User talk:8bitJake

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Wageslave Arbitration 2 Hey, Jake 3 Hello Jake 4 Wageslave (talk · contribs) 5 Hello Again Jake 6 Wageslave RFC 7 Thanks 7.1 In a way I feel your pain 7.1.1 Don't give up on Derby 8 Hello Again Again Jake 9 GTA IV violence 10 wageslave RFC page 11 jake....gta 4 12 blogs as sources discussion 13 What's your WP:POINT? 14 May 2008 15 3RR warning 16 Conflict of Interest Noticeboard post about you. 17 Your arbcom sanction is still in effect 18 Howard Dean Article 19 DLC article conflict 20 ANI discussion

[edit] Wageslave Arbitration

I suggest that you notify him that you requested Arbitration against him. Not notifying him and not giving him a chance to defend himself could come back to hurt you. I've seen it happen several times. I also suggest that you move your request to one talk page. Having it on three talk pages might show that you’re got to get him. Only suggestions though. I still believe that the decision is up to you, not a group of people. If you feel that one is required, then do it. Thanks DJS --DJS24 (talk) 16:36, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

The user 8bitjake has started to call my editing "in bad faith" since I questioned his efforts. He is using the "the best defence is a good offence" method. A kind of "Karl Rove" method that instead of addressing the concerns I raised, started to make ridiculous claims about my own editing.

I invite an Arbitration.

Wageslave (talk) 13:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hey, Jake

I'm behind you on this 100% regarding the major problem we have with Wageslave, and apparently, to add more insult to injury, he's been restoring Ayocee's directed insults at you on the Talk:XBox 360 technical problems page [[1]], especially with the "pissing contest" remark. Just trying to give you a heads up on that topic, and I gave Slave an edit war warning for that little stunt, but I'm under the impression that he might continue with this. Maybe it could be useful evidence. Dibol (talk) 09:25, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

"to add more insult to injury, he's been restoring Ayocee's directed insults at you on the Talk:XBox 360 technical problems page"

Dibol removed Ayocee's *defence* of me. So I restored it. It is against Wikipedia rules for users to edit dicussion, and the purpose of removing Ayocee's defence was to make it appear that there was no one who agreed with me.

Then *you* removed Ayocee's *defence* of me - again. So I restored it - again.

Then you posted note that I am involved in an "edit war", and this note here.

Even the point and nature of Ayocee's discussion is very revealing of the situation.

Now, Ayocee's comments are gone. I cannot even find his discussion of the matter any more. Why is the discussion being "cleansed" of comments that support me?

08:00, 3 April 2008 (hist) (diff) Talk:Xbox 360 technical problems‎ (Restoring the discussion added by Ayocee, but removed by another user. Undid revision 202998125 by Dibol (talk))

07:45, 3 April 2008 (hist) (diff) Talk:Xbox 360 technical problems‎ (Please do not remove discussion. Undid revision 202978913 by Dibol (talk))

Wageslave (talk) 15:46, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hello Jake

Hello Jake. I would live for us to be able to work in a positive way to improve the articles related to Xbox 360 topics. I've been too harsh and pointed in some of my comments in discussion, and I'd like to apologize, sometimes my emotions can get the better of me.

I do think you've made some valueable contributions, and I'd like to try and work together instead of chasing each other's tails and sniping one-another.

I'll try and remain calm, lets see if a better conscensus from the editors can help us maintain the Neutral-POV and accuracy for the articles that we find ourselves co-editing. I'm sure that is our common goal.

I'm going to try and approach our relations with a new good-will, I'd like to ask you if you could find the ability to do the same.

Best Regards, WS. Wageslave (talk) 01:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wageslave (talk · contribs)

Greetings. As you no doubt have noticed, a user by the name of Wageslave has recently been maliciously editing PlayStation, Nintendo, and Apple related articles on Wikipedia. I have almost had enough of this behaviour, and if it continues I will not hesitate to initiate an RFC about him. Here, I have compiled a short report on his POV edits since he joined. This report will be used as a basis for a future RFC, should he continue his behaviour - though I hope the very existence of this draft convinces him to stop. If you have anything to add to the draft, do not hesitate to add it. Thank you.

