User talk:Wikidemo
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Wine Project Newsletter
 Issue III - March 18, 2007 |
|
|
|
|
This newsletter is sent to those listed under Participants on the Wine Project page. If you wish to no longer receive this newsletter please include Decline newsletter next to your name on the Participant list. |
|
[edit] Wine Project Newsletter
|
Issue IV - April 1st, 2007 |
|
|
|
|
This newsletter is sent to those listed under Participants on the Wine Project page. If you wish to no longer receive this newsletter please include Decline newsletter next to your name on the Participant list. |
|
[edit] Wine Project Newsletter
 |
The Wine Project Newsletter! Issue V - April 15, 2007 |
|
| This newsletter is sent to those listed under Participants on the Wine Project page. If you wish to no longer receive this newsletter please include Decline newsletter next to your name on the Participant list. If you have any Wikipedia wine related news, announcements or suggestions drop a note in the Comments/Suggestion area of Wikipedia:WikiProject Wine/Newsletter. |
[edit] For a million random unrelated things, you deserve a...
(barnstar is on holiday...moving to my user page)
[edit] WP:TRIVIA
Could you accompany your assessment with a reply on the talk page? I dorftrottel I talk I 14:52, November 23, 2007
[edit] WP:WINE newsletter
|
The Wine Project Newsletter! Issue VII - December 8th, 2007 |
|
| This newsletter is sent to those listed under Participants on the Wine Project page. If you wish to no longer receive this newsletter please include Decline newsletter next to your name on the Participant list. If you have any Wikipedia wine related news, announcements or suggestions drop a note in the Comments/Suggestion area of Wikipedia:WikiProject Wine/Newsletter. |
[edit] WP:WINE newsletter
|
The Wine Project Newsletter! Issue VIII - December 22nd, 2007 |
|
| This newsletter is sent to those listed under Participants on the Wine Project page. If you wish to no longer receive this newsletter please include Decline newsletter next to your name on the Participant list. If you have any Wikipedia wine related news, announcements or suggestions drop a note in the Comments/Suggestion area of Wikipedia:WikiProject Wine/Newsletter. |
[edit] WP:WINE newsletter
|
The Wine Project Newsletter! Issue IX - January 7th, 2008 |
|
| This newsletter is sent to those listed under Participants on the Wine Project page. If you wish to no longer receive this newsletter please include Decline newsletter next to your name on the Participant list. If you have any Wikipedia wine related news, announcements or suggestions drop a note in the Comments/Suggestion area of Wikipedia:WikiProject Wine/Newsletter. |
[edit] WP:WINE newsletter
|
The Wine Project Newsletter! Issue X - January 31st, 2008 |
|
| This newsletter is sent to those listed under Participants on the Wine Project page. If you wish to no longer receive this newsletter please include Decline newsletter next to your name on the Participant list. If you have any Wikipedia wine related news, announcements or suggestions drop a note in the Comments/Suggestion area of Wikipedia:WikiProject Wine/Newsletter. |
[edit] WP:WINE newsletter
|
The Wine Project Newsletter! Issue XI - February 21st, 2008 |
|
| This newsletter is sent to those listed under Participants on the Wine Project page. If you wish to no longer receive this newsletter please include Decline newsletter next to your name on the Participant list. If you have any Wikipedia wine related news, announcements or suggestions drop a note in the Comments/Suggestion area of Wikipedia:WikiProject Wine/Newsletter. |
[edit] Imagine being called a Facist
... even if only of the liberal variety.
Did that upset you? Then imagine how a mainstream conservative feels about being smears as a jew-fearing conspiracy-propounding white supremacist.
The popular left-wing tactic of labeling conservatives as far right only works because most people who follow politics are completely ignorant of what the genuine far right is really like. There is nothing wrong with being ignorant of the racist right, but there is a lot wrong with not even attempting to understand why an established editor with a lot more expertise in the area recognizes that smear as a blatant violation of WP:BLP. If you want to educate yourself, you could start here. If you want more pointers, ask me. In the meantime, stop reverting edits that are required by Wikipedia policy.
Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living persons. Thank you.
