Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Stargnoc (talk | contribs) at 05:23, 22 October 2009. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

With Regards to my Philosophy on Pundits

{{subst:REVISIONUSER}} has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. {{subst:if||| {{{message}}} ||subst=subst:}} To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

I agree with all you say, enjoy the cookie and keep up the good work. (Estoniankaiju (talk) 19:16, 30 April 2009 (UTC))

24 December 2024
News and notes: Responsibilities and liabilities as a "Very Large Online Platform" Op-ed: Beeblebrox on Wikipediocracy, the Committee, and everything Opinion: Graham87 on being the first-ever administrator recall subject In the media: Delhi High Court considers Caravan and Ken for evaluating the ANI vs. WMF case From the archives: Where to draw the line in reporting? Recent research: "Misplaced Pages editors are quite prosocial", but those motivated by "social image" may put quantity over quality Humour: Backlash over Santa Claus' Misplaced Pages article intensifies Gallery: A feast of holidays and carols Traffic report: Was a long and dark December
Single page Front page About Subscribe Suggestions Archives

Natural born vs naturalized citizens and Human rigts

I took note of your position that it was a 'soap-box' issue to put naturalized citizens' ineligiblity for the US presidency in the Human Rights in the US article. I disagree that it is not notable or a soap-box issue and here's why: It is certainly notable, the eligibilityof the incumbent US president having been questioned in the last election and beyond, and it is a human rights issue because equality before the law is increasingly being recognized as a natural right, which seems at odds with the eligibility criteria for this office. I would therefore appreciate if you do not remove it and do not edit it unless you find something false or incorrect in this segment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.122.20.235 (talk) 18:29, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

NCLB

You reverted some very specific criticism of NCLB into the header of NCLB. If that's the place to discuss the particular merits and harms of the legislation, I could add benefits there as well to make the article more rounded, since there are elements of NCLB which have some hard data to demonstrate their merits. Or we could remove the very specific criticism out of the header, which is a place for general criticisms and praises. If you think it should have a section other than the header, by all means please move it there. --Ryan Wise (talk) 00:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Soxon. I'm still not sure I follow your logic. Why is including anti-NCLB commentary in a section but not pro-NCLB commentary 'NPOV?' Are you saying you're leaving my change as a good faith edit? I'm asking to figure out if this matter has been resolved or not. If you prefer, I could restore the old version of the header and add information to balance it out, so that a study on 1st to 3rd graders (who constitute a small fraction of those affected by NCLB) isn't taken as representative of the program as a whole. Let me know your thoughts. (Or if you prefer, don't do anything and I'll assume the matter is resolved)

Thanks! --Ryan Wise (talk) 16:49, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Limbaugh: Your favorite page!

Leave the transcript alone. it clarifies the controversy once and for all. delete the earlier paragraphs if you want but this is the final statement in his own words: it is his page and should be in his own words, don't you agree, as opposed to someone else's words???

Furtive admirer (talk) 06:42, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

No, it was unecessary and will be taken out every time if not by me then someone else Soxwon (talk) 13:07, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Don't listen to Limbaugh too much - he'll poison your mind. Baseball Bugs 13:10, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

And your heart :). I had visions of strangling my father for making me listen to it for hours on vacation. Soxwon (talk) 13:42, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Take pity on the red-state voters. They've lost everything. They've no power left. Limbaugh is all they've got. Hey, have you heard this one? What's the difference between The Hindenburg and Rush Limbaugh? :) Baseball Bugs 13:45, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

No I haven't, what's the difference? Soxwon (talk) 13:47, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

One is a flaming Nazi gasbag. The ot

her is a dirigible. :) Baseball Bugs 14:03, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

LMAO! Soxwon (talk) 14:07, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Did you hear about the honest CEO Bugs? Soxwon (talk) 14:17, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

pare the section down if you can retain the essence of his quotes. as i said,it is entitled HIS page, so his words should definitely be the priority. if you fellas think he is so bad, then why bother writing there? you want balance, i presume. why not write about rahm emanuel, the ballerina or keith olbermann, the very desperate misogynist?? i would edit out the earlier commentary on the the Obama failure. i cannot keep reverting your edits, so why not compromise?

i surmise we agree on one thing: The Red Sox, or it is the White Sox for you?

Furtive admirer (talk) 22:42, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

The Wiki article on Rush Limbaugh does not belong to Rush Limbaugh, so it's not HIS page. And if you insist on "balance", let's add some input from Hitler fans to the Hitler page, shall we??? OYZ REM (talk) 23:40, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Old Stuff

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on 2004 United States election voting controversies. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. 71.178.193.134 (talk) 04:15, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Rush Limbaugh. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. --Allen3  16:48, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I reverted two changes that amounted to vandalism by the same user and one of yours, hardly "edit warring." How about taking it to the talk page instead of making POV changes.

February 2009

Whoops, sorry; I clicked the button right as you reverted the edit, so I ended up reverting and warning you instead. Hersfold 20:08, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

No problem, I'm reporting him since it seems he turned on me after I reverted his edits on the Republican Party (United States) Soxwon (talk) 20:09, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Blazing Saddles

Thanks for you comment. If I let myself get carried away, I might have hundreds of quotes on my talk page. Blazing Saddles by itself has line after line of quotable material. The best movie scripts often do. There are a bunch in Dr. Strangelove, for example. (Protect your precious bodily fluids!) The Marx Brothers, Bugs Bunny, Yogi Berra, Casey Stengel - all great stuff. The one Groucho line I included in that section kind of forces me to keep the number of quotes to four (a "gallon"). Baseball Bugs 12:18, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi

Hi Soxwon! Thanx for your compliment! (re: Weasel words at their finest) Yet the NYPost cartoon is clearly anti-Jewish. Sadly, the same cartoonist is now relapsing onto the same kind of racialist abuse, this time targeting President Obama himself. See Apostolos Margaritis (talk) 15:42, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Those were weasel words, and if not that then WP:SYN, they have no direct bearing other than by your own opinion. Soxwon (talk) 15:46, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not making this up. To quote from the link above: The Post's cartoonist Sean Delonas, meanwhile, has frequently been accused of bigotry: the New York gossip blog Gawker once nicknamed him "the Picasso of prejudice".Apostolos Margaritis (talk) 15:59, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

That's nice, that has nothing to do with Neoconservatism, and until you can find a reliable non-primary source saying that the person in question and their actions have major implications for Neoconservatism it is still WP:SYN. Soxwon (talk) 16:02, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Keep an eye on the want ads, the Post might soon have an opening for an editorial cartoonist. Baseball Bugs 23:45, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Leftist Guerilla

How do you add stuff to this page. Cmon. I haven't vandalized for 3 years.

Apparently you've got a history of vandalism according to your talk page. That edit in question was blatant vandalism. Soxwon (talk) 23:33, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

First chimps, and now guerilla megillahs. What's next? Leeza Gibbons? Baseball Bugs 23:47, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Lol, count on Bugs to lighten up the situation. Soxwon (talk) 00:54, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Dr Ordronaux

I would be grateful if you would look at my query on the Civil War discussion page. Many thanks, Wfm495 (talk) 20:36, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I responeded, and I don't think there's much to argue. If John Calhoun isn't in it, then I don't see how this doctor could make it. (Abner Doublday isn't there either which is a crime). Soxwon (talk) 21:52, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

• I have only two weeks experience of Wiki so please don't judge me too harshly. When a more extensive article is produced about the Civil War there would clearly be a place for the signifcance of medis as there is in the history of the Crimea or war. I have accepted that since it is a very short article, that mentioning a single dr is not appropriate and i have apologised. But I don't think that there is a need for you to comment negatively about (and undo) everything that I do, especiailly as I am trying to implement Wiki policy. Wfm495 (talk) 22:20, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

If I come across as harsh I don't mean to. I noticed the edits and they were indeed in violation of WP:UNDUE. Info like that doesn't belong in the lead. Soxwon (talk) 23:55, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I think a shorter reference to JO's translation of the Regimen (maybe one or two sentences) may be appropriate - it was after all the first English translation since 1617 and that's not insignificant. I will propose something on the article's talk page. – ukexpat (talk) 22:58, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Not in the main article, John C. Calhoun was far more notable, but is barely mentioned. Really I don't think he should be mentioned but it's up to consensus. Soxwon (talk) 23:53, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

undue on Episcopal Diocese of Long Island?

Why did you delete the mention of a historically important benefactor from Episcopal Diocese of Long Island? Tb (talk) 23:40, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE, it was referencing one particular Dr. who was getting undue weight. Soxwon (talk) 23:53, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I believe you are incorrect. WP:UNDUE refers to points of view; it stresses that equal-time should not be accorded views of differing credibility. It doesn't speak to the question you are addressing. But the real question is: this is a hugely important and famous New York benefactor from a hundred years ago, whose quite substantial donation remains of considerable importance for the diocese of Long Island. (You are aware that we are talking abou $10,000 from a century ago, right?) Tb (talk) 23:57, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

No, and I quote: "Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject." Again, giving money is nice, but that is a historical aspsect and not something that should be put in the lead of the article (maybe if it was the founding or the ONLY contribution they ever got) Soxwon (talk) 00:01, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm still confused about one point: is this undue weight? I think you're not aware of the true size and ongoing importance of the bequest. Are you aware of other contributions to the Diocese of Long Island of similar value? Tb (talk) 00:18, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

That's all well and good, it can go in, just not the lead. Soxwon (talk) 02:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Thanks for discussing it with me. Tb (talk) 07:00, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Templates

Hi, I noticed you asked for help at Baseball Bugs' talk page. I know a good bit about templates, just tell me what you need done and I'll get on it. :) — neuro 09:31, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm still happy to do it, even if you do want it for personal use. Drop me a line if you change your mind! :) — neuro 00:20, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I've made {{User:Neurolysis/Define}}, you can use it by using {{User:Neurolysis/Define|Word|Definition}}. That the sort of thing you want? — neuro 01:21, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

No problem at all. :) — neuro 01:45, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Very Easy Solution

I'd love to keep this as pleasant as can be. I bet there must be loads of CCM artists who are prominently active in the CR movement. Find one, with a proper citation, and I'll peacefully retreat from my position.TakeMyRollerCoaster (talk) 09:23, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Drudge Report

Thanks for being fair. It's not that common. ► RATEL ◄ 04:09, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

► RATEL ◄ has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Thanks for the cookie lol. It's common sense, Drudge is conservative and the Report is considered that way by many. I just feel WP should leave it to the reader. Soxwon (talk) 04:16, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Blocked

Hello, I have blocked you for a period of 24 hours for violating the three revert rule on the Drudge Report article. The article was locked for 3 days by admin Deacon, and even after that time you and User:Collect still continued to edit war. In future please consider adopting a one revert rule. If you believe this block is unjustified, please use the {{unblock|YOUR REASON HERE}} template directly below this paragraph. Thanks and regards, Scarian 17:14, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Soxwon (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

My last change was a change in tense, not a revision, I thought grammar was not a part of 3RR

Decline reason:

Nope, 3RR has very few exceptions, and grammar is certainly not one of them. --jpgordon 17:58, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Soxwon (talk) 17:53, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

3RR

Ouch. Keep this on your page as a reminder. As a general rule, never break 3RR. There are exceptions, such as blatant vandalism (e.g. stupid stuff that random idiots post in the middle of articles, like "Hi, Mom!"); and BLP violations (e.g. "according to National Unquirer, famous actor Joe Schmo is a closet necrophiliac.") Baseball Bugs 19:07, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

That's what I get for being a grammar nazi, I was annoyed at the tense. :( Soxwon (talk) 19:38, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, just say you won't do it again and you'll get unblocked. No big deal. --jpgordon 22:29, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Really? Well, this might actually be a good thing, I was about to do the same thing with Rush Limbaugh, so it was probably better this way. Soxwon (talk) 23:26, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I would also like you to be unblocked -- I have the funny feeling we agree on far more things than we disagree on for sure! And I iterate my apology. Jpgordon is giving you very good advice here. Collect (talk) 23:32, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

• Hmmm. I don't think you should have been blocked, but I don't write the rules either. Sometimes it's easy to forget how many reverts one does on an article. No biggy. :) ► RATEL ◄ 23:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

• The block was fair, but I support unblock at this point. Obviously, the decision is up to an admin. Baseball Bugs 00:05, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

• I agree the block was fair, after having reread the policy. Soxwon (talk) 00:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

• There's no reason you couldn't re-post that unblock request. Baseball Bugs 03:17, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I removed it b/c other than now (and now is only for 5 minutes) I wasn't going to have occasion to edit before my block was up, I figured I'd save everyone the trouble and just let it go. Soxwon (talk) 10:52, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

That's up to you, as you've got about 6 hours to go. When I've been blocked in the past, I just let it run its course without asking for an unblock, since it was short-term. But that's an individual decision. Baseball Bugs 10:59, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I just got back from the Supreme Court, and the blocks up so I didn't miss much time lol.