Regards, Frvernchanezzz (talk) 08:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

If you have anything to add, could you please add it to the draft report? I'd like to get the case all sorted out properly before making it official. Frvernchanezzz (talk) 07:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

OK. Will do. Mostly I just wish the guy would mellow out a bit. --8bitJake (talk) 22:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hello Again Jake

I've put this here so that we can understand one another, and speak calmly and with mutual respect. You may (if you'd like) remove it to the Xbox-technical-problems talk page if you choose. But, I want to explain something that I see is a problem with the article.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Xbox_360_technical_problems&oldid=207208730

The sentence read "During GDC 08, Microsoft announced that the "Failure rate has officially dropped".[17]

The sentence now reads "During GDC 08, Microsoft announced that the "Failure rate has officially dropped" but has never officially made public their failure rate data."

Very shortly before this passage, it says this "Nevertheless, Microsoft has not released their official statistics on the failure rate of the various versions of the console"

It seems redundant to repeat it. Also, it seems like "point scoring" to tack on "but.."? That is the kind of thing that seems to be omni-present in the article. When MS says "failure rate has officially dropped" may appear minor, but the "tone" seems to be an accusation or "rebuttal". Individually such things arent major, but taken together, the entire article has a very neg-pov tone.

I put this here so we can have a 'more private' discussion, and I'd simply like to ask you to consider what I'm meaning and possibly choose to remove it yourself. Well, you did add it, so I suspect you wish it to be there... :)

What do you think?

(oh, I have this page watched btw, so you may respond here.) Wageslave (talk) 21:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

You are right. That is redundant. I took it out. --8bitJake (talk) 21:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Great. Thanks. Now, If you wish, you're welcome to remove this discussion. Wageslave (talk) 22:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey send me an email at 8bit@8bitjoystick.com I have something relevant to show you. --8bitJake (talk) 22:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Could you send it to for8jake@anonymbox.com -- anonymous disposable, and I can collect it there. Is that okay? Wageslave (talk) 22:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure I will mail it tonight. --8bitJake (talk) 22:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I've not seen the messsage yet, did you send it? Wageslave (talk) 22:11, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Damn I hope my mail server is not acting up again, sometimes it has issues with sending attachments. I'll send it again using Gmail. --8bitJake (talk) 22:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wageslave RFC

Hello. I have finally gotten around to starting the RFC on Wageslave's conduct. Your name is listed as one of the people who tried to resolve the dispute with him, so you need to sign this section within 48 hours (named Users certifying the basis for this dispute) for the RFC to proceed in earnest. Thanks. Frvernchanezzz (talk) 06:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Jake: Thanks alot. Wikipedia just makes more sense now because of people like yourself and the others. I learned alot, and appreciate your help immensely. I will get my message out, but not here. So... thanks again! Have a great one man...
Randomblink (talk) 14:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] In a way I feel your pain

lol. My derby name was: Leper Kahn... I had a Lime Green 3 Piece Suit with matching bowler cap. I loved it.
My biggest frustration is still the fact that my wife needed that exercise. She has health issues, and that was the first thing (besides Belly Dancing) that she enjoyed doing that was healthy for her. Those girls were threatened by her! *shrugs* 'Fecking High School Mentalities...' Thanks for being cool man. Sorry I undid your post. I have to plead ignorance. I love Wikipedia even more now. But I honestly thought you were just 'sticking up fer dem bitches...' lol. I've already started posting in others areas, I definitely need more practice at this Wikipedia stuff, but I absolutely love the concept. Randomblink (talk) 17:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Don't give up on Derby

Jake, trust me. We were steamrolled. They had more girls 20 to our 5, and everytime we would get a new girl interested, they usually were just learning how to skate as well. The GCRG would target these girls and bump them, cut-em-off at public sessions, basically they would do what most herd-animals do. Aggressive activity to stop something that threatens it. I'll get together my thoughts, my 'parting shot' if you will, and send you a link. I'm gonna cover it all for the public. It'll be a good read either way. Anyway, thanks for everything man. Good luck to you and yours... peace!
Randomblink (talk) 21:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hello Again Again Jake

I'd like to appeal to you to review the RFC against me. Perhaps we've butted heads, but I believe we've reached a neutral position where we can work together. I believe that if you review the accusations against me -- other than our own acrimonious exchanges -- you'll see that they are being misrepresented.