BTW, you also violated WP:AGF. Stop. CWC 08:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- That's complete bonkers. Calling someone "far left" on a talk page isn't a BLP violation, whatever your idiosyncratic beliefs may be on the question. You're so far off base in understanding policy on the matter it's hard to know where to begin.Wikidemo (talk) 14:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] PLEASE ASSIST Continued vandalism by User:Blist14 on wiki article about Bill Ayers
New user, Blist14, continues to delete biography, references, external links, and categories from Bill Ayers wikipedia page, user has no other wiki history other than deleting items from Bill Ayers article, please assist and advise. It is me i think (talk) 15:39, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
- Blist14 has been blocked for vandalism. EdJohnston (talk) 16:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Expression of continued annoyance over continued vandalism of Bill Ayers article
Wikidemo, the Bill Ayers article is now semi protected. Will this reduce the vandalism? When I look at the history of the IP anonymous users and new wiki users, they seem to only be focused on the Bill Ayers article. It is quite annoying to keep making these changes, especially when I am not really at all interested in the subject matter. It is me i think (talk) 23:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
- I think semi-protection will tend to discourage random people from vandalizing and disturbing the article, and set the bar higher for people who are only interested in a single political issue rather than Wikipedia as a whole - also it discourages sockpuppets from creating multiple accounts to have their way with the article. There's a valid question about how much treatment to give the Obama link and how it could be described, and how much to describe Ayers and the Weathermen as terrorists versus simply a violent group. But you can't have that discussion if people keep assaulting the article to edit war over their point of view. Wikidemo (talk) 23:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Could you help me understand why Bill Ayers connection to Barack Obama is not notable for his article
Here is major news coverage I found on the issue:
Washington Post fact checker article
UK Guardian article on US President candidate Barack Obama's connection with Bill Ayers
UK London Times article on US President candidate Barack Obama's connection with Bill Ayers
2 major UK newspapers and 1 major Australian newspaper has event covered the story. In the US, you have ABC, New York Times, Washington Post, and the other listed. It seems to me, this is not worthy and not POV given all the many storie in the press. Please help me understand how this relationship between Obama and Ayers should not be mentioned in Ayers' article. thanks so much for your guidance It is me i think (talk) 07:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
- I have not had a chance to review all the articles. However, all that I have read from reliable sources describe the event solely as a partisan attack on Obama. None independently say that the circumstances show that there is a relationship between the two, and logically, they cannot based on the circumstances they describe. I don't think a person's name being used in a minor partisan ploy to taint a political candidate is particularly relevant to that person or to the candidate. Possibly an article about a particular round of political partisanship. Wikidemo (talk) 07:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- How can the situation be viewed as a partisan attacked when it was brought up at the recent debate by Stephanopoulus (a democrat) and Hillary Clinton (a democrat)? Also, Obama people mentioned they have a friendly relationship. So I would see it reasonable to mentioned they serve on a board together and Obama describes their relationship as friendly. Also, because of the perceived POV, the comment could be cited by 10-15 new articles listed above. Also, doesn't the new coverage show the notability of the relationship? thanks It is me i think (talk) 07:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
- Attacks by two candidates within the same party are also partisan. It misconstrues Obama's comment to use it for the proposition they had a relationship. The news coverage, again, is all in the context of the actual and presumptive criticism of Obama by his opponents. If the story develops enough traction in the press the story itself may be notable but the events underlying it are not relevant of their own accord. A good, extreme example of this is the Willie Horton matter. Wikidemo (talk) 07:53, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
- How can the situation be viewed as a partisan attacked when it was brought up at the recent debate by Stephanopoulus (a democrat) and Hillary Clinton (a democrat)? Also, Obama people mentioned they have a friendly relationship. So I would see it reasonable to mentioned they serve on a board together and Obama describes their relationship as friendly. Also, because of the perceived POV, the comment could be cited by 10-15 new articles listed above. Also, doesn't the new coverage show the notability of the relationship? thanks It is me i think (talk) 07:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
- I do understand what you are saying about how it could become noteworthy if the story develops enough traction. But I, your point about it being a political attack, is more appropriate for consideration for does the story have enough weight to be on Obama's profile. In regards, to having the mention of the relationship on Ayers' article, he clearly is getting significant coverage about his relationship with a leading presidential candidate and his connection to the candidate has, i feel, made noteworthy enough to be mentioned. What I am trying to say is because Ayers' profile is lower than Obama, it may be worth mentioning the connection, where mentioning the connection on Obama profile may not be appropriate. Does this make sense? Oh, and the reasons, I am having the discussion on you talk page versus the Ayers talk page, is I am trying to avoid fueling the fire of the discussion, but at the same time understand better how the information is presented. thanks It is me i think (talk) 14:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
-
-
[edit] Great call on the new article about 2008 presidential controversies and attacks
This should allow users to be able to explain what is being said and provide a great opportunity to provide endless documentation of the facts. Thanks so much, you are brilliant. It is me i think (talk) 21:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Wanted to give you a heads up, I removes the McCain receipt section under the 2008 election controversies
It just seemed silly. While, UPI and the Guardian did report it appeared Cindy McCain copies Rachael Ray's receipt in her piece which she submitted to the NY Sun, and the McCain campaign said the posting on its campaign website was the mistake of an intern, it doesn't appear significant. the articles by the Guardian and UPI were quite brief and the Huffington Post, I think it is a blog, so I am not sure if is meets the standards of a credible news source (not really sure because I don't know much about them). It was the comment of a candidate spouse about a recipe. It seems so insignificant that I am not even sure it is worth debating whether or not we give her benefit of doubt. Let me know if you have any thoughts. Wanted to just give you a heads up. It is me i think (talk) 22:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
