| Revision as of 21:08, 30 September 2008 editBobblehead (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users35,705 edits →tense bridges: Heh. Suppose we need to add as of dates to all of Palin's positions then.← Previous edit | Revision as of 21:27, 30 September 2008 edit undoCollect (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers47,160 edits →tense bridgesNext edit → | ||
| Line 93: | Line 93: | ||
| The discussion about whether Palin "continues" or "continued" to support the bridge until June was thorough. As you will note, your source is as of June 10, and is weak evidence for using the present tense on Palin's support. Kindly use Talk: Sarah Palin if you wish to discuss this. Thanks. ] (]) 21:59, 29 September 2008 (UTC) | The discussion about whether Palin "continues" or "continued" to support the bridge until June was thorough. As you will note, your source is as of June 10, and is weak evidence for using the present tense on Palin's support. Kindly use Talk: Sarah Palin if you wish to discuss this. Thanks. ] (]) 21:59, 29 September 2008 (UTC) | ||
| :<nowiki>*laugh*</nowiki>Sweet mother of pearl. Do we have to add "As of" dates to every one of Palin's positions now? Unless there is evidence that her opinion has changed, then the default is that she continues to hold that position. Oh well. ;) --] <sup>]</sup> 21:08, 30 September 2008 (UTC) | :<nowiki>*laugh*</nowiki>Sweet mother of pearl. Do we have to add "As of" dates to every one of Palin's positions now? Unless there is evidence that her opinion has changed, then the default is that she continues to hold that position. Oh well. ;) --] <sup>]</sup> 21:08, 30 September 2008 (UTC) | ||
| ::Oh? Nope. As she asked for a review in June, it is to be expected that her support would depend on the result of the study at most. To use the present tense, when this was hashed out in Talk:Sarah Palin a while back, is inane. Thanks. ] (]) 21:27, 30 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 21:27, 30 September 2008
| Skip to table of contents |
| This is Bobblehead's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments. |
|
Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 30 days  |
 Archives |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
 |
|---|
| 24 December 2024 |
|
Picture of the day
Michael William Balfe (1808–1870) was an Irish composer, best remembered for his operas. Balfe was born in Dublin and grew up on Pitt Street, which was renamed Balfe Street in 1917 in his honour. After moving to Wexford with his family as a child, he began a career as a violinist, moving to London in 1823 after his father's death, later relocating again to Italy and Switzerland, where he married the Hungarian-born singer Lina Roser. Balfe began pursuing an operatic singing career as well as composition, and moved back to London with his family in 1835. In a career spanning more than 40 years, he composed at least 29 operas, almost 250 songs, several cantatas, and other works. He was also a noted conductor, directing Italian opera at Her Majesty's Italian Opera House for seven years, among other conducting posts. His most notable opera is The Bohemian Girl, which continues to be performed. This photograph of Balfe was taken by the studio of the French photographer Nadar; this albumen print was made in 1900.Photograph credit: Nadar; restored by Adam Cuerden
Archive – More featured pictures...
Wiki-linking Birth dates
I've noticed most Biography articles do this. Therefore, I assumed that's the norm on Misplaced Pages. GoodDay (talk) 17:16, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
- Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 17:44, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
re: summary of political positions
The thing is the material
When asked about her "crowning achievement" during her time as governor, she listed protecting "our state sovereignty by taking on the big oil industry interests." Palin added that she desires that Alaska becomes a contributor to, rather than "takers from federal government.".
does not appear anywhere else in the article. This shows what she thinks is her best achievement, and thus says something about her political philosophy. If you want to re-add the sentence detailing that she hasn't always followed this principle, I'm fine with that. (That sentence wasn't a part of the original though.) However, please don't throw out the useful material, just because Kelly edited out the negative part.--ThaddeusB (talk) 21:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
- My mistake, I edited it out of the governship section. I misred your comment the first time. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:32, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks! --Bobblehead 21:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Probably not appropriate...
