User talk:Bigtimepeace

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is Bigtimepeace's talk page, where you can send messages and comments to Bigtimepeace.
Archives: 1
Archive

Archives
In the interest of keeping conversations in one place, if you leave me a message here I will reply here (and possibly on your page as well if it's an urgent matter). Likewise if I have left a message on your talk page, I will check back for a reply.

Contents

[edit] Upstairs Recordings page deletion.

Hi, The Upstairs Recordings page was deleted by you. How do I get it back to revise it? Thanks. Buzz Rozwell (talk) 18:08, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Buzz, I'm pasting the entire text from the deleted article Upstairs Recordings onto your talk page. I would ask you though not to simply re-create the article. Wikipedia has certain standards for inclusion, and we do not have articles for every musical act, album, record label, etc. The article on UR did not give any indication that the company passed our notability bar which is why it was tagged for speedy deletion and then deleted. You are going to need multiple reliable sources discussing Upstairs Recordings in order for it to be a viable Wikipedia article. Again the full text is below, but please consider whether this label really warrants inclusion on Wikipedia, and if you think it does at least gather some sources before re-creating it. Thanks.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:35, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] IP Warnings

I noticed some threatening remarks on my IP talk page. Didn't even know I had one of those. But, in short... I've never heard of Tippiecanoe High School, much less been to the page, much less "vandalized" it. I would appreciate it if you would direct any comments to the appropriate person(s). This is your first and final warning. Thank you.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.105.128.37 (talk • contribs)

My apologies if you were offended by seeing various warnings as "new messages." Presumably you are looking at Wikipedia from a shared IP address, and someone else who uses or has used that IP address has in the past "vandalized" Wikipedia - that is they have deleted information, inserted nonsense, etc. It is standard to warn such users to stop their behavior and then, if they do not stop, to block them from editing briefly. In the case of shared IP addresses, folks who did nothing wrong will sometimes see these warnings but I'm afraid there's nothing we can do about that. You'll notice that below the messages I left (several weeks ago) there followed the phrase "If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make any unconstructive edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant warnings." Sorry if this caused you can stress, but leaving messages like this is one of the main tools we have to cut down on vandalism to the encyclopedia. Best, Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:29, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giovanni33

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giovanni33/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giovanni33/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Anthøny 23:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Congrats

On you successful RfA Britishrailclass91 (talk) 18:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Redirects

Hey there BTP, congrats on becoming an admin! (I think I supported you, actually...I'll be right back...) Ah, yes, #37! Anywho, on to business. I noticed that you closed the debate for Simsbury Public Library as merge and redirect (which is the right close BTW, nice work). If you'd take a look at this diff, you'll see that I made the redirect more specific, both by redirecting to a section of a parent article directly instead of to the top of the article, and by categorizing it as a "redirect to section". It's the preferred method of redirecting (or so I was told when I started closing AfDs. :-) Anywho, just pointing it out to you. Thanks for your hard work, hope you're enjoying your shiny new buttons! Wear the letters off 'em! Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Keeper for taking care of that, I actually had thought about redirecting it to the section but did not, I'll make a rule of doing this in future AfD closes.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Summer's here

So I expanded the Kool Herc article. That's about all I know, short of the Chang book which is on my shelf, but which I haven't consulted, since refs to chang were already in there. I skimped on brilliant prose :P but it's a decent article now, with refs. i dunno if there should be more on the economic background or the various subtleties of the relationship with disco or what have you. i stuck with kool herc, pretty much. take a look at it. 86.44.28.186 (talk) 22:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Nice work! That looks a lot better. I'm still a ways away from being able to work on this as I'm finishing the semester, but I think I'll be able to add some more detail. The Chang book is actually very good for that and I'm very familiar with it. I'll drop you a line on your talk page when I start in on it.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:50, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Excellent. I bookmark my contribs, so if my IP changes, rest assured I'll be looking in on my talk from time to time (that's my SOP as an IP editor). I don't think I'll be of much help, but if you do decide to try for GA I'll be there for any discussions that may crop up (for instance, if it is unclear what is sourced to what, or what source to use when Chang contradicts Toop, Ogg, or Shapiro etc.) 86.44.28.186 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 16:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