- You mean recipe? Well, it was because I did one controversy for each to start it off balanced so nobody would say I'm playing favorites, and I really wasn't in the mood to try to dig up dirt on McCain. Most of it came from his wife's article, and then I added the bit about the Giada connection and the pasta, which I think is kind of funny. Surely there is some bigger scandal about McCain in this election, but perhaps he has had fewer than others. The Huffington post article only stands for the fact that it's the first place where the story broke. The info is reliable and sourced, a number of mentions in major publications, so the question isn't verifiability, it's what you said, is this really important and relevant enough to be in Wikipedia or is this trivia? I think it's an interesting story worth knowing about, but it says more about candidate websites and interns, and doesn't really impugn McCain himself. Incidentally, I think your Tony Rezko section is really long. Perhaps that scandal deserves its own article, or a pointer to a longer treatment, then a few sentences so people can pick up the main facts and then follow the link if they want. It's going to be a long election season and if every one of these controversies gets that much treatment the article is going to become huge! Wikidemo (talk) 22:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Good point, what I did was copied the Rezko story from the Tony Rezko article. though it would be more NPOV if I just copied what others have been right, copied most the other Obama controversies from either the Barack Obama article or the article from the campaign. Hoping this minimizes conflict and also the pieces appear well-cited, which is helpful. Should we just do seperate articles for each candidate? It is me i think (talk) 23:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] I found a phone number and address for a place of business listed in an article, is this something that should quickly be deleted
Do you know the policy about phone numbers and contact information on wiki articles? Sorry to bother you with this, just didn't know the answer. thanks It is me i think (talk) 19:51, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
- If it's nonpublished information, attempt to breach somebody's privacy, or something like that I would delete it without leaving a clue to call attention to it in the talk summary, and ask an administrator to delete the history. If it's something that anyone could just look up, I would delete it but not worry. It's a style thing mainly...It flows from WP:NOT#DIRECTORY.Wikidemo (talk) 20:24, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
it is published number. thanks It is me i think (talk) 20:30, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Ayres
You guys should both take it to talk, seriously. Kaisershatner (talk) 18:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
- Please don't equate legitimate edits like mine with POV-pushing edits to include inappropriate material in the encyclopedia. There is almost no chance those edits would stand up to review, and they are in a BLP. The editor has been repeatedly uncivil, so I see very little to gain by engaging him or her yet again on the talk page. Wikidemo (talk) 18:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
- So your edits are "legitimate" and mine are not? Where and when have I been "uncivil"? Where have I assumed bad faith about YOUR editing intentions? Have I ever dismissed your contentions as "unworthy of response"?
- If there is "no chance" my edits would stand up to review, then why not take it to review? I've noticed you advising other users that an "editorial" is not a RS. New York Times columnist Paul Krugman labels himself "Liberal" front and centre over his "editorials". Speaking for myself, I have no problem at all with having Wikipedia include facts cited to one of Krugman's columns, since I have no reason to believe that facts Krugman asserts are made up or shoddy scholarship. He's a recognized scholar regardless of one's politics. More importantly, however, is the fact Wiki policies do not exclude such citations. Would you consider refering other users to Wiki's RS policy henceforth instead of your own contentions about what is a RS policy and what is not? If policies are unilaterally and not collaboratively determined then I stand corrected.Bdell555 (talk) 19:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- You don't understand, Bdell. Wikidemo ASSUMES that his edit are legit and edits that do not agree with his are not legit. It is simple as that. You do not argue with Wikidemo. If he/she states that something violates BLP then it violates BLP. According to Wikidemo it just fine that there are two articles on Mel Gibson's drunk driving conviction. But Wikidemo believes that there should little or NO mention of Sydney Blumenthal's drunk driving conviction, get it? Just get with the program. Wikidemo can call your logic senseless and its ok because Wikidemo SAYS it is. He's not being uncivil. He's just telling the truth, man, get with the program. Just to be clear: I'm making a joke with the above comments and I don't believe any of it.--InaMaka (talk) 01:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Will you kindly raise such matters in the discussion area? I'm not going to engage in a side discussion on this. Thx, Wikidemo (talk) 19:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
-
[edit] Ayers listing of names
Is the listing of the names of there children necessary, the children are probably still living, although over 18. I can research if needed, but I am inclined to remove the names of adult children who were not involved, because they themselves, I feel are not notable. It is me i think (talk) 18:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
- it does appear the names have been mentioned for a while, I just their mentioned is unnecessary and not noteworthy. Mentioning, number of children, adopted/biological, male/female, is fine. It is me i think (talk) 18:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
- I tend to agree. Given the POV edit warring on the page you might want to wait for a quiet time. I don't know if there is a hard rule, but even in noncontroversial articles I would tend to leave childrens' names off unless they are public figures, have some notability, or are relevant to the article. Otherwise we're giving publicity to private people who may or may not want it, and cluttering the encyclopedia with facts that don't add to the article. It also makes the tone less serious because it's reminiscent of wedding announcements, obituaries, etc. In the case of a controversial figure like Ayers I think there's a stronger argument for omitting names of children unless it's common knowledge (which differs from simply being public information - we don't repeat everything just because it's out there). Wikidemo (talk) 18:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- On another article, I did mentioned the names of the persons to children and spouse, but all are deceased over 10 years ago, and the man was head of a company that was in the family for generations, and one son turned down the chairmanship and the other son succeeded his father (these two facts are not noteworthy and I do have great sources, so it is not mentioned in the article. Their names are simply cited as children. It is me i think (talk) 19:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] CSPI