especially since I'm hoping the theory gets picked up on Daily Kos. A.J.A. (talk) 22:04, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
- Eh. Disclaimer under it now. A.J.A. (talk) 22:10, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Palin Wasilla Section Changes
We have a final draft (#8). Could you please take a moment to review and let us know if we finally have consensus and can publish it? Thanks.--Paul (talk) 20:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
re: library section
Hi Bobblehead - You seem to have a good eye for copy editing. Could you read through the 8th draft of the Wasilla section on the Sarah Palin page again and review for punctuation, grammar etc. I've read it through a few times but I think a few more editors need to review it before it goes live. Thanks, -Classicfilms (talk) 21:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
- I wouldn't go that far, but I'll take another look. --Bobblehead 21:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Palin
For clarification I wanted to react to the edit by the red linked user and his summary, who replaced the text with long text inserted from the subarticle, instead of a summary . Hobartimus (talk) 02:44, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- "Live by the source, die by the source. Source credits the sales tax for the extra income that allowed Palin to cut the property taxes..." I have no problem with your edit, but the prior edit implied that Palin had increased taxes which wasn't true. She did the "fiscal conservative" thing... saw that she had too much money and gave some back, which she also did as Governor. The sales tax has evidently been good for Wasilla, I was looking through the most current financial planning presentation on the city website, and the 2008 property tax is ZERO and the plan for 2009 is the same. Best....--Paul (talk) 23:00, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Just a quick thank you
For fixing the references on my additions to the Bridge to Nowhere section of the Palin article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GreekParadise (talk • contribs) 04:35, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- No prob. --Bobblehead 04:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Duplicate comment
Did you mean to do this?Ferrylodge (talk) 20:32, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- Hi Bobblehead. I just want to mention that I feel really strongly about mentioning Wooten's alleged threat in the Sarah Palin article. It's not only the most notable fact we have about his behavior, but is also the reason why Palin says her people were contacting Monegan; she says that her people were mainly concerned about her safety, rather than being vindictive due to Wooten giving her sister a hard time.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
- Is this before or after Palin denied that anyone associated with her contacted the PSC? :) But seriously the Palins were throwing so much crap against the wall against Wooten during the divorce/custody trial that the judge had to repeatedly warn them to stop disparaging Wooten because he considered it to be a form of child abuse. Heck, the judge even told them that if they didn't knock it off, he was going to award custody to the husband and order a change of venue to get the kids away from her family. Regardless of what Palin may have "thought" about the "danger" her sister was in, it is apparently not one that the presiding judge of the custody case shares and is actually quite the opposite. I know you're a patent lawyer, so you may not be aware of this, but custody battles can get very nasty and the judge seems to think this was just another example of this. --Bobblehead 01:34, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
- My understanding is that Palin didn't deny contacting Monegan about Wooten; what she denied was pressuring Monegan to fire Wooten. The only difference is that now she acknowledges Monegan might have felt pressured due to the serial nature of the contact from her people. You say that the Palins were just throwing crap against the wall. I realize (firsthand) that divorce and custody battles are messy, and I have no doubt that much crap was hurled every which way during Wooten's divorce proceedings. However, the death threat against Palin's father was something that Wooten was actually disciplined for; the State Troopers believed the accusation and susepended him for it (along with some other offenses). So, you can say that the judge didn't take the accusations against Wooten seriously, but the fact is that the State Troopers did believe some of those accusations. And keep in mind that Palin's son Track also claims to have heard the death threat. Are you really saying that Gov. Palin would likely stoop to urging her own son to perjure himself, and that the State Troopers suspended Wooten erroneously? The fact is, mentioning that Wooten was accused of threatening Palin's father would take about four words in the main article. If indeed it really happened, it would obviously be suitable for mentioning in the main article, right?Ferrylodge (talk) 01:54, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not even close to saying that Wooten didn't threaten to kill her father. What I'm saying is that there is no evidence that Wooten ever intended to kill her father and that the Palin and her family abused her position as a candidate for governor and then as governor in order to try and win a custody/divorce case and harassed the man so much that the presiding judge questioned their motives in open court and ordered them to stop disparaging Wooten or else the judge would grant custody to Wooten. I mean, obviously Palin took his threat so seriously that she had to go to a meeting rather than call the police.. But hey, that's just my own opinion, but if you want to include the threat in the article, you have to do it in a NPOV manner (IE, not tacked on to the end of the sentence I removed it from) and also mention that Palin and her family were disparaging the father so much that they were ordered by the court to stop. --Bobblehead 02:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