Drudge Stuff

Thanks for the note. I'm still re-reading the discussions on the related talk pages. I'll refrain from editing per your indication of the decision of the day. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:54, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Reading the discussions on the talk pages of both Drudge and his Report, it appears that present concensus indicates agreement that: 1) Drudge is conservative (claimed, cited and generally acknowledged), and 2) his Report, while often described as conservative or reflecting Drudge's conservative views, isn't strictly defined as such in secondary reliable sources. So a few of you have agreed to have the conservative descriptor attached to Drudge, but not his report, at this time. Do I understanding the situation correctly?

I've reverted my edit, since it was out of line with the present understanding. I do see the lede on the Matt Drudge article as lacking in the defining characteristics that make him notable in the first place. Please review my recent small edit to that article and let me know if you find it acceptable in light of your recent discussions. Per your note on my talk page, my edit still allows the reader to make up their mind about the Drudge Report. Xenophrenic (talk) 23:44, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Perfect, that is I believe the concensus. Soxwon (talk) 23:55, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not totally sure who's doing what on that page. Take it to WP:ANI and (1) explain the situation and (2) ask for advice. Baseball Bugs 17:18, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

You responded last week on my talk page:

Alright, as you could probably tell by my talk page, there has been quite a *ahem* "spirited" discussion over this so I don't want to start another lol. Soxwon (talk) 21:57, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

You, sir, are a master of understatement.  ;-) I'm glad I sensed a warning in your message and back-peddled out of that conversation when I did. I'm still following it, however, as it makes for some interesting reading. Xenophrenic (talk) 16:19, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

So glad I can keep you entertained lol, but really I think that the argument has finally been decided. The arrival of other wikipedians has shown me to be correct for the most part. Soxwon (talk) 16:56, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you...

...for coming to my defense. I've mentioned that guy on WP:ANI. He seems mighty familiar with wikipedia for a newbie. Baseball Bugs 01:39, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Rush Limbaugh

In accordance with Misplaced Pages policy, controversy sections have no place in good articles. If you have something you want to add to this discussion, see the appropriate section in that article's talk page. Ejnogarb (talk) 16:18, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

That's not what you said, you said and I quote:

Since the principle editors of the Barack Obama page have made it clear that a controversies section has no place in a good article, I am removing that section from this page (which is inordinately long as it is).

You obviously were trolling and only trying to start trouble. Soxwon (talk) 16:22, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm trying to make Misplaced Pages unbiased by not favoring any particular person or set of principles. If such a section is inappropriate for Barack Obama, it is also inappropriate for Rush Limbaugh. Ejnogarb (talk) 16:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Again, I can see the troll. You're undermining your own credibility and as such will not be taken seriously Soxwon (talk) 16:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Please re-consider

Please withdraw Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Anarchism and capitalism. An AfD on the article will be unproductive for several reasons:

1. The relationship between anarchism and capitalism is beyond all doubt notable; there has been an overwhelming amount of scholarship done on this topic.
2. Your nomination addresses only the current state of the article, rather than its potential.
3. Should the article not be retained, content will almost certainly need to be merged elsewhere rather than deleted – as your nomination implies.
4. Almost no discussion whatsoever has taken place on the article talkpage as to what should be done with it – this is a prerequisite for an established article as WP:BEFORE clearly indicates.

Please withdraw it. Skomorokh 18:57, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Eh?

Hey, I was just curious how one reconciles anarcho-capitalism and free education... —Memotype::T 04:05, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. I agree that our talk pages isn't the best place to debate; I was mostly just wondering if you really meant that :). However, I would enjoy discussing the issue somewhere else if you'd like. —Memotype::T 22:55, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Weatherman (organization)

There is the beginnings of an edit war, and I though you might want to be add to the conversation before it becomes a one on one debate. I am ok with suggestions on improvements that you might suggest. Bytebear (talk) 01:57, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Madoff's betrayal: Dante's Inferno scholar interviewed

are you my professor? do you delete everyone who uses quotes? who deletes you? why do you keep asking why? Madoff's personality is a metaphor for tragedy and should be included for those "dense" readers who have trouble evaluating maladaptive behavior in society, not unlike the super-criminals from the planet krypton!! pete hamill just wrote he is up there with stalin and hitler, as the top 25 of the 20th century! you seem to be as controlling as madoff, hmn... maybe you should mind your p's adn q's. did you teachers ever tell you that?

Furtive admirer (talk) 16:23, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be oblivious that reverting everyone's research is a huge personal attack!! do you add new facts or just edit everyone else's input? i would suggest you do your homework as well. in the movie, To Sir with Love, a student wrote a love letter to her high school teacher, sidney poitier. he proceeded to correct it for grammar and syntax, and ignored the intent and message. i would suggest you research Dante's The Divine Comedy and Robert Pinsky yourself and figure out why it is an important metaphor. i am going to re-insert it again until there is a consensus asto why it is irrelevant in the lead section, which is misnamed. It should be "Bernard Madoff: The Government Case". please do not be so IMPULSIVE and PERFUNCTORY in your deletions. you are also omitting words in context in your haste to offend, which is EXACTLY what you are doing!!

Furtive admirer (talk) 17:08, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

United States presidential election, 2008

With the Dems having more coverage and scrutiny in the news at the time your little mistake is understandable. I was close to revert it too but gladly didn't do so (after checking sources). No need to "shove it any further into my mouth"  ;)  :) --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:45, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

wings and stuff

Well, I do believe in God, a Christian God and am in fact a devout Catholic Christian. So I do in fact believe God had a hand in evolution. Perhaps not in a way that say, gaps can be shown, but he did do it, just as for example, if a man gives money to the poor, we would say that the poor man received from God, and that the mechanism for this charity was that a rich man allowed the grace of God to enter into his heart. So with evolution and God, we say God made the world, and that the mechanism is evolution. Ultimately, God made everything good, so its all causal - God is the ultimate and final cause of all creation, so that he made the first big bang 15 billion years ago, and he created the laws of physics that governed how the universe would turn out, and ultimately, how you and I did.

As for how complex organs work, a wing evolved from a feathered limb, and through natural selection, reptiles with stronger wings could jump higher away from predators and towards food, and so natural selection would cause reptiles with only the strongest wings to survive, until only reptiles with wings that could fly existed. For evolution, you need mutations to cause variations, so that some reptiles have freak arms that are more like wings, and more feathery than others.

Respectfully Gabr-el 02:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but why did the ones with feathers survive when the mutation hindered them and kept them from reproducing? I mean, it couldn't have reached a stage where it helped them all at once. Soxwon (talk) 02:05, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Good point, so then they must have evolved in an environment that had certain conditions that favored a direction. The more feathers you have, the more attractive you could be to a mate for instance. Birds nowadays have males with bright colors that make them easy to see and eaten, but this balanced by more females and mating. So when the balance favors one more than the other, which can be changed by the ever-changing environment (we're talking hundreds of millions of years) then the result is selection for more feathers. Gabr-el 02:15, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes but again, where did this mutation come from? Where did the feathers come from? Did they suddenly just appear? It just seems like to much diversity to happen by random for a species to survive. Soxwon (talk) 02:19, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

The feathers can start out as modified hair, or skin, I don't know personally, but a much better explanation might be asked of from a professor in this field, provided you don't fall into their trap. At the end of the day, as I said, God made all the atoms, and the laws of Physics, so how it turned out doesn't make a difference. If you're worried about reconciling 6 day creation with the world, I have a little something that will surprise you. They say that God reduced the length of days in old times since the world was so full of evil. Well, with that in mind:

• Day 1 = 7.5 billion years
• Day 2 = 3.75 billion years
• Day 3 = 1.875 billion years
• Day 4 = 0.9375 billion years
• Day 5 = 0.46875 billion years
• Day 6 = 0.234375 billion years

Total time = 14.7 billion years.

I started day one as half of 15 billion years the universe is suppose to be aged at, then halved that at every day.

Finally, God rested on Day 7.

If you don't mind my interceding (I saw this conversation start over on Ilkali's page, and I was interested, so I followed it here), evolution (theoretically) works as follows. first, three terms:

• genome: (loosely) the sum total of genes available in a species
• genotype: the full set of genes inherited by a creature from its parents
• phenotype: the genes that actually express themselves in an individual

for example, the human genome has genes for all sorts of hair colors. you personally have genes in your genotype for hair color inherited from your mother and your father, but only one of those genes might actually express itself in your hair color (phenotype). and it's tricky - if both of your parents have black hair, but both have unexpressed (recessive) genes for blond hair you could inherit both, and end up blond (and probably cause your parents to have a biiiiig fight...).

so, lets says you have some ancient population of ground dwelling rodents (GDRs). there's a broad range of genes in the GDR genome, which get expressed according to statistical randomness. only those few that are completely unworkable get weeded out of the genome; most continue to get passed on as recessives, even if they're not really successful genes. then the environment changes: some new predator arrives, and suddenly GDRs whose phenotype has sharp tree-climbing claws become more successful than those with phenotypes that don't, because the predators can't catch the tree climbers. so that gene starts to become more common (because those without that gene get eaten) and the species becomes arboreal. Then the predators evolve as well and start climbing trees; those GDRs who can get out of one tree into another with the greatest ease survive better than those who are stuck in one tree or who fall and die. aerodynamic phenotypes get their genes passed on more frequently, and soon you end up with something like a flying squirrel. feathers are similar: feathers provide warmth and protection from rain and sun, just like hair. nothing to do with flying. but if you're a creature who gets an advantage from jumping out of harm's way (or jumping after prey) then feathers (because they are a flat, semi-rigid surface) give a much bigger aerodynamic advantage than hair does (which is why all flying birds have feathers, but the few flying mammals rely on hairless stretches of skin for lift).

