User talk:Fat&Happy/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

thanks

... for catching my botched revert in Nolo contendere - I could swear I was reverting both of the erroneous edits by that IP but apparently I wasn't. Tvoz/talk 06:57, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

>:(

Why are you interrupting my constructive edits? —ᚹᚩᛞᛖᚾᚻᛖᛚᛗ (ᚷᛖᛋᛈᚱᛖᚳ) 03:32, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

The three I just located were unsourced, opinion-based negative comments, one being nothing more than graffiti and the other two being unexplained changes to the existing content, all in all totally unconstructive and IMO bordering on vandalism. Fat&Happy (talk) 04:23, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

But you just said that in your opinion they were border-line vandalism. This would mean you committed a POV violation, so you need to revert them. —ᚹᚩᛞᛖᚾᚻᛖᛚᛗ (ᚷᛖᛋᛈᚱᛖᚳ) 19:49, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Nice try. But wrong. That's not the meaning of POV, and your edits are still unsourced, unexplained and derogatory. One of them was inappropriate use of a talk page and the other two were POV themselves. I stand by the reverts. Fat&Happy (talk) 21:28, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Then that leaves me no choice but to monitor your actions. —ᚹᚩᛞᛖᚾᚻᛖᛚᛗ (ᚷᛖᛋᛈᚱᛖᚳ) 03:38, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

James David Manning

Please stop your POV reverts on James David Manning. He has been convicted of several felonies, which are adequately sourced from the New York Times article linked. This makes him a convicted felon, and is not libelous to point out at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.238.71.131 (talk) 03:54, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

The cited source does not identify him as a convicted felon; any description of him as such in Wikipedia based on that source constitutes original research and synthesis, both of which are prohibited for all articles in general, and especially emphasized in biographies of living persons. Additionally, unlike some subjects of biographies here, his primary notability does not derive from his criminal history. His criminal past in his youth is adequately discussed in the article, but your changes, especially in the lede, are POV by virtue of lending undue weight to those incidents. Fat&Happy (talk) 04:34, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Using the minor tag

Hi, I noticed you use the minor tag a lot in your edits, including your recent revert of my edit. Could you take a look at WP:MINOR and try to use it only in those situations? Also, only obvious vandalism should be construed as such. Minor edits do not show up on my watchlist. II | (t - c) 19:38, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

History Section of the Federal Reserve System page

Hey, thanks for fixing my bad spelling and what not on the Federal Reserve System page. I'm a slob (I think I maybe dyslexic). I wouldn't bother, except nobody else will make the changes important to me.--Dark Charles (talk) 04:22, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Ack. We're even. I swear I did a page search on the cited Fed site for that Warburg quote; I think I suffered a short-term memory loss though, and typed in the wrong verb. Oh well, it's probably best to have a cite directly attached to the quote anyway. Fat&Happy (talk) 20:51, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Miss Universe 2010

Olá boa tarde. Como pode perceber, era nescessario que eu falasse com algum dos editores do Wikipedia em Ingles. Como pode perceber, participo das edições do Wikipedia em Português. (Brasil). Porém, com o objetivo de verificar a veracidade das informações, consulto algumas wikis em outros idiomas. Percebi que tanto na Wikipedia em Português quanto na Wikipedia em Espanhol temos alistado o nome da Miss Guadalupe em 2010, o que nao acontece na Wiki de lingua inglesa. Pode perceber que há divergencias no número oficial de candidatas em ambas as edições. (85, em Inglês; 86, em Portugues em Espanhol). É nescessário a atualização dos artigos para que os conteúdos, mesmo tratando-se de idiomas distintos, não fiquem diferentes. Aguardo resposta. Abraços. Segue abaixo texto traduzido ao teu idioma, via GOOGLE TRADUTOR. ...................

Hello good afternoon. As you can see, it was necessary that I speak with some of the editors of Wikipedia in English. As you can see, I take part of the editions of Wikipedia in Portuguese. (Brazil). However, with the objective of verifying the veracity of the information, consult some wikis in other languages. I noticed that both the Wikipedia in Portuguese and in Wikipedia in Spanish we have listed the name of Miss Guadeloupe in 2010, which does not happen in the English language Wiki. You can see that there are divergences in the number of official candidates in both editions. (The 85th, in English, 86 in Portuguese in Spanish). We need to update the articles to that content, even when dealing with different languages are not different. I await answers. Hugs.RodrigoLogsLG (talk) Below is the translated text to your language, via GOOGLE TRANSLATOR. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RodrigoLogsLG (talk • contribs) 20:36, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Eu compreendo a necessidade de ter todas as versões da Wikipédia refletir uniforme - e precisa - informação. No entanto, neste momento sou incapaz de fazer quaisquer sugestões quanto à melhor maneira de realizar este objetivo para o Miss Universo 2010 artigo. Além da questão que colocou sobre Miss Guadeloupe, já existem seis outros países (Angola, Guiana, Montenegro, Nigéria, Vietnã e Zâmbia) incluído na versão Inglês e, presumivelmente, a versão em Português e Espanhol, que não são refletidos no oficial Miss Universo website. Gostaria de considerar os concursos próprio site para ser o árbitro final da verdade, mas notaram que o site tem sido continuamente ampliado ao longo dos últimos dias. Embora a minha preferência pessoal é para se conformar a lista Wikipédia para a lista oficial, e com freqüência para acompanhar as mudanças, não tenho dúvidas de que todos os editores que concordam em que se aproximam. Por agora, sugiro que você aguarde alguns dias para ver se os problemas são resolvidos. Se você tiver quaisquer fontes fiáveis, que não foram tidos em conta as diversas mudanças para en: Wikipedia sobre Miss Guadeloupe, você pode querer pôr uma nota - ou o formato de dupla linguagem que você usou aqui, ou apenas a tradução do Inglês seria bom - em a página de discussão do artigo. Tenha cuidado, porém, para não perturbar o conteúdo anterior da página, caso você faça isso.