In case you are looking for more ever: Black noise: rap music and black culture in contemporary America By Tricia Rose p35 Published 1994 Wesleyan University Press 0819562750

  • p35 - DJ Kool Herc attended Alfred E. Smith auto mechanic school - Graf writer and dancer before DJ -
  • p51 - credited with innovation of using large speaker systems - Named his stereo system speaker Herculords - Made b-beats out of New Orleans Jazz, Isaac Hayes, Bob James, Rare Earth among others
  • p195 - Herc's style heavily influenced by Jamaican sound systems - Herc claims he could not get the crowd to respond to Jamaican music - Left hip hop after being stabbed multiple times during one of his shows

Reggae Routes: The Story of Jamaican Music By Kevin O'Brien Chang, Wayne Chen

  • p72' - Herculord speaker name - crowd did not react to Reggae music -Herc began to focus on mixing and left DJ'ing to Coke La Rock - Herc would soak his records in water to remove the labels

Enjoy, and thank you for your defense. I just wish others would see all of us New Yorkers were not the same person. Perhaps I will see you at the Wikimeetup. I think you might be humored by my job, and the similarities I share with some. User:Gr0ff being one. - IWritePrettyMuchEverything =)

Heheh, I'm currently reading the Rose book! And was intrigued by the reference to his speakers as Herculords, I'd never heard that before. Must mention that the Rose book should be of some interest to bigtimepeace, btw, an academic work with a little bit on hip hop coming out of a response to post-industrialisation (the context in which she mentions the auto-mechanic training mentioned above). 86.44.28.186 (talk) 14:24, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Come join the party

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Allegations_of_state_terrorism_by_the_United_States Inclusionist (talk) 05:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mulholland Dr.

Hello again! I would like to thank you once more for your assistance and support in writing this article, and I'd like to let you know that I nominated it for Featured Article. If you haven't read it in a while, please do so. I would also appreciate your comments in the FAC process. You can find the nomination here. Thanks again. --Moni3 (talk) 13:03, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey Moni, other things have distracted me, but I'll definitely take a look at the article again when I get a chance and try to comment during the FAC process (though I'm new to that). I still would like to add some new interpretive stuff at some point, but it probably makes sense to let it go through the FA process first. Good luck!--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Are you serious

You said you deleted the bio (Rotton) that I created because, it was not important enough? Am I confused, or what? I even put links in that bio, and was not fineshed. Will you please explained to me what I should do about that. You seem to be good at editing pages, maybe you can help me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rotton (talk • contribs) 22:21, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Rotton, I'll try to explain the situation here. Wikipedia does not include every possible article on every possible subject. We have certain standards for inclusion, key aspects of which are described at our notability policy. In order for a person, group, organization, thing, event, etc. to be notable, it must have received coverage in third party reliable sources. The article you started (which I assume is about yourself) did not give any indication that the subject was notable or had been covered in reliable sources. You seem to be an aspiring rap artist (and for that I give you props, I'm a big hip-hop fan myself) but there was no indication you have achieved any notability yet or been covered in secondary sources (simply having a web site or starting a company does not make one notable). If that's wrong then perhaps you could have an article, but you also might want to take a look at WP:FIRST and specifically the section on things to avoid, one of which is starting articles about yourself.
I hope that helps a bit, but if you have any questions don't hesitate to ask here.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Recognition

The Barnstar of Good Humor
For your outstanding feature film project, as described on your user page. I certainly plan on checking it out on opening weekend (especially if you can offer free tickets, if you have that kind of influence). Additionally, I find your cool and—dare I say it?—peaceful demeanor on Wikipedia inspiring. All the best. --Midnightdreary (talk) 04:08, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks so much! I'm glad I'm not the only one who found that film treatment mildly amusing. It's funny because when I first saw your message and read it too quickly I missed the "as described on your user page" phrase and saw only "outstanding feature film project" which led me to think "shit, they left this message on the wrong user talk page." So the joke was almost on me! Anyhow, thanks for the barnstar, and thanks again for your work on that "minor Poe" page. I love it on Wikipedia when I think, "it'd be nice if someone here could fix up such and such an article" and then after one talk page note and less than 24 hours later it's done. Oh and you'll definitely have free tickets when the film opens, which it undoubtedly will someday—at a theater near you. Best, Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RFA Thanks