now there's nothing in evolution theory that prohibits some sort of Intelligent Design, except for the assertion of strict randomness in the transmission of genes. randomness is a good model of gene transmission, but I've never seen any study that actually demonstrates that it's factual. Neither Darwin nor Lamarque (neither of whom had anything like the modern conception of genes) assumed that the transmission of traits was random (Darwin thought that more-fit specimens bred more; Lamarque thought that parents tended to pass on characteristics that better fit their environment). Mendel came up with the idea of random gene transmission, though there's some evidence he cooked his data. However, the Intelligent Design idea (discounting the sillier uses of it, and giving it its due) will never satisfy a scientist, because it's not parsimonious. if you ask a scientist to choose between an undetermined random process and 'Designer', the scientist will always choose the random process, because you have to assume so much that can't be investigated in the second case. basically he's going to say 'what I see is an undetermined random process - if you can prove that the undetermined random process I see is a Designer please prove that, otherwise have a nice day.' That doesn't mean the scientist is right; it just means the scientist is not going to make assumptions that he can't justify.

just a wandering clarification. --Ludwigs2 00:30, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

see actual EB article -- with the Crain's clear copyright notice. Thanks! Collect (talk) 14:19, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Clear? Collect (talk) 14:19, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

March 2009

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Misplaced Pages articles, as you did to Conservatism. Doing so violates Misplaced Pages's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Please stop agenda-based editing. Ejnogarb (talk) 15:54, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Huh? Where did I add commentary? Soxwon (talk) 16:21, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Ejnogarb (talk) 16:34, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh plz, I already know I'm at 3Rs so don't bother. Soxwon (talk) 16:36, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Bugs

Well, I guess we won't be wandering down that rabbit-hole for a while now. Hope the retired hare saved enough in his 401(k) for a fun-filled and Fudd-free retirement. And just at the peak of his career, when the young fella showed such promise: still had years of eligibility left. How long will it be now before the AP writers get to vote on his qualifications for Cooperstown? —— Shakescene (talk) 01:56, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I honestly have no idea why Bugs retired. Perhaps he wants to resume under a different identity (the WP:Right to vanish; perhaps he's just tired of all the grief he got at WP:ANI; perhaps he's just tired; perhaps something else (good or bad) has come into his real life; perhaps he just wants to take a break and do something else. I appreciated his sense of humour and his contributions to the baseball and stadium articles, but I know nothing more about him. Sorry I can't give you any further clues about this, and I'm sorry that Bugs is gone even should it prove temporary or a transition to a different editorship. If you want to look at his old discussion page and user page, I'll be glad to offer some technical hints. —— Shakescene (talk) 05:22, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

anti-Jesus POV

Excuse me?? anti-Jesus POV? I put fact, not point of view into the article about the mythical character. And my input didn't portray it as mythical, or point of view, just factual, neutral. Have you never read of Mithras?

Anti Jesus? are you kidding? I was simply adding important historical connections to the article, and I am not done. Do you even know why Christmas is celebrated on Dec 25? Are you even aware of Mithras? Possibly. Please explain what is "anti-Jesus" about pointing out a Mithras connection to the Jesus story. Your turn, what is "anti-Jesus" about pointing out a Mithras connection?? Geĸrίtzl (talk) 00:44, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

very nice of you to apologize, thank you. All the best to you. Geĸrίtzl (talk) 00:11, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Madoff deletions

i really think you are overreaching with your deletions. i didn't decide to divorce my husband the day before he turned his father in. obviously, you are not aware what people do in dire situations. the only reason ruth is not divorcing bernie is because she has spousal confidentiality and and cannot testify against him.

any one who has a legal background knows why she coincidentially filed for divorce after her husband's lawyer made arrangement for the sons to turn their father in. FOLLOW THE MONEY!! TO INSULATE HER KIDS!!

please put it back.

ann the personal secretary has been given perks to keep her mouth shut. there is an article http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE52J4IF20090320 an eyewitness discusses how everyone was overpaid. besides, you deleted the footnoted source.

as for the quote from Pinsky. he commented on the plea. it is sourced.

please stop reverting all my research. i never see you add facts, just knock out others' work. it is not like it's vandalism. so check the sources, or just read what you see without such being such a critic.

i bet you loved manny and didn't want him to leave boston, right?

Furtive admirer (talk) 23:01, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

thanx 4 your note. we simply have different perspectives: you like to delete critically. i like to find facts and include them. your analysis of my "thinking" is not "original sourcing". It simply is stating the facts. Any reader can make their own inference and judgment why someone is making an outrageous salary, or why someone put his assets in his wife's name when his dad did the same thing. i never said "like father like son". the reader will infer that from the facts on the page. i'm simply stating the facts, not concluding a + b + c = a propensity for cheating/fraud. as the story enfolds, readers make their own inferences. e.g. there is an article about shana madoff's "material girl" addiction for attention and having the "right" image. that is original sourcing and i did not include her needs even tho' it is my "opinion" that is a family pattern.

it is quite amusing that the critics on wikipedia, spend a great deal of time trying to figure out the motives of the contributor rather than just reading the facts: arm-chair psychiatry.

Furtive admirer (talk) 16:55, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey

Please stop sending me stuff about my pages i created, I'm not done with them yet. for example, dont put anymore stuff about fixing the Hanashiro Chomo page because I'm still working on it.

Guidelines

Soxwon, the best sources don't describe the website that way. Do a google books search and read what the sources with extensive coverage of the website actually say. The version you just reverted basically gives Ratel everythign he wants, but at least it leaves the door a tiny bit open to reflect that the site itself does not identify itself as conservative and neither do lots of other sources. The New York Times is liberal, but it's not even mentioned in the introduction, same with Newsweek etc. I have tried adding sources that give alternative descriptions, but I've been reverted. Many sources describe it as a gossip website (that's how it started), other don't mention politics at all, and others mention its association with conservative politics, but don't say it is a conservative website. To do so in the first part of the first sentence of the article is misleading, inaccurate and inconsistent with our guidelines here. Please be reasonable. Thank you. Even Wikidemon says the lead sentence is inappropriate. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:09, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm tired of this edit war and quite frankly do not care. Soxwon (talk) 00:22, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Reverting the edits of other because you're tired of the conflict is not a sound basis or supported by policy. You are welcome to take the article off your watchlist or stay out of this particular dispute. I'm focused on continuing to improve the article and making sure it meets Wikipedias guidelines for NPOV, appropriate weight, and encyclopedic content. Cheers. ChildofMidnight (talk)

Obama

My fault. I intended a longer edit summary citing WP:UNDUE but hit the button first. Grsz 23:16, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

It's undue, recentism, and WP:NOTNEWS. Not to mention since it's so hot off the press, largely unverified. Actually, I think i'll revert now. Grsz 23:19, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Ran't

Hi, just wanted to explain that I had the edit window open and, with Tchaikovsky's Suite No. 4 in G playing and birds alighting just outside the windows in the drizzle to eat seeds, I was investigating some of the other articles curious to see what the status of photos actually were. When I finally finished composing my response, having previewed it a few times, I discovered the request not to add to the section. (There should be some way during draft previews to be alerted to such a development.) So, for what it's worth, I just wanted to note that I didn't dig in there somehow against your judgement after you had collapsed the section to add my two more cents. I do admit that I noticed you had blanked his rant earlier, but when the other fellow, Cameron, responded I thought perhaps it would remain. As the guy's second response to me shows, he's clearly not comprehending, or at least not responding to, the central points I was making, seizing instead upon tangentials, so I see why it makes sense not to continue with him and have no objection to your decision. I was a little surprised to see so few pics of Obama actually with, say, his fellow candidates in the primary article, but then contemplated that they wouldn't make any point other than to prove they were, indeed, there, and as I wrote, I don't find the actual bio article to be amiss in regard to photos.

An aside, I glanced at a couple of your edits and found them remarkably balanced and collected and fair-minded. If I were one of those in the know or the habit of giving donuts and cookies and stars and whatnot, you'd be my candidate. Great work, great to know someone like yourself is a voice of reason around here. Best, Abrazame (talk) 23:17, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Obama lede

Jones Paper

You are trying to remove the sources of news coverage of a new paper by Steven Jones. Have you seen the paper? Please look at the date of the news article. It is not a "database reprinting." It covers the new information in the new paper. bov (talk) 00:12, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Conservatism

I noticed that several editors wish to delete the "Psychological research" section of Conservatism without discussion. As you had been involved in this discussion I would welcome your comments at Talk:Conservatism#Psychological Research? The Four Deuces (talk) 21:12, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Kindly note that there most certainly was and is discussion. Accusing anyone of sneaking the change in is wrong. The material, moreover, is not about "conservatism" but psychoanalytic material about "conservatives" which verges on pseudo science no matter how referreed the journal is. Collect (talk) 21:31, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Didn't look like much discussion to me and it did look like sneaking. I've looked and responded so there is no need to carry on thank you. Soxwon (talk) 21:32, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Barney Frank talk page

Hi, a friendly suggestion here. Benjiboi has reverted your attempt to change some prior talk page comments. I haven't even looked at what's going on and don't want to try to figure out who is right here. Just a comment about how you may be able to avoid an edit war on a talk page... I think it's completely okay to delete or refactor your own talk page messages if nobody has commented on them yet, or if you do it in a way that does not put any subsequent comments out of context or make them look bad. But if someone else has commented on something you said it's too late to change unless they agree, because the reader should get the right impression about what they are responding to. By that theory it's almost always okay to fix typos, misspellings, poor word choice, etc., but not to revise or remove a point. But if you have second thoughts or want to explain yourself better, and if you think that ought to be done in the original instead of a new one, its best to leave some indication of what you changed and why. One good way is to use the strike-through (<s>xxxx</s>) for striking, and underline (<u>xxxx</u>) or italics (<i>xxxx</i>) to add stuff. Sometimes I also like to use italics to make notes or parenthetical comments, e.g. comment stricken by Wikidemon in response to message left on talk page. Please forgive if this is all old news to you, just hoping we can all get along for the best on the talk page. Wikidemon (talk) 23:32, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Request for citations ?

Added 3 sentences from the History of Republican Party to explain that after the breakdown of conservative coalition the solid south became republican. The change of the south from democrat to republican is arguably the most important political factor in the last 50 years. And it explains how the republicans reached a majority in the senate and house. It is clearly more important than the fact that republicans supported protestant prohibitionists in the 1870s. I note that nothing in the entire history section is cited so I question if that is the entire reason you undid my edit. If there is something there you feel is slanted let's work to re-write but the end of the solid south is an important part of republican history and its present demographic. Nitpyck (talk) 23:37, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Here's my understanding of what happened back in those postwar days. You may find it useful in making the topic more Republican. Up to about '64 there were in effect 3 parties: Repub., Demo. and Southern Demo. Officially only 2, but the southern wing often voted with the Republicans. After WW2 the civil rights movement tore up the southern demos. There were several attempts at a 3rd party and eventually a mass migration to the Repubs. Even through Eisenhower and many other Repubs were pro-civil rights Johnson was given the main blame. In general the Republicans and the southern Democrats were closely aligned on many other positions but it took the federal move against Jim Crow to shock them into moving. This started in '48 with the integration of the armed services. Was seen in the movement of voters to Nixon in'68 and became pretty well settled in Regan's terms in office '80. Many other traditional Demos moved in this same period because of civil rights and and for reasons that in the History of Republican Party page. Nitpyck (talk) 03:17, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/Dixiecrat http://en.wikipedia.org/George_Wallace http://en.wikipedia.org/History_of_the_United_States_Republican_Party —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nitpyck (talk • contribs) 03:33, 12 April 2009 (UTC) http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/senators/f_two_sections_with_teasers/states.htm 9 Southern states 3 had 1 senator during reconstruction, since 1961 all have had or continue to have at least 1. Delete my summary again and I'll ask for citations for the rest of the History section which has many more questionable statements none of which are cited. I will however forbear to delete as you have repeatedly done. Help me out here, what exactly do you question? That people switched party allegiance, that the south is now a republican stronghold, that this change began after 1964. Nitpyck (talk) 06:04, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Help desk

	Hello Soxwon. Replies have been posted to your question at the Help desk. If the problem is solved, please place {{Resolved|1=~~~~}} at the top of the section. Thank you! ZooFari 06:27, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
	You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{helpdeskreply}} template.