Good work on the CSPI page, but I think you corrupted it slightly. I've had a go at restoring it. Candy Weintraub (talk) 18:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks. Those unclosed references will get you every time :) Wikidemo (talk) 18:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] TfD nomination of Template:Logo fur
Template:Logo fur has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — ViperSnake151 20:33, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] CSD edit back in September
Ah, good, you are online. :-) Would you have time to have a look at this discussion where I point out ambiguity introduced by an edit you made? I'd be grateful if you could comment there to say what the intent of the edit was and what you think "cleaning up redirects" was meant to mean - just a rephrasing of what was there before, or something new? Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 08:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Template:Furt subject belongs to
Hi, Wikidemo - I'm trying to do some organization and cleanup of image namespace templates...is the above template being used for anything? I noticed that nothing links to it. Kelly hi! 01:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
note - the below is by one of the many reactions I have to deal with when rooting out editing problems on Wikipedia. I would delete as harassment, but preserve as a matter of what one deals with on troll patrol. The editor, in the course of doing this, erased some of the old record as well. Wikidemo (talk) 15:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Civility Warning
For your comments on the discussion page of Sydney Blumenthal about me, here: Civility Violation #1.--InaMaka (talk) 19:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- That's one of the most civil messages I've ever seen here. Your warning is completely unwarranted. Kelly hi! 20:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- No. You are incorrect, Kelly. Wikidemo has stated that opinions that I have given "don't make much sense." Sorry, but if Wikidemo is going walk about and point his/her finger at other editors for civility then the finger is going to pointed back at him/her. Wikidemo needs to follow the rules that Wikidemo is trying to enforce. That's just the way that it works and your comment does not change that fact.--InaMaka (talk) 00:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- That's just tit-for-tat retribution from an editor I've warned about tendentious editing. It comes with the territory. Wikidemo (talk) 21:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- As for your comment on my talk page, Wikidemo, I have a right to express my opinion about your uncivil behavior. Please all communication with me. Your untruthful and uncivil comments are unwelcome.--InaMaka (talk) 13:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- Once again, I have asked you not to communicate with me any longer. Why can't you respect that request. Is it because you are acting in an uncivil manner? Of course, it is. Please curtail your behavior.--InaMaka (talk) 15:44, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- You did not make such a request, unless you are referring to the ungrammatical comment, above, which does not communicate that point. You are trolling, and I have a right to leave appropriate warnings on your talk page. You do not have a "right" to misbehave, and it is wrong to harass other users on their talk page whether or not they tell you to stop. That is the difference. At you request I will not attempt any other communication though.Wikidemo (talk) 15:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- Once again, I have asked you not to communicate with me any longer. Why can't you respect that request. Is it because you are acting in an uncivil manner? Of course, it is. Please curtail your behavior.--InaMaka (talk) 15:44, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- As for your comment on my talk page, Wikidemo, I have a right to express my opinion about your uncivil behavior. Please all communication with me. Your untruthful and uncivil comments are unwelcome.--InaMaka (talk) 13:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
-
-
[edit] AfD nomination of 2008 United States presidential election controversies and attacks
I have nominated 2008 United States presidential election controversies and attacks, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2008 United States presidential election controversies and attacks. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice?
Sorry to have left this step out; my bad. I almost never put up articles at AfD, so I'm not very good at it. I think I've notified everyone who edited the article more than once. Wasted Time R (talk) 19:40, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Just wanted to say thanks for your 'Keep' comment - well put! Flatterworld (talk) 19:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Second Life Spam
Hello Wikidemo, I am not so good at doing this, but I have a distinct feeling that this page Lerappa is spam. The user has no previous edits and appears to be a shill either for Amiee Webber, the designer or Second Life. Is there a way you could mark it Spam or non-notable? I am unsure how to do it. All your help has been really inspiring. TheRegicider (talk) 23:20, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- Hmmmm. Thanks. There are a few ways to go about it. It could be a sockpuppet account of someone who does other edits here. There are a few ways to do with WP:COI such as the notice board, sniffing out the IP address, and so on. And then purely as an editorial matter, it seems unreasonable to give so much weight in an article about an important company to a single relatively minor advertising campaign. I was thinking of trimming that back myself. I'll take a look. If a new WP:SPA editor adds something and leaves you may never know if they had a hidden agenda. But if the editor starts edit warring over trying to include irrelevant material, chances are the community will just reject the edits and that will be the end of it. Wikidemo (talk) 23:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- I've edited the article to be less spammy and include only two mentions of the designer's name. That should be plenty. Having the name in there a dozen times didn't make her seem any more respectable, quite the opposite. Even if it was created as a conflict of interest and promotional piece, there is some well-written encyclopedic content in there, and other than promoting the designer it is a balanced piece that includes some of the positive and negative things. I think it's notable as demonstrated by all the major news magazines writing about it. It's kind of interesting, really. So I would just shape it into a proper article and leave it be.
[edit] fyi
I responded, on Talk:David Frum to a recent edit you made.