I understand the need to have all versions of Wikipedia reflect uniform – and accurate – information. However, at this time I am unable to make any helpful suggestions as to the best way to accomplish this goal for the Miss Universe 2010 article. In addition to the question you have raised about Miss Guadeloupe, there are already six other nations (Angola, Guyana, Montenegro, Nigeria, Vietnam, and Zambia) included in the English version, and presumably the Portuguese and Spanish version, which are not reflected on the official Miss Universe website. I would consider the pageants own site to be the final arbiter of accuracy, but have noted that site has been continually expanded over the past few days. While my personal preference is to conform the Wikipedia list to the official list, and monitor frequently for changes, I have doubts that all editors would concur in that approach. For now, I suggest you wait for a few days to see whether the issues are resolved. If you have any reliable sources available which have not been considered in the several changes to en:Wikipedia regarding Miss Guadeloupe, you might want to post a note – either the dual language format you used here or just the English translation would be fine – on the article's discussion page. Please be careful, however, not to disrupt the previous content of that page again if you do this. Fat&Happy (talk) 23:59, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

T4 On The Beach

This states that Pixie Lott was touring with OneRepublic on the same day as this concert. 109.255.10.92 (talk) 17:59, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

T4 On The Beach

This states that Pixie Lott was touring with OneRepublic on the same day as this concert. 109.255.10.92 (talk) 18:00, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

T4 On The Beach

This states that Pixie Lott was touring with OneRepublic on the same day as this concert. 109.255.10.92 (talk) 18:01, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Not that replying to a banned user is particularly useful, but this is as good a place as any to warehouse the following in case their needed:

• "Pixie at T4 On The Beach". Official News (Global). PixieLott.com. 7 July 2010. Retrieved 22 July 2010. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |separator= ignored (help)
• BlahBlahBlahTVMusic (4 July 2010). "Pixie Lott - Turn It Up - T4 On The Beach 2010" (Flash video [3:32]). YouTube. Retrieved 22 July 2010. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |separator= ignored (help)

Fat&Happy (talk) 02:11, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

So now I'm confused? Pumpkin Pete OK (talk) 10:39, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Please Comment on Sotomayor

Hello, Fat&Happy. You have new messages at Talk:Sonia_Sotomayor#Miguel_Estrada.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Please add your comments. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:55, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

European Climate Exchange

Concerning: the article European Climate Exchange, please cite a reliable source for the content of your edit. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. Take a look at Wikipedia:Citing sources for information about how to cite sources and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Fat&Happy (talk) 00:17, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Can it get more reliable than Googles own cache from this morning? http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:jSInTafpy4kJ:www.ecx.eu/+decocidio

Regards,

Damhert (talk) 00:24, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

As suggested in the message, please read Wikipedia's rules concerning what are considered reliable sources, as well as the rules for determining the proper weight (if any) to be given, in an encyclopedia, to events. Fat&Happy (talk) 00:37, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

3RR Warning on Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories

Be careful. You are now into 3RR.

• First Revert, 16:18, 26 July 2010
• Second Revert, 17:15, 26 July 2010
• Third Revert, 17:34, 26 July 2010

You know the rules: do not revert again. I have opened up a discussion in which I point out why I think your reasoning is completely wrong. I tried to avoid it, but you forced me into it. Victor Victoria (talk) 17:49, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Bob Riley/2012 pres election

Oops. I thought that I was reverting the addition of Riley's name, but I ended up removing the references. Sorry about that. Andrewlp1991 (talk) 04:21, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

That was one of my guesses as to what had happened, but it just seemed a bit weird. Timing problem; I've had a couple too. Worked out the same in the end – someone deleted the refs as being out of date (actually, I'd say only one was, but that would leave only one ref for him), then somebody else took down the name as unsourced. Same effect, just took longer. Fat&Happy (talk) 05:31, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Removing comments from talk page

If you would like to remove my comment, please remove the one above it as well, otherwise, leave it. Thank you, --Tom (talk) 23:54, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Removal of Soros's contributions

In much the same way it's important to mention the funds contributed to keeping Bush from being re-elected, it's equally relevant to mention Soros's contributions to the Democratic Party. Soros is active in supporting certain elected officials, and my comment is not disruptive in any way. My information is correct and cited. I'd be happy to provide more citations or consider an edited version, but I will not remove the information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GAP123 (talk • contribs) 01:37, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Looking over the "differences" summary from your edit, I see several issues that can be considered disruptive.

But starting out with the positive, I see no problem with the comment about his contributions to the Democrats. Also, although I didn't recheck today, the change to the baseball section seems pretty much in line with my recollection of the source, though leaving in the sport involved could be helpful to a global readership. The deletion of the Institute for New Economic Thinking technically passes muster, since it includes no citations, but reference to the linked article should produce verifiability, so the deletion is a bit questionable. Changing the religion doesn't bother me either way, but some others will feel strongly on the topic.

The change to the first sentence of the lead screwed up the presentation of his name(s) and isn't really an accurate presentation. The change to the baseball section goes back to a version less consistent with the source, and removing mention of the sport involved is not helpful to a global readership. Two appropriate categories and several links to non-English versions were deleted for no apparent reason, and a deprecated category was substituted. At least one heading was changed from the correct to incorrect format. Several internal links were removed, but by that point I admit I didn't check each one to see if it was appropriate or not.