Best Regards Wageslave (talk) 00:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GTA IV violence

I am attempting to build consensus about the "Pre-launch violence" section in the Grand Theft Auto IV article. Please feel free to contribute to the discussion -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 10:13, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] wageslave RFC page

Hi. I have put up a possible resolution to this on its talkpage, and I would like for you to post your opinion on said proposal. Then once you and if he bothers, Wageslave, have reponded, all the major contributors to the RFC have posted their opinion, we can then decide what to do next. Thanks Chocobogamer (talk) 17:42, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi again. I think you misread my proposal. I thought the same thing, that you shouldn't be punished. My proposal is purely regarding Wageslave. The only thing I've suggested is to not nitpick his fair edits. Which you don't anyway :) thanks. Chocobogamer (talk) 18:50, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] jake....gta 4

i was hoping u could do that for me.... i am at school and i cant get to the rockstars web page. Al1012 (talk) 20:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I didn't really understand your question. --8bitJake (talk) 23:10, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] blogs as sources discussion

Just thought you might find this interesting and wish to add your opinions. cheers, xenocidic ( talk ¿ review ) 15:58, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What's your WP:POINT?

I'm not quite sure what point you're trying to get across with the Battle in Seattle link, but it looks like you're beginning to cross that fine line where it looks like you're disrupting Wikipedia to make a point (which you shouldn't do) with your over-the-top description of the movie. Please make sure you maintain a neutral point of view when describing things. Thanks! SchuminWeb (Talk) 21:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] May 2008

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to WTO Ministerial Conference of 1999 protest activity. Your edits appeared to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR warning

It appears you have violated 3RR on WTO Ministerial Conference of 1999 protest activity. I am going to revert to the version prior to the 3RR violation, and I ask that you don't revert (excluding vandalism) on that article for 24 hours. Thanks! Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 01:58, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

You re-added the same content three times, after someone else reverted you. You've also been blocked five times in the past for violating 3RR. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 02:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

If consensus could not be reached, it should have been left alone. And you still violated 3RR over it. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 02:08, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Right now? You and I were the last two people to edit that article. Though, he got the same warning about 3RR as you did. If what you're doing is so important to you, start a request for comment over it, and let people discuss it. Additionally, please be civil on my talk page. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 02:16, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

And may I note that the article about the film also says its a dramatic film? Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 02:18, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

That is a weasel word. --8bitJake (talk) 02:26, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

How so? In the article, it links to another article about what dramatic films are. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 02:31, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did to Talk:Battle in Seattle, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 23:37, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

It is a talk page. I was talking about the subject of the article. Is that forbidden in your interpretation of the rules of Wikipedia? --8bitJake (talk) 23:48, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

"Talking" involves civil discussion, not calling a movie a "steaming pile of fictional hollywood box office bomb." And your comment about Gary Locke's accent appears to be racist. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 23:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

The film is racist. --8bitJake (talk) 23:50, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you read Wikipedia:POV before editing any further. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 23:52, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Gary Locke has no accent. I know the governor and have been a supporter of him for years. His family has been living in Washington for over a hundred years. The film game the character of “Governor” a extremely demeaning and quite racist accent. --8bitJake (talk) 23:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

It's a fictional movie, though. Fictional doesn't always equal the same as in real life Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 23:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

If it is a fictional movie then why the hell is it linked to from an article about an actual piece of history. That is a catch 22. You can’t claim that it represents a historical event but should also be considered a work of FICTION. --8bitJake (talk) 23:58, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

if i can just interject, talk pages are meant for improving articles, not to discuss the neutrality of the subject, in this case, you can use IMDb to bitch about the film. biased edits, either way, are simply not allowed on Wikipedia Chocobogamer (talk) 00:01, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, since the movie is based on the actual event, it's related. However, on Wikipedia, we go by group consensus, not that of lone individuals. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 00:03, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Well thanks. Chocobogamer I've been trying to improve these articles. They way they a stand they have a cheap fictional movie listed as a reference to a historical event that I just happened to be in. --8bitJake (talk) 00:04, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I think thats a problem in itself, you cannot remain neutral if you were involved. I'm a Brit, and I hate the way Hollywood is trying to steal what Britain did in the wars. I don't go to the U571 page and say the film is complete bollocks though. I think maybe you need to step back from editing these articles, make sure to yourself that you can neutrally edit them, then go ahead with it. Chocobogamer (talk) 00:08, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

All in all, Jake, you're a really good editor, don't let one article be your downfall. Chocobogamer (talk) 00:14, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

My edits are not about the event. It's about the fictional film that is being passed off as history. --8bitJake (talk) 00:15, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

And to add onto Chocobogamer's comments, may I suggest reading two policies that are suggested on our COI warning template:

• Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest
• Wikipedia:Neutral point of view

Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me)

again, read what i said bout the film U571. they tried to claim the americans found the enigma, which was in fact found before Pearl Harbor was attacked. Hollywood likes to edit films to attract audiences. Yes this is a problem, but you have to remain neutral on here. Chocobogamer (talk) 00:20, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

How are we passing it off as history? We have an article about the event in question- the film is simply linked to it as related to the event in question, since the movie was based on the event in question. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 00:21, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

1. editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
2. participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors;
3. linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam);

   and you must always:

4. avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially neutral point of view, verifiability, and autobiography.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see Wikipedia:Business' FAQ. For more details about what constitutes a conflict of interest, please see Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest. Thank you. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 00:22, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, please stop being incivil on my talk page. Doing so may lead to a block. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 00:23, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

By linking to the article on the fictional film from the article on the historical event it gives it more weight.

Most readers are not going to automatically equate the line “Dramatic film” with ficitonal. --8bitJake (talk) 00:25, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

how do you BOTH feel about the term 'loosely based'? maybe this is the best way to move along. Chocobogamer (talk) 00:27, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Conflict of Interest Noticeboard post about you.

Just an FYI, I have made a post about you on the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard. The discussion is here. Your comments would be appreciated. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 00:35, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

i think thats a little extreme. between us 3, theres 3 good editors here, we can come up with a suitable way of wording, but including it, in the article. Chocobogamer (talk) 00:38, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your arbcom sanction is still in effect

[[2]]

Please be aware, you have violated it a number of times recently. Weighted Companion Cube (are you still there?/don't throw me in the fire) 23:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

FYI, read this. Per that discussion, I ask that you please do what they suggested, or next time, I will ask for a topic ban. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 21:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Howard Dean Article

Hello! I just wanted to be very clear that I'm not trying to give you a hard time. I do feel strongly that criticism by establishment Democrats is very relevant to the story of the 50-state strategy--Begala's quote in particular has become famous. Readers might not undertand the significance of this section and this strategy if they don't understand that it faced serious opposition from Dean's own party. Gilbertine goldmark (talk) 00:10, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] DLC article conflict

I notice you keep putting the talking point about popular vote percentage. Usually, the DLC's critics much more often point to Congressional race loss and gubernatorial loss than percentage of vote. Not many use the talking point you keep putting on, as Bill Clinton got more votes than Dukakis, 45 million in 1992 as opposed to 41 million for Dukakis. Also, the only reason Clinton didn't get over 50% and got 43 percent is because of Ross Perot being in the race. Exit polls showed that in both 1992 and 1996 show that the pro-choice pro-gay anti-NAFTA Perot took equally from both Bush and Clinton. Also, more people voted in 1992 than 1988, so every vote makes up even less of a percentage of total votes cast. The articles I linked are not op eds, they are just transpositions of what the Voter News Survey found, so there is no "bias" in them. Bill Clinton also got more electoral votes than Dukakis, over 258 more than Dukakis. According to those exit polls, Clinton clearly would have gotten over 50% of the popular vote if Ross Perot had not been on the ballot. Clinton also was likely to do so because while he got 43, Bush got 37. Clinton only needed 7 percent to get to 50, which is 37 percent of Perot's vote, which was 19. Bush needed 12.6 percent to get to 50, and 12.6 of Perot's 18.9 is 66% of Perot's vote. These numbers assume all of Perot's voters would have voted without him, and that is not likely. Voting for Bush in that proportion also wasn't likely because Bush had approval ratings in the 30s and 40s in 1992 and Perot was a social liberal. So this notion of Dukakis doing "better" in the election than Clinton is absolutely ridiculous. Bill Clinton also got the most votes in 1992, he came in first, Dukakis did NOT get the most votes in 1988, he came in second. He also got more votes than Dukakis did. So this talking point about Clinton getting lower in pop vote PERCENTAGE means nothing, and isn't even used much by DLC critics.

A better talking point is how Dems lost Congressional seats in the '90s and lost governorships. Also, as the article was supposed to point out how critics think of the DLC, this talking point is used far more often than about percentage of vote, as people know that turnout in 1992 was higher, and there was a third candidate. When there are 3 candidates, people are going to vote for the third guy. in 3 way races across the world, candidates many times don't get 50%. not since 1931 has a PM in the UK been elected with over 50% of the vote, not in Canada since 1984, not Mexico since 1988, and the list goes on. Elections are usually won by who gets the most votes, regardless of percentage. That is how winners are chosen. Your bias is clear and obvious.Tallicfan20 (talk) 20:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Buddy, what the hell does my page history have to do with anything? Why do you carry it into a wikipedia page? Its because you know you have a horrid talking point with no excuse. You are a clear Clinton hater. You obviously hate me because I felt a different way about Wright than you did. But that should have nothing to do with the article. You are misleading people, I am actually putting a used talking point, not a limbaugh point.Tallicfan20 (talk) 23:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

