself here even though I believe it now passes muster due to Maliks multiple press mentions (which had not yet been catalogued when contributors had so very recently weighed in on its "Obongo" iteration. Please be patient with this proposal while those interested weigh in again. I'm notifying those who commented.) — Justmeherenow (   ) 06:40, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

feel free to delete

You're welcome to delete any of my comments anywhere in the article. I won't protest or revert any changes you make.

I will not remove them myself because I was truly shocked by a user swearing at you and find my comments relevant in that those arguing for deletion are using red herring arguments, if not plain personal attacks, to divert attention from the merits or demerits of the article itself.

I have no problem with you removing them.

If nothing else, I know that I am not always right, so I defer to your judgement.

Cheers,

--Utahredrock (talk) 04:47, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree, and thanks for the concern. But I've also learned recently that even when someone is being abusive it's best to just let them have their say and move on. As long as they're editing in good faith and not trolling. They'll calm down and everyone is okay....but if you scold someone for being upset, they just get more upset. I think some of the red herring arguments have a real concern at heart. In the wider world lots of people are trying to find every last farfetched scare tactic to make people fear Obama. Of course there is legitimate criticism of Obama too, but a lot of the "Obama is a secret muslim" stuff is made up out of thin air. Some of it creeps onto Misplaced Pages. There have been quite a few people trying to repeat the rumors here. So people are jumpy and suspicious. Everything that is critical of obama alarms people, because it might be yet another problem. I think they've incorrectly jumped to the conclusion that the Malik Obama is just an effort to put bad stuff about Obama in the encyclopedia, and lose sight of the fact that he's a real person and the information presented here is factual, and not negative. I'll probably take you up on the offer. Wikidemo (talk) 04:54, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree and even though my intent was to call for order, the effect (obviously) was the opposite--at least with S Dean and probably with T-rex. It was particularly ironic since I'd felt attacked by S Dean previously and had replied on his talk page. When someone swore at you, that seemed over the top enough to reply on the main debate page. Still, I think your reasoning is sound and trumps my own. When S Dean took the bait on the main debate page I found the irony too rich--but as you point out, irrelevant to the discussion all the same. Cheers,--Utahredrock (talk) 05:04, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Levitron AfD

Hi,

Thanks for working on improving the article. You made some good points in this reply; I'm just not sure that there's enough material there to warrant two articles in the end, especially given that the trademark owner appears quite willing to pay people to influence the outcome. Anyway, suppose it's up to the community. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:16, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, if there's only one article it should be a merge - not expunging the branding, marketing, and litigation history of the device. And logically, the merge would probably best be at the common name of the thing. I think Misplaced Pages can defend itself against COI. We've had far more formidable COI foes than a little toy company, e.g. American Apparel and Microsoft. At any rate I would take it to AN/I and if necessary to arbitration before giving up....the final give-up, yes, is to delete the article rather than letting it be used by the company for a revisionist history of its litigation. Wikidemo (talk) 17:23, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it's a bad idea, I think the article should die. It's all very well right now, but the article will be rewritten in the next week or two to remove all the stuff you've added. There's too many sockpuppets and the wikipedia aren't even enforcing the rules against company-specific accounts (see User:Fascinations). So then you're involved in, not vandalism, but a content dispute with the company account... as well as the sock puppets. And the thing has a whole bunch of legal angles thrown in, and they already have lawyers. I think it's far better not to attack the company for what they did, but to describe the Roy Harrigan guy that really did invent it over in the other article. It's likely to be a whole lot less problematic all round. I don't think you can win this one, it's better for everyone if this article dies.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 00:16, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. Well, we can plan for what to do if the article survives AfD and there's trouble. Although there's the precedent that Misplaced Pages shouldn't be bullied by bad actors it's not a terribly important article and there's some deterrent effect and self-protection by a de-facto policy that if a company tries to game its own article to the point of overwhelming Misplaced Pages's resources then we just jettison the article rather than letting it be corrupted. It's probably fine to move the Harrigan material to the other article because even if they did base the Levitron on his invention it's still a separate matter. I also think it's possible to have an article about Levitron that doesn't take sides or offend the company...but the way it had been written was entirely one sided in the wrong direction. Wikidemo (talk) 01:28, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it's guaranteed that there will be trouble. There's also the point that if you consider the sockpuppets to be the enemy, then it's usually a good idea to do the opposite of what the enemy wants, and they seem to want this article to be here. I think what you're describing could work, but might be better left to the fallback position if the article gets recreated after a DRV. And the two inventions are the same. The only difference is that the base magnet is a trivially different shape, and I wouldn't like to bet any money that a patent review would consider that difference novel.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 02:54, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah, there's also another patent issue surrounding this company. The floating globe that floats above the base is actually patented by another company, see: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sgYUOUfPm8c. As I understand it simerlabs did a lookey-likey patent and Fascinations tried to market it. It turns out that Levitation Art is the Sherlocks company. There seems to be legal attacks trying to prevent simerlabs/Fascinations from selling their system in America. I'm thinking that Fascinations/Simerlab should lose, but you never know.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 04:32, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Wow, we can't get in the middle of an active patent dispute. We can report that there is litigation if there is, but I think it's a little tough to comment in main space on active IP litigation and who apparently is in the right. I swear, they're going to bankrupt each other if they don't stop. It's like watching editors edit war over nothing. Still, very interesting stuff to follow. Maybe this is tech blog territory more than Misplaced Pages article territory. Thanks for the update. Wikidemo (talk) 05:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Brilliant breakdown