Honestly, it looks like a prior version that happened to have something about the Democratic contributions was re-installed in toto, without regard to what other changes might be included (or what intervening changes would be undone). I'm going to revert again, but suggest you add back only the few referenced changes you seem to really care about, instead of reinstalling the whole mass (that's mass, not mess...) at one time again. Fat&Happy (talk) 03:08, 28 July 2010 (UTC) Revised 05:49, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Justice Brennan

I found this edit truly amazing. If you take a look over the article you will find vast swathes of text with no references at all. Yet you chose remove a paragraph will citations to "primary sources" (i.e. Supreme Court cases) without so much as attempting to find a source (there are likely more than 1000 law review articles that substantiate the importance of these decisions and the fact that Brennan is the author of all three) or contacting the editor you reverted. Please re-think your approach in the future. Cheers, Savidan 19:24, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and the reason those vast swaths exist is because when they were first posted, nobody insisted references be provided. If the practice continues, Wikipedia can only deteriorate. An admin, of all people, should understand this. Deleting/reverting those large swaths at this point would be disruptive, but I don't consider it unreasonable to place the responsibility for sourcing brand new edits on the editor who made the addition in the first place. Fat&Happy (talk) 20:01, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

You might also bear in mind that most users, and even most editors, of Wikipedia are probably not J.D. students at Columbia Law School, and lack the easy access to the "more than 1000 law review articles" such a student can easily cite. In fact, it means most can probably not even identify terms such as 8 CTPILJ 171, 14 LCLR 255, or 68 SCALR 289. While these citations are normal in the profession, and may technically meet Wikipedia's requirements for verifiability, they are not much more helpful to the average user than an invitation to read and interpret the actual opinion. As you consider recommendations for the future, please also think a bit more about your intended audience in your edits. Fat&Happy (talk) 20:46, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Democrat

What changed your mind? Democrat Party (phrase)—Markles 17:39, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

No. In the hyphenated compound used, Democrat-controlled is better then Democratic-controlled. "Democratics" didn't control anything. But I admit a knee-jerk reaction based purely on grammatical construct. Rereading the entire sentence, I saw it as awkward and tried for better phrasing to avoid to problem. Fat&Happy (talk) 19:32, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Date Format

Unless there has been a change in Wikipedia policy, the date format is Day-Month-Year. --Loremaster (talk) 18:41, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

That's a fascinating interpretation of the MOS for date formatting, especially the portion about articles with strong ties to a particular country following the format most standard for that country. Obviously I disagree. Few things would have stronger ties to the U.S. than a non-military governmental order by the president of the country. The national tie is even, according to the MOS, sufficient reason for changing the prevailing format of an article, which was dmy 2, mdy 1 (excluding dates in direct quotes, all mdy) prior to my edits. Fat&Happy (talk) 21:38, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I had forgotten the “strong ties to a particular country” condition. Thank you for correcting me. --Loremaster (talk) 22:32, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

August 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to Barack Obama appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe this important core policy. Thank you. JahnTeller07 (talk) 03:10, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

ROFLMAO

(edit conflict) I've cautioned the above editor about edit warring and templating the regulars.[1] The above message (and an identical one on my talk page), as well as their user page,[2] pretty much make the case that they're here for WP:POV purposes. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:25, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

How am I here for POV purposes? I edited Michael steele asking why his dumb comments aren't mentioned? This is idiotic. JahnTeller07 (talk) 23:29, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

JahnTeller07 already explained it. Toddst1 (talk) 08:49, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, JahnTeller07 has been indefinitly blocked as a sock puppet of a banned user. - SummerPhD (talk) 19:37, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Fat&Happy. You have new messages at HJ Mitchell's talk page.
Message added 00:33, 2 August 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Florida

Hello Fat&Happy, I was wondering if you could explain why you reverted my edits to the Florida article.? --Monterey Bay (talk) 03:27, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure how much more I can add to what was in the edit summary. It just didn't seem to be an improvement. Actually, it struck me as a bit of a non sequitur—Florida was admitted to the Union in 1845, and oh, by the way, it was discovered 300 years earlier in 1513. Since that single half-sentence was the only "history" in the lead, a broader summarization seemed more useful than the single factoid. (I also prefer the original "by Europeans" to either "by Western powers", a neologism, or your "[by ?]", which can imply that settlement did not exist previously.) Don't know if you find the explanation satisfactory, but that was the basic thought process. Fat&Happy (talk) 05:38, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Whatever makes you happy! --Monterey Bay (talk) 21:56, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Miss Universe 2010 redux