Thanks for your support at my recent Request for adminship. I hope you find I live up to your expectations. Best, Risker (talk) 16:10, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NYC Meetup: June 1, 2008

New York City Meetup


Next: Sunday June 1st, Columbia University area
Last: 3/16/2008
This box: view • talk • edit

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, elect a board of directors, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the last meeting's minutes).

We'll also review our recent Wikipedia Takes Manhattan event, and make preparations for our exciting successor Wiki Week bonanza, being planned with Columbia University students for September or October.

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.

Also, check out our regional US Wikimedia chapters blog Wiki Northeast (and we're open to guest posts).
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks!

Thanks so much for your support in myRfA, which closed successfully this morning. TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 17:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Communication

Hiya, just checking, do you ever use IMs? If so, feel free to drop me a line. I do a lot of work on history articles too, and love to have Wikipedia contacts that I can bounce ideas off of.  :) --Elonka 23:24, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey Elonka, I am one of those strange creatures who is under 35 yet never uses IM (or IRC, the existence of which I only learned about in the last 6 months or so). I don't know why, that's just how it is! However I'd be happy to try to help on history related stuff if you wanted a second or third pair of eyes. You can always feel free to drop me a line on my talk page or send me an e-mail, which is enabled on my user page (e-mail I can handle). Sorry that I haven't taken the leap into the 21st century yet! --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:38, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Ah, I envy how much more peaceful your surfing must be, without IMs.  :) No problem, but I may take you up on that email offer!  :) --Elonka 23:40, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Apologies

Hi. As per Talk:Elderly_Instruments#Some_remaining_issues, apologies for any snappiness at my part. I don't want to discourage you at all. I was reacting probably in too much haste (I have in fact been trying not to contribute to WP during the week) to some part of the barrage that has afflicted that article over the last day or two. Again, personally I think it'd be best if everyone laid off the article for now, at least until Laser has returned. In the meantime, I think it would be truly excellent if you were able to spare some time at FAC and FAR. I think that the defensive reaction on the part of people such as SandyG and myself honestly comes from a sense that we do want more people to be involved in those processes. I'd be very sorry if I had inadvertently put you off. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 23:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your note, and no worries, it's all water under the bridge. I can certainly understand your frustration with some of the previous comments on that article. I'll definitely make a point of commenting at FAC or FAR in the near future. Like I said it's something I've been meaning to do and I've even dropped in and read some of the discussions, but felt like I needed to read a bit more about the standards. Actually I fully intended on commenting on this offering from Moni3 (I did a small amount of work on that awhile ago) but let too much time go by before it was promoted (as well it should have been). Anyway you can expect me to turn up over on the FA pages sometime soon. Best, Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:38, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I think I was mostly a little fired up by the claims that the subject of the article wasn't "notable." But there are so many different arguments swilling around following this particular article's unfortunate day on the main page, that everything gets confused. I've been trying to clarify over on Wikipedia_talk:Today's_featured_article, but to little avail, I feel. I'm actually quite sympathetic with many of the complaints made, not especially about this particular article, but in general about articles like it. I've expressed them myself at FAC. But it really does seem to me that FAC is the place to make (most of) those arguments. Anyhow, again, apologies; I didn't want to turn you off at all. There's nothing particularly magic or special about FAC, but it is the place where people try to hash out the standards for Wikipedia's best articles, and so (at least at present) to figure out which deserve to be on the main page, and which not. There's certainly no reason not to take part, beyond that is the inevitable pressures of time that we all feel. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 07:31, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