I really do believe that the talk page was the appropriate place for your concern, not an edit summary. Geo Swan (talk) 11:02, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] conspiracy theory
how so? cointelpro is a conspiracy theory?80.42.23.192 (talk) 11:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Please Stop Arbitrarily Moving All Peoples Temple Mentions to Other Articles
I couldn't believe this, and it's across a number of articles where the subject is a primary participant in the discussed events. The extensive Peoples Temple involvement in, for example, Moscone's election in 1975 and San Francisco's 9-11 (Jonestown) tragedy during his administration certainly belong in Moscone's article, for example. I can't believe anyone would consider cutting this out, given the huge amounts of literature on the subject and the massive scale of the tragedy. Mosedschurte (talk) 04:46, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- I apologize for the harsh tone of this. After I was suprirsed to find that no such section existed in the articles for both Brown and Moscone (Jones two big supporters with which he was heavily involved), I spent a lot of time putting together the section going through some books and other info I have lying around. I was annoyed it was moved, which effectively deleted it in its entirety. Mosedschurte (talk) 04:46, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- I since have substantially cut down the content and moved it to subsections in both articles. Hopefully, this alleviates the "weight" and "relevance" concerns. Mosedschurte (talk) 04:46, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] about Bill Ayer articles editor
I've actually never been interested in politics when it comes to wikipedia. The reason I have been pushing to much against editors in some Obama related articles is because I've noticed that there are so many people that push POV for Obama. I'm just trying to balance things by calling out those that are being biased and pushing an agenda. QuirkyAndSuch (talk) 17:21, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is a place to write good articles, not to engage in name-calling over some people's attempts to keep derogatory election-rleated material out of bio articles of people who have little or nothing to do with the candidates. Wikidemo (talk) 17:31, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] changing Power in international relations
I wanted to ask you about changing the Power in international relations article (see talk page) because i noticed you have been undoing my edits and I think the template should change. I'm unsure of what to do because you keep leaving notes saying you're undoing my edits. ObamaGirlMachine (talk) 20:55, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- Nothing wrong with editing an article and you don't need my approval (but thanks)...but you could take a little time to think through how things are going so far before you do something so rash as to re-nominate all of the articles about Obama's relatives for deletion only a couple months after people decided to keep them. Particularly if you're a new user it's sometimes best to go slow at first, making smaller edits here and there to improve things while you learn what kinds of things fly and what don't, and get your arms around all the different policies and guidelines. As you can imagine, getting into something of current interest that people disagree about is a lot more controversial than making improvements to uncontroversial things. Wikidemo (talk) 21:16, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Hi
Tinucherian has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and happy editing! .... Hope you have forgiven my immature behaviour during this some time ago... Keep in touch -- TinuCherian (Wanna Talk?) - 07:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
[edit] Frank Marshall Davis
I reverted the vandalism for this one article, but would you mind checking this guy out? Thx. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Guitarlord123 Flatterworld (talk) 20:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- He seems to like pants[1]. One of our more innocuous vandals, kind of funny actually (not to encourage this sort of behavior). People like that usually get blocked, or find something else to do, in a few minutes. I can't imagine he would add the word "pants" to Wikipedia very long before he gets tired of it. He doesn't seem to be acting like a sockpuppet or mental case so I wouldn't worry about it (As much as I fight trolls and scold people I'm not an admin so I can't block him...). HTH Wikidemo (talk) 20:58, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Arbitration report
Hi Wikidemo. Please go here and state your claims: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Statement_by_Dario_D.
Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dario D. (talk • contribs) 08:18, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Re: [3] (a bit late)
I really meant
| “ |  omgbbqdramaz |
” |
because that's what characterizes the best most of the 542 edits and 209221 bytes of this page. Wikipedians are attracted to drama, not unlike a butterflies are drawn to the light or flees to a fresh cow dung. -- lucasbfr talk 12:39, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- Not sure about the entire acronym, but the bbq in the middle looks tasty. Wikidemo (talk) 12:42, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Orthomolecular medicine
Before dismissing orthomolecular medicine as "fringe" science, rather than as therapies rejected by the pharmaceutical-academic "mainstream," I urge you to look people up whose lives have been turned around from disability to paying taxes by this underacknowledged scientific discipline.--Alterrabe (talk) 12:45, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Alexander Stanhope St. George
I blanked a version that was universally agreed on the AfD page to be a blatant hoax article, being actively used for PR purposes for the benefit of the article creator. We should WP:DENY hoaxers the benefit of such free PR during the course of an AfD. Now, if you want to write an article about "Alexander Stanhope St. George" as a "fictional character", I think that is a strange idea, but it is not against policy to do so until the AfD is ended. When I blanked the version, there was no other previous version that was not a blatant hoax article, so there was nothing else to "revert" to. Thanks.--Pharos (talk) 17:18, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] WikiProject Food and Drink Newsletter June 2008
WikiProject Food and Drink Newsletter June 2008
- --Chef Tanner (talk) 17:03, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Request for comment
FWIW, Wikidemo, I've an identical discussion going on here. — Justmeherenow ( ) 06:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Bill Ayers election controversy
You appear to be involved in an edit war at Bill Ayers election controversy. Please slow down on the reverts and use the talk page and dispute resolution pathway instead of repeatedly reverting. Edit-warring may result in the page being protected or in blocks for participants. MastCell Talk 19:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the notice but there's no edit warring on my part that I can see. I made a single revert, spread out over several edits, to restore sourced content fundamental to the article and remove a bunch of junk that had recently appeared, thanks to a single tendentious editor. I did not revert any single part of it more than once, but there were so many edits over a period of time that my reversion also took several edits over time. As far as I can see the other editor involved was doing the same. The article has been stable for some time, so a reasonable effort to counter the effects of an editor making a complete mess of it isn't really edit warring. Wikidemo (talk) 19:35, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Obama vote
Hi would you mind simplifying your reason for your vote. Youve added a lot of stuff that isnt relevant to this specific issue. Dont worry though, you will be able to make your other thoughts when we come to those issues. --— Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 01:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
- Sure. I'm not sure that the "divide and conquer" approach is really going to guarantee a smooth or legitimate outcome, but I'm game. Wikidemo (talk) 02:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
- Cheers, i see your concerns, but i think this is the closest we have ever come to peace, i have faith in it. — Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 02:07, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Weigh in?