Please assume good faith. My edits at Miss Universe 2010 are not an edit war at this stage but a valid attempt to bring the article in line with Wikipedia policies. I note that you have yet to leave a comment on the talk page. I will continue to revert and accept a 3RR block in order to maintain a properly sourced, article that complies with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines as long as those who revert my changes do not provide a valid reason for reversion. By reverting you are essentially adding in numerous unreliable sources and a lot of content that violates policy. If you have any specific issues, please do not revert me further but do discuss them on the talk page and of course compromises can be reached. There are many more ways this article can be improved and I'm happy to discuss and edit but reverting without good cause is not the way to go. PageantUpdater talk • contribs 22:46, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Before it does get into 3RR territory I have decided to bring the issue here. Please feel free to comment. PageantUpdater talk • contribs 23:00, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Sorry, I'm just getting a little testy and taking it out on you. Reverting Fabergue's consistent vandalism of the Miss Mexico and Miss Puerto Rico entries is becoming tiresome; after the article was semi-protected for a couple of weeks and he was blocked for 31 hours he returns, and my corrections get stepped on twice in succession, first by Spatronic and then your edit which also destroyed a small (but possibly not optimal) grammatical improvement by MU04. It would have just been nice if you had checked to see if you were creating any edit conflicts and fixed them during or right after the reverts. I'll take comments on the substance of your edits to the article talk page. Fat&Happy (talk) 23:16, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Cheers, I jumped the gun as well... I've had so many issues with these Universe articles in the past (anonymous editors who don't understand policy, mainly) and I was anticipating trouble from the time I made those first edits. Apologies for missing some of your edits, I did have a check to make sure I wasn't going to revert something constructive but I was in a hurry and should have taken more care. PageantUpdater talk • contribs 00:03, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Medicare and Medicaid

Medicare and Medicaid were both created in 1965 as part of the Great Society iniatives of Lyndon Johnson. Therefore I put them in the category of Great Society Programs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johannes1989 (talk • contribs) 16:58, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes. But somebody beat you to it. Both articles are in Category:Medicare and Medicaid (United States), which is a sub-category under Category:Great Society programs. Hence the reference to redundant parent in my edit summary. A similar situation occurred in several of your other edits. You can check out the guidelines at Wikipedia:Categorization. Fat&Happy (talk) 18:55, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I Understand why that was done now. Thank You for clarifying. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johannes1989 (talk • contribs) 00:03, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Apparent slight reviewer conflict at Benito Mussolini

W.r.t. recent edits involving multiple reviewers at Benito Mussolini:
..... Apparently yesterday IP user 190.99.224.247, the address of which is in the country of Colombia, added the wikilinked reference to socialism as an additional aspect of Mussolini's Italian Fascism (here on 9 August). Reviewer Jojhutton accepted the edit, which was reasonable on its face if the reviewer hadn't already known that Mussolini persecuted Italian socialists using his infamous Blackshirt henchmen, killing many and leaving countless others permanently incapacitated. Also it would appear that IP 24.180.173.157, who then added the reference to conservatism on 10 August (here) might have been responding in the general context of present-day politics in the USA and/or elsewhere. Of course, I can't read the minds of these contributors, but primarily point out that the addition of "socialism" as an aspect of what Mussolini was imposing on Italy is incorrect.
..... Bottom line seems to be that the reference to socialism should not have been added, given that the Mussolini's form of "Naziism" or "National socialism" bears no resemblance to the meaning of "socialism". They're very much opposite one-another ("Fascism" or "National socialism" vs. "socialism" generally. In this one respect the lead of the article was stable for a long time in describing the aspects of Mussolini's "Italian Fascism", until this minor scuffle seemingly set in the context of today's US culture war.
..... Not a big thing, but I'd like your permission to undo the last edit at that article, or perhaps you might do a self-undo if you prefer to take an additional action yourself. Thanks, F&H. ... Kenosis (talk) 02:30, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Re [3], thanks and kudos to you. ... Kenosis (talk) 02:58, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Pending changes recommended for Miss Universe 2010

Just fyi I've suggested that Miss Universe 2010 be protected under the pending changes trial. You can leave any comments here. I'm hoping this may save us more issues as we get closer to August 23 =) Cheers PageantUpdater talk • contribs 00:36, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Ha ha... It may save someone (the average unregistered reader) some issues; it will save us nothing. The beauty of the pending changes system – we see all the changes and have to revert them as usual. But it's an interesting experiment; maybe if things get worse it can be upped to semi-prot.

Related topic. There are postings on what appears to be Orianthi's official MySpace blog and her website mentioning the Miss Universe appearance. They are older – both dated 3 August – but one would think they would have been taken down by now if things changed. Thoughts? Fat&Happy (talk) 00:59, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Well maybe I should request semi-protection? I'm happy to change if you think it's warranted (I do, but would be good to get a second opinion). I honestly don't know what's going on with Orianthi, but I hope they sort it out soon! PageantUpdater talk • contribs 01:13, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, I think it's warranted. But I'm a bit biased after dealing with several articles on U.S. politicians as well as the Madonna and Pixie Lott articles, on all of which pending has proven to be (IMO) completely worthless. Miss Universe is slightly lower profile, so maybe it's worth a shot [tries to be a "team player"...].

At least the entertainment will have to be worked out in the next 11 days. I just wondered if you thinkthose two sources justify re-adding her.

(BTW, do you need the {{tb}} templates, or do you auto-watch talk pages after posting there?) Fat&Happy (talk) 01:33, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

That's decided then, I'll change my request to a request for semi-protection. And no I don't need talkback templates, I watch talk pages like a hawk after I've left a message ;) (my talkpage may make me look new but I've been around here since 07 ish... Universe is always a mega pain when it comes to article standards. PageantUpdater talk • contribs 01:38, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Alphabetical order on Pop music

Oops. Sorry, I am so used to reverting pointless changes I didn't read it properly. Thanks for spotting it.--SabreBD (talk) 17:44, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Really! I previewed, and showed changes, and previewed again a total of about four times to be sure I was doing it right, I'm so used to your reverts being accurate. Guess we all pull one like that some time. Fat&Happy (talk) 18:30, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Mahmoud al-Zahar edits

Hi ... are you sure the refs did not support the fact that the accusation was made by Lazio?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Feisal_Abdul_Rauf&curid=18133165&diff=380100190&oldid=380098323