BigTime, thanks for your calm voice throughout, and my apologies also for any ungraciousness on my part. In terms of getting involved at FAC or FAR, here's a User's guide; hope to see you there! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:43, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Yes, sorry

It seemed centralizing the discussion made sense. My pet peeve, per WP:BURO, is deciding the fate of the content one article on the talk page of another article. As I had said, centralizing it seems like a good excuse to start the WP:CENTER page, even though I was wary that might look a little like I was forum shopping myself. I would have left you a note, but I just assumed you would notice pretty quickly. -- Kendrick7talk 07:53, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Like I said it was a mistake on my part to not place notes on the other two article talk pages, but that was just an unintentional oversight and could have been fixed in about 3 minutes. Anyhow thanks for moving it back, and apologies if my tone was a bit snappy. It's just that editing that "Allegations" page is so unbelievably tedious and I was dismayed to see that a lengthy talk page comment I had left was somewhere I most certainly did not want it to be. Now we'll see if either of these two discussions get us anywhere.  :) --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:17, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Not a problem. Killing two birds with one stone tends to annoy the birds so I knew that going in. Anyway, nothing else can phase me this weekend, because it just occurred to me that I could do this.[1] There's a year I'll never get back, so I'm not too keen to be sucked into WP:CENTER regardless. --- 08:40, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Your talkpage has become apology central. You should rent out the space.  ;) --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 08:20, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Ha! That's really funny because I was just thinking the exact same thing and chuckling about it. People who stop by here are really going to feel bad for me and the obviously shabby treatment I receive on Wikipedia. Why is it that I am constantly being wronged? What have I done to deserve this infamy? I am indignant! Indignant I say! I shall compose an ode to self-pity and post it post-haste. Actually it's probably just some strange karmic shift which portends a future in which I will be the one apologizing on user talk pages.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:29, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] My apologies

I just wanted to stop by to say sorry, too. I'm not sure why yet, but I'm sure I'll think of a reason someday. :)Giovanni33 (talk) 21:11, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Thanks for this

[2]. Saying it is deletionist v. inclusionist makes the protest against WMC make more sense to me and I can see that is a kind of content dispute. I struggle though with the rigth approach on the huge numbers of socks. On articles I watch closely I can and do spot obvious socks and indef block them. I don't think I am involved in a content dispute on those articles but it could always be argued that I am anywhere that I edit. But if I try to do this via ANI it takes me ten times longer putting together the historic diffs and getting pulled into a tar baby of an argument than it does for the sock master to create another account which seems disproportionate good faith. Plus no one has complained and many are confirmed weeks later when checkuser does another batch of them. So why not the same with WMC at allegations? Personally, I have to say I would run many of the edits I have seen the other way, but WMC is a consistent deletionist and there are lots of people's "pet" articles where his presence is needed. Also he seems to me to be pretty fair in general (again, he has unblocked an account I blocked correctly once). So lots of shades of grey in my view. --BozMo talk 20:41, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