Your analysis of sentence-per-topic on Obama is absolutely wonderful. It helps put the weight questions in clear and stark perspective. Thanks. LotLE×talk 08:48, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Lying

Lying is telling an untruth. It is not true that I have said I am "trying to delete the efforts of "Obama fans" on the project". If you want to me to retract my comment, retract yours. John Smith's (talk) 11:08, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore if you ask others to assume good faith you need to do the same. I will try to assume that you are acting out of good faith, but it would help if you did the same. John Smith's (talk) 11:10, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to bargain with you about your accusing me of lying, but I have refactored the comments to be less harsh. Lying is stating a falsehood with a deliberate intent to deceive. If you simply disagree, say you disagree. But don't accuse other editors of lying. If you're going to hold court over your own AfD nomination that way there's basically no way to have an AfD discussion. Please redact your comment form the talk board.

You did indeed say that you were trying to counteract Obama fans. That is an inherently POV statement and, as I said, a provocation. Perhaps you didn't understand this issue but as I said it has been a big problem on the Obama pages. Once you assume that the articles exist for POV purposes and you're fixing the POV by deleting them, you're acting to change POV. That has nothing to do with your nationality, assumptions, or anything else. Interestingly, other people are arguing the exact opposite, that the only reason people want to create articles about Obama's Kenyan relatives is to cast aspersions on him. I should think that AGF and avoiding POV would be to accept that people have created the articles because they consider the people notable and the articles worthwhile to the encyclopedia. Wikidemo (talk) 11:32, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

"it appears that discussion of this issue in the sources is mostly a POV matter advanced by anti-Obama partisans"

What is that if not an assumption of bad faith? Why can't I have foremost in my motives a genuine concern that Misplaced Pages articles be neutral? Why is it that if I sincerely think the Obama article is lacking in information that I think is important, I shouldn't want that information included? Please refactor your 08:16, 13 July comment at Talk:Barack Obama. We were sticking to the subject and that comment started degrading the discussion into one about motives. Noroton (talk) 17:08, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, wait a minute, in the sources -- OK. I get it. That's actually not a bad point. I'll answer it later on the Obama talk page. Noroton (talk) 17:09, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Please don't be so quick to scold. That is a comment about the motivations of people off wikipedia, not on wikipedia. That's the reason for the phrase "in the sources", a phrase I inserted deliberately to make that clear. I'll refactor if that can make it clearer. The source of the first few under "Obama ACORN" at the moment are Marathon Pundit (John Ruberry), "Dateline D.C.", "Carnivorous Conservative" from "Riehl World View", Stanley Kurtz at National Review, Michelle Malkin, redstate.com, the No Quarter blog, etc. With one exception those are all very partisan sources. It is quite relevant that this is the issue of the day for the anti-Obama partisans, and that we should be careful not to mirror that here on Misplaced Pages. Wikidemo (talk) 17:29, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Yet not one the sources I added to the discussion are on that list (I'd read the Kurtz source before this discussion started, but none of the others, although I read John Fund sometimes.) There is clearly WP:RS sourcing available, it clearly documents something important to his community organizing and political careers. Sounds like something worth mentioning in the article. ... -- Noroton (talk) 21:47, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

As yet it doesn't pass the sniff test for me as being something that has the necessary relevance or weight to be a salient detail of Obama's life. If you want to gather all the sources I'll keep an open mind but as of now I'm dubious and think all the attempts to add negative associations are proving to be a bottleneck in the article. I think my formulation is pretty on target, that a bio covers things he actually did, not indirect associations and inferences.Wikidemo (talk) 21:53, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Input requested

Could you weigh in on a very minor edit war at Gabrielle Giffords?