- Wooten's threat was that he'd kill Palin's father if the father hired an attorney for his other daughter (McCann). As long as the father didn't hire the attorney, there was no danger of anyone getting killed. If a police officer threatened to kill one of your parents, I doubt you'd like the police officer to keep his job. The sentence that you modified was: "Monegan alleged that his dismissal was retaliation for his failure to fire Palin’s former brother-in-law, Alaska State Trooper Mike Wooten, who was involved in a child custody battle with Palin’s sister and had been accused of threatening Palin's father." I don't see anything POV about that. What seems POV is to get rid of the last part, so the whole thing sounds like petty vindictiveness on Palin's part. It's true that Palin tried to get Wooten fired before she ever became Governor, in her personal capacity as a citizen, and I wouldn't have any objection to mentioning that in the article if you think it's important.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:14, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not even close to saying that Wooten didn't threaten to kill her father. What I'm saying is that there is no evidence that Wooten ever intended to kill her father and that the Palin and her family abused her position as a candidate for governor and then as governor in order to try and win a custody/divorce case and harassed the man so much that the presiding judge questioned their motives in open court and ordered them to stop disparaging Wooten or else the judge would grant custody to Wooten. I mean, obviously Palin took his threat so seriously that she had to go to a meeting rather than call the police.. But hey, that's just my own opinion, but if you want to include the threat in the article, you have to do it in a NPOV manner (IE, not tacked on to the end of the sentence I removed it from) and also mention that Palin and her family were disparaging the father so much that they were ordered by the court to stop. --Bobblehead 02:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
- My understanding is that Palin didn't deny contacting Monegan about Wooten; what she denied was pressuring Monegan to fire Wooten. The only difference is that now she acknowledges Monegan might have felt pressured due to the serial nature of the contact from her people. You say that the Palins were just throwing crap against the wall. I realize (firsthand) that divorce and custody battles are messy, and I have no doubt that much crap was hurled every which way during Wooten's divorce proceedings. However, the death threat against Palin's father was something that Wooten was actually disciplined for; the State Troopers believed the accusation and susepended him for it (along with some other offenses). So, you can say that the judge didn't take the accusations against Wooten seriously, but the fact is that the State Troopers did believe some of those accusations. And keep in mind that Palin's son Track also claims to have heard the death threat. Are you really saying that Gov. Palin would likely stoop to urging her own son to perjure himself, and that the State Troopers suspended Wooten erroneously? The fact is, mentioning that Wooten was accused of threatening Palin's father would take about four words in the main article. If indeed it really happened, it would obviously be suitable for mentioning in the main article, right?Ferrylodge (talk) 01:54, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
- Is this before or after Palin denied that anyone associated with her contacted the PSC? :) But seriously the Palins were throwing so much crap against the wall against Wooten during the divorce/custody trial that the judge had to repeatedly warn them to stop disparaging Wooten because he considered it to be a form of child abuse. Heck, the judge even told them that if they didn't knock it off, he was going to award custody to the husband and order a change of venue to get the kids away from her family. Regardless of what Palin may have "thought" about the "danger" her sister was in, it is apparently not one that the presiding judge of the custody case shares and is actually quite the opposite. I know you're a patent lawyer, so you may not be aware of this, but custody battles can get very nasty and the judge seems to think this was just another example of this. --Bobblehead 01:34, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
- Hi Bobblehead. I just want to mention that I feel really strongly about mentioning Wooten's alleged threat in the Sarah Palin article. It's not only the most notable fact we have about his behavior, but is also the reason why Palin says her people were contacting Monegan; she says that her people were mainly concerned about her safety, rather than being vindictive due to Wooten giving her sister a hard time.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Edit warring
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Sarah Palin. ...