It's fine by me if admins block folks on articles they have watchlisted and even make some edits on. But the block policy is fairly clear about not blocking folks with whom you are disputing. The article in question is one of the most contentious on the encyclopedia, and WMC has firmly allied himself with one camp. As far as I know he has only blocked users on the opposite side of dispute, though editors on his side have edit warred as well. Posting to ANI or the 3RR board might take a bit longer but is the way to go here. The fact is that editors on the other side of the dispute (many of whom are neither socks nor disruptive) do not view WMC as remotely impartial. The easy thing for him to do, and what he has been asked to do, is to lay off using the tools and let uninvolved admins take care of it. I would point out that there have been admins involved with this article in the past and they have generally refrained from using the tools. User:Tom harrison contributed regularly (coming from the deletionist camp) but I don't believe he ever took admin actions, at least since I first noticed the article almost a year ago. User:John (coming from the other side) has done the same. I've only been an admin for about a month but I would never dream of using the tools on this article (had I said I would I never would have passed RfA, with good reason). WMC's behavior is thus exceptional and I don't find it helpful in the slightest. I've expressed that and he rejects that view so if and when he employs the tools again I'll bring it up at ANI where I highly doubt that his behavior will be ratified. I don't want WMC to be sanctioned or anything like that (up until this point I'd only known him as someone who seems to do good work on the global warming articles), I just want him to let a neutral admin take care of any blocks, protections, etc. There's really nothing particularly difficult about that in my view and no one has offered any argument to the contrary which I find remotely convincing.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:58, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
"I highly doubt that his behavior will be ratified". Hmm. I think this issue even on this article as far as I can tell has been to ANI, RFC and Arbcom and he has had majority support from other admins each time, but always with a few outraged on the other side. Partly as a long standing bureaucrat he has a lot of community respect. Partly a lot of the time he is victim of many spurious timewasting allegations. Partly no one else has the appetite to take on the challenges in his place. But whatever the reasons I think if there is a need for him to change another tack is needed, however you choose your path :). --BozMo talk 07:25, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
I guess we'll see, ideally WMC decides not to use the tools any more at that article and then there's no problem. He has already had a couple of blocks reversed.. See this ANI thread where one admin unblocked because of WMC's involvement, and then another re-blocked saying "Wrong person, good block" (I think two admins disagreed with WMC being the blocking admin and one agreed, another admin complained about his editing over protection). Just a few days ago another block was reversed with this note. If it happens again I think it will be difficult for folks at ANI to deny that future blocks/edits over protection are not kosher. Some will of course, but this is pretty clear cut. Anyhow WMC recently reported an editor for a perceived violation rather than blocking himself which is good. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:16, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Yep I saw those. Anyway I think if there are other admins around helping with the socks it will improve. --BozMo talk 09:17, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] JzG RFAR merged with Cla68-FM-SV case

Per the arb vote here the RFAR on User:JzG is now merged with this case and he is a named party. Also see my case disposition notes there. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:29, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Notification

As one of the people who do like me (I think), I promised to invite two that do and two that do not, I am informing you of my appeal: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Request_for_appeal:_Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration.2FSevenOfDiamonds. Your comments, negative or positive are welcome. - I Write Stuff / SevenOfDiamonds

I've commented. I would be fine with an unblock but I think you will have to agree to some conditions, and even with that there might still be some who oppose an unblock. We'll see though.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:00, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Apparently it is not allowed to be discussed.[3] I hope you do not become overwhelmed by me posting articles here. I will try to keep them clean and behind a "hide" tag and in "nowiki" form, so you can just copy and paste. Odd, Merzbow says I am the one with a vedetta against WMC ... -SevenOfDiamonds/I Write Stuff/The Exiled —Preceding unsigned comment added by JessicaRamos2 (talk • contribs) 23:02, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] HG2TG

Funny, I was musing earlier today about this edit[4] and wishing I had added "almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea" to the list of possible definitions. I didn't know if anyone would get it though. -- Kendrick7talk 21:37, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Just FYI