Perhaps you can take a look at: Template talk:Barack Obama. It's rightfully protected, but it seems like a clear editprotected matter (both of them). LotLE×talk 19:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] 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
|
- Ha! I feel like Mr. Obama has personally reached out to me here on my Wikipedia page. Wikidemo (talk) 00:39, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Racists
If you perpetuate a racist ideology, you are a racist. Calling a racist "racist" is not a personal attack: it is an accurate description of his/her character. 71.195.153.149 (talk) 17:37, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
- Someday you may realize how misguided that is. Meanwhile, whatever you may believe in your heart do not call editors on Wikipedia racists for honoring the overwhelming majority of sources, including the candidate himself, that refer to mixed race people like Obama an "African American". Wikidemo (talk) 17:44, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, the light has blinded me from seeing that most wretched day. So, I still stick by my claim that if you perpetuate the one-drop rule, you are indeed a racist. There is no denying it. Also, please don't live biased commentary under my post. ;) 71.195.153.149 (talk) 18:07, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the response. Nobody is going to stop you from believing what you want to believe. I think I understand, and might even agree wit you in an abstract sense. People who accept and use racist language are racist in that they're perpetuating racism, even if they don't have any active malice in their hearts. The classic example is people who fly the confederate flag, claiming it isn't about slavery. I personally don't think that's the case here because our job here is to report the mainstream of thought, not to make judgments about it. But even if it were, it's simply against the rules and upsets the cooperation we need to edit an encyclopedia, if you call people racist here. Certainly you've been in situations where you have to hold your tongue and others where you don't. You can't reasonably expect that you're going to convince people to stop using the term "African-American" on the Obama page, or in the campaign. The best you can do is make them aware, and plant some doubt in their minds. If enough people find the term offensive and speak up, for long enough, the language and awareness could change. I think you'll get to people faster if you don't personally call them racist. You could say the same thing, probably get to people faster, by simply saying that you find the term racist and wish people wouldn't use it.Wikidemo (talk) 18:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
- I don't find the term African-American racist: I find people calling someone with just as much "white blood" as "black blood" solely African-American racist. I understand what you're saying about causing disruption in the already turbulent talk-page; however, approaching this acquiescently hasn't proven the least-bit useful in the past. Every time there has been something in the article's introduction explaining his biraciality (w?), it ends up getting removed by some editor. It's just frustrating. 71.195.153.149 (talk) 18:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
- Understood about the distinction. I think usefulness has to be judged in small increments. You're kicking a very heavy object if you want people to call Obama biracial, like playing soccer with a bowling ball. Practically, I doubt you could get that to replace "African American" in the first sentence of the lead, but you might find people agreeable to including the term somewhere in the lead, and more detail elsewhere. As with everything around here, the best support is to find good sources that describe it and make te distinction. I think America (and with it, those Americans on Wikipedia) are just coming to terms with race in the first place. Many aren't even aware that there are multi-racial issues as well. Wikidemo (talk) 18:48, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
- I don't find the term African-American racist: I find people calling someone with just as much "white blood" as "black blood" solely African-American racist. I understand what you're saying about causing disruption in the already turbulent talk-page; however, approaching this acquiescently hasn't proven the least-bit useful in the past. Every time there has been something in the article's introduction explaining his biraciality (w?), it ends up getting removed by some editor. It's just frustrating. 71.195.153.149 (talk) 18:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the response. Nobody is going to stop you from believing what you want to believe. I think I understand, and might even agree wit you in an abstract sense. People who accept and use racist language are racist in that they're perpetuating racism, even if they don't have any active malice in their hearts. The classic example is people who fly the confederate flag, claiming it isn't about slavery. I personally don't think that's the case here because our job here is to report the mainstream of thought, not to make judgments about it. But even if it were, it's simply against the rules and upsets the cooperation we need to edit an encyclopedia, if you call people racist here. Certainly you've been in situations where you have to hold your tongue and others where you don't. You can't reasonably expect that you're going to convince people to stop using the term "African-American" on the Obama page, or in the campaign. The best you can do is make them aware, and plant some doubt in their minds. If enough people find the term offensive and speak up, for long enough, the language and awareness could change. I think you'll get to people faster if you don't personally call them racist. You could say the same thing, probably get to people faster, by simply saying that you find the term racist and wish people wouldn't use it.Wikidemo (talk) 18:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, the light has blinded me from seeing that most wretched day. So, I still stick by my claim that if you perpetuate the one-drop rule, you are indeed a racist. There is no denying it. Also, please don't live biased commentary under my post. ;) 71.195.153.149 (talk) 18:07, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Re edit
@ Ayers. While I experience disinclinations to specify what the business of Weatherman was and therefore the whys of notability as rendering text that's pretty leathery and colorless, I suppose others experience prose that pointedly summarizes controversial material as sensationalistically juicy and rare. — Justmeherenow ( ) 22:26, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
- Point taken. It depends on the specific article and the word in question...dry prose is sometimes a good way to avoid dispute. On the other hand if writing about something noncontroversial like a cartoon rabbit one can be a little more evocative without anyone minding. Cheers, Wikidemo (talk) 22:52, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Rezko