I am sure you have noticed that some editors are consistently trying to eradicate anything critical of Palin. It is not irresponsible to revert relevant, properly referenced material. --Zeamays (talk) 18:09, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Barnstar
|
Civility Award | |
| For your part in reaching the excellent consensus version of "the library controversy" I give you this Barnstar. The way we all came to consensus on this contentious event was truly Misplaced Pages at its best. ThaddeusB (talk) 01:30, 10 September 2008 (UTC) |
- Thanks! I just came in at the end after all the heavy lifting was already done, but sweet! --Bobblehead 01:37, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
WP:FAR for Barack Obama
Barack Obama has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.
I have nominated Barack Obama for Featured Article Review. You are welcome to participate in the discussion. Curious bystander (talk) 23:48, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Palin
Bobblehead, I do not understand this edit of yours. Where is it already mentioned in the article that those two opposed her election?Ferrylodge (talk) 02:24, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- Check the paragraph on Stambaugh's firing. I moved it there as it seemed more of a bolted on sentence in the previous paragraph and Stambaugh's support of Stein was part of his wrongful termination lawsuit. Also, "firings" does not support the current wording as you claim here. It does not say that Palin's concerns about Emmons support of her administration were alleviated by Emmons saying she'll agree to have library and museum operations merged. While your editted version of the quote from the article does make it appear as such, the editing is very deceptive in that your edit removes a paragraph and a half of content from the article including a Palin saying she had Emmons assurance that she was behind Palin. --Bobblehead 02:37, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- I've replied at the article talk page. Please knock it off with the bogus charges of "deception". Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:10, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Bobblehead, if the argument against the bridge is being presented, then the argument in favor of the bridge must also be presented. Sneaking in the argument against the bridge as an "explanation" of how the project became known as the "Bridge to Nowhere" (a name applied, strangely enough, by people making arguments against the bridge) is a Trojan horse. Kossack4Truth (talk) 23:51, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
- Then get consensus to add Ketchikan's population, but do not remove sourced information that already has consensus to be in the article. As you should be imminently aware, it is never acceptable to edit war over an article and if you continue to pursue this course it is highly likely you'll get a few more blocks added to your block history. --Bobblehead 23:56, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
- You know, it seems that on the Talk page, consensus was supporting me on this matter. Either the population of Ketchikan and the island it's on stays, or the population of Gravinas Island goes. Take your pick. If you're going to include the argument for the anti-bridge POV, no matter what Trojan horse the argument is presented as, WP:NPOV requires that the argument for the pro-bridge POV must also be included. Kossack4Truth (talk) 02:09, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
tense bridges
The discussion about whether Palin "continues" or "continued" to support the bridge until June was thorough. As you will note, your source is as of June 10, and is weak evidence for using the present tense on Palin's support. Kindly use Talk: Sarah Palin if you wish to discuss this. Thanks. Collect (talk) 21:59, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- *laugh*Sweet mother of pearl. Do we have to add "As of" dates to every one of Palin's positions now? Unless there is evidence that her opinion has changed, then the default is that she continues to hold that position. Oh well. ;) --Bobblehead 21:08, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- Oh? Nope. As she asked for a review in June, it is to be expected that her support would depend on the result of the study at most. To use the present tense, when this was hashed out in Talk:Sarah Palin a while back, is inane. Thanks. Collect (talk) 21:27, 30 September 2008 (UTC)