Follow the edits in case you weren't aware. Not cool and he may listen to you. --DHeyward (talk) 23:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that Giovanni should stay away from that article since you've edited there for quite awhile and I'll leave him a note to that effect. However this was not particularly helpful on your part. I don't know how you would expect Giovanni to be aware of previous oversighted edits and whatever harassment was going on (since they were oversighted I obviously don't know what happened either). The content over which you are disputing is rather innocuous and certainly has nothing to do with harassment or the BLP policy (I understand some other content did, but that was not what Giovanni was talking about). Rather than insinuating on his talk page that G33 was taking sides with an editor who has harassed you or Scarborough or whomever you might have just said "I've been editing this article for a long time, we don't get along so please don't follow me there." Bringing up the oversighted edits only escalated the dispute when it could have been fairly easy for you to defuse the issue. One of the reasons I de-watchlisted the "Allegations" article is that too many folks on both sides are trying to escalate disputes, report for 3RR, start AN/I threads, etc. rather than just talking to one another (and obviously this spills over into other articles and parts of the encyclopedia). It's quite depressing. Anyhow I'll leave G33 a note and suggest he avoid the Joe Scarborough page.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I didn't expect him to know about anything. That's why I left the note. It's the third time he's claimed ignorance about harassment and for someone who obviously follows my edits quite closely, I find it hard to believe he was unaware considering he picked that article to revert me on and support that editors edits. Nor did I believe that he was simply trying to end an edit war by reverting me without an edit summary. Nor was it coincidence that after I explained the situation that he immediately filed a 3RR. I rarely edit the state terrorism article nor have I watched it for quite a while. Giovanni is well on his way to being banned for reasons such as this. He creates and escalates conflict. Before he arrived at Scarborough article, this was low-level BLP violations that were being handled by rollbacks. He escalated it to full protection which seems to be what he's best at. I don't think I've ever filed a 3RR on Giovanni or even an ANI. He seems to find me though. He harbors an animosity that is inconsistent with our interaction which is why I think he has many sockpuppets. At the very least, Giovanni3 should have assumed that I was using rollback appropriately and asked what was up if he had issues with the content on the Scarborough page. Since he didn't made any content arguments (just took a position opposite to mine), his real purpose is painfully clear. --DHeyward (talk) 07:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
G33 was not supporting the editor against you DHeyward, he was supporting the inclusion of the content itself - which is the way things are supposed to work. There is no BLP violation here as several editors have pointed out to you. If you had used the article talk page in the first place to explain your rationale for removing longstanding material - none of this would have escalated as it has into an unnecessary edit war. I don't think this was personal at all - originally. 72.92.4.157 (talk) 10:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Oh I forgot, G33 has a history of editing Joe Scarborough and has a history of supporting your edits. Oh wait. he doesn't He has a history of harassment and wikistalking my edits though. I wonder what motivated him then to show up and revert me .... --DHeyward (talk) 22:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm not aware of any such history.Giovanni33 (talk) 23:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I pretty much took Nov, Dec, Jan, Feb amd Mar off so after 4 months of being off, heres what I returned to:

Oh I'm sure there's "more" diffs into which you could read some sort of nefariousness on Giovanni's part, but for god's sake don't post them here. Perhaps you find this utterly fascinating and a good use of your encyclopedia writing time, but I am not interested in your catalogue of perceived slights from Giovanni (though I do find "forgets to apologize to me" - is that in our civility policy? - mildly hilarious). You asked me to say something to Giovanni about the Scarborough article and I did and now it's done. DHeyward, G33, and IP 72.92.4.157 can all consider this thread closed. Argue somewhere else if you must, or better yet quit sniping at one another, stay the hell away from each other, and go work on an article or something. This talk page is no more a battleground than any other page of this encyclopedia.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


Like I said elsewhere you have an amazing ability to see bad faith conspiracies, and a strange way to spin each of these differences in a quite misleading way. Here is my account of your differences:


Sorry Bigtimepeace, I only now saw your message. I consider this closed, as well. It is truly nonsense, however funny in perverse way. heheGiovanni33 (talk) 06:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ali Faik Zaghloul

It appears that I misread the last section. I was going through May 29 and misread your relist and comment as June 3 rather than June 8. I thought no one new commented in 5 days so I closed it. I'll reopen it. Wizardman 19:15, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Barack Obama

Thank you for making a commitment to preserving order and stability at the Barack Obama article.

I would like a commitment from the involved administrators that they are going to monitor the conduct of a small but determined group of exclusionists on these articles.

User:Life.temp gutted the article, removing a total of 732 words in two consecutive edits: [5][6] I placed the following warning on his/her Talk page and on the article Talk page: [7] He/she removed the warning from the user Talk page with a personal attack in the edit summary [8] and discussed this warning in two edits on the article Talk page,[9][10] proving that he/she had seen the warning and was aware of increased concerns about edit warring. Nevertheless, last night Life.temp again gutted the article, ripping out nearly 1,000 words this time: [11] None of these edits were accompanied by anything resembling consensus.

