User talk:Tvoz/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 7

December 2007 - July 2008ish archive 3

Merry Crimbo Dear Tvoz! Love, Vera, Chuck & Dave (talk) 17:52, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Happy Chrimble

...and a gear New Year! Let us count all our blessings. Raymond Arritt (talk) 05:45, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Obama BLP

Hi Tvoz, please check out Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Barack Obama and Michelle Obama. Wishing you well as always. Steve Dufour (talk) 11:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: Reflist

No probs. As a Barnstar-awarder indirectly involved in the possible Noticeboard COI discussion, I checked it over - also found the <ref> mistake, which threw all the subsequent reference Notes into turmoil. Thanks and happy new year. Ref ^(chew)(do) 21:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

You're invited!

...to the next New York City Meetup!

New York City Meetup Next: Sunday January 13th, Columbia University area Last: 11/3/2007

In the morning, there are exciting plans for a behind-the-scenes guided tour of the American Museum of Natural History.

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to discussing meta:Wikimedia New York City issues (see the last meeting's minutes).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and (weather permitting) hold a late-night astronomy event at Columbia's telescopes.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:34, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like fun, but it's my birthday, so.... no. Tvoz |talk 22:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Slow revert

Thanks for the note about Hillary Rodham Clinton awards and honors. It was accidental in this case — I'd forgotten that the weird build-up-HRC's-minor-accomplishments editor clique had visited there (will they go away if Obama sends HRC packing as all the pundits are now predicting?) — but actually the "slow revert" is a favorite 'tactic' of mine for avoiding edit wars and your note reminded me of a couple of them that are now time to do ... Wasted Time R (talk) 04:24, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Reverting

Please do not revert valid and contructive edits as you did to Hillary Rodham Clinton presidential campaign, 2008. It is not nonsense as you stated in your edit summary. Thank you. Carter | Talk to me 06:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Tha date was wrong. I fixed that, and some other information. It is notable as it is the first village to vote in the country. If you did a little research you would know that. I consider the matter closed.Carter | Talk to me 06:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I changed the writing because you were right. ten is not a blow. I re worded it. Carter | Talk to me 06:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Discuss on talk page. Carter | Talk to me 06:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

It's also rude to say 'Taking recentism to new heights' in your edit summary. Don't need to be attacking other editors, even in subtlety. Thank you. Carter | Talk to me 06:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm the last one that needs to be lectured thanks. I've been doing this for awhile. Carter | Talk to me 07:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Unfounded criticism - material was originally inaccurate and written in a POV manner, and ultimately non-encyclopedic: result is that it remained removed from the article. As for "taking recentism to new heights", I stand by that attack on the edit. I didn't attack the editor. Tvoz |talk 22:05, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

HRC and Barack leads

Hi Tina ... see Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton regarding a question I have on an edit you made last night. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the response. I just gave up and went to bed last night, as I was getting "incoming" on both HRC and McCain for both their main articles and campaign articles. I had it a lot easier after Iowa, as I don't do much on either of those winners's articles ... Wasted Time R (talk) 21:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Obama's Biracial Parentage

Where exactly is this discussion about censoring a highly significant fact? Tmangray (talk) 15:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

There is no censorship. Read the article. And please keep the discussion on Talk: Barack Obama, not here. Thank you. Tvoz |talk 20:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

who are you? you are...

On ANI, you asked how I know you as you don't know me? You have been in the national news. I read about it a while back. I remembered the name because it looks like TV Oz, or Australian TV. Congolese fufu (talk) 06:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Right. Well, bringing in your characterization of my politics in an AN/I discussion that I was not a central party to, just trying to help settle, was way out of line and unacceptable as far as I'm concerned, so let's just stop this conversation, ok? Tvoz |talk 07:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Happy Birthday!

Happy Birthday Dear Tvoz! Lotsaluv Vera, Chuck & Dave (talk) 00:15, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Your'e not so bad yerself! Have a really good one! Love, Vera, Chuck & Dave (talk) 15:10, 13 January 2008 (UTC) XXX

Happy Birthday!

Happy Birthday, Tvoz/Archive 3, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day!

HappyBirthdayClubMember (talk) 07:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you both for adding some sparkle to my talk page! Now if the snow that's coming will only wait.... Tvoz |talk 08:34, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Snow? What do New Yorkers know about snow? (speaking as an ex-). In any event, Happy Birthday, dear Tvoz. You're a great editor, for a high school girl! ;-) Bellagio99 (talk) 16:18, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

HA! (and thanks) Tvoz |talk 18:19, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Deletion

Something for everyone. --andreasegde (talk) 18:02, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

You may like this

You may enjoy this: [1] Birthday girl! Vera, Chuck & Dave (talk) 23:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Ferrylodge again threatening to move Religious Background section

FYI, in case you care to weigh in:[2] Qworty (talk) 00:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

He has already tried to move it 3 times. Turtlescrubber (talk) 02:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I am leaving wikipedia. [3] Take care. Turtlescrubber (talk) 03:57, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Dearest of all my darlings

Yeah I don't get my the title, think its a max payne quote. Anyways, Breid523's edits indeed earned him a block and I certainly wouldn't follow suite, however nothing on Wikipedia states that I can't find it funny. --DeargDoom1991 (talk) 17:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Indeed there is no denying that it was juevinille, but I guess when you are a teenager you like the intellectual humour and the downright childish stuff in a bundle. I definately wouldn't vandalise like my friend for fear that my creations would then be deleted. It also wasn't a personal attack on you. --DeargDoom1991 (talk) 19:06, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

No problem about the words page. Indeed I do live on the Emerald Isle. Whats you're favourite Neil stuff? And yeah you're detective work is right, that used to belong to me and it was stupid. I'm sorry. Although if you look at my contributions I have'nt vandalised with this account, I was hoping no one would notice. --DeargDoom1991 (talk) 22:39, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Archive

Don't ask me why I did it, but I did. Think of it as a late (very late) birthday present... --andreasegde (talk) 17:31, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, thanks....I absolutely hate archiving so I come up with very good reasons not to do it. But I have to admit it was time. I did rescue the stuff about the newspaper article for now - fame is fleeting. Tvoz |talk 18:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

LOL, Fame is fleeting? You're determined to make it permanent (on this page at least... :) Sie sind wunderbar, oder ist das zu viel? :)) --andreasegde (talk) 21:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Absolument. If I don't, who will?Tvoz |talk 05:14, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

BTW, is it gonna be Obama or Clinton? I have a few theories about CNN and its reporting about this. --andreasegde (talk) 21:23, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Er spricht Deutch wieder, Mein Papa sagts, es ist das Bier! Poppy 22:33, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

HELP. Sprechen sie deutsch? Nein. (A little Yiddish, but it ain't the same.) Interested to hear your theories Andreas - not sure yet who it's going to be - there's enough bias to go around, so it's anyone's guess. Tvoz |talk 05:14, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I made the mistake of telling me little Pops, that he was writing German again and said he must be on the ale! So she insisted in telling you in German, what I'd said! They (the twins) have a German friend at school and Pops has been mad on speaking an writing it for over a year! She even speaks to the dog in German saying he understands it cos he's a German Shepard!! Gott in Himmel! Alaichem sholom, Vera, Chuck & Dave (talk) 19:36, 20 January 2008 (UTC) XXXX

not a personal attack

As I mentioned in the notes, this editor is bullying the Nancy Reagan article. My note was a warning that such behavior may get him blocked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.237.228.83 (talk) 22:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Right - and this edit by you on the same editor's talk page on was designed to do what? You're not in a position to be warning anyone about anything. Tvoz |talk 22:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

that edit was not made by me, otherwise it would have shown my IP address. Furthermore, as a free encyclopedia that anybody can write, I believe I have a responsibility to Wikipedia in general when I see an abuse of power. Lastly, even if that vandalism was made by me - which it was not - this still does not address Happyme22's bullying of the Nancy Reagan article.

I didn't even have this IP address until just this week...I've moved and this IP is new, so there was no way for me to have made that edit...what's going on here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.237.228.83 (talk) 07:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Please see discussion page of Nancy Reagan article 207.237.228.83 (talk) 07:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

No, that's not the way it works. Edits show your IP address and the date stamp when you add 4 tildes (~~~~). But your IP address is captured whether or not you sign a note - in page history. So when you make an edit it is identified as your IP whether or not you sign it. And your IP made that edit, two weeks ago, not two years ago. If you want to protect yourself from being accused of IP edits that you didn't make, then I suggest you register a username and don't edit without logging in. But the likelihood that someone else using your IP address made that edit on the same editor's page is, frankly, not believeable. So it is clear to me that you made that edit, and you made 185811736 this edit, which by the way was seen as a personal attack by at least two editors in addition to me. I also suspect that you are the same person as the other IP address complaining about the same paragraph in the same manner, with the almost identical style of personal attack. That IP address was blocked before, and if this one continues to use personal attacks I would guess it will be too. This approach is not going to work. Tvoz |talk 09:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know how things work here. I have already apologized to Happyme22 for my attack post and my apology was accepted. Now, I sincerely hope that you are able to accept this apology as well and will be able to move forward and address the MANY examples of the Nancy Reagan article being written in a Non NPOV as detailed on the discussion page of that article. Thank you.
Ps- I can not address your suspicion regarding any other IP addresses with similar complaints but hope you will not penalize me for the writings of other editors. Thank you again. 207.237.228.83 (talk) 07:23, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Have you looked at IP's contribs? I'm not happy about the message he's canvassing multiple editors with. When was the last time I edited Reagan? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for defending me

Thanks for defending me Tvoz. Seeing as the only thing I've done to the page this week is expand on Nancy's recent activities, I'm not even sure what the IP was talking about. Actually, now that I think about it, it's the claim that another IP made that Nancy was pregnant with their daughter Patti when they got married and which was not backed up by a source. I reverted, he/she added back, and it took off from there but that was from January 8. Sometimes I don't understand people... Thanks again, Happyme22 (talk) 22:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps was the same person editing from home and work. And, you're welcome.Tvoz |talk 03:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Re:Removing Citations

Oops, I'm going to have to call a mulligan on that one. Usually, when I remove one ref as unreliable, I remove the rest in the article as well. Thanks for the heads up, I will try to be more careful. Burzmali (talk) 05:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Freddie Thompson

Thanks for the response on Obama. surprised by the attention from such a celebrity. Read the article from the post. I have to agree with ferrylodge, not because freddie is demeaning but because he is a public figure who is known as Fred, regardless of his birth name. You wouldn't head Hillary's page with her birth name and not her married name, and Obama's page doesn't head with his full name either. Whatever the format is, it should be consistent. Thanks for your hard work and attention to detail. I never look up anything anymore, without also checking wikipedia and it's good to known that there are peopele like you out there keeping it honest.Awomanforachange (talk) 11:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm? Last time I checked Barack Obama's article begins with his full legal name, same for Hillary Rodham Clinton's article. Wikipedia bio articles don't start with birth names, they start with full legal name and there hasn't been any evidence provided that Thompson legally changed his name. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 19:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Article title goes to common usage (e.g., Mitt Romney), first line goes to full legal name (e.g., Willard Mitt Romney). And see John Edwards' Johnny Reid "John" Edwards for what seems to be the identical situation as Thompson, but handled correctly according to Wikipedia's style manual. The first mention in the article, bolded, for Thompson should have been Freddie Dalton "Fred" Thompson according to that model. We were indeed arguing for consistency, but correct style per the manual of style was out-yelled. Maybe now that he's out of the presidential race we can return to non-partisan editing. Tvoz |talk 20:55, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for fixing the cites on the HL article. miranda 06:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, me either. I think it would be good with one column. I just hate when people post links and don't give access dates. But, I guess people are busy. miranda 06:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I sometimes have problems with that too...that's why I use the CITE template. miranda 06:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Greysteel