Bill O'Reily

Seeing as you were a participant in this discussion earlier, you may wish to know that the criticism page is being looked at again. Soxwon (talk) 00:54, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Check out the main article bio. An editor just reverted another editor saying that consesus was reached about including the "widely considered a conservative" material in the lead when it was discussed by 3-4 folks and the lead had been stable for a while? Its pretty laughable at this point. Anyways, Tom (talk) 01:01, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Criticism of Bill O'Reilly and United Way

Please understand that a controversy is defined as "A dispute, especially a public one, between sides holding opposing views." Clearly, O'Reilly was involved in a notable controversy when he brought to light that charitable donations were not being used as advertised. Whether he was right or wrong is irrelevant to the discussion. Ramsquire 17:43, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Lolcat image

It's actually User:Gurch you ought to be complaining to. :-) Hut 8.5 17:20, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for giving a clearer explanation of what I was trying to get at on the O'Reilly criticism talk page. I'm getting a little hot and bothered about it for no particular reason (it's not like I actually care about the subject of the article). I can be a bit of a policy wonk at times, and that page appears, in my mind, to have... problems with policies. SDY (talk) 23:24, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

refuses to actually work on body of articles?

First time I ever heard of a fake newbie who "specialises" only in ledes <g>. 110 edits - and he knows all the buzzwoirds, which makes me disinclined to consider him an actual new editor. Did you look at his work? <g> Collect (talk) 23:31, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Help desk reply

	Hello Soxwon. Replies have been posted to your question at the Help desk. If the problem is solved, please place {{Resolved|1=~~~~}} at the top of the section. Thank you! ZooFari 03:19, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
	You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{helpdeskreply}} template.

Good faith on Barney Frank

You and the other editor have each tonight accused the other of stonewalling. Please, I am asking you both to refain from disparaging the other. LadyofShalott 03:51, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: RFC

The RFC needs to be closed this second, today. RFCs are only able to work if all the parties agree to stick to the finding of the RFC, in terms of editing restrictions. Collect has made it clear that he is not going to give in and work with whatever they decide upon, therefore the entire thing is pointless and a waste of everyone's time. Since an RFC is non-binding, nothing will come out of this. If they want to force him or her to abide by restrictions, an ANI thread should be created, or they should take it to ArbCom. As I said above, it needs to be closed now, as it blatantly obvious it is not going anywhere.— Dædαlus 20:33, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Move to Close

And a move to Close is not a vote, so including that section is futile and hostile. 207.237.33.36 (talk) 21:23, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

reminder against the perception of CANVAS

Clearly we have different opinions on the RFC of Collect. That being the case I want to completely make a note here - in 100% the most civil and non-threatening way.

You have made several requests for other editors to give their opinions on the page, including LadyofShalott, Jim62sch, and Daedalus969. In good faith, I assume you are not canvassing, votestacking, or otherwise, however, two of those three editors invited by you have sided with you thus far while the third has said plainly they have not had a chance to review the RFC in its entirety. Daedalus969 closed and archived my "indef block" section in the RFC while you prevented my closing and archiving the "Move to Close" section...on which LadyofShalott agrees with you (in that the matter of RFC closure is worthy of finding consensus which you know -from my comments there- that I believe the only consensus is to keep the matter open.)

Since there is a great amount of controversy right now, I have gone out of my way not to invite other editors into the fold; for several reasons: to avoid any accusation of Canvassing, to avoid more redundant opinions into a discussion with many intelligent and thought-out opinions, and to avoid escalating loudness in an already loud discussion.

I can not ask you not to ask other editors from participating. I can, however, in the most polite way I know how, ask you to review WP:CANVAS. I ask this of you not only in the light of the Collect RFC but also in light of the recent accusations of stonewalling made against you on the Barney Frank article.

Of course, you may choose to heed my reminder or you may choose not. But I do believe that this note on your talk page is appropriate. Again, thank you for remaining civil, and for understanding the POV of others. 207.237.33.36 (talk) 03:45, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply on my talk page. I stand by my civil observations and my comments here. The above was a reminder. I'm sorry you clearly didn't perceive it that way. 207.237.33.36 (talk) 04:32, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: Joe the Plumber - "All editors"?... now that's monumental. But I'll take a crack at ones who were more than just passing through.Mattnad (talk) 15:06, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Done.Mattnad (talk) 15:26, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

To my mild surprise, none of the editors I contacted in the second round have yet participated in this RFC. When I made my first cut at picking interested editors (and received the blast from Collect for Canvassing), I tried to finds Editors who were active wikipedians and actually cared (eg. Red Pen of Doom, Jim). It seems the others are worn out or not interested (so far).Mattnad (talk) 15:24, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Replied

at my talk page, as you have seen. While I'm here, remember to use 4 tildes sign your comments - see, for example, my last formatting change at the RfC where your username was sitting there by itself. :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:51, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Collect

You're doing a nice job on the RFC. Glad you stepped up, I was feeling all alone.  ;) &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 16:40, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Soxwon, I've followed your contributions there with interest. One of them baffles me. Please help me out here. The apparent context of your remark: one user repeatedly attacks other users as sockpuppets, meatpuppets, sockpuppeteers etc. without a scintilla of corroborating evidence. I understand you to be saying that the accuser is not to blame for these accusations. If that interpretation is correct, who do you say is to blame? Cheers, Writegeist (talk) 07:56, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply at my Talk. Writegeist (talk) 16:15, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah, ye olde passion! Hey, us humans are hard-wired with it (and mine has got me into scalding hot water in the past . . .) Personally, I rather like to see it around the place from time to time. Thanks for the background. Writegeist (talk) 16:48, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Funny, it just struck me: you defend Collect so assiduously that, according to Collect's method of deductive reasoning (see his post below), it looks as though Soxwon is -- OMG! -- Collect himself. Not that I think you are... Just thought it would give you a laugh. :~)

Neat -- WG is defending Brendan19 as though he were WG himself <g>. The person who makes unfounded accusations at the outset is the problem -- in this case it was Ikip. Who has been blocked, banned, chastised and warned innumerable times now. And been in around two hundred AN/I pages as well, canvassed several thousand people and the like. I apologized for my 2 3RR violations -- find me where he has been as willing to learn -- or is he free until he reaches three hundred AN/I pages? Four hundred? Collect (talk) 10:28, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

"Neat -- WG is defending Brendan19 as though he were WG himself <g>."

So Collect, hot on the heels of the abject failure to substantiate his repeated personal attacks on me as a sockpuppet, meatpuppet, sockpuppeteer etc., now clearly insinuates that Brendan19 -- whom Collect has already accused, without a shred of evidence, of being a sockpuppet -- is my sockpuppet This latest gratuitous and false accusation duly noted and logged. Writegeist (talk) 16:15, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Collect, pls see my Talk and pls don't continue these attacks at Soxwon's talk. Writegeist (talk) 16:15, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the note

I spelled out my attitude towards this mess here and it appears Daedalus969 has closed Collect's RfC. If you could explain to me how this works, I'd appreciate it. Is it, in fact, closed? Will a new discussion be opened on ANI? I can't bring myself to try to sort out that nightmare of a page, so if you could point me to any conclusions that have been reached on it, I'd appreciate it. (If not, I understand.) Thanks again. SluggoOne (talk) 22:08, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Concerned

Hi Soxwon, just to say I'm a little concerned about what appears to be considerably less than neutral content in your invitation to LadyofShalott to check out the Collect RfC. No need to reply as I'm not interested in your reasons and anyway they're none of my business. This is just to put my concern on the record. It's good to see SB Johnny at the RfC, I trust him to get it into shape and damp down the wilder, more inflammatory and less helpful stuff. Cheers. Writegeist (talk) 02:32, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

My reply anyway since I edit conflicted with your removal of the question

Whether you should or not, I'm unsure. However, I think if you want to pursue this, the place to seek further aid would be WP:WQA. LadyofShalott 04:25, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

• What LadyofShalott said is not correct. Please note that I have reverted your WQA filing as unconstructive - it's inappropriate to go to an earlier step in dispute resolution to discuss something that is in a later stage. If you have reservations behind the filing of the RfC, and if it's not being paid attention to, then you can either request admin intervention at a noticeboard, or arbitrator intervention at WP:RFARB. You can invite a motion to close, but that is up to the community in general - if they disagree, then there's little you can do unless arbitrators are willing to accept a case. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:24, 21 April 2009 (UTC)slightly modified. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:30, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I probably misunderstood - I thought this was a side disagreement with one of the participants in the RfC. LadyofShalott 05:58, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Your "stunt"

That message posted on ANI truly shows that you cannot accept my apology and are trying to push evidence of wrong doing. That is not how Misplaced Pages works or an RfC work and you know it. Plz refrain from doing that again. Ikip (talk) 06:36, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Mediation cabal / Barney Frank

Hi. I'm unfamiliar with MC cases, having only participated in a few. I've left a comment on the med cabal case talk page encouraging them to take the case. I hope that's not out of line. Wikidemon (talk) 18:23, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Accidental edit?

Hi, Soxwon. Your last edit on the Tea Party Protest article moved a section of text after the sources it cited. And then you placed a "fact" tag after that same text? Could you please check again? Thanks. I see you are following the conversation on Jim's page. I'm going to read your comment now... Xenophrenic (talk) 20:22, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Responded. In all 3 places ;) Xenophrenic (talk) 21:07, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to move that section of text back into place before the sources to which it is cited, if you have no objections. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:10, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Notice

This is just to let you know that I did a little IAR in not editing other's comments here (not sure on policy on adding tags after a few replies). Hope you don't mind. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 01:33, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

That wasn't ignoring any rules. Doing what you did is the whole purpose of that template. LadyofShalott 01:42, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality

I don't claim neutrality. Of all the thousands of editors I have had dealings with, the editor in question is without a doubt the only one that compels me to speak toward his removal. --Buster7 (talk) 04:30, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Criticism of O'Reilly Article

I think we have given every editor sufficient opportunities to respond to the changes in the current article. Although there is no deadline, I would support your replacing the article with a cleaned up version of your last draft at your earliest convenience. Thanks for your hard work and assistance on this. Ramsquire 02:20, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Your recent edits to the critics section may run afoul of the MOS here. Usually when there is a parent article it is appropriate to drop a one word sentence summarizing the issue and placing a {{see also|article name}} tag on the section. Further, without the headers the section reads as a laundry list with no focus. I understand that the end goal for some of you is a final merge, but there is no deadline, and sometimes you have to work in increments. As a veteran of these contentious articles, I would advise letting the progress made over the last couple of weeks stand for maybe a week or two, giving everyone a full chance to review and/or co, before making more drastic changes. The only consensus was to condense the article, not to make it so concise as to prepare it for a merger. Ramsquire 00:25, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

OR

er...If me getting my information from wikipedia and then adding it into an image is OR...and the image being apparently completely wrong...I think you made a big mistake.-- OsirisV (talk) 23:22, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I used the pages for specific things. For instance the Prime minister of the UK is Gorden Brown. He is a member of the labour party, a centre-left wing party. Thus, the UK is painted in red. Misplaced Pages can be a reliable source, but it depends on what it is.-- OsirisV (talk)