Thanks. See the talk page. Tvoz came up with a solution that I thought made sense, calling Giffords a politician and small business owner. I think she is still both, she certainly was both prior to becoming a member of the US Congress. I am not convinced the category (it's an infobox thing) is even needed, but another editor is making changes to all members of congress. I guess I could see some use in it.

Anyway, would love your input at Giffords. Thanks.--Utahredrock (talk) 23:29, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

blanking pages

This edit was a mistake. While it is true that biographies of living people and copyright violations are not allowed on wikipedia blanking the page was not the correct action. You should have marked the page for speedy deletion as G10 (attack page) or G12 (copyright violation). Blanking the page does not inform administrators that the page needs to be deleted. Jon513 (talk) 16:48, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Not a mistake at all - a blatant copyright violation can't sit here pending resolution. I took no position whether the page ought to be deleted or not. Perhaps I could have stubbified and linked to the source website, or added a speedy notice in addition to blanking (I see you created a new stub) but I took no position as to whether the subject is notable and a legitimate article could be written. The mysterious user had just done two copyvios in a quick succession and I didn't want to get bogged down in procedure while figuring out whether this was an issue that needed AN/I attention. Wikidemo (talk) 16:55, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

assuming the New Yorker piece is reliable

I'll make this point here since I suspect one or both of us would just end up repeating ourselves at some point if we continued over there.

If you "take no position" on the New Yorker piece, then I take it you are dropping your claim of a "contradiction", seeing as you cited it when you claimed there was a contradiction? If you should happen to take the piece as generally reliable, as I do, then I'd refer you to "The 1992 voter-registration drive, Project Vote, introduced him ...". We have a subject here and a verb. The verb is "introduce". The subject appears to be "voter registration drive". It also appears that "Project Vote" is a particular name for this "drive". My reading of the sources is that ACORN hired Obama to run this drive but ACORN was not the exclusive financier and supporter of the drive (other individuals and/or organizations with similar agendas being involved). In any case, whatever ACORN's role was in supporting Obama and the project, ACORN was "smack dab in the middle of it", to quote Obama, such that it is not as if we were misleading readers by mentioning an organization with which Obama never worked. It does say later "His work for Project Vote was similarly applauded"; however, I think the common sense interpretation of that sentence is that it is like saying "Eugene Kranz' work for Apollo 13 was similarly applauded". If you saw such a sentence, following as it does after a sentence on the order of "The 1970 lunar mission, Apollo 13, introduced him ...", I believe it would be less than "obvious" that Eugene Kranz could not have have been hired by NASA.

In sum, while acknowledging limits to the analogy, I see ACORN as analogous to NASA, the Project Vote organization as analogous to the Johnson Space Centre in Houston, Illinois Project VOTE! as analogous to Apollo 13 (albeit more successful), and Obama as analogous to Eugene Kranz. In terms of space exploration, some discoveries are described as due to the work of "Johnson Space Centre" or "JPL" and others as due to NASA. One could say Kranz worked for the Johnson Space Centre in Houston. You could also say Kranz worked for Apollo 13. But is either ideal when we've got a source in front of us that says, "NASA hired Kranz to run Apollo 13" and we know that Johnson Space Centre is an arm of NASA? More importantly, would it be appropriate to have no mention at all of NASA in a bio about Kranz if other sources said he had worked with NASA affiliates prior to Apollo 13, NASA employees worked for Kranz subsequent to Apollo 13, Kranz has continued to train NASA staff for years, NASA says "Kranz has proven himself among our members", and Kranz says himself that he has been "fightingworking alongside NASA ... my entire career"?Bdell555 (talk) 02:28, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not withdrawing anything. If there was a formal principal/agent or employer/employee relationship between ACORN and OBAMA with respect to the voter drive I would expect more sourcing than the WSJ article, which stands by itself in the field and does not seem reliable. If ACORN was paying money to Project Vote, which in turn hired Obama, we also need sourcing or that but we then have to deal with weight and relevance. Wikidemo (talk) 02:40, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