There's some journals too, see here. But I'm never sure how to handle non-free content, especially when I've not seen the original. I'd imagine the first result (J Sharkey) is pretty non-controversial anyway. Thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 21:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Nancy Reagan

What has the IP done now? A mediation cabal request? Oye ve.... Happyme22 (talk) 06:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Tvoz: please see these notes regarding your comment. Thank you. 207.237.228.83 (talk) 21:36, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Apparently he's going ahead with the medcab request. I've left very long comments on the article talk page (located here) and the medcab request (here). Please join in if you wish. And what's with the Raul thing? I'm pretty sure Raul doesn't give a crap about what we're doing at Nancy Reagan! --Happyme22 (talk) 05:41, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Raul cares about anything that impacts FAs (and generally, he cares about FA writers and people, at least that's my sense); if editors are tangled up in mediation because they support a FAC, that's a concern. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned this is not a matter for mediation and I have no intention of participating in it. I see one item, the IRS matter, that needs resolution, and I'm waiting to see what Wasted comes up with on that. Tvoz |talk 09:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I too am quite confused by just about everything the IP has done. See the talk page for his latest comments. I anticipate that my name will be smeared across the "mediation request" which he is apparently working on frivilously. He seems to be taking quite a while and even says he is going to review the entire FAC and article history! I'm not going to allow the article to be delisted, and I hope if notions such as that are brought up, you will back me up. Thanks Tvoz and you've been a big help. I have a feeling there's only going to be a few more days of this. Happyme22 (talk) 04:59, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh well I first thought that because my name was included in it, it was almost mandatory to participate. But I guess not. I think your theory of what the IP's identity is is probably correct; I also questioned that from the beginning. Thanks Tvoz - you've been a big help. BTW, I just skimmed through the HRC article and found it to be very informative. You and Wasted have done wonders with it. Best, `Happyme22 (talk) 18:42, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Wasted gets the credit for everything good about it. He has been a warrior for an honest and fair article, against all odds. And it's not going to get easier. Tvoz |talk 20:44, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

HRC-related RfC

Since you're often vigorous on WP:BLP concerns, see what you think about the RfC at Talk:Huma Abedin, an article I just ran across. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

thanks for the reverts here

I have no idea who that jackass actually is, but I'm certainly glad to know I was the reason he "quit editing (and improving) Wikipedia". Makes me feel like I've made a difference. Thanks to Jéské and Nwwaew for watching my pages. Tvoz |talk 00:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

No problemo. The fact that he keeps vandalizing you shows you've definitely made a difference here. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 00:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Null persp, chummer. I had just noticed him and blocked him straightaway; his words were little more than a confession of abusive sockpuppetry. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 00:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

And another thanks, to Jéské, for the latest revert of probably the same troll. Persistent bugger, that one. Tvoz |talk 21:29, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

User has been blocked, though it took a bit longer than I expected. . .diff. R. Baley (talk) 21:33, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, R. Good to know there are friendly folks watching my pages. I don't know who that troll is, but apparently he doesn't like me.... I'll carry on, somehow. Tvoz |talk 21:37, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Re:Super Duper

Have been sidelined for most of two days by nasty periodontal surgery, but now am trying to catch up. Will update for Super Tuesday. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:57, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm hoping the distraction helps. Until this afternoon I was in a Vicodin-induced lightheadedness and wouldn't have been of much use here ... Wasted Time R (talk) 00:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Clinton & Obama

Hello Tvoz, you and Bellwether sure are straightshooter, but ya stuck to your guns. You both have my respect. GoodDay (talk) 00:24, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Disruptive Editor - Such editors as those? are boring. It's a matter of time before he/she is blocked or banned. GoodDay (talk) 21:30, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Update - He/she's been blocked indefinitely. GoodDay (talk) 21:32, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I didn't block him. But yes, it was speedy. GoodDay (talk) 21:34, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I was adding the NRA information to the Barack Obama Main Summary Article due to the very same information existing in Hillary Clinton's main article. I had not intended to engage in an edit war. The first time my data was erased there had been no notification as to why. Thank you for the link to redirect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skipingrock (talk • contribs) 10:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

MOS question

SandyGeorgia referred me to you on a MOS question. I am working on bringing Fanny Imlay into MOS compliance before I take it to FAC in a few weeks. Even after reading WP:NAMES, I'm not really sure what to do about the first line of the article. Any suggestions would be appreciated. Thanks! Awadewit | talk 03:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Troll

No probs Queen. Vera, Chuck & Dave (talk) 00:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC) XXXXX

Regarding comments left on User talk:67.55.19.203

Thank you for this. He berated my on my talk page about this, and I was about to write a response until you wrote this. I couldn't have said it any better. Thanks! Spencer^T♦C 21:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

apology

I am sorry that wasn't very funny at all. I should be encouraging the internet and sites like this instead of being so petty.

Howard Dully —Preceding unsigned comment added by Howard Dully (talk • contribs) 02:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:AIV reporting and IP addresses

Hey there! Just dropping by about your report at WP:AIV. Remember that IP addresses may be static or dynamic, and therefore may be shared (used by multiple users) or physically shift connections every so often. Due to this, try not to peg IPs as "vandalism-only accounts", as they may go through hundreds of users a month. Thanks, and if you have any questions, feel free to ask. :) Cheers, Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 04:23, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Heh, I've always wondered; if people are capable of vandalizing Wikipedia, are they capable of coherent thought beyond the urge to wreck things? Anyway, it's all good; it just sucks sometimes to be pegged as a vandal when you're not, and we don't want to bite any potentially good contributors. Cheers, Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 04:43, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Hillary Clinton at WP:GAR

FYI,

Hillary Clinton has been at WP:GAR since Feb 11.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 06:29, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Michelle Obama GA

Thanks for contributing to the effort at Michelle Obama. You may want to put this on your user page:

This user helped promote Michelle Obama to good article status.

--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 01:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks- but to tell you the truth, I think the granting of GA status may have been a bit premature, as the article is not really all that well developed yet, in my opinion. I don't agree with the person who complained that it was biased, but I think it's a stretch to say it's on the level of most other GA articles. However, I'm not formally objecting - rather will see what I can do to encourage its expansion and development. Tvoz |talk 07:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Query at WT:FAC

FYI, [4] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:17, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Tha-anks!! :)

One back atcha! - Alison ^❤ 07:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Amazing

This entire situation is amazing. A Dereks1x sock became an admin. I didn't know for sure until after he already had his rights revoked for other reasons, but I was a bit suspicious of him after this exchange, during which he insisted on the "rights" of indef blocked users etc. in an e-mail to me. I posted my thoughts on the Dereks1x relationship here, if you care to comment (not that there's really much else to say, I suppose). · jersyko talk 21:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Yup. Tvoz |talk 08:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

New mailing list

There has been a mailing list created for Wikipedians in the New York metropolitan area (list: Wikimedia NYC). Please consider joining it! Cbrown1023 talk 21:45, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Tvoz. You have new messages at Thedemonhog's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

AfD nomination of Ann Dunham

An editor has nominated Ann Dunham, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ann Dunham and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 22:03, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Barack Obama, Sr.

An editor has nominated Barack Obama, Sr., an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barack Obama, Sr. and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 22:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

David Paterson refs

Hey Tvoz, thanks for cleaning up the refs. However I was not hte one who originally put them there, I think they are an amalgamated mess from all of the <!-- editing --> that took place prior to today. A thorough cleanup should be done ASAP. MrPrada (talk) 07:05, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:CassElliotLP2.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:CassElliotLP2.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:04, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think you should accept my contributions about McLuhan, Marcel and Papachristopoulos... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.49.217.61 (talk) 18:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I saw the rest of the biography and I think it is ALREADY a paper article... so? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.49.217.61 (talk) 18:34, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

John Edwards

I gave you the link and Fox News interviewed him and he stated, "I'm not going to endorse either of them for President of the United States. Not vandalism.(Rhinostampede (talk) 14:49, 24 March 2008 (UTC))

Never happened - John Edwards did not tell Fox News any such thing. And the link was bogus. Tvoz |talk 03:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Political miscellany

Hey there, Tvoz! Goodness, it sure has been a long while since we've been in touch. Of course, I thought of you straight off when I discovered this (eyes rolling -- be sure to check out the nom's user page). I didn't see your name there, so I figured you must not have seen it! Such a waste of everybody's time... (Right now, I'm the last commenter.) If you want a good chuckle, though, check out this David Patterson CFD. PS - I just learned that Tom Lehrer (yes, that Tom Lehrer) came out in support of Obama. What a blast from the past! Regards, Cgingold (talk) 02:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Good grief. Tvoz |talk 04:15, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Featured Article Review

Barack Obama has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Stifle (talk) 17:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

page size tool

Just to make things a bit easier for you, you may wish to check out this tool. It doesn't guarantee absolute accuracy on page sizes, but it's much easier than creating a page and removing all the none prose bits. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 20:54, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Here's some english instructions:

1. Go to User:Tvoz/monobook.js
2. Select the "Edit this page" link
3. Copy the following into the bottom of the edit window:

{{subst:js|User:Omegatron/monobook.js/addlink.js}}
{{subst:js|User:Dr_pda/prosesize.js}}

1. Select the "Save page" button
2. I'm guessing you're using Internet Explorer, so you'd select Ctrl-F5
3. Go to an article and see if there is a new link called "Page size" in the Toolbox (located on the left side of your screen below the Search box.