Can it stay if I just change "ruling" to a better word? It's just...I spent 4 months of research onto this page. I had to redo it twice after my computer crashed, and another time when a niece deleted it whilst "playing".-- OsirisV (talk) 23:45, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I went by the politcal party of the highest person in government. Labour was red. Lib Dems could be either red or yellow. Democrats were pretty much the same as Lib. Dems..etc.-- OsirisV (talk) 23:55, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Two words: On Paper-- OsirisV (talk) 00:03, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

For an example, Mugabe is considered by many as a fascist dictator, and even though many of his policies are clearly non-socialist, he is still a member of the Zimbabwe African National Union – Patriotic Front, who are of the Left-Wing.-- OsirisV (talk) 00:23, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

May 2009

Welcome to Misplaced Pages. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Tea Party protests. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. JCDenton2052 (talk) 09:07, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Tea Party protests. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. JCDenton2052 (talk) 09:07, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Mediation

I am not opposed to you asking either of those individuals for comment. The more the merrier, in my opinion. On Misplaced Pages, more editors == more accuracy. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:35, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Skeptics

Hi Soxwon, would you mind reading the source I have given, and correct your edit?  Cs32en  19:04, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

blame?

as to my accusatory attitude and refusal to take any blame... what are you talking about? an RfC (about collect and no one else) is an appropriate place to accuse collect of bad behavior. thats the point. thats what i did. it is collect who has been making knowingly false accusations about me! i am telling him to knock it off because his claims are proveably false (a pattern w/ him). how many times should i be subjected to lies about me? and blame??? what blame should i have? everything i have said about collect is absolutely true. so yes, i do refuse to take blame for collects actions. the only reason the RfC may be useless is because collect refuses to actually listen and try to change. that is why this will probably go on to whatever is the next step and at that point his behavior in this RfC will be judged (as will others behavior). so this may not be useless after all. Brendan19 (talk) 17:06, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

replied to you on my page. i like to keep it all in one place when possible. Brendan19 (talk) 21:07, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Pagan metal

Hey Soxwon, I hope you understand why I reversed you here--I should have said "good faith edits" in there, just to make matters abundantly clear. I appreciate your weighing in on the matter, BTW. Drmies (talk) 03:34, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

pagan metal

please learn what vandalism actually is before accusing someone of it. it helps to actually read rules before you try to enforce them. 86.138.90.54 (talk) 17:29, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I could say the same to you. I could also point you towards WP:Civil and WP:3RR, not to mention the second paragraph of WP:Deletion policy. Drmies (talk) 18:12, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

i'm doing nothing more than any of the other users on there, so right back at you. the difference is i'm removing unsourced content, as per wikipedia's rules. you're breaking them, i'm undoing that. it's not hard to see who's in the wrong here. 86.138.90.54 (talk) 19:30, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

re: self-revert - no. show me some sources, and we'll talk. what you and others are basically saying is "Stop enforcing the rules, we don't like it." and i don't give in to bullying. 86.138.90.54 (talk) 19:37, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

re Wanda Sykes and Rush Limbaugh

Sounds good to me. Tomer 16:17, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Left-wing

The paragraph in question illustrates how the term left-wing is currently used in China, and other countries. It seems an illustration of how the term is currently used in the US is appropriate. The sentence is really not about Obama, but about usage of the phrase "left-wing". Rick Norwood (talk) 20:09, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

As I see it, the use of "left-wing" to describe Obama says more about the conservative press than about Obama. There was an interesting article I read recently that said that as a result of the conservative press saying over and over that Obama is "socialist", almost a third of all adults under twenty-five now identify themselves as "socialist"!

I engage a lot of people in all walks of life in friendly political discussions -- I'm able to keep things friendly because I listen more than I talk. People use phrases like "left-wing" or "right-wing" or "socialist" or "liberal" and I'll say something to the effect, "I'm not sure what that means. What does "left-wing" mean? The most common reply is, "I'm not really sure."

I think the Misplaced Pages article, to be both honest and useful, needs to say what "left-wing" originally meant, but show how that meaning has changed over time to the point where the phrase hardly means anything any more. I was tempted to add to the quote about the Wall Street Journal and Obama something to the effect that to call Obama "left-wing" is a meaningless attempt to convince unthinking people that Obama is wrong. But that would be OR. Rick Norwood (talk) 20:32, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Most current academics now find "left-right" to be over simplistic. gives one example. (By it I am very slightly libertarian, and just right of dead center on economics). Dave Nolan's quiz has me dead center and slightly libertarian. puts me slightly to the right and moderate social libertarian. calls me a "state worshipping authoritarian." I rather think how a quiz places people is just as vulnerable to the positions of its creators as anything else <g>. Might be fun to see other scores, I suspect. Collect (talk) 21:04, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Apology accepted (though if you've reverted the paragraph again, I'll still restore it, at least until some compromise is reached). I suspect all of us get carried away from time to time. I know I do, though I try to count to ten and remain rational. Collect, above, is certainly correct. Academics these days rarely use "left-wing" or "right-wing" any more. But the popular press uses the phrases more than ever. I can hardly open a magazine without seeing the phrases. Misplaced Pages should report that fact.

Thank you for a valuable reference, which should certainly go into the Misplaced Pages article, and which can probably be used to shorten the article considerably, since it seems authoritative. I've skimmed it, and will read it in it's entirity shortly. Rick Norwood (talk) 15:32, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

collect

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration#edit warring by collect and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration#Requesting Arbitration;
• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration guide.

Thanks,--Brendan19 (talk) 19:35, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

In the arbitration about Collect you said: I also feel that the RfC was flawed as it was conducted in an inappropriate manner (Collect's history was searched for possible violations, which were then used as "evidence"): (this was an accusation leveled after searching through his history),...(Fascism only one person). In fact I was not a sponsor of the RfC and only became involved after you asked me to comment on the Fascism article. I only commented on that article on the talk page, not on the main page, and the dispute was three way. I notified User:Spylab about the RfC but he did not respond. Why have you highlighted my role to emphasize that the RfC was flawed? The Four Deuces (talk) 04:44, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your response, I had misunderstood what you wrote. The Four Deuces (talk) 23:48, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: Mistake?

Ah, must have been a mistake - I've been reverting lots of vandalism today, and your edit must have looked malicious at a glance. Sorry. Anonymous the Editor (talk) 14:33, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Misplaced Pages, as you did at Fox News, you will be blocked from editing. Waterjuice (talk) 01:02, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

See . You give that editor too much credit. Collect (talk) 13:31, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Psych 101

It doesn't make much sense to put anything you want other people to read into Talk -- my impression is that the total number of people who read any given talk page is less than a dozen, and those only read the bottom posts.

I think political beliefs are a legitimate subject for phychology -- as is every other factor about human nature. But for me it is easy to understand why most people are suspicious of change. What's hard for me to understand is why some people are willing to change. That, to me, is little short of a miracle.

I grew up in the American South in the 1950's, where all of my friends and relations believed that it would take a second Civil War to make White Southerners accept the Negro as his equal. My father kept a stockpile of guns, and my best friend's father built his house on the model of a colonial fort, with the second story overshaddowing the first story, and no windows and only one door on the ground floor. And yet, here we are, in my own lifetime, with a Black president. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:26, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Modern liberalism in the United States

Why did you re-add the WP:Weasel tag? As I explained at the talk page, there have been no criticisms of the article on this basis. There are also three WP:NPOV tags which I think more accurately reflects the dispute. The Four Deuces (talk) 14:08, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for reverting the vandalism to my userpage. LadyofShalott 03:11, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Your message

Best to keep it on the article talk page. Pexise (talk) 22:45, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

OK - 1) see my response on the article page.

2) The Rome Statute is one of the only (if not the only) international human rights treaties to come into force in the 21st century. The US also voted against the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in 2007. Pexise (talk) 23:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Obama article

Given that this article is on probation, I think it more proper to discuss removal of content on the talk page and reach consensus, rather than just reverting. Note that I did not add the text in question, but did clean it up after another edited it. Thank you! --4wajzkd02 (talk) 20:59, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Please see . I am filing a revert violation notice, sorry. --4wajzkd02 (talk) 21:24, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:BRD and WP:CONSENSUS the burden is on the editor proposing a change to establish proper sourcing, consensus, etc. Newly proposed material may be removed, and it should then go to the talk page. Wikidemon (talk) 21:52, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello Soxwon. Please note the result of the 3RR complaint that involves you. Since an RfC is now in process, any further reverts of the disputed item, in either direction, may not be warmly received by administrators. Your Wikidemon's comment above about 'the burden is on the editor proposing a change..' doesn't ring a bell. You Wikidemon must be thinking of WP:BURDEN which is a policy on sourcing. There is no problem with the source in this case. The dispute is surely about WP:WEIGHT (Is the item important enough to deserve space in the article). An RfC is a good way to decide that. EdJohnston (talk) 23:18, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

capitalism

I did not know laissez-faire was a "form" of capitalism - I thought it was a specific economic policy advocated by a particular capitalist elite at particular times in history. Anyway, as far as my proposal for an introduction goes, I have proposed it - if you and others currently working on the article agree it is good, go ahead and put it in the intro to the article. If you andothers working on the article think you can improve it, go ahead! Slrubenstein | Talk 14:46, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for asking. I actually prefer my own wording, but what the hell - Misplaced Pages is the encyclopedia anyone can edit! Once I make an addition, it is not really my work any more, it is everyone's. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:34, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, for one thing, I do not like the word enervating in this context. I prefer many shorter and direct sentences over attempts to sum up several things in one word or one sentence. But like I said, I am not arguing - Misplaced Pages is collaborative, why not ask some of the other editors actively working on the article to go over your changes and perhaps even suggest others? Slrubenstein | Talk 18:27, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Republican Party

Hey, look, you totally misunderstood me. Now, with old and your version, the political ideology sections shows the historical section first and then the modern, and it looks really confusing. What I improved: I used better spacing, put the ideologies in order, and put the current modern ideologies in the front - so political ideologies sections first says "conservatism, fiscal conservatism, social conservatism, etc etc", and then there are historical ideologies like progresivism and abolitionism BEHIND the modern - more important ones. It is much better, look at both version closely please. --Novis-M (talk) 02:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh no you still don't get it and you still haven't read it :) look, I DIDN'T ADD OR CHANGE ANYTHING, I ONLY SIMPLIFIED IT, and I KNOW EVERYTHING ABOUT THE REPUBLICAN PARTY, I study politics worldwide. Look what I did:

FROM this, which I think is confusing:

Historical:
Abolitionism
Classical liberalism
Progressivism
Paleoconservatism
Modern:
Conservatism
Social conservatism
Neoconservatism
Fiscal conservatism
Right libertarianism
Minority

TO THIS:

Modern:
Conservatism
Social conservatism
Fiscal conservatism
Economic liberalism
Neoconservatism
Right libertarianism

Historical:
Abolitionism
Classical liberalism
Progressivism
Paleoconservatism

--Novis-M (talk) 02:24, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

It's alright, I just didn't know how to explain it :D By the way, good thing somebody is looking after it, I bet there are many vandalisms (especially from our liberal friends) :D I'm just trying to help to make the article more simple and accesible to normal readers :) --Novis-M (talk) 02:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Over, I trust

All the ANIs, WQA, CUs, RFC/Us and RFARs are over, I trust. I sincerely thank you for voicing your position on the RFC/U on me. I did not canvass anyone, and in order to avoid any claims that I canvassd, I waited until now (the request to reopen the RFC/U seems dead) to show my heartfelt thanks. Collect (talk) 12:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Psychological Research

I have a funny feeling about this whole psychological research topic, but maybe it could go in the Conservatism article, if anywhere.