Please self-revert your Rezko-related edit. It is factually-inaccurate (media scrutiny came before conviction) and lacks a reference. Furthermore, the indictment and conviction of Rezko is not at all related to Obama. Mentioning these details in the biography implies wrongdoing on the part of Obama, and therefore is a pretty serious violation of WP:BLP ("do no harm", details should only be about the subject of the article). -- Scjessey (talk) 16:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- If it's inaccurate I'll change the description. However, stating that the deal lead to scrutiny of the relationship seems to e misleading. The relationship and the deal were both scrutinized because of Rezko, not because they happened. No plausible BLP vio there, and the citation already there is the source. BLP does not exist to protect Obama against controversies arising over his Presidency, and as a convicted public figure Rezko doesn't have an interest in hiding his convictions. Note that I didn't add the material, I'm scaling back a bold removal of the material that seems to have happened without and perhaps against consensus.Wikidemo (talk) 16:59, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- Okay, after reviewing the sources in the paragraph it's clear: (1) Rezko was under indictment at the time of the transaction; (2) the scrutiny (and Obama's view of it) goes both to dealing with a corrupt person as well as dealing with a campaign fundraiser; (3) I could find no way to word it that did not seem to implicate Obama so I re-added the part that Obama was never accused of wrongdoing; and (4) the scrutiny is not over a "relationship" but over the dealings and potential for quid-pro-quo that occurred in that relationship. I think the coverage as rewritten captures that. It was rather bold of you to condense that material in the first place. I would have done the same. Consider this a correction that may lead to consensus and stability, not an attempt to introduce anything new that is controversial. Wikidemo (talk) 17:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Please follow up
This has been sitting around for a while. Please respond to it. Noroton (talk) 19:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Thanks
I appreciate your comments. I think I've said this before, we may disagree on some things but I trust your sincerity, too, and every now and then I think you're going to convince me about something. All I'm doing is going through the articles I've found and adding whatever seems to fill a gap in the article, positive, negative or otherwise. The thing about Ayers is that there's a simplistic positive view and a simplistic negative view out there, and neither is correct. I think some criticisms of him are devastating, and some defenses are the same for the critics, but I'm going wherever the sources take me. Noroton (talk) 02:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
- Well, believe it or not my personal opinion of him is not at all positive. But I do think that if the facts are presented in a neutral way people can come to that conclusion for themselves. Thanks again, Wikidemo (talk) 02:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Obama Article
I'm sorry but i'm fed up of it as a 'mixed' race individual, and so is most of the mixed race population. We should determine how we label ouselves, not the media, not black or white people or even Obama himself. It is accurate to say he is of dual heritage whether others like it or not. There shouldn't even be an issue about this... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Invertedzero (talk • contribs) 03:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
- Well, true. But Wikipedia is not at the forefront of social change - it brings up the rear. There's plenty of room in the article, and even the rest of the lead, to talk about his mixed heritage...if you can find some strong, reliable coverage of the issue. There must be some. There is no question of his immediate ancestry, but all the major media are reporting that he is the first AA major party presidential candidate and that seems to be how he publicly self-identifies. So I think it will be a hard case to make as a primary adjective to describe Obama in the first sentence. There's a longer term issue of changing the discourse and awareness in the United States and the world. More power to you if you can, just be careful...and please don't edit war. You might notice there's an edit war brewing on another issue, and I have a feeling a number of editors are going to be blocked or even banished over that. You probably don't want to be on the scene in your own dispute when that happens. Wikidemo (talk) 04:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Huh?
- Also: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Lulu_of_the_Lotus-Eaters - an odd sock puppet that could be another piece of this puzzle - Wikidemo (talk) 04:35, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
- Read between the lines. If the SSP report is as baseless as you think, then the administrators at AN/I will figure that out for themselves. They hardly need me to tell them. So the word "odd" says all I felt like saying about it. The more I protest about what's going on at the Obama article the more I look like part of the problem. So I'm laying low and urging cooperation...a simple link is enough. Cheers, Wikidemo (talk) 05:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] AN/I silliness
Have you seen this nonsense yet? The funniest bit is when the single-purpose agenda account demands that we get slapped with a six-month ban. Anyway, I wanted to thank you for the comment you left on my talk page. I was going to take a three-day wikibreak this weekend, but I might just start it now. I'm tired of being accused of being biased, when all I want it to make sure the article follows Wikipedia's policies. I can't even vote in the election, so I'm at a loss as to why these editors should describe Bill Clinton as "my man". I'm a Thatcherite, for goodness sake. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
- You may wish to plead your case. By which I mean acknowledge that your reverts, which you intended in good faith, might be perceived as being part of the edit war and promise not to do it again. You might want to do that without lashing out against (but without validating either) some of the bizarre nonsense you mention. I think the administrators know that one group of editors has been a lot more belligerent and problematic, but as I noted in cautioning you last night, at the moment they decide to do something, anyone left fighting, or expressing hostility, at the moment is perceived as a problem and is going to get a time out. Think of it as being spotted in a fight the moment police arrive. They perceive their immediate role as breaking up the fight, not to figure out who started it or whose underlying grievance is legitimate. I would hope some of the administrators take the time to review the edit histories of the people involved for possible sock puppetry and long-term tendentious editing, problems that go beyond just getting people to stop a revert war. Sometimes that wider review happens; usually it does not. Wikidemo (talk) 17:10, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Thanks.