Hope that helps. ;) --Bobblehead ^(rants) 21:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

(EC)Sweet, you answered your own question, but just to answer your question anyways, you always want to make sure you paste any new additions to your monobook.js so they aren't in the middle of all of the other things you already have in there and adding it to either all the way at the top or all the way down at the bottom of the edit box is the easiest way to do this. Just think of your monobook.js as a queue of people, adding some more people at the end of the queue isn't likely to cause any problems, but if you try to add a person into the middle of another person, you'll get a bloody mess. Heh. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 22:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Ladies and gentlemen - the above is the coolest thing. Many thanks Bob! Tvoz |talk 21:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

You may have noticed an error message that says "Replaced by addPortletLink()" when you brought up Wikipedia today. It is caused by the Omegatron part of the instructions I gave you. So, what you need to do is go to your monobook and delete this from there:

importScript('User:Omegatron/monobook.js/addlink.js');
 //[[User:Omegatron/monobook.js/addlink.js]]

Once you've deleted the line, go ahead and save your Monobook (you'll get the error message again probably). Once you have saved it, select CTRL-F5 to clear your cache. This "should" get rid of the error messages. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 14:09, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Yowser! That did it. Thanks Bob - I had no idea what was causing that error. CTRL shift-R though... Tvoz |talk 16:53, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

No prob. I figured since you need a step by step for getting the pagesize in, you'd need one to fix the error message. And yay that you're using Firefox, I went with the 90% chance you'd be using IE. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 16:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Yup...Firefox uber alles, I always say. Once you try it you never go back.... Tvoz |talk 17:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Madelyn and Stanley Dunham

hmmm. Well, I took a look and I was puzzling over exactly what the actual problem was. And then it dawned on me. Were you expecting their different names to appear in the categories as sorted? If that's what you were hoping for, I'm afraid cat-sorting just ain't gonna do the job! All it accomplishes is sorting the alphabetical position of the article, under it's actual name, in each of the categories. The only way to get different names to appear in the categories is by using the redirect pages. A little complicated, but it works. Just sort out which cats you want on each of the three pages (the article & the two redirects). Voila, c'est tout! :) Cgingold (talk) 01:37, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Right, italics is the only option -- redirects always display that way. I believe it's deliberate, so they can be distinguished from actual articles. Cgingold (talk) 02:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

No bitey. :)

Hey, it's not a problem. I'm ever-so-slightly suspicious when a new editor knows how to sign talk pages on their first edit, too. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:22, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to be suspicious all you want but is says right under the "save page" button how to sign your signature. I'd like to think I'm a generally intelligent guy as well. I guess I should take it as a complement though and hopefully there can be a real discussion over the issues I've presented rather than backroom accusations and investigations. Thegoodlocust (talk) 00:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Save a glass for me. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Dereks1x

Considering who just tried to file an arbcom case against Jersyko,[5] I think I have a good idea who Thegoodlocust (talk · contribs) is. What do you think? His prolific editing of long diatribes on the talk page is certainly a good indicator... --Bobblehead ^(rants) 20:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Hm... I wasn't familiar with that banned editor, but I can see the similarities. I'm heading out to work — if someone else wants to file a request at WP:RFCU, that would be great. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:08, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

How did I miss this one? I would agree. Tvoz |talk 21:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't have time to pound out an RFCU right now, so I just popped over to Thatcher and asked if he'd be willing to do the check without the formal request.[6] As far as missing it, only reason why it was in the front of my mind was that I added a response to the ArbCom case that Coren created on behalf of Harry60 and spent an hour or so going over some of the greatest hits. Heh. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 21:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's the same ISP at least. Heh. Too bad the state was one off. [7] --Bobblehead ^(rants) 01:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Yea its too bad you might have to engage in a rational discussion instead of trying to get someone banned. As it states in WP:SOCKS, "Keep in mind there can be multiple users who are driven to start participating in Wikipedia for the same reason, particularly in controversial areas such as articles about politics, religion, or articles for deletion." Thegoodlocust (talk) 01:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Jason Rae

An editor has nominated Jason Rae, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jason Rae (2nd nomination) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 13:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Barack Obama comments

Hey there Tvoz, could you check out my comments on the Obama talk page? I think they are surely noteworthy, but a few editors seem to be merely dismissing them. Thanks, Happyme22 (talk) 23:14, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

And as for the NPR report, congrats; I only just saw it. Thanks for squeezing Nancy's name in there somewhere! Best to you, Happyme22 (talk) 01:22, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - yeah, I thought it would make the point that editing is sometimes eclectic and not politically motivated. (And it was true!) About your Obama recommendations - I'll try to wade trough all of the comments there - what I am afraid is happening is the article is being denuded of its character in order to conform to arbitrary standards and/or political interests. But I'm hopeful it will be sorted out. Tvoz |talk 01:34, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Well I'm very sketchy and nervous about that article altogether. Let's see what happens. Thanks again, Happyme22 (talk) 01:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. A lovely interview. And now that I have listened to you, and you have NPR and WashPost fame, I am going to put you down as a Notable in the New York Dialect article ;-) Bellagio99 (talk) 18:40, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Bell - not so sure about "notable"! Tvoz |talk 21:42, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Heads up

...back straight, chest out, square shoulders, and knees two inches apart! ;~) I don't know if you were aware that you have been the subject of two complaints at WP:AN, neither of which appear to be going anywhere, but it appears that another contributor to Barak Obama is not appreciative of your style. Please be so advised. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:17, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Less, I had not seen those two. and thanks for your defense. Actually I find it interesting that this user felt I was threatening him with blocking - actually what I said was the user whose edits he invoked had been community banned not for his ideas but because he was a serious sock abuser - Dereks1x (likely aka Archtransit) and at least 60 other known identities - and that that banned editor was continuing to appear under socks but that they would eventually be found out and blocked as well. I did not say that he was one of them or that he would be banned for making suggestions. And if you look at the talk page you'll see that's all I said - I'm not in a content conflict with him over there, so I find these AN postings at best odd. Tvoz |talk 21:41, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I suspect communication difficulties; although he may speak english to near native standard, it is likely to be Br-En native than New World. I will comment that both of you disagree with my suggestion regarding content dispute, so you have common ground if you do wish to start beating him over the head with an olive branch... LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:52, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Less, I haven't commented on his edit - it isn't a content dispute. Redvers has it right here. Tvoz |talk 01:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC) (And it's about 9PM here, so I have no excuse.)

Thanks for the Postman link

Hi Tvoz, thanks for the help on Neil Postman. I'd love to find a real reference, but do you think that link is suitable until then? --Culix (talk) 09:04, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

You'll both be happy to know that I've created a redirect page for Teaching as a Subversive Activity, linking to Inquiry education. Hopefully this will turn into an article at some point. At least it shows up in the relevant categories now. Cgingold (talk) 13:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Megan Marshak

An editor has nominated Megan Marshak, an article which you have created or worked on, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Megan Marshak and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 01:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Laughing?

Er. about what? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 13:36, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

oh, it gets better. The guy who didn't like me reverting his pretty flagicons decided I needed to be taught a lesson at wikiquette. He and an anon (who I suspect to be a growing sockfarm) are making some interesting claims. I won't bother posting the link to the wikiquette alerts, but if you are interested in what interpretation looks like without a shirt on, head on over there for some "Interpretation Gone Wild!" (key island music) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

He does seem to be All The Righteous Anger. Ahhh, to be that new and sure of myself again... - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:06, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

It reminds me of the Monty Python sketch wherein someone pays to meet with someone to have an Argument, but ends up with someone Contrary, instead. Undoubtedly, the editor stalking my edits will find a way to mischaracterize my edits here poorly elsewhere - 'he said I was a pythn, a reptile, seeking to strip, as in the Full Monty'. Sometimes people should listen to the little voices in their head that cry out for silence. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:14, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

UM IP Vandals

See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#University_System_of_Maryland_IP_vandals Toddst1 (talk) 23:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I Was Your Vandal, Tvoz

User:Tvoz - Please forgive my childishness in vandalizing your talk page. I was the anon IP user that kept blanking your page in a "test" to see how admins would react. You can read about the full undertaking here. Again, I meant you no personal harm or displeasure. Thanks. -- VegitaU (talk) 01:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Good thought

Towards the end of my repetitive edits last night, that occurred to me, and I put a {{Reflist}} at the bottom of the section I was editing so I could see the footnotes in preview. But of course I forgot to remove the {{Reflist}} [8]! —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment

"I will be retiring to the Cayman Islands shortly with the riches I'm gathering through my Wikipedia editing of political pages." - (From your userpage) - You're joking, right? Oh, and you're also joking about being a Republican too? Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 16:55, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I read your reference in the Washington Post article (like everyone else who comes here) so I knew straight after then ;-) - Good to know you're a Demmy! Nice to meet you too! Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 17:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Wright, take 382

I've worked on a new version of the Wright paragraph in Barack Obama, and I'd be interested in your thoughts at Talk:Barack Obama#New attempt by Josiah. Thanks. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:17, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

A Day in the Life

Would you mind taking a look at this article, which is about the Beatles song "A Day in the Life". It is currently in the GA process, but I'm at a loss of what to do next (besides fixing those damn "citation needed" tags). I'd appreciate it if you checked it out and gave me some pointers. I've had it up for Peer Review for quite a while, to no response. Hmmm.... Cheers, Kodster (Willis) (Look what I can do) 02:11, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I think one of the biggest problems with the article (not problems, per se, but obstacles) is the ambiguous or otherwise informal wording. I think it's a bit better now. Cheers, Kodster (Willis) (Look what I can do) 19:26, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I think this is good for a GA Nomination, agreed? Cheers, Kodster (Willis) (Look what I can do) 01:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia page history statistics

Hello, I answered your question here. -- Aka (talk) 07:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Obama FAQ

Since there isn't a way to collapse the FAQ box, I went ahead and slapped {{scrollbox}} on the FAQ. It reduces the size of the FAQ quite a bit and if we wanted to, we could make it smaller by messing with the height parameter. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 22:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Megan Marshack

The move has been completed and the edit history has followed to the correct spelling. The other spelling has been automatically transformed into a redirect link.--JForget 03:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Murrayfanclub.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Murrayfanclub.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Rettetast (talk) 11:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Vereniging Basisinkomen

Hi Fram, I'd like to see you comment at Vereniging Basisinkomen. Since I have a COI, there is not much more that I can do there, and I would hate to see a good article go because a user dislikes me. Guido den Broeder (talk) 12:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Something strange happened here. I posted this on Fram's talk page, and he showed up at the article. Next thing, Wikipedia breaks down for a couple of seconds, and I find my post here! Guido den Broeder (talk) 13:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Beats me - I had posted a note on Fram's page and then removed it few minutes later because the matter had been handled already - so that must have had something to do with it! Oh well, wikipedia sometimes works in mysterious ways... Tvoz |talk 17:03, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Barack Obama, Sr.

thanks for letting me know, it still doesn't come up when I search, so just not sure. Thanks, It is me i think (talk) 00:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

You were right ...

... about the HRC FAC. It's opened up an attack on the method of dealing with minor controversies in footnotes (Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton#Trivia in notes) that's been quite successful in keeping the article stable. Meanwhile the nominator hasn't been heard from again. Sigh. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Should have compared notes

Heh. Darn it. We should have compared notes before proving Ottava wrong about the article size on HRC. I did the same thing you did at User:Bobblehead/Sandbox, but commented on the FAC page.[9] The plus side is that we came up with the same thing. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 20:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, just saw that - I did it yesterday and came up with 60K and then realized I had left headers in, and it came in at 59. Meanwhile - now he thinks Wasted should "leave Wikipedia" because he doesn't agree with the guy's interpretation of size guidelines? I've heard a lot, but this one may take the cake. Tvoz |talk 20:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Heh. Wow. Talk about being tetchy...--Bobblehead ^(rants) 20:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

ANI notice up

At WP:ANI#Repeated extreme incivility by User:Ottava Rima. Wasted Time R (talk) 05:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Why shouldn't the America Flag icon be added to a person running for President of the USA?