Psychological research suggests that we don't vote for what is right, or even for what is our own enlightened self interest, but for what pushes our buttons most cunningly. I can't dispute their data, but I don't have to like it. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Request for Opinion on User Collect

Sorry for not responding to your request to participate in the RfC on April 20th. Users such as Collect had steered me away from trying to improve Misplaced Pages and I'm just now getting involved again. Please let me know if any similar discussions arise.

Thanks,

Rtally3 (talk) 22:36, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Obama talk page

Regarding your removal of a talk page proposal here, I would agree that the proposal is naive and is not likely to result in any change to the article. And thanks for watching out. But it seems to be in good faith. The early results from the Obama arbcom case suggest that arbitrators are looking unfavorably on talk page management that involves aggressive removal of comments. As you can see the poster looks a little miffed. So we'll try explaining things patiently. Cheers, Wikidemon (talk) 18:03, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Editing conflict with the film "Death Race" (2008).

Look. I'm sorry about what happened yesterday. I mean, when you kept changing it back to the old plot, I kinda got upset. I guess I was jealous. That's all. I just thought that if I could make the plot more exciting by updating it more, they would seem more interested. I was so embarassed. I'm still embarassed now. I've only had an account on here for almost a year now. You have to bear with me. Anyway, again, I'm sorry. Okay? Christopher K. Howell (talk) 23:31, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Bible translations

Much of my edits about Bible were essentially a small transfer of text into Bible translations. In general, I think the entry should not only focus on translations and canons, but should also include general information about the book. ADM (talk) 18:52, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Bird of a Feather

Great birdbrains think alike. Badmintonhist (talk) 04:27, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Helpful

It was helpful.

And your recent edits have improved the articles we both work on. Rick Norwood (talk) 15:44, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

O'reilly/Tiller

I just noticed your post on the above at the BLP noticeboard. You might want to list that at the RfC page instead or as well. Ramsquire 22:27, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Fascism

I don't think that the para you restored on the Fascism page is supported by the evidence and was made by an editor without discussion. If you support the version you restored could you please explain your position on the talk page. The Four Deuces (talk) 23:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, please could you consider looking again. The material being inserted is, to say the least, not supported by the sources, whereas the material being deleted is. Vision Thing has raised a couple of minor objections to this material which do not jusitfy the deletion of the whole section. I have indicated in talk that I think there is room for manoevre, but Vision Thing is declining to engage, instead carrying out repeated reversions without discussion.

Also, I am not an SPA, I just have a dynamic IP address, so it is different each time I log on.

Thank you. --89.242.184.16 (talk) 23:33, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Fascism in the political spectrum

The RfC on Fascism#Fascism in the political spectrum has now run one month and there are now two versions of the intro para:

Most scholars do not find the terms right and left very useful with regard to fascism, which incorporated elements of both left and right, rejected the main currents of leftist and rightist politics, and attracted adherents from both ends of the political spectrum. Hence, fascism can be called sui generis. Some scholars do place fascism squarely on the right or left.

Most academics describe fascism as extreme right, radical right, far right or ultra right; some calling it a mixture of authoritarian conservatism and right-wing nationalism. However, there exists a dissenting view that fascism represents radical centrism. Moreover, a number of writers highlight aspects of some types of fascist ideology which may typically be associated with the left.

Could you please comment at Talk:Fascism#RfC.

The Four Deuces (talk) 21:55, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Attacks and the like

I can't say that was a very thoughtful response. Honestly, we've humored your antics quite long enough, and I think we're trying to let you know that if you're going to contribute productively you need to put forth a little bit of effort and a little less lawyering. I'm not going to bother re-explaining to you how unnecessary that entire exercise was, but I'd encourage you to go and re-read the points (especially Croc's). I can think of at least a half-dozen long-established editors who have told you your assertions on policy implementation are just plain wrong, and at least a few (self included) who have interacted with you long enough to believe you'll let your point of view motivate your actions. I'm know I can come off as dickish, but we get so many POV warriors on politically active articles that the community's tolerance of antics is fairly low. Best of luck... //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 05:01, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I think this is probably another indication of the wrong approach... Instead of "waiting to hear" about something, take it upon yourself to go look. I can think of at least two editors in the past week who have commented publicly on how you seem to operate in bad faith, so I'm not sure where the "mystery" is... I'd like for you to keep in mind that I've made no other comment about you beyond your seemingly partisan motivations, and I don't run around Misplaced Pages calling you an "asshole" or anything else. If you can't approach a discussion without stooping to childish insults and immature rants, how can you expect the community to believe you approach things from a neutral point of view? //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 10:12, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you; apology accepted and appreciated. I'm sure we'll be working together in the future. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:09, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Talk page posts

Please do not resort to edits like this. They're unprofessional, uncivil, and immature. It's fine to be angry from time to time (even expected), but resorting to personal attacks and the like never help matters. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:20, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Try not to take what others say personally. And if it becomes personal, take a step back, work on something beside Misplaced Pages (or try a completely unrelated editing area), and return with a cooler head. I've been here long enough to know that those who can't relax a bit and take things in stride nearly always get frustrated and eventually burn out. :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 05:25, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Peacock terms

In my opinion this edit is inappropriate; it is a direct quote from a source in The New York Times. And frankly, speaking from personal experience, those folks WERE pretty, pretty dumb too, but that is to change the subject. Fred Talk 14:02, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

"Consensus Wording", Vandalism, etc.

Looks like you've been around here long enough to identify vandalism, and should know what a consensus is. There is only a consensus when a change has been proposed, discussed and then accepted or rejected (maybe with a lone dissenter...usually someone who doesn't know what he/she is doing). An article (or part of it) is not automatically a consensus just because it has been that way for a while, or because of the POV tilt of the editors who are active with the article. I am reverting back with my edit. If you have a problem with it, bring it to the talk page.Chido6d (talk) 20:15, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Passive Smoking

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

You do not have consensus. The only one I know of who has a problem with the change is you. I suggest that you bring it to the talk page for discussion. P.S. It is you who is reverting. Not the other way around.Chido6d (talk) 22:26, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I am not proposing the same changes as SonOfFeanor. Come into the discussion page and let's talk. You are way too fast on the trigger and need to think things through and communicate a bit more.Chido6d (talk) 00:46, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmm

Just wondering, why did you revert the edit I made to the Fascism talk page?--UNSC Trooper (talk) 06:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the agreement!

Thanks for agreeing with me about Tiller.PokeHomsar (talk) 16:31, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

I wanted you to know I appreciated your statements on the 3RR notice board. It appears I still have much to learn regarding the policies and guidelines. To that end I have decided to relinquish rollback and return to manual editing for the near future. I want to earn the trust of editors in general; that desire is stronger with regard to those, like yourself, that have gone out of their way to help and support me. See ya 'round Tiderolls 00:30, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

My Block

Just to clear things up. I'm not a SPA. I have been a on wikipedia since February 2008 but had taken a long leave of absence from wikipedia to concentrate on school. In reality I have truly only been editing on wikipedia for a few months in total. Know that it was never my intention to upset anybody or vandalize the article Jessicka. I added the citation I was blocked for to improve the article and strengthen the article not vandalize it in any way. I had a conversation on my talk page with Benjiboi ( who has been very helpful) about the reinserted citation (I was banned for) in and we agreed that it was fine. I don't believe I have attacked anybody here. It appears I still have much to learn regarding the policies and guidelines.

I'm not being disruptive or deceptive, I assure you. I just want to see the articles be the best they can be.

I will be the first to admit I am not well versed in all wikipedia policy but I am learning as I go. The more I get help from editor's like Banjeboi they better editor I can become. Swancookie (talk) 04:23, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Chido6d's edits

I like your version of this latest battleground snippet better, but calling Chido6d's edits "vandalism" in the revert comments is extremely poor form. Gigs (talk) 21:15, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I requested a week of article protection, hopefully you two can hash it out on the talk page during that time. Gigs (talk) 02:32, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Poor form is a huge euphemism. I have asked for discussion (received none), and warned of repeated reverts to no avail.Chido6d (talk) 04:50, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Faceplam?

I'm not sure that I've heard of this before. What does it mean? -T'Shael, Lord of the Vulcans 00:27, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah, okay. Thanks. :) Happy editing, -T'Shael, Lord of the Vulcans 00:36, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: Neoconservatism

I did a history merge to the article to fix a cut-and-paste move from six years ago. Graham87 14:37, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

FYI

Admin Noticeboard: ]--Yachtsman1 (talk) 04:40, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

could i get you opinion

Just wondering if I could get you opinion on something Talk:Manchester mayoral election, 2009 (New Hampshire) is where the discussion is. So there is an disagreement between me and another editor on what the page should be I believe it should be the one posted above and he thinks it should be Manchester, New Hampshire mayoral election, 2009 just wondering if you could contribute thanks Gang14 (talk) 22:38, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:Areas for Reform

Might benefit from your insight. Collect (talk) 15:28, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Bravo

Bravo! That sort of comment goes a long way towards calming any concerns of bad faith.  :) //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:48, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Rollback on Barack Obama

Why did you do that? The addition is very well sourced. The discussion mentioned on the talk page does not take this new groundbreaking information to account (the book was released today). hydrox (talk) 17:09, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

No problem, if you want to discuss the edit futher, you are welcome here. hydrox (talk) 18:24, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

OHH you bad person

Nope its OK, as long as you cover yourself in linseed oil and walk down the high street starkers shouting I appoligise i'm a very naughty person.Slatersteven (talk) 18:38, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

OK i'll let you off this once, but remeber somewhere in the world its always thursday after wendsday ends.Slatersteven (talk) 18:40, 11 August 2009 (UTC).

Birther page

Not IMO, I was just trying to inform the anon of the 3RR. I assume you're aware of it, and your rvs seem entirely appropriate. But then, I'm an old fossil from back in the days when "Misplaced Pages is not a bureaucracy" was actually true. So I'm probably unreliable.  :) Guettarda (talk) 03:38, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

No, we were talking about the same page. I just ec'd with you both on the "conspiracy" page and on the anon's talk page. Guettarda (talk) 03:42, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Ron Paul

Hello, Soxwon. I've put forward another proposal in an attempt to resolve the content dispute at Ron Paul. Please take a look and let me know what you think. Thanks! Nick Graves (talk) 17:02, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Your objective input is requested on Christianity and abortion

I am currently on the brink of an edit war with a revisionist contributor (User:IronAngelAlice) who wants the Christianity and abortion section to suggest that Christianity has taken a somewhat equivocal and lenient view of abortion. Your objective opinion would be greatly appreciated. Please look at the history. Thanks!LCP (talk) 17:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

That would be a rather generous view, given that half the world's Christians are Catholics, and the Catholic Church opposes abortion. And that's just the starting point. In fact, I can't think of any Christian denominations that openly support abortion rights, though I'm sure there could be a few. Baseball Bugs carrots 02:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Glenn Beck

I almost pleaded surrender. I figured if I cant convince Soxwon, I am lost, but then I read your complete comments, and I think you are right that it needs to be covered in the show page. Can you help me direct a compromise in moving the boycott information to the show article? Bytebear (talk) 02:32, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 15:14, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I responded again.Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 17:37, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Beck

Wow, what a lightning rod that article is. Well, that figures. As to the guy making his fifth edit, notice that he has 5 edits scattered across 3 years. Presumably that's either a sleeper sock or else he normally edits as an IP. Is there anything familiar-looking about his writing style? I wouldn't know, but if you watch that page a lot, you might. Baseball Bugs carrots 22:45, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Liberalism in the United States

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Liberalism in the United States. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. The Four Deuces (talk) 04:22, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

It appears to me

that we might be getting into an edit, or revert war over the use of the terms Black and/or African-American over at Conservatism in the United States and I figured rather then letting the Three Revert Rule come into play that we should talk about it on the side. I was heartened to see that you consider yourself to be a anarcho-capitalist, and although I have not clicked on that link to see what it means, I find the "anarcho" part to be reassuring. I take it to mean (while being fully aware of the folly of making assumptions) that you believe (among things) that problems are best resolved between the folks having the problem, which is to say, without dragging in some power structure that is somewhat arbitrarily imposed on us. I believe that the term African-Americans is pretty much coin of the realm these days and if we are going to slide back let's just call them niggers and be done with it. Ambrose Bierce, I'm sure that you know, defines "Conservative" as "a statesman who is enamored with existing evils, as distinguished from the Liberal who wishes to replace them with others." Oh yes, I'm probably considered to be a liberal bordering on the radical, almost lunatic fringe, but think that this new evil, the term African-American has already won the day and that you should (opinion) pick your fights more carefully. Carptrash (talk) 23:48, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I thought that, " Republicans often oppose affirmative action for African-Americans." was a bit odd too. It seems to me that Conservatives/Republicans oppose affirmative action to everyone - AA's, women, gays, whomever might get an advantage from it. This sentence was not footnoted, but I am curious, do you think it's wrong? Should I look up in the Congressional Record and try to discern what conservative voting patterns on affirmative action are? Carptrash (talk) 02:09, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

You are quite the dedicated defender of conservatism in America. So., was the New York Times not a good enough source? 23:11, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Taking it slowly.