As requested, my argument for ACORN sentence, organized

This is a form message I'm cross posting on various user talk pages: As requested, I wrote up my argument in one spot, consolidating what I'd said before and adding just a bit. Please take a look at it at User:Noroton/The case for including ACORN and comment at Talk:Barack Obama#Case for ACORN proposed language, restated. Thanks, Noroton (talk) 02:56, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll take a look within half a day. Wikidemo (talk) 02:57, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Aaak, no time yet. Thanks for the effort. I wasn't being difficult, I really was having trouble seeing it all in one place rather than a little bit of an argument here and there. But I am inclined to rethink things. Not so much through the indirect argument that A + B + C = a close connection between ACORN and Project Vote, but some of the sources Bdell555 has turned up. I don't think they show what he is trying to prove, that there is a direct employer/employee type relationship, but they do seem to show that the two organizations are closely aligned, in which case it's fair and helpful to mention that in some way. Wikidemo (talk) 21:11, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

what I don't understand

about your approach is how you can apparently dismiss something that appears in the Wall Street Journal as false so casually. The fact is, the situation and the sources are vague. Many of them are like the Obama campaign's Youtube video in that they indicate that "Project Vote" was what the registration effort was "called". That doesn't seem compatible with the idea that "Project Vote" could have hired Obama. So how do we explain this? I'm trying to integrate all the sources into an explanation that doesn't require rejecting any of them as necessarily false on their face, but there doesn't seem to be much enthusiasm for such an effort. It doesn't bother you at all to just dismiss Fund's claim? You just don't feel motivated to come up with a scenario that wouldn't involve just implying that Fund decided to make it up? I raise this issue because it occured to me that perhaps the biggest reason we have differences is because cognitive dissonance doesn't especially bother you. In my own case, I'd say that there isn't anything that bothers me more. I can't just dismiss ANY source casually short of the Weekly World News because if I do, what does that say about the rest?Bdell555 (talk) 10:30, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

An editorial on the WSJ is still an editorial. Fund is clearly advocating against Obama, and in the process playing fast and loose with the facts. You are asking a simple factual question. Did the corporate entity known as ACORN enter an employment or contractual relationship to employ Obama. The question can be resolved easily on the merits, not by weighing sources. And that answer is almost certainly no. If I were to apply Occam's Razor to why Fund said something clearly not true, I would say it's a rhetorical flourish, just beyond the bounds of unethical journalistic conduct because under some unlikely but plausible definitions of the word "hired" one can say that an entity hired a person when in fact a distinct entity arguably tied to it did. Wikidemo (talk) 10:37, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

re "editorial", I've asked you repeatedly to respond to my post of 18:55, 13 July on the Obama Talk page which debunks the relevance of this contention and you've refused. Why continue to deny the world your rejoinder? If Fund is "playing fast and loose with the facts" you ought to be able to provide specific examples that support this generalization of yours. And, no, I am not asking that question. I'm asking if "Acorn hired Obama" is false. That could be a formal hiring or an informal hiring. re "The question can be resolved easily on the merits, not by weighing sources", that's really what's at the heart of your error. You are saying that you can draw necessary inferences, when in fact one can only draw contingent inferences. Why aren't you accusing the Kansas City Daily Record of approaching "the bounds of unethical journalism" when it claims that a worker "was hired by the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, a nonprofit organization, in 2006 to work with Project Vote, also a nonprofit organization", something that you insist is a priori impossible because, according to your analysis of "the merits", if someone worked with Project Vote, he or she could not have been hired by ACORN? If "Acorn hired Obama" is a "rhetorical flourish", what would a simple statement of fact look like?Bdell555 (talk) 18:31, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Huh? It's a partisan position statement. Yes, "Acorn hired Obama" is not literally true. That's rather obvious.... unless the author has some access to W-2 forms he's not sharing. It misleads the reader. What you call an "informal hiring" means that a company that the author wants to connect somehow to ACORN hired Obama, or perhaps that ACORN asked Obama's company for Obama's help, or something else indirect. Yet a casual reader - and a more intent reader like yourself - misreads the statement as a claim that ACORN formally hired Obama. That's fast and loose with the facts, yet it contains enough of a hint of truth that the author can deny an intent to mislead. It's a common tactic in political debate. Wikidemo (talk) 19:46, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, the additional sources you brought to the table, and your arguments are beginning to convince me of Noroton's position, though - see next section up. Wikidemo (talk) 21:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