Hillary Clinton has expressed multiply times her love of America (I can find credible sources and quotes if you need them) and I can't find any credible source/her her opponents which disputes this. Also, Clinton is a former first lady of America. This is more than appropriate. Do you disagree? It is me i think (talk) 15:41, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

That's precisely why we shouldn't include flags - we're not supposed to be planting suggestions of a person's patriotism or lack of it in their biography, and the flag doesn't add any more real information than saying her nationality is American. The nationality line in the infobox is not a political statement - her nationality just indicates what her citizenship is, and the flag doesn't tell us more than we already know. Please take a look at WP:FLAG if you haven't - it explains this guideline pretty well. Tvoz |talk 16:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I did read through this WP:FLAG and this is where I got my idea. So is your suggestion no flag icons should be added to any politician. In full disclosure, I did add flags to an Austrian politician and a Nigerian. It is me i think (talk) 16:47, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's pretty much what I'd say - best to leave the flags off of people's pages. Not to worry - you didn't do any harm. Tvoz |talk 17:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

If all flags should be kept of all people, why does a flag icon exist? My apologies for sounding negative, but this sounds like your POV and not wikipolicy. Do you have a place for better clarification or may a recent dispute over flag icons which I could reference to see how users view the usage of the flag icon. Thanks, and my apologies again for being negative. It is me i think (talk) 19:47, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

See your page for reply. Tvoz |talk 02:51, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for helping me better understand the flag icon use policy. It is me i think (talk) 20:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

HRC FAC

There. Done. I feel really bad that you're stuck doing all that because the nominator just didn't follow up. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

		The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
		For going above and beyond the call of duty to deal with the Hillary Rodham Clinton FAC when the nominator didn't follow up. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

hillary did not call for ferraro's resignation

please see ferraro's talk page for my post in response to your edit of my contribution.Cubguy83 (talk) 19:35, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Kudos!

		The Original Barnstar
		If only more Wikipedians saw things with the reason and cogency in this talk page edit, this would be a far better project indeed. So what if I'm a little biased because you agreed with me twice...nice job anyway!  Frank  |  talk  00:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Caps at FAC

Regarding the conversation on Ealdgyth's page, see here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - yeah, I had no idea! I'm runnning out the door but I'll look at my sig later and fix it. Sheesh!! Tvoz →talk 15:45, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Forgot I did a quick fix on it already! Tvoz →talk 15:47, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

HRC restart

I'm out the door as well. I restarted the nom because the initial, lengthy issues have been sorted. If anyone asks, you can/should bring forward your own previous supports or opposes, if still applicable, but shouldn't bring forward anyone else's comments. Essentially, it's a new FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:36, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Amusement of the day, complete with a warning hand

Vandalism warning

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Malia Obama. 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.

Please note there is a difference between vandalism and unhelpful or misguided edits made in good faith. If they continue to vandalise after a recent final warning, please re-report it. Thank you! Grsztalk 20:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Watchingobama"

Friendly warning. Discuss not blank out the article. Watchingobama (talk) 20:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Just for the record (why do I bother?): reverting to a redirect is not blanking the article; reporting that revert as vandalism is at best ignorant of what vandalism actually is; throwing the above template on my page is just plain silly. But follow his edits, friends - it only gets more absurd. Tvoz/talk 04:30, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Dear Tvoz, you appear to have been editing Obama and Hillary related articles far too NPOVedly, and somewhat upset the neddies. Tsk! Tsk! LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:04, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, looks like we've been accused of being meatpuppets again. Woo!! --Bobblehead ^(rants) 22:26, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

You know, I recognized him a couple of days ago when he weighed in on the FOP endorsement and I knew this was coming. So transparent. Oh well, I guess I'll mosey on over to AN/I and AN and see what we're up to, Bobble. (But I thought we were sockpuppets, not meatpuppets - is this a demotion or a step up? And what about Jersyko?) And as for you, LessH vU, what can I say - I get these paychecks from the campaigns, and what choice do I have but to distort their articles? The hard part is deciding which one to vandalize first. By the way, what's a neddie?Tvoz/talk 04:30, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Neddie Seagoon. If you need to understand British humour, you need to understand this individual and other guilty parties. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:01, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Kent State

Not sure what needs to be fixed. Yes, I live in Kent and attended the activities this year. What needs to be located in the archive? Badagnani (talk) 04:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

"super watchlist"

Explained here. xenocidic (talk) 03:52, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

FPC I'd Like Help With

I was just wondering if you wouldn't mind going to Portal:James Bond. I'd really appreciate any criticisms or support that you could provide for this Featured portal candidate. Thanks. Ultra! 20:33, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Laura

Oh it's no big deal Tvoz. I just happened to be glancing at the history and noticed your revision, and I'm sorry if I "beat you" to adding in Mrs. Bush's middle name. I think middle names are fine for infoboxes, because it's about official documentation (here's an example that I just participated in yesterday). It's good to talk to you again, though. --Happyme22 (talk) 00:45, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Yiddish

Hi Tvoz, thanks for the info & I take your point. cheers Mick gold (talk) 06:49, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Joseph Amiel

Joseph Amiel seems notable but I just wanted verification. Just go ahead and provide links and reference and than remove the tag yourself. --Megapen (talk) 19:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Me

Thanks for the kind words, Tvoz. :)--andreasegde (talk) 20:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Admin?

Hi Tvoz, A few weeks ago I asked SandyGeorgia for some recommendations on whom she thought would be good admins. Your name was one of the names that she mentioned. I've done a high level review of your contributions and am inclined to agree, but before I dig around deeper, I wanted to see if you were interested in running for Admin? If you are let me know, I won't guarantee that I'd nom ya, but I would check you out. (I'd also give you an honest assessment as to whether or not I thought you would pass.) If you want to see my other nominations, check out my talk page.Balloonman (talk) 07:28, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - I've been asked before by several folks, but haven't wanted to go that route. I'll consider the possibility and let you know if I see it any differently this time, but probably won't. How about SandyGeorgia herself, is the obvious question! Tvoz/talk 03:28, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Not I :-) But should you decide to go for it, I've been pretty impressed with the homework Balloonman does to check out, prepare and present candidates, and I'd co-nom if you're interested. (See Jbmurray's and Slp1's RfAs.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:06, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Sandy, I think you should run for 'Crat---skip the admin phase.Balloonman (talk) 04:22, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Or vice president. With a coach like Balloonman there is still time. —SusanLesch (talk) 04:24, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

This wonderful person (Tvoz) could run for anything at all, and she would win by a mile, or two, or fifteen. Whether she chooses to or not is entirely up to her, but I personally wouldn't want to lose her very valuable advice, contributions, humour (humor), and nice thoughts. There you go; I think that says it in a nutshell. Consider my opinions as very neutral, if you would like. :)--andreasegde (talk) 21:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Making the Dems Superdelegates a FL

Hi, Tvoz. I noticed that you were involved with Democratic officials/editing. Was wondering if you would mind working with me in making List of Democratic Party (United States) superdelegates, 2008 a featured list with me once the Dem. process is over. We can begin adding images/ital. papers./and clean up references. I will respond here. miranda 16:48, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

In principle, Miranda, sure - but ask me again when the time is here. I haven't looked at that list yet, so I don't know how much work is needed, but I'll try to pitch in and help out. (Would not likely be able to take the lead though.) Cheers Tvoz/talk 23:37, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

And now I've taken a look - ad a little time so I did a first pass on A-B of the list, adding italics and correcting publication names. I see the pub names aren't wikilinked - should they be? Tvoz/talk 01:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I think they should be, but since the superdelegates can change their position at any moment, I think we should wait until after the convention to fix up the page. miranda 02:40, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah - true - but when I'm in the mood for some mindless work I'll keep fixing things that should be fixed. Tvoz/talk 17:22, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Requests for your comment

I'm canvassing for general

• EXPERTISE re a pair of re-titling proposals for 2008 Barack Obama presidential campaign "controversies" daughter-articles----here and here. — Justmeherenow (   ) 08:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

"Clintonite"

It's not a negative term. It's simply a denomination. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Impm (talk • contribs) 00:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Request for your opinion

		Please Vote For Change We Can Believe In Or Even No Change at Obama Article
		Requesting your final opinion on the Bill Ayers language You previously !voted (here) on what language to use at the Barack Obama page. We're trying to get a consensus now. Please take another look at how the discussion has progressed (especially here) and consider what option might make the best consensus, then !vote again at Talk:Barack Obama#Call the question after detailed discussion: Option 3 or not?. Please keep in mind the discussion has been long, so if you can accept what seems to be a likely option, please do. This is one of Wikipedia's most prominent articles. Thank you. Noroton (talk) 23:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm the second highest contributor to the article, Noroton - I know it's one of the most prominent. I'll take a look, but please note that I didn't vote or !vote - I expressed an opinion. We don't vote or tally votes about these things - that's not how to achieve consensus - and frankly I'm not too happy with the way these discussions have developed on the talk page so I'm attempting to avoid it. However, I'll take another look and see if I am moved to express another opinion. Tvoz/talk 00:38, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I did this to try to get people to come to a consensus whether or not the consensus is their preferred option. It's not a majority vote, it's not a final decision, it's not even a vote, but I'm hoping to get people to coalesce around something and this gives them a way to do it. I think that will help get consensus later on other things. If people decide to support this way of doing this, they'll vote; if people don't, they won't vote or will object at the bottom of that section. Were you in favor of adding nothing? If so, you may be happy with no consensus, default to put nothing on the page, but I'm not. If enough editors rally around one option, we've got consensus. If people are as sick of this discussion as I am, that may happen. Noroton (talk) 00:47, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure that's really the best way to achieve consensus, by wearing people down - but I'll take a look later on tonight. By the way, we've had plenty of controversy on this page over the last year or more, and in the past we've reached real consensus on numerous things. Right now there are some POV pushers who may not let that happen which is a shame. We'll see. I remind you - this is not an article about a political candidate, it's supposed to be a biography of a notable individual - his whole life and career, not just a few hot items that some people want to use as cudgels against his candidacy. Tvoz/talk 01:15, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Additional talk section.

Just making sure you don't miss this section [10]. I'm not sure why there're so many polls or "sliding scales," but that's the latest. Shem^(talk) 19:23, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Good grief. We seem to have been invaded by a roving band of statisticians - or Republicans. Take your pick. Thanks for the pointer - I'll take yet another look. I must say I find it tedious to say the same thing over and over. Tvoz/talk

It would be better if the Republican leadership, at least, were statisticians: then they'd know from the data that running with Reagan Conservatism's core message always wins. Every time they try to move toward the (quite chimerical) "political center" they lose ('92, '96 and '06). Hmmm, you think someone at the RNC'd have noticed the trend. Especially with the almost total lack of interest in the Republican primary--by Republicans!-- as well as with Hannity and Limbaugh shouting it at the top of their lungs six hours a day.

The Dems tooks back Congress recruiting conservatives--who, I'm happy to report, are already starting to buck their leadership. Adroit maneuvering by Republican leaders (and I'm not going to start holding my breath for that) could easily flip some of them.

That McCain is even the nominee shows the apathy of the party's core (comme moi). If we come out in force in November, which I pray we do, it will be a vote against Jimmy Carter's second term and not a vote for John McCain.

And, it's just that simple.