I was about to write up the 3RR report, but I'll let you handle it. I'm noticing suspicious similarities between certain users' edit summaries, and may submit an RFCU in the interim. We've clearly got a large group of good-faith editors (so-called "inclusionsts" and "exclusionists" alike) willing to build the article, but there're a couple who've got no regard for the Talk page whatsoever. Don't worry too much, things'll be fine once they've been dealt with. Shem(talk) 18:14, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
- I re-opened the last 3RR report, if that is possible. At least I tried to. I'm very unclear on the procedure....I'll see what happens. I'm preparing to notify the AN/I and a courtesy notice to Workerbee74 about the 3RR report. Wikidemo (talk) 18:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Reliable sources
I find some of your remarks ("I imagine we would deride most popular music there as simplistic and uninspired...") on Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources sufficiently off-base that I thought I'd come over here to discuss them rather than respond in such a public forum. To me, your remarks read as if you are just imagining what academic literature would be without ever reading any, and I figured I'd come over here so I could say this a bit more privately.
For example, in my experience, musicologists give death metal more respect than anyone other than metalheads, and an American Studies professor who focuses on the 20th century is going to have at least as much to say about Leiber and Stoller as any music critic. Not to say there isn't a certain amount of bullshit on popular culture to be found in academia, but in my experience it is more likely that academics will "discover" non-existent depth in a piece of popular music than dismiss it as "simplistic and uninspired".
As for "discuss social problems in terms of oppression of the majority culture", it's hard to say much more that "huh"? Are you saying that academics tend to defend the status quo and view the mainstream as somehow oppressed? No doubt some do, as do some of any other group. I'm sure you can find some Indian academics among the ranks of the BJP, and so forth, but in the U.S. and many European countries far more critical questioning comes out of academia and academic presses than out of the newspapers or (certainly) television.
Causation, as Redheylin accurately said in responding to you, is an explanatory principle, not a natural phenomenon.
"Jesus will save the oppressed": I have no idea where this came from. Are you saying that academics have a bias in favor of some kind of quietist Christianity? This just strikes me as bizarre. - Jmabel | Talk 21:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not an academic but I've read a fair amount of academic literature. Much is reasonable within its area of expertise, some is quite iconoclastic, biased, or nonauthoritative. Not academic literature but I recall a textbook my college classmate showed me on music appreciation that, as often happens, gave only a single chapter to 20th century classical and pop music. It concluded with a paragraph to the effect that most popular music is unsophisticated and of little interest, with the possible exception of the Beatles, who showed some degree of harmonic complexity in their works. I've found similar arrogance and bias in quite a few other fields - and in fact studied the issue a bit in academic pieces on history and philosophy of science. Perhaps a textbook is not a peer-reviewed journal piece, but the discussion in talk space was more broadly addressing the question of academic sources. The whole discussion over at WP:V is a bit arrogant and ivory tower. If you look at actual articles in article space, most of them are unsuitable for academic sourcing. It simply does not apply. I can understand the impatience with pseudoscience, fringe theories, etc., but most of the world does not look to academia as an unassailable source of knowledge. Our job as an encyclopedia is to present knowledge, not to favor one school or another. There are other regimes of understanding, e.g. law, news, and government records. As to you "huh" question the "of" is used in the sense of "by" - the majority culture oppresses minorities. That's dogma, and the predominant explanatory tool, in some circles of social science. Nothing wrong with that analysis, mind you, and perhaps true, but it's just one perceptual lens. It's a position, and not authoritative. And yes, much academic literature talks of causation as a natural law. It depends on the field. It's only when you get to philosophy of science, or metaphysics, some of those other things, that you actually get to a critique of causation. Of course in law, causation is something entirely different. I don't remember what I meant by the Jesus example, probably that in liberation theology that is the premise, something having to do with acceptance of Jesus or working of Jesus serving to liberate oppressed people throughout the world. You won't find that in most mainstream academia, but certain religious scholars for sure. Wikidemo (talk) 21:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Your agreement at Barack Obama
I have just posted the following in response to your offered agreement at Talk:barack Obama.
I am eager to not only agree, but to defend the agreement. I will do my best to keep the inclusionists (my side) from breaking the agreement. (I point out that this will mean I'm going to try to deal with such hot-tempered folk as Fovean Author and, when they inevitably return from their blocks, WorkerBee and Andyvphil.) You must, in turn, do your best to keep the exclusionists (your side) from breaking the agreement. (That includes Life.temp, Scjessey and Lulu.) Do you agree, Wikidemo? Kossack4Truth (talk) 23:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