--Epeefleche (talk) 06:14, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes. In one ref Lazio wasn't even mentioned; in the other, he was critical of Rauf's less than condemnatory comments on Hamas and the "accessory" comment, saying they indicated "a more extremist motive for building the mosque", which is a far cry from "may have connections with Islamist extremists". Of course, this article may have been subject to all sorts of disagreements before I first ventured there tonight, so there could be a source that Lazio said it out there somewhere; in any event, I think a good case can be made that reporting the accusation alone, without any supporting evidence, is a BLP violation. Fat&Happy (talk) 06:39, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it requires supporting ref, but thought when I last looked at the refs (don't have time now), they were there. Beyond that, as to the question of if Lazio accuses him of dastardly thing x, and he denies it, is it OK to reflect, I would think it is as long as it is clear it is a statement by Lazio and that he denies it. It's where we don't have a source or RS to point to that we have a problem, but I think that where we do have an RS reporting an accusation by a notable person that in itself is notable and appropriate to report under BLP. Note that the rule is "If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it."

What part of BLP do you think says otherwise -- I could always be wrong.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:43, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

FDR

This edit summary brought a chuckle, at least from me. The mistake you corrected reminded me of Speildberg's farcical WWII film 1941, which has become somewhat of a cult classic. Nice to see this bit of friendly "non-adhominem" humor--of which we could use more around the wiki. ;-) ... Kenosis (talk) 15:50, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Glad you liked it. Early in the day I haven't had a chance to get irritable yet and still manage occasional bits of humor. Fat&Happy (talk) 16:12, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Unknown American Presidents Task Force?

Hi Fat&Happy! I am thinking about starting an "Unknown Presidents" task force and I noticed that you are an active contributor at WP:USPREZ articles. I was wondering if you would like to join me in starting this task force. The following Presidents would be included:

• Millard Fillmore
• James Monroe
• Zachary Taylor
• Franklin Pierce
• Rutherford B Hayes
• James Garfield
• Chester A Arthur
• James Buchanan

Our Mission: To expand the knowledge of the "Unknown Presidents." Specifically getting all these articles to GA class or higher. Let me know what you think. Thanks!--Schwindtd (talk) 00:47, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the invite; it sounds like a worthwhile project. But I'm not sure how much help I would be. If you check, you will find that most of my edits to those pages could be classified as trivial, or at best wikignoming, my actual knowledge, especially of these "minor" presidents is pretty slim, and unfortunately there's not a good-sized library conveniently located either. Sorry I'm not of more assistance. Fat&Happy (talk) 04:48, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

You're very welcome, but you don't have to have too much knowledge. You could help with formatting or even do some online research, if you wish. I hope you do decide to join, though. I am confident you would be a great asset to the task force. --Schwindtd (talk) 19:06, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Lol - Good catch

Duely embarrassed NickCT (talk) 16:04, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

August 2010

Same to you: You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on John G. Roberts. 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. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. ) --Geniusbrainus (talk) 09:00, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Collaborative news on quippd

Hey, I noticed that you had recently edited the Feisal Abdul Rauf article, and I hoped that you could help out on another collaborative community edited project.

I run quippd, a collaboratively edited social news site, which mixes elements of Wikis, social networking, and social news sites. You can get some more information about what we are doing at: http://quippd.com/about/intro

Basically, we want to get good coverage on news stories, collaboratively edited, like Wikipedia. We are trying to take the ideas of WikiFactCheck -- to make news less biased and speedier (unlike something like Wikinews).

I hope you check us out -- and feel free to contact me with any questions, comments, or concerns.

--Yoasif (talk) 02:04, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

External link at Park51

You have given several different reasons for deleting the link I have added. Neither of these were valid. This seems to me to indicate that you are engaging in censorship of ideas that you personally disagree with. If you delete this reference again I will make a formal complaint against you and seek a blocking of your account for non compliance with editing policy. For the record, there are many elements in the discussion that are not covered in the article and therefore the link serves to provide additional material for the reader. I agree with you that the guests in the program were on the side of tolerance and understanding but the film pieces did show opponents of Park51 talking using their own words. There is no WP rules that says that external links have to balanced or NPOV. So your latest argument for delete has no validity. If you are trying to argue that the program so badly took the comments of people like Rush Limbaugh and Pamela whatever her name is so badly out context that they are misleading I would beg to differ. It seems to represent fairly what these people have been reported as saying by other media. --Hauskalainen (talk) 04:34, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I have, as you indicate, provided fairly comprehensive edit summaries listing my objections to the inclusion. You have said nothing up until now, and have yet to discuss your changes on the article's talk page or make any attempt to arrive at consensus that the video should be added, or contributes anything to the article that would not be included in a featured article. The article is overrun with opinions as it is; adding a video of people expressing many of the same opinions adds nothing. You say "it seems to represent fairly what these people have been reported as saying by other media", that is part of my point. It adds nothing worthwhile of its own. Fat&Happy (talk) 04:45, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I have responded each time indicating that your objections are not valid ones so it is totally disingenuous of you to imply that I have not responded to your edit summaries. My point is that this discussion in a little under an hour conveys a great deal more than is covered in the article, and even if it did not, it would give another source of information to those with disabilities and who may be unable to read the full Wikipedia article. Your actions smack of vandalism. There is absolutely no harm to be had by including this link to the article. A quick read of your edits demonstrates to me that you have a particular POV and it seems striking to me that your are overly keen to eliminate from the article views that are not in accordance with your own. It is not for you to act as the arbiter of opinion about the article. If you object that strongly, take your argument to the talk page and see if you can gain some support for your claims that including this link breeches the rules for Wikipedia, or take it to a relevant dispute page. I do not think that you will get any support there for your views. I will re-add back the link if you delete it again. You will breach 3RR if you delete it again today.--Hauskalainen (talk) 05:10, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I tend to agree with F&H. I don't see why we need to promote this show. Readers can access the news media to find any number of comments about Park51. This discussion should be posted to the article TP, sorry for wikistalking but I was trying to make sense of what's going on. Fletcher (talk) 12:05, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't see why this is "promotion" as you seem to call it. It is just doing what external links do . . pass the reader on to additional sources of information. The web site does not sell advertising or sell a product as far as I can tell so it is hardly promoting anything banned by Wikipedia rules. It is pure journalism. If F&H can come up with a genuine reason why the link should not be allowed (according to Wikipedia's rules) I would reconsider my determination for it to be in the article. But so far he/she has only given reasons which he/she claims to be against the rules but which on closer expectation turn out not to be. For that reason I shall hold my ground. I found the program a useful thing to listen to as I was doing the ironing - I could not have read the Wikipedia article and ironed at the same time! --Hauskalainen (talk) 01:03, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Orly Taitz