I am working carefully through the section one paragraph at a time. So far, except for removing the word "simply", the only changes I've made are in capitalization. Rick Norwood (talk) 23:19, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I read the paragraph above. Conservatives may oppose affirmative action for Whites, but I've never heard them say so, and many more Whites benefit from affirmative action than Blacks. Rick Norwood (talk) 23:21, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

"It never says they oppose Affirmative action for whites (or if it did I missed it, but that would be rather absurd)."

The assumption is that White is the norm, and that only Blacks benefit from affirmative action. So, when employees hire only Whites, that isn't affirmative action, that's just business as usual. If they hire a few Blacks, that's affirmative action. A good example of affirmative action for Whites is in college admissions. If college admissions did not favor Whites, our top universities would have all Asian students. Affirmative action requires racial diversity. Therefore colleges admit Whites before more qualified Asians. Another example of affirmative action for Whites. Tennessee State University is a primarily Black college, and so White students benefit from affirmative action in admissions, and pay no tuition. My daughter graduated from Tennessee State. But I've never heard a conservative complain when diversity favors Whites. I assume that if you oppose affirmative action, you would oppose all forms, but affirmative action has never been only for Blacks -- they benefit most because for generations they were universally excluded. Rick Norwood (talk) 23:42, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry you didn't get into the college of your choice. (You can always to to Tennessee State tuition free.) But compare that to Blacks, who when I was growing up were lynched for trying to go to an all White school. I have a picture of about twenty Black men hanging from an old oak tree in my home state of Louisiana, with the shriff and his men posing proudly for the camera.

And I'm also sorry if you thought my aside about affirmative action had anything to do with anything. I just noted the post above mine, and offered an off-hand remark. Rick Norwood (talk) 00:07, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

FNC

Ever since Beck called Obama a racist I have noticed a concerted effort to target FNC and FNC personalities, and it only seems to be getting worse. FYI, I noticed that your welcome message wasn't accepted very well. Arzel (talk) 04:21, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

For patience

Image:Civility barnstar.png

		Civility Award
		This is awarded for having a cooler head, and greater patience than me. Bytebear (talk) 07:36, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Newshounds

Sorry for the delay in getting back to you. Regarding a NewsHounds article, I can't say I'm really very familiar with them or know enough about them to say if there should be an article on the subject. I know I've seen MSNBC cite them at least a few times, but I think the main concern is going to be proper sourcing to ensure that we're compliant with WP:N. I'd certainly be interested in collaborating on such an article... do you want to go and try to find some sources, and then we'll go through them and see if we think it'll be enough to meet our guidelines for inclusion? //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 16:22, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

For your reading pleasure

Someone will probably complain about this: . Niteshift36 (talk) 04:21, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

• I had 2.5% on the Hannity talk page, 1% in the article, .005% in the talk page about one of his books. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:32, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Youtube audio not an unreliable source

Hi, im here to raise cain about the fact you undid an edit of mine in the Rush Limbaugh page. Im here disputing the fact that that particular video cited as the ref for limbaughs quote (which is nothing other than Rush's unadulterated and unedited voice offering his defense) is an unreliable resource. I dont think you should just delete any reference with Youtube stamped on it, rather examine the source to see that it is nothing more than a clean audio rip from the show... cheers.. Mace Windu (talk) 02:29, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

its not a copyright violation since i own it...lol...Mace Windu (talk) 02:34, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

media matters does not own it because its rush's audio.. clearchannel does...but thats beside the point. that video IS mine until stated otherwise by the youtube group.. that is my concern as the owner, not wikipedias. until youtube restricts it that video is considered mine. according to copyright laws since that is undisputed by youtube or the copyright owner, the copy is mine. and you have my written consent to post it on wikipedia.. Mace Windu (talk) 02:41, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

ok you may be right about the copyvio, but i done see the problem this is as a reference. the fact that it MAY be a copyvio is not wikipedias problem since they didnt post it, they are only referencing something that rush DID SAY on his show... (obviously 4 someone to get a video on wikipedia could mean major traffic... is this just some bs to try to keep wikipedia from getting flooded with youtube references so that people may get more hits? thats ok if it is..im just asking)Mace Windu (talk) 02:58, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

lol...i bet Christ wouldnt be irritated. anyway i cant think of anymore arguments and its probably better to let it go, so thx for the help. God bless.. Mace Windu (talk) 03:09, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Glenn Beck - Talk

Hi Soxwon. I saw your recent edits to Talk:Glenn Beck, removing several comments. Were they yours? MichaelLNorth (talk) 14:37, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I certainly see that they could be taken as rants, but deleting others' comments without their permission is prohibited. I completely understand your objection to the content, but perhaps the way to go about it is WQA. In any case, I suggest that you revert your deletions. I understand that there is an exception listed "Deleting material not relevant to improving the article", but perhaps we should leave that subjective decision up to someone not involved in the discussion? There's a lot of content in the talk page that's not relevant to improving the article, and picking out one rant in particular could be seen as selective application of the rules. MichaelLNorth (talk) 16:36, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I do see the personal attack against "Morphhhhhhh" in one of the comments you deleted, but to say he doesn't comment on the article is an exaggeration. He comments on Beck's "Libertarian" status as being a way of expressing conservative views without aligning himself with the GOP, and also suggests that the people who are currently dominating the article's editing process should really let others take over. Granted, he is not polite in the way that he raises these points, but these should be taken as legitimate concerns about the article and the editing effort. If you disagree, then reply to them. If you think that he's trolling or violating Misplaced Pages policy, then file a complaint. There have been a large number of personal attacks in the beck talk page and starting to delete them now could appear similar to suddenly starting to enforce jaywalking laws when someone you don't like crosses the street. MichaelLNorth (talk) 17:03, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Fox's conservative bias/Olbermann

There are already listed sources for the existing statement saying "critics and some observers ...". If they are inadequate I would think there would be a host of others. Is it your point that using most of these sources would amount to WP:Synthesis since, while they call Fox conservatively slanted, they don't actually say that many (other) observers find Fox to be conservative? As for Olbermann's O'Reilly mask incident, that was once in Olby's bio but was taken out a while back when the article was streamlined. I believe it was properly sourced and don't see any reason why it couldn't be put back in ... except for some stubborn editors, of course. Badmintonhist (talk) 16:12, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I hadn't noticed your re-inclusion of the mask incident. Good show! Badmintonhist (talk) 19:10, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Rant removal.

Please revert those. Yes, they're rants. But you do Misplaced Pages more of a disservice by censoring his opinion than he does by spewing out garbage we can ignore. Censor him, you prove him right - the page is being protected by right wingers, especially since it's YOU removing, and you are against a lot of the inclusions suggested there. Leave them there, we can all ignore him, and he at least feels we read his comments. remove them, you antagonize him and he'll keep coming back. If it's there, sooner or later he may calm down and contribute to the discussion - alienate him and he'll tell ten friends wikipedia sucks. ThuranX (talk) 16:24, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

still witing. Please do this promptly, thank you. ThuranX (talk) 17:45, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I AGF'd all through it, it's all good. It's done, and without going around you, that's what matters. ThuranX (talk) 19:15, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Edit War on Feminazi

Hey, just wanted to avert an edit war. Would you please give reasons in the talk page why you deleted citations and various sections of the Feminazi page? Also, would you please talk about the reasons for your changes in the first paragraph? I think this will be helpful moving forward.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 20:54, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Please do not assume ownership of articles such as Feminazi. If you aren't willing to allow your contributions to be edited extensively or be redistributed by others, please do not submit them. Thank you.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Fifelfoo (talk • contribs) 01:00, 1 September 2009

Blocked

It seems that neither of you read my message at the edit warring noticeboard, where I gave multiple links to avenues for dispute resolution. Both of you need to stick to the talkpage and seek dispute resolution, rather than continuing to edit war. rʨanaɢ /_contribs 22:14, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Please Unblock

I apologize for the edit war, but I believe we're both done. There will be no more reverting, as we've hammered out the compromise. Soxwon (talk) 22:12, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I see no evidence of that—you had done a revert no more than 2 minutes before leaving this unblock request. But if you want a second opinion on the block, you may get one by following the instructions in the box. rʨanaɢ /_contribs 22:16, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

{{unblock|I plan on making no further edits to the article, as I'm satisfied with the current compromise. While we most likely should have worked on it more on the talk page, we did actually work together. I acknowledge and apologize for the edit-war, but I believe that both Alice and I are done with reverting. My last one was just nitpicking, I could just as easily not done it and would have been satisfied. Soxwon (talk) 22:19, 1 September 2009 (UTC)}}

If it was "just nitpicking" you shouldn't have done it. The fact that you "could have" refrained from edit warring is irrelevant; you didn't refrain from it. rʨanaɢ /_contribs 22:28, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

That wasn't what I meant by that, I was trying imply that I had no reason for further reversions and that I was genuinely sorry for what I did. I could assure you that it won't happen again, but then, they all say that don't they...

At any rate, I'll wait for another admin to look at it. Soxwon (talk) 22:37, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): Says won't do it again. Request handled by: jpgordon 23:24, 1 September 2009 (UTC) Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.

Ha! We really did it to ourselves that time. Sorry. --IronAngelAlice (talk) 02:26, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Karl Rove

Please stop reverting my edits. You are no more or less entitled to edit wikipedia. And from I see, you're a bit of a vandal.Malke 2010 (talk) 06:04, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I see you've met Joe

Thanks for the vandal fighting help on my user page. That was Joe Hazelton, a long-time vandal who has some kind of personality disorder and loads of free time. He's perma-blocked, so there's no point in reasoning with him, and he's not going to take your advice anyway. Before I blocked him, I spent the better part of a year trying to reason with him and couldn't even get him to the point where he could refrain from calling people assholes and posting offensive ascii art. The thanks I get is a permanent stalker. Gamaliel (talk) 23:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Gamaliel (talk) has eaten your {{cookie}}! The cookie made them happy and they'd like to give you a great big hug for donating it. Spread the WikiLove by giving out more {{cookie}}s, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Thanks again!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat a cookie with {{subst:munch}}!