PainMan (talk) 05:45, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, my husband thinks the Republican Party looks like it's going the way of the Whigs and the Federalists - that is, to extinction, and that 2008 is its death knell. But, then, he's much more of an optimist than I am, although I caution him about what will replace it. By the way - I have to say that I see no similarity between Carter and Obama and this "second Carter term" trope really makes less than no sense to me, as does just about anything Hannity or all the other conservatives - no offense intended - say. That McCain would be Bush3, however, does resonate. Tvoz/talk 17:49, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

No offense taken, ;o). Disagreements are fine, the politer the better. We can stand our ground without being offensive.

And, actually, the Democratic Party is the one that's far more fractured--look at the ferocious primary contest. Yes, Rush Limbaugh brilliantly exploited the differences within it; but they had to be there in the first place to be exploited.

To reiterate, the problem with the GOP leadership is what Limbaugh has labeled the "DC Syndrome". There remains far more common ground amongst Republicans than Democrats.

The Democrat party is a collection of highly disparate interest groups whose single point of agreement is the pro-abortion stance. It should be remembered that the Dems captured control of Congress using conservative candidates--many of whom are already starting to run away from Obama as fast as they can.

It's your Talk page, so unless you want to debate about McCain or Conservatism or politics (and if you do, we should probably swap email addresses). So, I'll be brief.

Limbaugh and Hannity don't lead Conservative opinion, they reflect it. Nearly everything Rush and Sean say I heard my parents say long before anyone heard of either of them or Conservative talk radio even existed.

I've been a Reagan Conservative since I was 10 years old. I've studied Liberal-Leftism and the Democrat party for 27 years. And after taking a good, hard look at Obama, the parallels between the policies he's pushing and those that Jimmy Carter did so (so disastrously! Which you'll remember if you were around in 1978-1980), it's scary.

Thus, calling a (hopefully hypothetical) Obama presidency "Jimmy Carter's Second Term" is no trope, it's dead-on accurate. Also, I believe that Rush Limbaugh first used the term publicly. My parents lost their business and we lost our home (my parents sold it on the day it was to foreclose!) due to Carter's utterly catastrophic economic policies (or lack thereof). Obama's public remarks about making nice with America- (and or Israeli-) hating nutcases like Ahmenadahjad the "president" of Iran (however ya spell it) and others of that ilk exactly mirror Carter's naiveté and behavior.

So I confess that I don't understand how you don't see the parallels...

As for this silliness--no offense intended--about McCain being "Bush's Third Term" that's just not the case. Yes he will probably be just as tough on our Islamofacsist enemies as the president; he was tortured for 90 straight days by his North Vietnamese captors--because of Jane Fonda's treason--so he understands evil first-hand.

But on the domestic side, it should be remembered that he voted against the very small Bush tax cuts (but, small as they were, the stopped the Clinton-Gore recession cold). As many Conservatives have pointed out (Limbaugh and Hannity are only the most prominent to have done so) there's little difference between him and Hillary. Which is why 40+% of Hillary primary voters told pollsters they'd vote for McCain if she didn't win the Dem nomination. Let us pray that holds true!

Hope to talk to you again. I'm gonna cut this short before I've written a book. Apologies my "definition" of brevity doesn't exactly fit the word.

PainMan (talk) 12:37, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, I could not disagree with you more on just about all of your points - although I am not a Jimmy Carter fan. As for Vietnam, you may be too young to know first-hand what the protests were about, but I lived it, and I do not care to debate it here or in email. I'll just say that I believe the war was unconstitutional, illegal, and immoral and those protesting it were the true heroes. I am sorry that McCain was tortured, on the human level, but participation in that war was not heroic, it was at best misguided. I mostly blame his superiors, however, and always did, but regret that the only lesson he seems to have gotten out of his awful experience is that he opposes torture as a government policy. Good for him, and shame on his colleagues who disagree, but I wish he had had come out of Vietnam as many other soldiers did with the clear understanding that that war was dead wrong. You are also completely wrong about women's reproductive freedom being the only thing uniting the Democratic party - there are many issues that unite Democrats, but Democrats don't get marching orders and fall in line in fear of expressing different views. Sadly too many Republicans seem to. I'd like to end this conversation now - we're not going to convince one another and as I said, I don't want to continue it here or in email either. Best wishes - may you see the light some day. Tvoz/talk 18:30, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I was as polite as I could be so I am at a loss to understand your thinly veiled hostility. But, not to worry. I have better things to do than to harry you.

You've also confirmed an opinion I've long held: the Vietnam War will not be over until your generation is gone or has passed into its dotage. Only then, will the incubus of that conflict finally be lifted from our politics. Until that time, my generation (I'm a member of "The Birth Dearth" as you are a Baby Boomer and my parents are of the "Quiet Generation.") and those younger than us, such as my young daughter, will have to live with your generation's implacable hatreds.

The reason for intervention in Vietnam was sound. And, until the very end, opinion polls consistently showed 80% of Americans supported it. The so-called "anti-war" movement was a tiny minority.

The problem with the war was that the execution was horrendous (LBJ personally picking bomb targets; refusal to invade the north; refusal to blockade Cam Ranh Bay, etc). Surely no one is going to argue that stopping a country to be turned into a Communist nightmare was an unworthy endeavor. I highly suggest you read The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression edited by Courtois and written by a group former French communists and leftists. Communists murdered 100,000,000 people in the 20th Century alone. That's 5 times those slaughtered by Hitler and 3 times those killed by the Japanese in WWII. And the killing continues.

Johnson & McNamara are, arguably, the greatest war criminals in American history; cluelessly shredding an entire generation without direction or even an attempt to understand the enemy. (McNamara would have done the country a huge favor if he'd taken the presidency of Ford.) Nixon (by no definition a Conservative, in fact Nixon disliked Conservatism intensely) was guilty of a tragic failure to understand the conflict he inherited (and that comes from an unimpeachable source: Lt. Gen Hal Moore, USA, retired). I've stood before the Wall in DC and wept. Along with people of all ages, veterans and non-veterans. It's a heart-breaking experience.

One does not have to have been alive (or merely old enough to understand; I was born in 1970) during Vietnam to understand the war or the self-proclaimed "counter-culture" or to be disgusted by Congress's shameful tail-between-the-legs flight from that conflict; leaving a people we'd promised to protect to the tender mercies of one of Moscow's most vicious and vindicative satellite regimes.

And my reading, as well the recollections of my parents and others who lived through that era, have shown that the so-called "anti-war" movement was really an anti-conscription movement. Once Nixon ended the draft, the "movement" evaporated more or less immediately. The real motivation behind the Credit Card Revolution was one of cowardly self-interest. And an excuse to do a lot of dope and have lot of promiscuous "free love."

As for torture, Alan Dershowitz, the self-proclaimed dean of civil rights lawyers, has argued that in some situations torture is a requirement. In any event, no one has proven that any Islamofacsist has been tortured; and I have no problem with it if they have been. If they've been made a little uncomfortable or subjected to what is no more heinous than college hazing rituals, I have no problem with it. The Constitution is not a suicide pact regardless of what those five idiots on the Supreme Court recently said. And those who seek to destroy our laws have no right to claim their protection when they finally have to face the consequences of their actions.

It's evident you've closed your mind. As I said, I have no intention of trying to "convince" you. My first wife taught me the futility of beating my head against a brick wall.

I have no interest in attempting to debate some one who doesn't want to. A friend of mine is as closed-minded as you are; we've simply agreed not to discuss politics (as result we had a helluva good time at Rush's concert when they were here last and nary a word political was spoken).

But I do find it sad that so many Leftists refuse to even discuss the vital issues. It's almost as if y'all are afraid facts'll disrupt your world view.

In conclusion, I wish you well. Hopefully, one day you'll allow yourself to open your mind and come over to the Good Side.

But if you respond, I'll have to respond. So, if you have a rebuttal, I suggest you post it on my Talk page; then I'll have no reason to post anything further on yours. Except...

...if it's a wikipedia article related issue, I can and will engage you regarding it.

Regards, PM

PainMan (talk) 00:03, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

[out]I think I was being polite in responding to you when you came to my talk page and posted a long political disquisition where no such discussion was going on, pretty much out of the blue (I think our only previous contact had been regarding whether or not Tim Russert had diabetes) and again with my further response to your much longer one. But I said I'd rather not continue the discussion on my talk page or in email, so I'd ask you to respect that. Your comments are insulting - calling me closed-minded - and I think wholly wrong. But you're entitled to see things as you do, of course - I'd just rather not have the conversation. Cheers. Tvoz/talk 04:32, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Carol McCain article

Since you doubted its need right as I was creating it :-), see Talk:Carol McCain for my rationale in doing so. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Revert of Tim Russert's "diabetes"

I thoroughly approve of the removal, Tvoz. You beat me to the punch. I just wanted to check the AP story sourced, however, I was called away by something else and didn't get around to reading the referenced story. Something which I wanted to do before removing diabetes reference.

Van Susteren's doctor did see the autopsy, I do believe, and I can't believe she wouldn't have mentioned it when Greta asked the usual, "What are the warning signs? How can we prevent this?" questions. (Well, the "Widow-maker", which is what doctors colloquially call the type of heart-attack that Russert had, doesn't knock on the door and ask to come in. It puts you on your back and kills you. And it usually takes only minutes to complete its work.)

PainMan (talk) 05:36, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah - I don't get why someone continued to re-add it - there's been no reporting at all that I've come across that said he had diabetes. Tvoz/talk 17:51, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry to intrude on your page, but there is a source that says that Tim Russert had diabetes. http://www.cbc.ca/arts/media/story/2008/06/13/tim-russert.html?ref=rss Just letting you know, if you want to add it or leave it off that's fine, but I think this link is what the other editrs were referring to when they put it up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dnvrfantj (talk • contribs)

Thanks -I'm going to check further before adding it however, because the reports I saw from his personal physician after the autopsy did not say anything about it. Tvoz/talk 00:45, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Politics: response

You are correct in that I initiated direct contact. You responded. Had you failed to I would have simply blown you off and never given you any mind. Had you simply said, "OK, we'll keep it at a distance." Or some variation thereof. You chose to create the conservation. Those are the facts. Period.

Furthermore, I have made some good acquaintances in this manner. It is not at all an uncommon way of making "cyberfriends." I find it odd that you do not know this or are unaware of the custom. Oh well, the loss is certainly yours. I suggest you find someone conversant in the customs of the 'Net to teach you these little things. Children? Grandchildren?

You are incorrect thinking you are not closed-minded. You are an entirely typical Liberal-Socialist: myopic, ill-informed, dogmatic, closed-minded, a group think practioner, a "drinker of the Kool-Aid" as Hannity would put it. It's sad to see ostensibly intelligent people support policies that have consistently failed for SEVEN DECADES, that have inflicted emotional, financial, psychological and phsyical damage on the American people. The cancer of Liberalism and Euro-thinking is literally killing this country. That you are not standing on (at least your rhetorical) feet and screaming about it is precisely the reason this country is going to hell in a hand-basket.

Your emotional reaction shows that you know what I say is true.

That you are insulted wasn't my intent.

Don't worry. I have no intention of wasting any more time with you.

Stay off my page and I'll stay off yours.

Deal?