And it looks like you are a Freeper with an axe to grind [3] --8bitJake (talk) 23:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

you're the one with the Freeper arguments. And now, its extremely OBVIOUS that you are a Clinton hater.Tallicfan20 (talk) 23:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

You don't own the DLC page either. I'm no Freeper. I a merely pointing out that the criticism of Dukakis getting a higher percentage is specious, as he not only didn't get the most votes in 1988, but he got less votes. You are implying Dukakis did better than Bill Clinton. By no real measure did he. He got less electoral votes, less votes, and did not gain the most votes in 1988, as Clinton did in 1992. Exit polls showed Perot did not elect Clinton, and I wrote more about that above. That criticism isn't even that common except among conservative Republicans and Freepers. I am no Freeper. The DLC article, with its "criticism" section is supposed to be about critics of the DLC, but the common argument against it is usually that the Dems lost Congressional and gubernatorial seats during the DLC's time, under Bill Clinton. You are misleading people about the DLC, Dukakis, and elections. The criticism you mentioned barely comes up and is completely invalid. The congressional seat one and gov. one IS the common one used by the DLC critics. Wikipedia is about being forthright and accurate, not misleading people. No one "owns" any pages, including you.Tallicfan20 (talk) 23:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I am a proud populist progressive patriotic American. I totally look forward to working together with you on this article! --8bitJake (talk) 23:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Then stop misleading people. Bill Clinton won the most votes, Dukakis didn't. Clinton's percentage was only lower because of higher turnout, and a 3rd candidate. When there are 3 candidates, each will get less in pop vote percentage. People vote for the third guy if given a chance. The argument about Congress seats and Governorships is used a lot more, and isn't completely misleading to people. I know you love Barack Obama, but I don't see why your bias has to find its way into information that is NOT supposed to mislead people.Tallicfan20 (talk) 00:01, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Jesus try breathing into a paper bag for a while. You might eventually calm down. The DLC lost control of Congress in 1994 because of their love of Free Trade deals. That is one of the reasons why they no longer control the DNC and have no power in DC out side of Joe Leiberman. --8bitJake (talk) 06:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

NO I will NOT cool down until you stop putting the meaningless Dukakis talking point back on the page. You are misleading people about the truth, and making people think Dukakis did better than Clinton in his election when he did NOT. I get you now. You point to my former talk page as your only excuse as to why you keep putting the talking point back on, but now I get that you are really just a Clinton hater from the far left. Face it: A MODERATE WON. He not only got the most votes both years he ran, unlike Dukakis, he got more votes either time, and still would have won if Perot were not in the race. I will keep reverting the Dukakis talking point because it is misleading and meaningless, and just a SAD attempt to "discredit" the DLC. If we can find an agreeable thing to put in, fine. But I will not let you keep putting that talking point in. it means nothing except to make the Clintons look bad. Oh, and the DLC still has power. Notice how Barack Obama supports welfare reform, is not completely against the death penalty, doesn't want to completely repeal NAFTA, and I could go on. Stop injecting your Clinton hatred in the article.Tallicfan20 (talk) 07:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

The DLC is in the dustbin of history. They lost and are completely powerless. Why do you want John McCain to win? Do you realize that your blind hatred of the Democratic process and the nominee that the Democratic Party has chosen only helps the Republicans? Why do you hate america? Man this kind of black and white vilification based on the littlest political trait can be fun. --8bitJake (talk) 08:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not gonna play f'ing games here. You are misleading people with what you keep adding back in the article. Bill Clinton won twice, got more popular votes than Dukakis, won more electoral votes, and unlike Dukakis, got the highest number of votes in each Presidential election in which he was. Dukakis didn't. Clinton was in a 3 man race, Dukakis in a 2 man race. YOU are the one being black and white, going by percentage of vote, but looking at nothing else. This is not about the DLC in anyway. Its about misleading people, something you are clearly doing because you don't like the Clintons. I am actually trying to make the article have historical gravitas.Tallicfan20 (talk) 08:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ANI discussion

I've started an ANI discussion about your conduct here. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 06:33, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll take that as a compliment that you think I'm an admin (I've never had the tools). Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 14:53, 12 June 2008 (UTC)