If you are interested, the Project Vote/ACORN dispute continues over at Talk:Project_Vote#What_sources_actually_say as well. I bolded my assertion that a "friendly" source is more likely to minimize the relationship because I think it is of particular importance.Bdell555 (talk) 05:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the notice. Wikidemo (talk) 08:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

ACORN is trumpeting the New York Times article that describes PV as "arm" on acorn.org: "The voter registration campaigns of ACORN and Project Vote have been so effective that they have gained national attention – including a front-page article in this Sunday’s New York Times, included below."Bdell555 (talk) 20:57, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, yes. More sources. I won't comment too much now this specific source. "Arm" is an interesting choice of words and not a term of art so I wonder if that's deliberate. There seem to be a cluster of sources that say slightly different but related things around the core issue of PV being a side project of ACORN. I trust you're keeping a list of these so that if you have to make a case all in one place, as I asked Noroton to do, you can lay it all out. Cheers, Wikidemo (talk) 21:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd also like to see the magician's trick that saws Project Vote's current Executive Director in half:

This report was compiled by:

Mike Slater

Election Administration

Program Director

Project Vote/ACORN

Bdell555 (talk) 21:41, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

CFD

I've replied on my talk page. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 20:14, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Thx, I'll go there. Wikidemo (talk) 20:17, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Obama primary page

thanks for understanding what I was trying to do, even without any justification of mine on the talk. I remember crafting a long and detailed response to your questions. Which I apparently previewed but never posted. Do you remember seeing anything along those lines anywhere? I talked a lot about summary style and trying to use general statements over specific ones, especially when talking about the claims made in the emails. etc... you seem have gotten the gist of it without my rantings anyways... so thank you and I am sorry I didn't explain myself better at the time. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 20:59, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Help at Project Vote

I could use some assistance here, if you are able to: Talk:Project_Vote#Editorial opinion of ACORN relationship. LotLE×talk 23:59, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Illegal Immigration (US)

The article was screaming, "Open-source collaborative edit!" Any heavily-edited article, much less one subject to contentious editing, needs someone to come around, now and again, to apply some consistency and logical structure to the content. Thank you for stepping up on this article, and keep up the (usually thankless) good work. 75.111.38.114 (talk) 04:39, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Aw, shucks. Thanks! Wikidemo (talk) 08:25, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Man vs. Bot

You're right, the bot at Talk:George Soros is not going to back down. I tried forward-dating the RfC, and that didn't work either. I left a note for MessedRocker who apparently owns the bot, but no response so far. Do you have any other suggestions? --Marvin Diode (talk) 14:43, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea. Maybe a new one on a different page? Considering there wasn't not much response you could use this as an occasion to make the new one more enticing, maybe mention something about Jessica Alba? :) Wikidemo (talk) 18:04, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

July 2008

You said this is my second warning where is my first warning. What I wrote is factual information it clearly says it on CNN.COM Obama Visits Troops--Ron John (talk) 17:40, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Your first warning is the request at the top of the section. We can discuss the content on the article talk page. Avoiding edit warring and making personal attacks against other editors is a separate issue. Wikidemo (talk) 17:57, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Obama visiting service members in combat zone is notable. People have died in these places even recently with the death of 9 service members Obama still came to see us. Yes I'm a servic e member in war now and you guys seem to have it out not to note this man visiting us in a war zone. I've been in combat and haven't seen McCain come to visit us! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronjohn (talk • contribs) 18:20, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I do respect your views, just wish you wouldn't edit war over them. It would be a shame and kind of an irony (if you can laugh at it) that you've served our country in combat only to get in trouble on Misplaced Pages! I'll self-edit my "warning" on your page to be less threatening. Maybe this belongs in the campaign article - there's a separate article just about the Presidential campaign. Or if you think he did it in his role as senator rather than candidate, maybe in the article about his senate career. Wikidemo (talk) 18:24, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