PainMan (talk) 06:47, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

This speaks for itself. And for the record, I've been working online since 1985. Tvoz/talk 06:52, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Obama protection

Sorry I couldn't be more explanatory; I was rushing out as I got your message so only had time to unprotect it. My reasons for protection were thus: the diffs I looked on the page for the last 50 edits were problematic, and showed signs of an edit war. Therefore, I protected it, but certainly not indefinitely (even though I didn't set an expiry; there's a difference). Such a person as the likely successful presidential candidate for the United States should not be protected for long. Information changes; admins are few in numbers when it comes to mainspace (unfortunately); CAT:PER requests could go on for several days without being seen to, even if it's an important bit of info. It would be foolish to think that indefinite protection would be acceptable; not so, and I know that. Agreed, my summary at WP:RFPP gave that impression, but I only meant cooling off from the edit war. It would be like fully protecting Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom if she suddenly announces her divorce and abdication! Things change by the hour, sometimes by the minute, so no way would I have kept the protection for long. I just thought I'd explain more fully, because lack of time earlier prevented it. :) Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 10:21, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppet statement

Could you please explain your intention behind the sockpuppet statement in your edit summary? Dusti^SPEAK!! 23:19, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

the statement in this edit summary. Dusti^SPEAK!! 23:22, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

No problem, have you reported the account to ANI so it can be blocked? Dusti^SPEAK!! 23:48, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Obama/Lolo

The whole point of having an article on Obama's stepfather, which is well sourced from Time, Reuters, etc., is to counter the nonsense propaganda that says "he is not just muslim, but a muslim extremist" which is insane, lazy thinking, and outright lies.

Putting the facts out that refute that story are important, and no, many of these facts were not easily found in other existing articles.

All citizens of the world deserve to be able to get the facts--especially on presidential candidates--and to rise above the propaganda.--Utahredrock (talk) 23:39, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

See your talk for my response. Cheers.Tvoz/talk 00:45, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

If you think facts are missing, please add them. Those were all I could find in about a two hour time frame.--Utahredrock (talk) 23:41, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Was there a rush? Tvoz/talk 00:45, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I've replied to you on my talk page, and put the "conversation" on the Lolo talk page, which seems to be the best place for it. You correctly point out weaknesses in the Lolo article, however, the answer is more information on him, not less. Your argument is extremely weak that there is already enough information on this man.--Utahredrock (talk) 03:31, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, let's continue this on Talk: Lolo Soetoro. My point is not that there is already enough information, but that he is only notable because of his connection to Obama and is covered in the articles about Obama and his mother already. There doesn't seem to be any more information available because he is not independently notable. Tvoz/talk 03:57, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Tvoz,

I say this tongue-in-cheek but what's the rush/urgency in editing Lolo Soetoro?

(big grin)

Seriously though, I am honored to work with you on this very important article. At first I thought you were coming from an anti-Obama perspectve, or at least pro-"Obama is a muslim."

Early on that became clearly untrue. Still your references to coatracks and the purported insignificance of Lolo confused me--and still confuse me. Your behavior as a primary editor and watcher of Lolo seems to contradict some of your statements.

Whatever the perceived contradictions I am very grateful for your help.

Regards,

--Utahredrock (talk) 18:48, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Utah, I still don't think that Lolo has independent notability, and I think he can amply be covered in Ann Dunham - in fact I think that all of what we have in Lolo Soetoro is found in Ann's article or can be easily added without causing an undue weight problem in Ann's piece. Since notability can't be inherited - that is, just because someone has a connection to a notable person doesn't automatically make him notable too - and because we have yet to find anything at all that is about Lolo independent of Ann and Barack, I see no reason for Lolo's separate article. My concern about coatracking, as I have said, is that it appears to me that contrary to your stated intention in creating this article - to debunk the lies about Obama's religion - this article only serves to fuel those rumors with its sourcing (read some of the source articles) and the text having phrases like "Obama is a Muslim", even though it is preceded by "incorrect rumor" (maybe to increase Google hits on the phrase?). You saw the completely unacceptable, lying source that I removed whose title was something like "Barack Obama was a Muslim until age 31" - that is the kind of specious editing we have seen and can expect in this article, which is why I am watching it and removing that kind of garbage. But it would be better if we didn't have this article at all, as it adds nothing to our knowledge and is an attractive target for anti-Obama attacks. I am not here as pro-Obama or anti-Obama - I am here to defend the neutrality and integrity of Wikipedia and not allow it to be taken over by the right-wing or left-wing blog readers who frequently get their marching orders to "Add blah blah to Wikipedia", as if that will somehow validate their lies. To the best of my ability, not on my watch - and there are many other editors here who similarly watch and stop this garbage, but one of the ways we do it is to not encourage unneeded outposts for it. I think that Lolo Soetoro is one of them - even if you didn't intend it as such, and when an AfD is posted I will support it, if nothing has changed. Meanwhile, I'll be watching it and trying to keep it in check. Obama's campaign has taken a different approach to the problem - they';ve created a website that posts the smears and then debunks them - that's fine, and good luck to them, but it's not what we do on Wikipedia, so your idea of having Lolo's article serve that purpose is, I think, mistaken, even if well-intentioned. Tvoz/talk 21:15, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Above and beyond this issue of silly partisan smears, the Lolo article serves as a place for people to get information on this very important man from Obama's childhood. Your attention to the topic is a clear acknowledgement of this reality. Thanks for your outstanding work--whatever your motivations.--Utahredrock (talk) 21:46, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Utah, please stop misunderstanding me - I do not acknowledge that as any reality. It is your contention - your own independent theory - that he was a "very important man from Obama's childhood". You haven't presented any evidence that backs that up - only your claim that it would be delusional not to believe it. Your case would be much stronger if you found some evidence that Barack thought he was the big influence you think he was. Perhaps he was, but you need to demonstrate it. if you do, I might change my position on the article's viability. I am watching this article not because I think Lolo is important - I have told you that several times. I am watching it because Barack is notable and there are partisan anti-Obama people here making edits all over the place in an attempt to make some implications that they think will damage him. Our job is to be neutral, not to promote a position or create an article to debunk someone else's lies. That is not what we're here for, as I explained above. Again - what is in Lolo Soetoro that is not already in Ann Dunham? And what else do we have that couldn't be easily accommodated in Ann? Tvoz/talk 21:57, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey bud, the name is Utahredrock, not Utah. <grin>. It may seem minor to you, but to me it's not. I think we just need to agree to disagree. Cheers,--Utahredrock (talk) 22:05, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

That's "Ma'am" to you, Bud. And I'm fundamentally too lazy/busy/amused to type out long names, so I always shorten them. You're the second person to ever object - the last one without a grin - so maybe I'll reconsider, Utahredrock. On the other hand, my usual mode may prevail inadvertently - I do not intend any offense by the nickname. You can call me Tv if you want. We can disagree, sure - but please think about the points I made - the inherent assumption you're making which could be right but you haven't backed up, and the lack of anything known about Lolo independent of Ann. Both of these will be cited on AfD when it gets there, if the article's scope doesn't change. Tvoz/talk 22:28, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

So you're a woman? Very cool. I had wondered. I sometimes call women "bud." You're obviously very bright too.--Utahredrock (talk) 22:32, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Roar. Tvoz/talk 22:35, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Is that a Helen Reddy reference? One of my favorite songs by the way. My mother listened to Reddy over and over when I was young in the early 1970s after my own father died.--Utahredrock (talk) 22:43, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

None other ... and I defy anyone to find another song with "invincible" in the lyrics. Tvoz/talk 22:56, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Very big grin.--Utahredrock (talk) 00:20, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

If you have any doubt, read Obama's book

This whole discussion prompted me to finally buy Obama's book (I actually got both of them). In Dreams from My Father he makes it abundantly clear that Lolo played a key and influential role in his life. There are some great passages on Lolo--a complicated and interesting character if there ever was one.--Utahredrock (talk) 08:31, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

Thanks for the heads up. First User:Alive Would? Sun then User:FYW09, sometimes AGF sucks. :) I deleted the edits the sock made to Todd Palin so again only the redirect remains. Garion96 (talk) 21:40, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Why are you

Why are you following me changing every edit. Some call that stalking but I will just call it following.

As far as Jaclyn Smith, I took the quote directly from Parade magazine and even put a " " around the exact quote. They didn't say the exact name of the show. FridayCell7 (talk) 15:10, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Call it what you like - I call it reviewing the edits made by yet another confirmed sockpuppet of the banned Dereks1x who really ought to find something constructive to do with his life. Tvoz/talk 19:09, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Please note

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Can a proposal be made by an opponent to gauge the sense of the community? — Justmeherenow (   ) 18:40, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: Tim Russert, etc.

With all respect, tariq, I think you might want to re-think your tone and lack of grace in some of the discussions that have been going on regarding this article - and I'm not talking about exchanges with S. Dean. If you want diffs, I'll give you diffs, but your attitude has sometimes not been particularly collegial or appropriate, in my opinion. Just saying, in the spirit of clearing the air. Tvoz/talk 21:17, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I've just reviewed all of my comments on this matter. While I might describe some of them as pointed, I stand by all of them. -- tariqabjotu 21:48, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, Tariq. I wasn't trying to get you to back away from your positions, just your attitude. Tensions run high, and responding with some grace doesn't hurt. But never mind. Tvoz/talk 22:24, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello

Hellooooooo Tvoz.... calling from across the ocean, from wintry Australia. Our winters are quite mild. It doesn't actually get cold, but we don't perspire as much. I hope you're enjoying your summer. No problem about the Bee Gees. It's just one subject that refuses to go away, but don't you just love people who fly by to tell other editors to get their facts straight... without taking a moment to ...um... get their facts straight. Love 'em, they make me laugh. If you find any opposition, I would suggest just referring them back to the musician infobox template page. That was decided by numerous editors and the fact that it's used in thousands of articles demonstrates how well it's supported. As opposed to a small number of editors looking just at the Bee Gees. Nice to hear from you, and waving right back .... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rossrs (talk • contribs)

Yeah, whenever I'm finding the American political articles too contentious I pop over to the Bee Gees or The Beatles and find truly hard-core crazy..... but it makes me laugh too. Tvoz/talk 14:02, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Well the crazy are easy enough to find, and I tend to attract the odd one or two without even trying. The greatest lunacy I have encountered in the 4 years I've been editing here, was at Claudette Colbert, a subject I had previously assumed would be fairly mundane. I'd stick with American politics, if I were you. Nothing controversial there!  :-) Rossrs (talk) 14:27, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Books in Australia? Oh yes, we have several. And I believe since that was posted, we've even gotten a few more. I saw one of them just the other day. I think it was Tuesday, but I can't be sure. Rossrs (talk) 14:57, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Rezko language

By golly, I think you've cracked it! I hope everyone agrees, because I soooo bored of this. -- Scjessey (talk) 04:56, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Request for comment

Would you consider weighing in with your experience and thoughtful opinions here: Wikipedia talk:Etiquette#A gamesmanship of inoculation? Thanks. — Justmeherenow (   ) 18:32, 28 June 2008 (UTC) Especially with regard any clarifications, refinements, or suggestions that come to your mind as to wording. — Justmeherenow (   ) 18:57, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Amish‎ GA Sweeps Review: On Hold