I don't think she is notable. But the mass delusion among many white Republicans who cannot accept a Black man being president, (as much as 16 years ago when some cannot accept a boy born to a humble background like Bill Clinton had to use a perjury trap to impeach) makes Orly a symbol for that delusion. The fact that she is naturalized is notable because that is the irony which makes the delusion on her part either a pretend illusion or driven by some other irrational motive -- most likely a racial bias... Thus it is notable fact for a person who is barely notable... That fact would make the article more worthy of non-deletion, because Orly would not be important enough for an article... 132.216.55.29 (talk) 03:10, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

You are welcome to discuss your concerns about her notability on the talk page for the article and your personal interpretations of her motives – as well as those of white Republicans – on the blog of your choice. Irony is not appropriate for an encyclopedia; irony for the purpose of making a point, in particular, is a violation of Wikipedia's rules regarding maintaining a neutral point-of-view. You may also want to familiarize yourself, as hinted by an earlier edit summary, with the manual of style for biographies, particularly the section on "Opening paragraph". Fat&Happy (talk) 03:27, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Birther movement is notable. Orly is not notable apart from birthers. So request that she be merged into birther artcile ... along with other peoiple who are only notable for thebirther activities. muchas gracias 132.216.55.26 (talk) 17:08, 13 January 2011 (UTC) How to do it? Don't wanna delete the artcile The suggesstion for AFD is untenable because birther movement is as common as UFO belief and UFO belief is notable,

Not an area I'm particularly expert in, but it looks like you need to make a formal Merge proposal on the "Conspiracy theories..." talk page, placing templates at the top of both article pages. Any unilateral action without these steps is sure to be reverted. The couple of articles I found on the procedure are:

• WP:Merging. and
• Help:Merging#Proposing a merger

Your point seems to have some validity, but at this point I can't honestly say whether I;d support or oppose without seeing more discussion. Fat&Happy (talk) 04:34, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Democratic-controlled Congress

Hello Fat&Happy, I understand what you are saying, but look at the explanation on the talk page to discuss. It may not sound right to your ears, but it's the correct adjective. Dave Dial (talk) 21:30, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Good Eye Award

.

Thanks for promptly catching that error in Florida and reporting it in such a gracious manner! Student7 (talk) 13:36, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Really? I'm pretty sure that's the first time someone has described anything I've done as gracious. Thanks. Fat&Happy (talk) 15:35, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

regarding "unilateral"

Three different users voiced support for a new version and other users participated in the editing. I'm not sure how that falls under "unilateral." WikiManOne (talk) 07:18, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

A consensus version existed. You have modifieded it multiple times, and insisted that your version become the new base for discussion rather than the existing consensus. You continue to force your version after it has been reverted, in total disregard of WP:BRD. And, for the record, you are also now in violation of the article's 1RR restrictions. I suggest you revert yourself and allow present discussions to progress to conclusion rather than continuing to force your favored wording into the article. Fat&Happy (talk) 07:33, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Regarding Harvard history, prior to its founding

Hello. Well, I see you delete my edit of Harvard colonial history, because, and I quote, "highly dubious assertions with inadequate sourcing". What does it mean? What's wrong with this source: Dominique Deslandres, Croire et faire croire, Fayard, 2003, p.287. There is the author's name, the book's name, the edition, the year and the page... It's not a newspaper, it's an historical book about Canada and New France made by a doctor at the University of Montreal with the help of doctors at the University of Chicago etc. You can also found the same information in the French and Canadian National Archives (Colonial section), also, I don't have the sources at the moment (It's not like I've them with me all the time haha). Anyway, it's a fact and a recent discovery, do you need me to scan the page and the Jesuit XVIIth century documents? It's a recent discovery and like I said, the Jesuit College was short lived, so the College wasn't big and important. It's more like a small history fact and a history anecdote. It was more like a place to gather the Amerindians and convert them. But still, it's important to know the Harvard College wasn't born on nothing but rather on a place where others had tried to build a College as well. The history of Harvard doesn't start on 1636, there was life there before. Sorry, but I don't see what's dubious and inadequate? Except for my English which isn't my first language... sorry for my bad English. Say me what I did wrong and what you need (sources etc), and I will try to provide them as much as I can. In advance thank you for your answer, best regards, 162eRI (talk) 04:49, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Just a quick acknowledgment... I am going to copy your message to Talk:Harvard University and respond in a little more detail there in order to encourage participation in the discussion by more editors. Fat&Happy (talk) 05:06, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your quick answer, cheers 162eRI (talk) 05:52, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

remove italics from Republican Party in lead of TPM

Boooooo! Hisssss! I know it's not italicized in the original, but I didn't want to put (sic)! Someone will read it and think it's an error. Mark my words. --Kenatipo (talk) 06:31, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