He visited before in 2006. I'm not warring but it's not fair to remove something that is factual is very notable that a Senator from US came to visit us in war zone. If it was BS I wouldn't have put it up there. I moved it to his Senator part but someone removed it now what? This is why I hate using wiki sometimes. Granted I may have written some non-civil stuff on user pages but oh well that's on the user page not something important--Ron John (talk) 18:37, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I meant that there's an entire artcle, United States Senate career of Barack Obama, where that might fit. Perhaps somewhere near the section on honors and awards - a new section on "official visits" or something like that to mention his visiting the troops and any other trips of note. Wikidemo (talk) 18:42, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Auspicious

I suspect you meant 'inauspicious' instead:

$ answer auspicious
aus.pi.cious (o-spish'@s)
  adj.
   1. Attended by favorable circumstances; propitious: an auspicious time to
      ask for a raise in salary. See synonyms at favorable.
   2. Marked by success; prosperous.
  auspiciously aus.pi'cious.ly adv.
  auspiciousness aus.pi'cious.ness n.

Thanks. Yes, I misused the word. I meant eyebrow-raising. I'll spend some time looking for a sysnonym that doesn't carry the direct accusation of it being a bad way, just a very aggressive way of rejoining the discussion. Wikidemo (talk) 19:00, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

The simple negation looks right though (LotLE×talk 19:05, 19 July 2008 (UTC)):

$ answer inauspicious
in.aus.pi.cious (in'o-spish'@s)
  adj.
  Not favorable; not auspicious.
  inauspiciously in'aus.pi'cious.ly adv.
  inauspiciousness in'aus.pi'cious.ness n.

AfD nomination of Bill Ayers election controversy

An article that you have been involved in editing, Bill Ayers election controversy, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Bill Ayers election controversy. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? -- Scjessey (talk) 21:47, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Bill Ayers election controversy

The article states that the relationship was all but ignored until Senator Clinton brought it up. In discussing the controversey, the article mentions only the debate points between Clinton and Obama. Everything else is defined within the article as "Reaction to the Controversy". The article as it stands does not support the assertions in the lede, nor the implications that seem to be pushing an insidious POV, that the true nature of the relationship is unknown and there's something inherently odd about it. --92.10.199.11 (talk) 01:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

It was never a secret that Ayers and Obama had met, served on a board together, etc. But that does not seem to have arisen as a controversy for 30+ years until early 2008. The issue arose in connection with the 2008 campaign with some British press that got picked up by bloggers in the US. If you check the creatino date of the article (or possibly, if not that, the edit wars and contention of the material in the Bill Ayers article), you'll see that the material predates the debate even here on Misplaced Pages. I believe the sources demonstrate that origin; if not we can find additional sources if necessary to trace the origin as a political issue. Wikidemo (talk) 02:16, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

(Damn). I was the last one correcting an edit on that page w/o checking further and missed that IP edit from earlier that I actually was aware of. Still gotta pay more attention. Regards, --Floridianed (talk) 07:27, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I reverted. I agree with others that the title is no good, and I don't think a "public discussion concerning the propriety" is the best way to put it. It's a something for sure....but what that something is needs some rewording probably. Wikidemo (talk) 07:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

From my standpoint such edits have to go thru the talk page to build consensus (which would of course change the language if included in an article). So I have no problem to reverse such blunt edits but hate it when I miss one as I did. Regards, --Floridianed (talk) 07:46, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Deleting WB's comments

Hi - WB has asked me to warn you about deleting other users' talk page comments. Rather than warn, I'll suggest that you leave WB's posts alone no matter what you think about them. There are a number of admins watching the Obama page - I am one of them, but given my participation I'm now an involved party so can't directly take any administrative actions. -- Rick Block (talk) 18:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

WP74 has no business making or defending such insults. I have a solid position on page content, which I should be able to state without that kind of pestering. My options in dealing with it are quite limited. If there is some attempt to deal with the page then that's good.Wikidemo (talk) 18:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Removed text on WP:ANI

I assume by mistake. You just deleted a paragraph of comment by me from the WP:ANI page. LotLE×talk 01:32, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Oops. I thought I had duplicated it by accident. I'll go over there and fix anything I munged up in case you haven't yet. Wikidemo (talk) 02:03, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Off on wrong foot

