User talk:Redddogg

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hello Redddogg! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking Image:Signature icon.png or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Smee 17:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Getting started
Getting help
Policies and guidelines
The community
Things to do
Miscellaneous

Smee 17:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC).

Contents

[edit] DYK

Updated DYK query On 25 November 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Barack Obama Muslim rumor, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Rudget talk 18:34, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. That rocks! Redddogg (talk) 21:40, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Barack Obama Muslim rumor

An article that you have been involved in editing, Barack Obama Muslim rumor, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barack Obama Muslim rumor. Thank you. --HailFire (talk) 07:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. Redddogg (talk) 05:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Barack Obama media controversy

An editor has nominated Barack Obama media controversy, 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 media controversy 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) 18:59, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Copy edits

Hi, Redd Dogg. I liked your copy edits - and your comment - here. Keep up the good work! :-) --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Ed. Redddogg (talk) 16:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for the Barnstar. My first. I've not given up on Barack Obama media controversy yet, though. The closing admin has admitted, in essence, that he closed the AfD on the basis of nosecount without considering the strength of argument, which is contrary to policy. [1]. If I can't get him to reverse his decision I think there are grounds for a deletion review in that admission. And the subject continues to get attention. Daniel Pipes has written a column on the subject,[2] MediaMatters has authored a response,[3] and Pipes another article[4] that I haven't looked at yet but I assume is a futher response. And the media performance has continued to be abysmal. MSNBC quoted Obama saying "My mother was a Christian from Kansas"[5] while reassuring some lady in a South Carolina coffee shop about his own Christianity, and not a single RS has picked up on the fact that this is a howler. As an atheist myself, I don't have a problem with Obama's mother being one (iaw "best friend")[6] or an "agnostic" (Obama's half sister)[7] or a "professed secular[ist]" (Obama himself, before he was running),[8] but shouldn't the newsmen trailing him around the country have pricked up their ears when they heard him fib? Andyvphil (talk) 09:47, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Another factor might be that the mainstream does not want to admit that many sincere Christians are political liberals, favoring a more socialistic economic and social system for instance. Then there is a desire not to make Hillary look bad. I am keeping an eye on the Obama campaign article to make sure some of the info stays there. Keep up the good work. Cheers. Redddogg (talk) 17:05, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
There is clearly media bias in favor of Obama vs Clinton (the period between Iowa and New Hampshire was particularly revealing), but I don't think it's policy-based. They are simply fully embedded in a political and quasi-religious culture where the race issue has a saliency that trumps even feminism. My favorite example of this is how Ken Burns made "Baseball" into nine "innings" about race, rather than just one, but this has not gone unremarked by others. (My favorite example of that being a collection of joke "headlines" about a meteor hitting the earth, each illustrating the peculiar interests of it's source: e.g., WSJ "Meteor hits Detroit: Market Falls", and most memorably, NPR: "Meteor hits Detroit: Minorities disproportionately affected"). Anyway, an alternative to simply undeleting Barack Obama media controversy is to use it as a basis for an article with a more comprehensive title. I think the real subject is how his religion and religious connections has been represented falsely by all sides, and what effects it has nonetheless had, and what comments have been made about the significance of this. I mean, it's a lie to to say he is a Muslim, stupid to think that his exposure to Islam is going to make him disloyal, but true that he and his campaign have been misleading about his past. And that the media have been oblivious or complicit in the last, which must mean something. And there may have been electoral effects, though teasing this apart from race questions may be difficult. Anyway, this is clearly a serious and encylopedic subject with numerous "reliable sources" for its aspects... Can't say I have a title, yet, though. Andyvphil (talk) 01:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

...I'm still working on the article in userspace: "At the end of January, 2008, after Obama won the South Carolina primary but captured only a quarter of white Democratic voters, CBSNews.com's Senior Political Editor Vaughn Ververs was still pointing to the Iowa emails and Kerry's statement as 'stok[ing] the racial fires'. [9]" Andyvphil (talk) 12:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

FYI I filed for a deletion review on this a few days ago. [10] Andyvphil (talk) 14:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Let me know what happens. Redddogg (talk) 04:20, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Parry & Obama

Hi, Redddogg -- Just wanted to let you know that I've removed Robert Parry from the list of people who have endorsed Barack Obama. I'm rather perplexed by your addition of his name to the list, because the article you cited, "Obama, Clinton & GOP Attack Machine", is merely an assessment of their relative strengths & weaknesses that doesn't come anywhere near being an endorsement. If you've got another source that does verify an endorsement by Parry, please let me know (though I must say, I would be a quite surprised to see him make an outright endorsement of anybody). Regards, Cgingold (talk) 10:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

It seemed like an endosement to me. I could be wrong about that however. Redddogg (talk) 18:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hi Redddogg, do I owe you an apology?

I've been editing in some pretty controversial areas, sometimes I'm a little testy when I run into the resistance, and (without recalling anything specific) I hope I haven't gotten sideways with you somewhere along the way. I've noticed that you make some pretty fine edits, and also have a generally good relationship with conflicting editor POV's. I'm still pretty new here and could use some objective input from your (more experienced) POV.

Feel free to comment on my talk page or send me an e-mail if you want to be really candid.

Also, if you have time/interest, can you look in on the situation here and either comment there or offer some personal guidance?

Thanks, WNDL42 (talk) 21:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Redddogg, thanks for the note on my talk page. Will you be enabling e-mail any time soon? WNDL42 (talk) 18:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Good idea. I will go ahead and do that. Redddogg (talk) 20:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bold move...

I like it. Be bold.

WNDL42 (talk) 01:53, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Love bombing

In the article Love bombing, Henson keep adding a section about his own article which presents a theory full of gaping holes. It's no wonder - he has no psychology research training. He just keeps adding the section, no matter what. I appreciate the fact that you have paid some attention to the article recently, and reverted his addition. I though you might like to know that he just keeps adding it. I guess for him it's just a matter of a brute force power struggle. -Exucmember (talk) 18:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Images

You recently removed Image:Jack Chick frame.png from Jack Chick with the edit summary "copyrighted image removed". Please be aware that Wikipedia's image use policy does allow limited use of copyrighted images, provided they have a valid fair use rationale for each article in which the image is used. As the above image has a valid fair use rationale for the article, I have restored it. If you feel the fair use rationale is not valid, the appropriate response would be to nominate the image for deletion. Natalie (talk) 17:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I will do that. Redddogg (talk) 17:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Good catch

I didn't even think to check the categories on Jack Chick. Good catch! Natalie (talk) 02:58, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of United States journalism scandals

An editor has nominated United States journalism scandals, 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/United States journalism scandals (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) 22:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)