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria and I'm specifically going over all of the "Culture and Society" articles. I have reviewed Amish‎ and believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. In reviewing the article, I have found there are several issues that need to be addressed, and I'll leave the article on hold for seven days for them to be fixed. I have left this message on your talk page since you have significantly edited the article (based on using this article history tool). Please consider helping address the several points that I listed on the talk page of the article, which shouldn't take too long to fix with the assistance of multiple editors. I have also left messages on the talk pages of a few other editors and several related WikiProjects to spread the workload around some. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 08:29, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

The Beatles Newsletter

Beatles editor, Dendodge, wants to start sending out The Beatles Newsletter again. If you would like to receive it, please leave a message on this page. All the best, --andreasegde (talk) 17:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Succession box

Actually I didn't "invented" practice of adding Party nominations to the succession boxes. This was used, esspecially i regard to Presidential and Vice presidential nominees long before I entered wikipedia Darth Kalwejt (talk) 22:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I was going to suggest you take this up with the editor in order to prevent an edit war, but it looks like that dialogue is already started. My model for making the Adlai Stevenson reversion was William Jennings Bryan, who was best known as a "professional candidate". However, the Bryan article was also modified by the above user [11] and at about the same time, early April. I don't think it's such a bad thing. Being a major candidate for President is pretty significant, even if you lose. I don't think you should be blanketly reverting these things, I think you should try to get some consensus on the matter. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:43, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I can't stop you from reverting. Just beware of edit wars. Don't end up a victim on WP:ANI. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 08:08, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I have no fight-to-the-death opinion on this either way. I'm just saying that if you've got an issue with this block of user box updates, blanket reversion probably wouldn't be the smoothest approach. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 08:14, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

As Adlai is listed in several projects, maybe you could take up this topic on one of their talk pages, probably the Biographical one. Then you can get some consensus for what to do about it, if anything. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 08:22, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

infoboxes

Can you explain further why infoboxes should not be used for U.S. major party failed presidential bids? Seems to me that such info is useful to a reader. Kingturtle (talk) 12:23, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, please expand on this.--Utahredrock (talk) 21:01, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I already replied to this, and there is a discussion going on at one of the template talk pages if you're interested. Tvoz/talk 21:45, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Reply

Hello, Tvoz. You have new messages at Chetblong's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Flushed with success

Thanks for the heads up! LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:29, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

personal comment

Tvoz, Two days ago another user added my personal name to an ongoing discussion. The information is available enough, but highly inappropriate for Wiki-discussions. While I often disagree with you, especially on whether or not to add more information on Obama's family, if my tone took a turn for the worse in the last day it had nothing to do with you.

On that other topic, I have always argued for more transparency, not less. That is why I believe in more information on Obama family members, having it out there makes it more difficult for political opponents to make things up. Let's face it, many journalists (not very good ones) probably don't get much past Wikipedia in their research.

Is there a contradiction here? Yes. If I was for full transparentcy I would just sign my real name out here, but for a variety of reasons, not of my own making, that doesn't make sense.--Utahredrock (talk) 01:47, 6 July 2008 (UTC) PS--In the non-wiki world I am for more transparent.--Utahredrock (talk) 01:57, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

see reply below Tvoz/talk 19:46, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

thanks Comments and concerns from Utahredrock

Thanks for your comments on my talk page.

I am curious, do you also support the user who put my real name on Wikipedia?

I would use my real name, but it would be too limiting given my job, it also doesn't seem to be the wiki-norm. I have nothing to hide.

Your kindness is overwhelming. Thanks again for your warm and caring thoughts.--Utahredrock (talk) 19:28, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

PS--I somehow missed your comments on the Abongo talk page until just now. Thanks for directing me to them.--Utahredrock (talk) 19:33, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

If you say so. Tvoz/talk 19:45, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Are you inferring that I had read this comment by you prior to posting my comment? If that is the case it is not only untrue, it assumes bad faith. A wiki-editor should always assume good faith. I do.--Utahredrock (talk) 22:14, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

You don't seem to like to respond to actual points made, but instead veer off into unrelated tangents. Your sarcasm notwithstanding, I am not being unkind when I point out to you that you ought to familiarize yourself with basic policy, especially when it's been pointed out to you; I am not being uncivil when I say that accusing editors of trying to suppress information is indeed uncivil. Another policy you might want to get familiar with is WP:OWN, by the way - your actions on WP:Articles for deletion/Abongo Obama are what I am referring to. As for your "real name" - all that I saw posted was your first name - a very common name - with a last initial. Information which was easily found based on things you posted on your own user page and your user name. I am not endorsing the posting of personal information by others, but I think what was done is a far cry from posting your "real name" - and one wonders why you chose that username if you are concerned about this. If you want my opinion, anonymity here causes many more problems than it solves, and I would favor names being used, for the accountability that provides. Tvoz/talk 19:44, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

It looks like we can agree on something, a rarity given your anti-Obama family notability positions. I too think anonymity creates more problems than it's worth, yet my job requires I refrain from expressing personal political opinions--which in general is a good idea on Wikipedia too. Even so, your cavalier attitude toward the posting of my name is another odd position of yours--odd from my perspective.

It's also true that debates around deletion make me passionate. Whether you agree or not that it is suppression, it is my opinion that that's exactly what it is when important articles are deleted. Of course the word "important" itself is also just an opinion.

And finally, yes, I was being sarcastic. Sorry about that. Of course I knew you were too smart to miss that.--Utahredrock (talk) 20:06, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

PS--I am curious as to what point you feel I've evaded. I am happy to take another crack at it.--Utahredrock (talk) 20:07, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

For heaven's sake - I said I don't endorse posting personal information and I don't have a cavalier attitude at all - I said that mentioning your extremely common first name and a random last initial is hardly the same as revealing your real name. Maybe if your first name was Hiram or Mortimer I would think differently. But your name is as common as they get - no offense - and it just doesn't qualify to me as the same as posting a real name. And as has been pointed out, using a username that can yield your real identity means to me you were not really looking for anonymity, or maybe just didn't think it through. By the way - I'm glad your job doesn't allow you to express personal political opinions - that should help you in your editing hwere because they also shouldn't inform your edits. Cheers Tvoz/talk 20:20, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Common or not the user used my real first name and the real initial of my last name. Common or not, these are not random. At the end of the day I don't much care or I would make the information less available, I just thought it was a gross violation of wiki-etiquette. Though from your perspective, that's something I must not know a thing about any way. (I am guessing on that last sentence, always dangerous).--Utahredrock (talk) 20:27, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

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

is sure to be nominated for deletion; so I've actually done so myself here even though I believe it now passes muster due to Maliks multiple press mentions (which had not yet been catalogued when contributors had so very recently weighed in on its "Obongo" iteration. Please be patient with this proposal while those interested weight in again. (I'm notifying those who commented.) — Justmeherenow (   ) 06:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Your input requested on the Barack Obama article

Hi - it seems that we're at a potentially final point of gauging consensus for the proposed language relating to Tony Rezko on the Barack Obama article. You've been an active participant, who has noted opposition in the past to some aspects of the language being considered. Therefore your opinion would be useful before we decide whether there is consensus or not. Thanks, Wikidemo (talk) 21:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Multifaceted

inclThis user is an inclusionist.

I just saw this on your user page. I hope you return to your inclusionist roots for the Obama family members of note! Imagine my shock at the irony. It's never too late to change your mind . . . . --Utahredrock (talk) 00:01, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't be shocked - it was your incorrect interpretation of my position that had you calling me a deletionist, which I am absolutely not. If these family members were of note, I would not favor deleting their articles. See my comments on the Malik/Obongo AfD about Billy Carter and Roger Clinton Jr. for example - both of whom should and do have articles. But being an inclusionist doesn't mean, to me, keeping every article that anyone comes along and creates because he or she considers it important. The sources are not there to support any notability for either Lolo or Malik/Roy/Abongo at the present time, and they are and should be amply covered in one or another of the Obama articles. I continue to believe that these articles serve to spread the false association of Obama with Islam, not to debunk it as you claim. But you already know my position on this - it hasn't changed. Tvoz/talk 01:52, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I invite you to re-read the first two paragraphs of the inclusionist wiki-page:

"Inclusionism is the philosophy that information should be liberally added and retained on Wikipedia. It is espoused by users called inclusionists who favor keeping and amending problematic articles over deleting them. Inclusionists are generally less concerned with the question of notability, and instead focus on whether or not an article is factual."

"Inclusionism is opposed to deletionism which supports the deletion of unworthy articles and exclusionism which involves removal of unhelpful information (and deletion of an entire article only if such removal leaves nothing behind). In other areas, inclusionism usually aligns with eventualism because both philosophies hold that articles with mixed quality of content should be retained and will be improved in time. As the size of Wikipedia grows, incrementalists will also become more inclusionist as the standards for notability become easier to meet. Inclusionists do not necessarily lean toward any end of the mergism-separatism or exopedianism-metapedianism spectrums."

By your own admission, it is your concern about what might be added to Obama family pages, less than the pages themselves, that motivates your deletionist tendencies there. Again, return to you inclusionist roots, I beg/urge you. (And read Obama's book while you're at it.)--Utahredrock (talk) 04:47, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

You know what? It's not a good idea to lecture a person about her editing philosophy as if you have some insight into it that you don't have. The articles are full of unimportant nonsense if you ask me - like that Abongo referred to his father as "Old Man" - wow, that's notable. Or that his wife never met Barack - this is about Abongo? This is notable? Do you know what is meant by notable? Hint: it doesn't mean "I think it's important" or "it was in /the newspaper/a book/ so it must be notable." For the hundredth time, the people in question are not independently notable at the present time, and they're not even particularly notable in conjunction with Barack. I am more and more convinced that they are being written about because they are Muslim, and some people out there are eager to get that Muslim connection in as many places as possible. The sources that were added are incredibly weak - some are barely at all about the subject, in fact. The re-posting of Malik is out of process and it should have been speedied immediately and you 'all could have presented your arguments for a deletion review. That's how it's done.. I could give you lots of reasons why, despite being an inclusionist in general, I don't think these articles belong here, based on what we currently know. And - I really don't want to continue debating with you about it here, ok? I've already spent too much time saying the same thing over and over. Tvoz/talk 07:02, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I've replied to a recent comment of yours on the McCain talk page.--Utahredrock (talk) 07:23, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Tvoz, I don't agree with you RE McCain. I don't think stating a position automatically tips the scales in a way that others will necessarily agree (nor should they). Also, I think you're taking this far too personally (I know I was yesterday, but I am over it now). It's just a debate over an article. Obviously we both think it's notable enough to take a strong stance, but at the end of the debate, keep or delete, life will go on. Please, please don't take this so personally. Everything will be all right. Regards,--Utahredrock (talk) 07:41, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't speak so condescendingly to me, Utahredrock - really, I have a lot of years on you in age as well as a good deal more experience here and I am not taking an AfD personally. But you seem hell-bent on bandying my name all over the place - if I were to collect the diffs they would stretch all across the page and then some - prominently accusing me of bad faith in your talk page header, and other hassling of me - I haven't taken it up with anyone but if you continue I will. You have done this so much that an editor I barely know called you on it, and he and I have had absolutely no conversation about it. You refuse to accept that other people here actually know more about how things are done than you do - and I have tried to explain things to you and point out your misunderstandings to help you become a better contributor. But, I am finished - I again suggest that you look into mentoring. You may find it helpful. My last piece of advice, given not for the first time, is that you learn what "neutral" means here. Saying that you want comments in an AfD and you want the result to be X is not a "neutrally-worded" "friendly reminder" as allowed in the guideline against canvassing. I didn't say it means anyone will listen to you or it will "tip the scales" - but it is not proper and you've been told that by both Noroton and me and the two of us are generally not in agreement about Obama matters, so we're clearly not pushing any agenda in telling you this. That's it. Good luck with your editing. I'm done trying to help. Tvoz/talk 08:03, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I had no intention of being condescending and I am sorry my comments have been received that way. I absolutely agree you're far more experienced in wiki-dom than I am, and have said that before. I have nothing personal against you, I just disagree with you on a debate. I am glad you're done, we both need a break from this.--Utahredrock (talk) 08:12, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Headers