I think that its about time we let some things die. I doubt seriously that we will agree on much content wise, but there has to be a better way. If you are interested in finding that way, please feel free to email me. Although I am not a prolific contributor,I do want things to be factual. You've perused my talk page before. My interaction with a certain editor regarding the Sean Hannity article should be instructive.My concerns about connecting dots for readers continues. I guess we won't agree on that, but there might be a better way. If this advance is unwelcome, as I have studiously avoided your talk page, then this will absolutely be my last incursion. Happier editing,--Die4Dixie (talk) 06:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

No, I appreciate your effort. Thanks so much. I think we can patch things up, and try not to grate on each other in the future. No reason people with very different opinions can't work together constructively. I think the concern about how we present information is a valid one even if we disagreed on the outcome; we seem to have gotten on each other's bad spot to an extent out of all proportion to a relatively small content disagreement. So I'll be extra careful. Wikidemo (talk) 06:54, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I will do likewise.Die4Dixie (talk) 07:05, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Yay! Wikidemo (talk) 07:09, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Love Thy Misplaced Pages Nemesis

Hello. I just wanted to stop by and let you know I appreciated your attempt at humor to lighten the tension brought by Thuran on my talk page. Also, please feel welcomed to keep my talk page on your watchlist. You are always welcome there. Beam 17:00, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Obama

I appreciate your reasoned good faith attempts on the talk page. I'm certain that being able to agree on small, trivial things will go along way when there is an issue that we genuinely don't. This seems like a small thing and you are right, it would seem to speak better of Obama that he would distance himself from those comments.--Die4Dixie (talk) 20:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Sure, for now I'm trying to concentrate on points of agreement, and also places where we can have a discussion on things that don't seem to be hot button issues. You'll see you inspired me to try to spread the goodwill, above...Wikidemo (talk) 20:47, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Could you maybe talk to lulu and scjessy? LuLu is an atheist, which is ok, but I question his labeling a member of the clergy a mere orator and perhaps he is not familiar with naming conventions within Christian sects. Judging from his statements on the talk page, he mistakenly believes that a visiting pastor from another denomination cannot give a sermon in a differently denominated house of worship, and that this was merely a speech. He then edited the page ignoring our working towards consensus. If you can talk to them and reign them in , I will try and contact Worker bee and do the same. I'm sick of the constant bickering about the pettiest of things. This appears to be one.Die4Dixie (talk) 23:28, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

What to do?

I guess you've followed it, so I'm not adding anything really. I just noticed (via an indirect mention on Talk:Obama), that Kossack4Truth filed both a 3RR and a WP:ANI with various accusations against me. No notice on my talk page about any of this, of course (by anyone, interestingly). It appears the complaint tries to muster together four distinct edits I made, concerning two completely unrelated topics on the Obama page. It's frustrating, obviously; but it does appear that the various admins, including you, did the right thing with the reports.

I'm a bit worried about what to do with such things into the future. Of course, I may or may not learn of any administrative pages at all. But I more-or-less assume that K4T will continue to try to incite conflict and engage in various wikilawyering. I suppose in this case, the fact I never saw it until everything was already closed was for the best. Any sage words on how to walk the line of contentious editors while trying to keep hot-button articles free of unencyclopedic content? LotLE×talk 00:36, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, you know. I had posted a lengthy rebuttal, noting that: (1) 5 other editors had been revert-warring on that issue; (2) you had long-ago self-reverted; (3) we were nearing a consensus version on the talk page so an AN/I report was unnecessary; (4) Concerned bystander is obviously a sock account so your concern is justifiable - though there is an innocent explanation that it's an allowable sock; but that nevertheless (5) you seemed to understand and react favorably to my suggestion that on the Obama pages at least, edit summaries and talk pages weren't the best place to raise concerns about SPA. However, I got the database lock message without noticing, and by the time I went to re-post it the administrators had shot down the report and closed the discussion. I decided not to accuse K4T initially of bad faith in filing the report, and not to chime in with my 2 cents after it was obvious that nobody took it seriously. If I had noticed you weren't notified I would have done so - and frankly, if people had taken it seriously any discussion that proceeded too far in your absence would be somewhat suspect. Nevertheless, it's a moot point now. Any indignation makes you look bad. Best to be publicly charitable and let other people point out and deal with the misbehavior. I think the article has reached a tipping point where enough administrators are paying attention, and enough of the disruptive editors are gone, that they might keep order. As I've been saying from the beginning, you want to look like one of the respectable people there, not one of the people fighting. Not that I've ever studied Judo, but there's a lesson there about letting attackers exhaust themselves with their own bad energy, and stepping in only lightly, where absolutely necessary. Also, recognize people who are (Noroton) or may be (Die4Dixie) redeemable, and be their friends. It's a lot more useful to have respect and goodwill among adversaries than your friends. So my main advice to you here is just don't look bad or do anything too harsh. Patience and longevity are more effective than a big flame out. Wikidemo (talk) 01:29, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm... do you recall admonishing me in no uncertain terms in the last couple days for pondering the possibility that Curious bystander maybe wasn't a disinterested new user. It's funny that you now describe the account as "obviously a sock account". It just might make you want to consider that there is more behind my edits and comments than you have apparently seemed to assume. Oh... I do know you are not an admin, my error in typing (not even in thinking it, just the wrong description).