Thanks for your work on Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act article! Innab (talk) 22:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I really consider my recent contributions to that article to be fairly minimal, but I appreciate your comments. Fat&Happy (talk) 23:17, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

thanks for catching my error

Thanks for catching my errors at both the Joan Mitchell and Alan Greenspan articles. Bus stop (talk) 15:33, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

PPACA

I originally removed the statement about $700 billion because it claimed that particular people said it which was very obviously not supported by the references. (I must have fat fingered the summary line the first time). The claim was not made when the CBO score came out and yet it is intended to look like a response to it. If this belongs anywhere it belongs in the section about repeal. I'd hate to see this page turn into battling press release theater as I doubt the claims and counterclaims are done. The 700 billion is not about the law, it's about the repeal of the law and it doesn't belong here, but if this is allowed then the rebuttals have to be and that's not in the best interests of an important wiki page. I say we remove both the claim and the counterclaim. Jackhammer111 (talk) 06:24, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't have any objection to the section on repeal. I'm not sure how you can say continued discussion of the budgetary effects of the law are "not about the law" though. The current section is titled "Deficit impact", not "Discussions of deficit impact prior to passage", and the Republican numbers seem to directly relate back to Holtz-Eakin's comments, even if they do their own OR to arrive at the $701 billion figure. Fat&Happy (talk) 16:28, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

"Obamacare"

Hi Fat&Happy:

You and Arzel gave me constructive feedback, and you never said the subheading "The ObamaCare Nickname" was unnecessary; you even helped me with it.

SarekOfVulcan has removed the subheading without discussion.

Would you put the subheading back? I can't collaborate with SarekOfVulcan if he only uses the talk page to say "we don't need this." The ObamaCare nickname is a distinct point of contention. Todd.st (talk) 04:14, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Hey Todd,

Actually, the section title was originally deleted here by Hauskalainen, with the edit summary "merged sections.. this reflects opinion more than anything"; Sarek seems to have been merely reversing what (s)he saw as an example of edit-warring by restoring the status quo ante. I'm sort of neutral on question of whether a separate sub-section is merited. You make a good point that it's a serious point of contention, but OTOH the absence of coverage on the name itself has severely truncated the size of the section. The original reason for deleting the heading is a bit unclear to me. I can assure you, though, that user Hauskalainen is the furthest thing possible from being a wild-eyed, anti-Obamacare right-wing-nut. It's entirely possible (s)he felt using the name in a section heading, which would appear in the table-of-contents, gave it too much visibility, which in some minds would translate to credibility. For now, I prefer to leave it alone; if other reliably sourced and relevant content is added so the section would be a bit larger, separating it out can be discussed again.

Having had time for reflection following the initial exchanges on the article talk page, I think a case might be made, and worth brief mention, that "Obamacare" was a logical progression from "Hillarycare" (with a stop-off in Massachusetts as "Romneycare"), sort of like anything-gate derived from Watergate. Unfortunately, as intuitive as this seems, I was unable to find any RS statement of the direct connection searching through several pages of Google results. (The HuffPost reference you last posted in Talk was a reader comment, sort of like trying to attribute a letter to the editor to The New York Times.) If you can actually find one, that discussion can be reopened.

Also, I'm tempted to add something like "...and have pointed out that use of this short-form nickname reduces recognition of the Act's primary purposes as identified in its full title" at the end of the current first sentence (with some verb<—>noun shifting to make it scan correctly), using the Kaiser Health article as a source, but I haven't convinced myself the wording in the KHN piece fully supports the addition.

Sorry this verbose reply probably doesn't help you out very much... Fat&Happy (talk) 05:48, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Fat&Happy:

Many thanks for the response and encouragement.

I don't believe the section should be much larger; it's a 4th level subheading. Regarding credibility, the word "ObamaCare" certainly needs credibility as a nickname.

Instead of saying that "Hillarycare" is pejorative, what do you think of this sentence?

The nickname continues to be connected to the failed Clinton health care plan of 1993, coined 'Hillary Care.'".

(the citations are the national review article calling both plans "poison" and the huffpost comment)

Is the huffpost comment not admissable as a source?

Thanks again Todd.st (talk) 06:26, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

No, that's the HuffPost comment I mentioned above – a reader comment on one of their articles. For a source in Wikipedia, it's about as useful as my responses to any of the posts above on this page. And the National Review article takes us back where we started; it's using both terms, but unless someone "reliable" makes the connection, simply saying the terms are used together is still original research. If you Google obamacare hillarycare, they show 18,000 results. I see lots of simultaneous usage, like NRO, and a few readers drawing a correlation, like in HuffPost, but I haven't yet found a usable source drawing the correlation. What we need is someone like Amy Goodman or Maureen Dowd saying "'Obamacare', like 'HillaryCare' in the 1990s, is a construct promoted by neanderthal opponents of the law in order to trivialize and deride it." Find that quote and you're in business... :) Fat&Happy (talk) 06:56, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks. If I find it, may I cite your recommendation on the talk page? Todd.st (talk) 07:08, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

LOL, good luck with that one... If you manage to find it, given you've already pissed off one sysop/administrator over the topic, you're right – you need to take it to the talk page, but in that case I'm sure I'd support the addition. Fat&Happy (talk) 07:28, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I found it and put it in the article. When you get a chance, please let me know what you think.Todd.st (talk) 08:17, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Ha ha. Interesting find; even had "neanderthal"... I see it got reverted. I'd call it marginal, since it appears to be a personal web page by someone who claims notability and expertise for herself, but hasn't been deemed notable by Wikipedia (notice I purposely blue-linked the two hypothetical source examples I gave above).