I've reverted your addition of the "everything else" header at Talk:Barack Obama. My understanding is that the extra header (which makes everything else a subsection) confuses the archive bot, preventing it from archiving anything under the main header if ANY of its subsections have activity. If you know this assumption to be incorrect, please let me know (a reply here is fine, I'll put your page on watch) and then revert me. Thanks, --Clubjuggle ^T/C 02:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, ok - I wasn't aware of that. If that's the case, then the "All the Rezko threads" top level header, which is still there, should be removed as well - it is wrong having everything on the page showing as a subhead of Rezko, since the bottom 10+ threads have nothing to do with Rezko. I certainly don't want to confuse MiszaBot, so let's just take that top head out. Frankly, I'll be very happy when all the Rezko threads can be archived! Tvoz/talk 03:28, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Makes sense, and yes, I agree. It'll be good to get this whole Rezko discussion over with! I'll take a look at the headers and make sure they make sense... it does help if we keep all the Rezko-language discussion under one header so none of that discussion archives until it's complete... believe it or not, it sometimes *is* helpful to go back tthrough the old stuff. Thanks :) --Clubjuggle ^T/C 10:14, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Please don't move my placement of the merge discussions, if you'd be so kind

1. I'm sure you're aware, per WP:Merge it's important to specify a single place for a merge discussion to take place----and also the ending article's talkpage is the preferred placement for the same.
2. In either case, unless you want to take over from me (...assuming you'd made up your mind to take over the proposals of these two compound-merges) :^) would you be so kind as not to move the placement of the merge discussions (as, you otherwise will be requiring me to do twice the work through your second guessing its decisions)? Thanks.  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 19:34, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

See my comment on your talk page which I posted before seeing this one, Just. I don't want to take over anything on this - I am not making the proposal. What I have done is started to roll back the talk pages so you can proceed - decide where you want to propose the merges to go, and set up merge discussion areas. As I said on your talk - this complex merge proposal creates added problems that aren't what I think is meant in WP:Merge by not having parallel discussions - that means don't have one on Lolo and one on Ann, both about Lolo. But Lolo and Maya are two different articles, and there well may be different considerations for them. This is certainly true for the Obama massive merge you did - that needs to be undone if it isn't already, and the same suggestion applies: Obama Sr and Abongo being good examples of potentially different considerations of whether to merge or not. I went into more in my note on your talk - let's keep it in one place <grin>... on yours is fine. Tvoz/talk 19:47, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Again Tvoz

I was asked to chime in yet again on Obama. Since Kossack4Truth retired shortly after listing me and BigTimePeace among trustable editors, and since Shem has just retired now and has entrusted affairs to you, my first two thoughts were that there might be a bit of a break in the logjam, but that (without knowing much about the sock-and-outing wars) it would also seem offhand that your side of the content discussion is at a handicap in its being suddenly weakened. That is, it seems like you might now hold the unlocking of this debate all to yourself, but with the recentness of Shem I also hope my direct question on such a debate would not be out of line. It seems you (and any "proxy") are right now objecting merely to the presence of the word "criticism" in the Rezko sentence? Is that word really an issue? It seems almost an impossibility for the current presumptive nominee to not have any from of "critic" used against him anywhere in his bio. Is it possible that a compromise might be either in that you yield up the word "criticism" in relation to Rezko, or you bar it for Rezko but permit it for anything obviously a greater "criticism" than that about Rezko? Or am I missing something obvious? I'm about to post a couple stats to Obama talk, please consider. Thanks, I always appreciate your rationality and approach. JJB 19:49, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Uh, hadn't seen Shem's passing of the mantle - I'm tempted to fall back on old Tecumseh's adage, but actually prefer Mo Udall's version: "If nominated, I shall run to Mexico. If elected, I shall fight extradition." That said...... let me think this through a bit more. You and I have worked well in the past (although I think that article took a lot of turns after I moved on and I haven't followed it much at all so don't know what happened subsequently), so I'm sure we can work well again. By the way - I am not the only one at all who has sought to blunt the negative things that some editors were trying to jam into the Barack Obama biography, so I don't really feel like I'm left holding the bag on my own with Shem's departure, but I appreciate your willingness to bring some new thought to it. Tvoz/talk 20:25, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I felt attacked by you and wondered if your comments were appropriate

You said my comments are "totally out of line and disruptive."

You said that I am "ignoring what people say to you."

It has been a rare comment from you that I've ignored. I've also taken your advice and even followed it at times. I honor you as a valued editor of this very interesting online encyclopedia.

Why do you attack me like this?

If there are holes in your logic that is not a personal attack on you, it is an attack on your logic.

Regarding your comment on the relevance of Friedman I've replied on the discussion page to keep, delete, or merge Abongo.

Please learn to be more civil, yesterday I laughed at your attacks. Right now they are just getting old.--Utahredrock (talk) 01:55, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not personal, Utahredrock, please stop casting it that way. I sincerely recommend, again, that you look into WP:MENTOR to help you learn about procedure and Wikipedia etiquette. You are enthusiastic, but you're not getting it. I'm not the only editor who has told you this - take a look at the exchanges you've had with other editors about canvassing, for example. On July 6 Noroton cautioned you about canvassing and gave you the policy link; you acknowledge it. I followed up in agreement and pointed out that the policy had already been articulated on a talk page of an article you were working on - you said you hadn't seen it - fine. But then on July 7 you go ahead and canvass on John McCain, in a non-neutral manner. It's pointed out to you and you say you don't agree that it was canvassing. A third editor, Bobblehead, comes in on July 8 and lays it out for you again. WP:CANVASS is one of the more clearly-written policies, and is not ambiguous or subject to much interpretation - "neutrally-worded friendly reminders" posted on pages of all people involved in a discussion, without saying what your preference is. That you made a mistake and inadvertently canvassed is no big deal - this is not intuitive. But why is it you didn't go back and correct it yourself? Saying that other people can delete your note is not the point, is it. Anyway, this is just one example. It's been pointed out to you by several editors that your participation in the AfD is veering toward ownership and is way over the top - but you keep on going. This isn't a personal crusade, or it shouldn't be, and saying over and over again that you think a person is notable, and using hyperbole and irrelevant sources and adding long passages about why you think the person is important and making political comments is not helping your case - and it's just not appropriate for an AfD. I and others mentioned this to you before - replying to specific points is ok, but inundating the page is not. I could go on, but there's no point. If you want to be a successful editor here, try listening more and talking less, and for heaven's sake take other people's advice. No one is attacking you. I hope you'll get the message, and, again, consider mentoring. And, as I already asked you, please stop talking about me and bandying my name all over your talk page and elsewhere - it's rude and unacceptable. Find someone else to focus on. I do not want the job as your coach, and I am frankly tired of talking to you - it seems to make no difference and I have other things to do. Tvoz/talk 05:27, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

• Tvoz, Regarding canvassing in particular I feel I took yours and others advice. I did reword my request on the McCain page (with an emphasis on toning it down) but did not delete it because I thought it was relevant. I invited others to delete it because I didn't care that much--and clearly others had another view. Somebody finally did delete it. I sincerely just wanted more input at Abongo. I had posted something on the Obama page first--a day or two previous--which I was accused of not doing at all. The last time I checked it was still there. I value your input. You may not feel that I value your input, but I do. I don't agree with everything, but that's a different story. I also feel your advice has been offered and received in the spirit of mentoring, though clearly I disagree with you enough to make that a problematic association. I do feel I listen to you and I do think you're a good editor, maybe a great one. But not always right and nor am I. I have not bandied your name around beyond any discussions/debates we've been involved in. I can not promise I will not mention your name if it is relevant to positions you've taken or that we've debated. These are, after all, part of the wiki-record. It's truly nothing personal. You've taken some strong stances and I have too. I feel you've gone overboard and attacked me. I forgive you for this, but it seems unreasonable to request that I not mention your name. I will refrain from commenting on your talk page any more unless you give me permission. That seems like an odd request on your part, but I'll honor it. Please reply on my talk page if you have anything else to say about me or my editing. In the meantime I will honor my word and say nothing else on your talk page. Cheers,--Utahredrock (talk) 07:59, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

• I second Tvoz's request about not having my name splashed all over the headers on your talk page. It's rather rude, and you've done it to both of us now. I suggest simply archiving all of those threads, or deleting them outright. We have done nothing to deserve the things you've said about us in those threads. S. Dean Jameson 08:32, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I responded to you

... on my talk page, here. Noroton (talk) 22:30, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Giffords related request

Tvoz, can you provide your input at Gabrielle Giffords regarding the issue of her former occupation? Thank you.

I hope this does not violate canvassing, but I value your input. The issue is well summarized on the Giffords talk page.--Utahredrock (talk) 21:03, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with asking for an opinion on that level. Tvoz/talk 21:41, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Phew!--Utahredrock (talk) 21:46, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks! You might just be a WikiRockstar too. Cheers,--Utahredrock (talk) 21:39, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Right. Tvoz/talk 21:41, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

• Another Giffords related question . . . . Her bio is rated "mid" on the Wiki importance scale.

Is there a process to review that?

It seems to me that U.S. Representatives and Senators all are more important than "mid." I wasn't sure where to request a review of her status on this. In her case especially, though a freshman(woman), she is one of the most prominent members of the class of 2006 of new congresspeople.--Utahredrock (talk) 22:09, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Ask at the Wikiproject that assigned the status - it's their call. I don't know anything more than that. Tvoz/talk 22:25, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. Thanks too for your edits on the Giffords page. I would love for that to be a featured article someday!--Utahredrock (talk) 22:35, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

• That other user has changed your edit on Giffords occupation twice now. Do you know any other respectable Wikipedians who can look at it without an inappropriate request? Thx.--Utahredrock (talk) 00:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I warned him about 3RR which he's in violation of already. This is a very minor point and not worth spending much time on. If he does it again, you can report him on the 3RR noticeboard, or ask for an admin to come in. I'm really too busy to do any more. Tvoz/talk 04:32, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Edit War, Ha!

Your edit war comment made me laugh. Acutally, Red Rocks and I were having a very civil discussion on this, and I was attempting to make an accurate represenation of her profession. Just like like they say in a hockey fight, please don't be the third man in. Mr. Vitale (talk) 05:08, 14 July 2008 (UTC)