In any case, I certainly hope you are right about enough neutral admins keeping an eye to exercise a positive influence. I think the recent topic ban clarification discussion is a good sign. LotLE×talk 05:16, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

As an aside, your own block log and history of contentious encounters limits your range of options here. The longer you can get time-wise between yourself and your last block, the better. When it becomes a year since your last block, it almost doesn't count at all if you've been event-free ever since. So whatever you do, don't get yourself blocked; if it's coming close to that be as contrite and open to criticism as possible. People are blocked more often for attitude I think than things they actually do, so make a point of asking the person threatening a block what you can do. K4T's community service effort on the new user welcome team is, interestingly, a good example. Sure it was a little over the top. But who can complain that a guy decides to welcome new editors? Wikidemo (talk) 01:33, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment

Yea I was referring to the entire trip. My opinion is give it some time to see how it pans out. If it turns into something really note worthy in the near future (I.E. he blunders or this ends up being a step towards a a win at the polls) then it should be added. Personally, unless someone has a reliable crystal ball and can see into the future, I'd rather not make speculations as to the full impact of this event right now, which adding it might lead to. Just my opinion on it. Have a good one! Brothejr (talk) 02:12, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

There are probably a healthy sprinkling of "ashrams" in Jakarta

See eg the Muslim "Sufi" one here. And, if nobel laureate V. S. Naipaul is a "practicing" Hindu, maybe he visited one while visiting the Dutch East Indies. However, in Beyond Belief: Islamic Excursions among the Converted Peoples, Naipaul writes about his impressions of an Indonesian madrasah (the word, I'm sure, you'd thought you'd typed in your comment that came out ashram). :^)  ${\displaystyle \sim }$ Justmeherenow (  ) 16:09, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Oops! I'll fix it. Wikidemo (talk) 16:11, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Andretti Winery

Can you point me to the discussion that led to a snowball decision not to merge Andretti Winery with Mario Andretti? -- Blanchardb  -- timed 17:45, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

It was my decision. The comment is that it's a snowball issue, not that there was any process. I've left a note on the talk page about the reasoning. Wikidemo (talk) 17:47, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:SNOWBALL refers to cases where a due process is aborted on the grounds that the outcome is very clear, not in cases where one user thinks something is a really bad idea. -- Blanchardb  -- timed 18:04, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. SNOW is often used as a shorthand in discussion. Call it WP:IAR if you wish, and I'm sorry if this sounds harsh (we all make mistakes), but blatantly bad ideas can be reverted. If you don't like it, please justify your position or take me to AN/I - but please don't scold me or invoke process for the sake of process. The articles aren't going to be merged in a million years. This is silly and futile. Wikidemo (talk) 18:09, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

So WP:IAR it is. As far as I'm concerned, this issue is closed. Remove the tag if you wish. -- Blanchardb  -- timed 18:12, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Wikidemo (talk) 18:13, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee report

You have been named as a party in a report seeking a hearing by the Arbitration Committee concerning events at Talk:Barack Obama and WP:ANI. I have posted the report at the Talk Page for WP:RFAR since the main page is semi-protected. Feel free to add your statement, and please transfer the report to the main RFAR page if you see fit to do so. Thanks. 74.94.99.17 (talk) 18:53, 27 July 2008 (UTC)