Although I disagree with the need for it (if Priceline.com bought AdWords placements for mentions of Travelocity in searches, would it be necessary to say "Oh, by the way, Priceline doesn't call themselves "Travelocity" on their site"?), I see for now you've managed to keep the ref to the HHS site's internal terminology. I may try a small adjustment to the wording there later, but I also have a problem with what another editor considers "more neutral" phrasing... I don't think it is. Gonna' break from the topic for a few hours and see what develops. Fat&Happy (talk) 15:46, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks for your feedback. I reverted the article. Editors are removing things and then not discussing their edits.

Why would you want to change the wording? How is the sentence I wrote not succinct or accurate? Without this sentence, "ObamaCare" is understood as a term that might used by the HHS. The HHS may have purchased the "ObamaCare" adword, but the agency only uses the real name of the law; the sentence before the one I just added does not clarify this. In a subheading that details contention over use of a nickname, citing actual usage by the operating agency is hardly out of line or irrelevant. Can you point me to arguments over how "Priceline" is more or less pejorative than "Travelocity?"

Regarding the HillaryCare connection, I didn't even have to concatenate "neanderthal" to the search--which was amazing. The string "obamacare like hillarycare" returned a little over 200 results, and there it was.

Wikipedia doesn't say the source needs to be a celebrity. In an article where I'm saying supporters of the law resent the nickname's connection to "HillaryCare," this Jeanne person is not a HuffPost comment. She's verifiable only as a supporter of the law who resents the nickname.Todd.st (talk) 18:22, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to see you were temp-blocked for the last change, but you have to admit it wasn't entirely unexpected.

I was indeed surprised. I had made two edits the day, no more. Before I had started writing, I had read the edit warring article... as well as the be bold and don't bite the newcomer articles.

Hard to explain. It just strikes me as phrased more to make a point than to be informative. Moot for the moment anyway.

What point do you believe I was trying to make?

And the Priceline comment was merely to opine that buying AdWords presence based on a word doesn't in any way imply direct association with or approval of that word.

If once company uses another company's brand, it means they've agreed with/resigned to customers using the other brand. I doubt Priceline would like "plane crashes" to lead to their site, even though that's probably (unfortunately) a much-typed term. In a section detailing contention over use of a nickname, it's not unreasonable to cite official use.

Sounds as if the extra "like" served as a useful filter...

Again, I absolutely appreciate the guidance. I found a pernicious "obamacare like hillarycare" quote in To Save America: Stopping Obama's Secular-Socialist Machine by Newt Gingrich.

And that's why I said "marginal". If you look over a bunch of the rules on sourcing, it could be considered a self-published source, which is only allowed (and I'm working from memory here} for recognized experts in the field. This is often broadened to allow attributed opinions by notable people or in notable places (e.g. NYT op-ed pages), but not, to paraphrase User:Arzel, every Tom, Dick and Harriet on the internet. Fat&Happy (talk) 19:59, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Wouldn't this quote fall under WP:SELFANDQUEST?

Also, thanks very much for fixing that "more neutral" sentence a few days ago; it still doesn't connote that there are people who actually resent the nickname. Still, I won't disrespect that work; I do appreciate it, and I'm not going to change it.

Todd.st (talk) 05:06, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

As some friendly though unsolicited advice, I notice you posted your "What Would Sarek Do" message on both your talk page and the article's talk page; my personal observation, mostly on other sites, is that having public internet disputes with administrators frequently yields unhappy results. If you really feel compelled to continue the discussion, why not erase the comments from the more public article page '(n.b. – if nobody has replied yet) and place a {{tb}} template on his talk page, pointing to the section on yours (same as I posted on your talk page for my first reply to you here).

I don't claim to be an expert, but I read WP:SELFANDQUEST to mean it would only apply if you were writing an article about her, maybe a family member or company she owned, and used the site to source a statement that she was 59 years old and started the company in 1991 when she was 39 – something directly related to her like that.

I still consider the opening sentence somewhat unsatisfactory, but I'm guessing the objection was the use of "considered by supporters", and I had to jack it all around to keep "considered" for NPOV when I didn't have a good answer to "by whom?". My ideal rewrite of the section/paragraph would be something like:

Although the nickname "Obamacare" continues to be widely used to refer to the legislation, this usage is primarily by opponents of the law and has been widely characterized as pejorative, similar to the use of "Hillarycare" by opponents of the Clinton health care plan of 1993. It has also been pointed out that use of the nickname draws attention away from the primary objectives of the Act, which are summarized in its formal name. Because of the number of anti-PPACA sites returned by search engines in response to "Obamacare" queries, the Department of Health and Human Services purchased Google advertisements, triggered by the term, to direct people to the official HHS site, which provides factual information about the law while referring to it only by variants of its official name.

but as accurate as I believe that to be, I'm a few sources short of a six-pack for getting it in... Fat&Happy (talk) 05:57, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks indeed. I'll regather the sources, find some new ones, and get back to you. Todd.st (talk) 04:21, 15 February 2011 (UTC)