Your brief essay on partisans

I like your synopsis, and it shows some similarities to my own evolution. I especially agree with your assessment that radio personalities are "entertainment first." It seems waaaay too many people forget that waaaaay too easily.

I'm curious if there are any that you DO like. There are a few that I still enjoy listening to on occasion. But the ones you list are pretty useless to me. (Though I do have hopes that Franken will make a pretty good Senator -- he strikes me as being a bit less beholden to special interests than most in the Senate.) -Pete (talk) 23:31, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, though I'm not sure why you don't consider Colbert and Steward "pundits" -- is it because they're a little more transparent than most about the fact that their primary goal is to entertain? I completely agree that they're a lot of fun, and I'd say I generally agree with the point of view they're coming from.

Are you familiar with Ed Schultz? He's often very full of himself and often off on the wrong track, but he gives a voice to a segment of America that I think is sort of neglected in general, and I admire the moments where he gives an interesting caller a lot of air time, even when he disagrees. I think there could be a lot more of that. I have some admiration for Alex Jones for taking a unique approach, and some of what he says is compelling, though a lot of it just seems flat-out crazy.

I guess I see a lot of value in talk radio call-in shows, because they help average people find their voice in politics. But too many hosts de-emphasize the calls. I don't think I ever heard Franken take a single one, he just had a regular cast of lobbyist guests. -Pete (talk) 00:02, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

ANI

Hello, Soxwon. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Talk:Glenn Beck. Thank you. TFOWR 22:22, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Presidential speech

We have different opinions about the President's speech. You say to merge. I say all presidential speechs are notable if they are reported by multiple sources. If there is not a policy change to include all presidential speeches then this recent speech should be at or near the cut off. That means if kept, all less notable speeches should be excluded. If deleted, then the kept speeches should be at least slightly more notable than this on. Of course, this is the next best thing. You already know my opinion, which is all speeches which are reported by multiple sources should be included.

If we both can discuss this logically and not try to cut each other's throat, then that is a good sign. What is Soxwon? Is that the White Sox win? If so, we are friends that haven't met before. Any friend of the White Sox is automatically a friend of mine. President of Chicago (talk) 04:12, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Hannity

You seem to be confused. I am restoring established content that was removed without explanation by an editor in the preceding 12 or so hours. It has been in the article for months and should remain until there is a consensus on the Talk page to remove it. Please do not undo my restoration of it again. JohnInDC (talk) 21:26, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Friend, either I'm thick skulled or you're being obtuse. Please expand on your (cryptic) edit summary - the only explanation you've offered for this removal of content - consisting of "FAIR=notnews". We are both experienced contributors and I think you owe a bit better explanation than that. JohnInDC (talk) 21:40, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Classical liberalism

Before you comment on Introman's edit or re-insert it could you please read the on-going discussion. It starts here and you were actually involved early in the discussion.

Here is the point of disagreement: Introman wants to insert into the lead "After losing political influence through the 1970's, and during the economic stagnation of the time, a revival of classical liberalism brought new life to the conservative movement, contributing to the election of Ronald Reagan, a conservative, for President" which is from Encyclopedia Britannica online. I pointed out to him that the revival of classical liberalism was part of the modern conservative movement since its inception in the 1950s and the lead already says, "Modern conservatism became a major political force in 1964, when Barry Goldwater...made an unsuccessful bid for the US presidency.... The movement culminated with the election of Republican candidate Ronald Reagan, a self-identified American conservative, as president. Subsequent electoral victories included gaining a Republican congressional majority in 1994 and the election of George W. Bush in 2000 and 2004...." Introman argues in the talk pages that Ronald Reagan and other conservatives only adopted the classical liberal revival after his election. Incidentally other editors have also reversed his edits.

Introman was blocked for editing on Classical liberalism. Note that after pointless discussions with Introman I set up an RfC here which attracted other editors. Although Introman's edits did not relate to the RfC, sufficient outside editors disagreed with thim that he was blocked.

You should remember your own discussion with Introman at Neoconservatism here where you mention his sources do not back up his statements and Will Beback gave him a 3rr warning probably about this article.

It is also interesting to read what Collect said about him:

As to the "new user" User:Introman who is used as the basis for the false claim of editwarring on Fascism, I proffer:

revert of Will Beback 03:04 16 Apr

revert 02:22 16 Apr

(revert of Alexius08) 1:58 16 Apr

(revert of Collect) 19:34 14 Apr

(revert of Collect) 21:19 14 Apr

(revert of Soxwon) 22:56 14 Apr

(revert of Soxwon) 23:06 14 Apr

(partial revert of Fraterm) 01:05 14 Apr

revert 2:16 16 Apr

1:52 16 Apr (revert of PhilLiberty)

(revert of Collect) 22:02 14 Apr

(added comment on disputed matter in Talk into article) 21:29 14 Apr

(revert of PhilLiberty) 19:23 14 Apr

(revert of Collect) 20:41 13 Apr

(revert of Collect) 20:33 13 Apr

(revert of Saddhiyama) 19:45 13 Apr

(revert of PhilLiberty) 17:43 11 Apr

(revert of PhilLiberty) 20:36 10 Apr

(revert of Skomorokh) 19"30 9 Apr

and about 20 other reverts -- all out of just over 100 total edits. Or almost half of all his article edits are reverts. I would suggest a new user who in only a couple of weeks manages to make that many reverts is a teeny bit suspect. The claim that I am theone editwarring on Fascism is rather groteque at that point, I trust.

As to the discussion on Talk:Fascism note for the nature of Introman's contributions, asserting the US is fascist becasuse the Mercury Dime had the fasces on the reverse.

Also read through User talk:Introman to see if my interaction with him is different from that of anyone else.

BTW have you heard anything from Collect? He has not posted anything for over a month.

The Four Deuces (talk) 03:04, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Question re: Controversies/Public Image Article

I just reverted Jimintheatl's revert of your revert regarding the redirect (try saying that 10 times fast). As I've been out of the loop, I'm wondering if there was some agreement between the editors and closing admin allowing the article to stay up a little longer. It seems that he threatened sanctions for some reason and I want to make sure I didn't step in it accidentally. According to my watchlist Jim put the page back up about a week ago. Ramsquire 19:22, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Karl Rove

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Viriditas (talk) 21:53, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Salon.com

Salon.com, like other blogs, represents a fringe viewpoint.

Salon.com is not a blog, although it has bloggy features as one part of the site. Could you give me a reliable source that claims to portray Salon.com as a "fringe viewpoint", or are you joking? Viriditas (talk) 09:08, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Liberal != fringe. I think you must be joking. Viriditas (talk) 10:14, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I see you live in Boston. That might explain some of the problems communicating. Are you aware that on the west coast of the U.S., it is common to find Republicans who are socially liberal but fiscally conservative? Your use of the word "liberal" appears to be regional. Viriditas (talk) 10:21, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea what "liberal" is supposed to mean in the context of a PEW poll. But since you brought it up, if you have a link, I would like to take a look at it. No hurry, of course. In my experience, most Americans are in the center, neither liberal nor conservative, and the facade of a false binary opposition masquerading as a "two-party" system only serves to distract the public from the real issues. Viriditas (talk) 10:31, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, if the two of you sat down and chatted over beers, I think you would find a lot in common with Henry Gates. That's just it, really. The political discourse focuses primarily on what divides us, rather than what unites us. And it is this mindset that need to change. If the only tool you have is a hammer, you see every problem as a nail. In order to change the world, you have to change the way you see it, first. Everything follows from that first step. Viriditas (talk) 10:45, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Re:

Fox News Channel

Sorry about that, i really should have used an edit summary. Gamaliel (talk) 01:51, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Classical liberalism cont.

FYI: The Four Deuces (talk) 01:31, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

My argument in the discussion was that although the term "classical liberalism" is used in different ways, the article should be about liberalism c. 1830-1900. There are already articles that discuss earlier and later periods of liberalism, but the article contains little information about this period. It would be helpful if you would look at the article and discussion page. The Four Deuces (talk) 02:36, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you would provide sources for your opinions rather than just revert. These articles are supposed to be based on reliable sources not our opinions and original arguments. What makes you think that America was established as a feudal state or that direct election of senators (which happened in the 20th century) has anything to do with whether or not America is a liberal state? The Four Deuces (talk) 04:32, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Modern liberalism in the United States

It would be helpful if you would discuss this article on the talk page and add suggestions. I still do not know what your opinions on the subject are - how it should be defined, its history etc. In the meantime, you have now reached 3 reverts in one day. So please provide suggestions on re-writing the article. The Four Deuces (talk) 13:51, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

At least you could explain your edits. The Four Deuces (talk) 01:59, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your note. I am sure that all these articles can be improved if we follow mainstream sources, present alternative views and criticisms for each subject and write them in neutral tones. The Four Deuces (talk) 00:11, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Warning

This edit was highly inappropriate:

1. Badmintonhist apparently agreed, as he made a similar change.
2. You reverted HIS approved version.
3. WP:BLP applies to all pages.
4. Your (strawman) assumption of bad faith violates WP:AGF, as I certainly would have made the same change on O'Reilly's page (or anywhere else), because...
5. People need to learn to make points without poisoning the language by namecalling and libelous attacks.

I'd guess your only intent was to try and stir the pot. That's certainly disruptive behavior which is starting to look like a longer term pattern of trying to taunt people onto an ideological battlefield. I strongly suggest you avoid making future edits that could color you in that sort of light. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:12, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I also have to ask why you thought you were allowed to refactor another editor's talk page post?— Dædαlus 20:59, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

To fully disclose, Daedalus, I had refactored part of those same comments to remove incendiary language. The original poster (Badmintonhist) followed my intent to its logical conclusion and removed the flowery praise language too; Soxwon then went and reverted both of us, re-inserting rhetorical baiting language. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:12, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I know, I saw the diffs. My point was that he had the right to refactor his own posts, but that Sox did not have the right to revert him.— Dædαlus 21:35, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Racepacket RFC

The issue is not with the edits to the Miami football page but a general disruption with it and related articles as a whole. The peacock terms within the articles are generally stated by the references used to cite the statements being made.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:15, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Please address me on the RFC, not on my talkpage. I've done RFCs before, they should be kept in one place to avoid problems later down the road. I'm not trying to be rude, I just don't want this to become the bubbling shitfest my previous RFC/U became. Soxwon (talk) 23:19, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure of where exactly to reply to your comments on the main RFC page because I've never actually started an RFC and most of my involvement in them has been as the subject. I figured that I would clarify my point here, as it appears to me that you think only one article has been a problem.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:23, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Blax, Fox News, and NPR

Sox, if you haven't already done so, you should actually go to that NPR story that ol' Blaxthos referenced in his recent comments on the Fox News discussion page. It's amaaaaazing. The story isn't about a tie-in between Fox and the GOP at all. Blax took one comment to that effect made by a White House interviewee and pretended that the NPR story was about such a tie-in. Badmintonhist (talk) 02:38, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Capitalism

An editor is questioning the lack of sources in the lead for Capitalism. If you would like to discuss this please reply on the talk page. The Four Deuces (talk) 03:56, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration notification: Niteshift36 incivility and article ownership

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration#Niteshift36 incivility and article ownership and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration#Requesting Arbitration;
• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration guide.

Thanks,Stargnoc (talk) 05:23, 22 October 2009 (UTC)