Now, everyone is signing up for Wikidemo's offer of a truce. [12]

Except Life.temp. [13]

It is obvious that Life.temp's goal is to expunge any controversy from the article. I request a block of at least 24 hours for Life.temp, plus a topic ban. Kossack4Truth (talk) 00:17, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Kossack, I agree that Life.temp's recent conduct has not been particularly edifying. I do not see a need for a block at this point but I directed a comment toward that editor on the article talk page laying out some concerns. However I don't see the problem as "one group of editors," and you yourself need to check some of your recent comments and behavior. Talk page sections headed "Massive POV push by a handful of exclusionists" are never going to be constructive, and there is almost never any benefit in commenting on the supposed motivations of other editors (about which, for the most part, you are just guessing). You say "Life.temp's goal is to expunge any controversy from the article" and that editor says "Certain editors are attempting to wage a political campaign in this article." What good does it do to hurl accusations of nefarious intent at one another? In the end neither of you come out looking very good. Please focus on edits, not the "goal" of other editors as you see it. I will try to keep an eye on Life.temp and future problematic behavior will likely result in a block, but I'd like you to alter your approach as well (and I'm not singling you out, there seem to be a lot of problems over there, but you just happened over to my talk page so I'm letting you know my view).--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:35, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
BTP, I would again like to thank you for stepping in on that article over there. I have discussed this via email with WorkerBee74, who agrees that your presence is needed and asked me to pass along WB74 gratitude as well. JJB said something over there that I think cuts right to the core of this matter: Of course, the Ronpaulicans capitulated for quite a bit more space being devoted to the controversy than the Obamanators are doing. The Obamanators simply refuse to compromise.
This refusal to compromise is essential to the edit war, and "the removal of the refusal" is what needs to happen here, in order for the edit war to end. The only tool that WB74 and I have had at our disposal is the revert. Now that you have stepped into this article with your admin tools, you have far greater ability to deal with what I see as the problem. This means that WB74 and I will feel no need to revert.
In particular, the Rezko matter needs to be sprinkled through the article, like the Ron Paul newsletter stuff needs to be sprinkled through the article. I know about the newsletter stuff and in the end, I can see that it was well handled. Jimbo said in one of the many essays that were cited at Talk:Barack Obama is that the goal is not to remove the criticism. The goal is to spread it evenly and proportionately through the article. It must be proportionate to its presence in the mainstream news media and other neutral, reliable sources, but we got plenty of that to support our debate in favor of inclusion of Ayers etc.
WB74 also offers his/her comparison with the other Wikipedia biographies of major politicians such as George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Hillary Clinton and John McCain. WB74 zeroed in on this major point:

:We should follow a format established in other Wikipedia articles about similar people: George W. Bush, Hillary Clinton, John McCain, John Kerry and Tony Blair, for example. When I review those articles, I am impressed by the broad and diverse array of names and political expressions I see in the Talk pages and histories of article edits. They form a very broad consensus of editors. Their consensus is as follows: critics of the politician who is the subject of the biography should be quoted and cited frequently in the biography. Controversies regarding the politician should be described in substantial detail in the biography, including bold headlines that clearly identify the controversy, such as "Whitewater," "Keating Five" and "Iran-Contra Scandal."

In those articles "summary style" hasn't been used to hide controversy elsewhere and make the politician look perfect. The opposite in fact. Controversy is dwelt upon at length. Critics are named and their criticisms are extensively blockquoted. Summary style is being used as camouflage here for an agenda: to systematically expunge any mention of any controversy from this article.

WB74 says that the biography style has been established in other biographies. He/she pointed out that until just a few short days ago, Hillary Clinton was involved in an active political campaign just like Barack Obama; and that throughout the primary campaign season, her Wikipedia biography contained entire sections that had the section headers, "The Lewinsky scandal" and "Whitewater and other investigations." Obamanators claim that those controversies were more important or more damaging to Hillary, and I would respond that this sounds like WP:OR to me. It is evident that the expert political commentary on the Wright and Rezko matters finds them to be potentially very damaging to Obama. These are reliable, neutral, solid gold sources available that say these controversies are notable. Kossack4Truth (talk) 11:17, 12 June 2008 (UTC)