Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:25, 13 February 2009

Archive 1 2

At the moment I have far less time available for Misplaced Pages.

In the immediate future, I will only be here for an hour or less per day and not even every day. Leave me a note if there's something I should pay attention to in particular.

The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		I'm awarding you this RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar for your great contributions to protecting and reverting attacks of vandalism on Misplaced Pages. Wikidudeman 20:28, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I invite your comment

Here: Template talk:Obama family#Ugly. Thanks. Just tips me hat but then 〜on thought bows deeply … 00:12, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Dreams from My Father

Hi Loonymonkey, since you had an opinion earlier, if you have a chance could you look at the ongoing discussion at Talk:Dreams from My Father#Real people? Thanks, Priyanath  23:48, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Uncivil

My comments about his chose of words was uncivil??? I was pointing out his lack of sensitivity in using such highly charged language in a discussion about jews when the first stereotype discusses the issue. I was offended , as I'm sure other readers/editors were. I'm not sure how you could consider my legitamate questions to be baiting? They were not directed at him and I feel your characterization of them was unfair. Where would positive stereotypes about Jews go in an antisemism article? Thuis is why we have the discussion boards. Now if I am missing something, please fill me in.Die4Dixie (talk) 08:59, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Magical negro

Please join the discussion on the talk page if you are interested. -- The Red Pen of Doom 00:21, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories

I've made all my arguments and points and explained myself a few times over in the article talk page and some on my talk page. If you're interested, you can read through that. If you'd still then like to discuss the issue further, we can but would probably be better to do it here. I'll start by answering one of your questions... Was the state of Hawaii in on it? The answer is, they don't have to be... at least not in the way you mean. Anyhow... if you'd like to debate the issue, then feel free. I'm right here. If not, then I understand. JBarta (talk) 00:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I have no interest in debating whether or not some nutjob conspiracy theories are actually true or not. They're not. My interest is in editing articles, and in this case, preventing an article from becoming a coatrack for people who actually believe such insanity. --Loonymonkey (talk) 02:13, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Geni 4

If you see this, would you mind responding to a request for evidence to support your claim here? Thanks. seresin ( ¡? )  00:02, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for not responding to this sooner, I've spent very little time here recently. The specific incident I was describing happened several months ago, so it will take some work to track down the diffs. I will try to get to it tonight or tomorrow. --Loonymonkey (talk) 01:23, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I've tracked them down and added them to my comments on the project page. --Loonymonkey (talk) 02:33, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

"Background" section discussion

I noticed you occasionally edit the 2008 presidential election article. I encourage you to comment/participate here. Timmeh! 02:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Nixon

Thanks for helping out with the article on Nixon, but we have already had this discussion about his name, and decided that there is no formal way to present the information. It was decided that the full name was OK for this particular article. please show me a policy that states otherwise.--Jojhutton (talk) 20:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Where did this discussion take place? I see nothing on the talk page of that article. Was it a private discussion?

I don't have time to track down the relevant MOS discussions at the moment, but in articles about people the common name or article name usually goes in the infobox (ie., "George W. Bush" not "George Walker Bush.") Of course the lede sentence always starts with the full name. --Loonymonkey (talk) 20:13, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

First of all, according to wikipedia, consensus is reached over time. The article was the full name for nearly three years. The discussion has been archived, but I have began a new discussion on the talk page if you wish to find a new consensus. I have no problem with that, but until a new consenus is reached, it should not be changed.--Jojhutton (talk) 20:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Where is this consensus discussion? I've looked through the entire archive and see no discussion of it at all, much less a consensus. I may be overlooking it, can you point me in the right direction? Regardless, we follow the manual of style for these things, so there would have to be a good reason to disregard convention. --Loonymonkey (talk) 00:03, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi, perhaps you would like to join a discussion at Talk:Richard_Nixon#Richard_Milhous_Nixon regarding use of his middle name/initial in the infobox? Thanks, Happyme22 (talk) 23:49, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Obama and Bombings

I'm disputing your revesion of Pexise' edits to Barack Obama regarding bombings; the discussion can be found on the Obama talk page. Zelmerszoetrop (talk) 01:39, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

ELection of 2008

Please do not make comments like "vt - Please don't use phrases like "as per discussion" when it is quite clear that you have no consensus for the change in the relevant discussion. Version 3 seemed to be the agreed upon text." when it is quite clear you do not know what you are talking about.

Please see the discussion section "2004 re-election inappropriately described as "narrow" (or "close")" where it is quite clear that there is significant 'consensus' that the word 'narrowly' is inappropriate. I simply reverted to a change made by another user. I did NOT add in the '3 million vote margin' as was discussed in the subsection, only removed the unnecessary adjective 'narrowly' (already removed by another user), and recognized as inappropriate by BAM/tripodics, myself and other editors including IP 71.178.193.134.

But you are correct about the 3-edit issued. My bad. I will wait until the 24-hour period before re-editing the article. In the future, please refrain from the wording you used to revert my edit. Thanks CaptainChrisD (talk) 02:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Loony, why did you revert my edit? It is 1) a valid interpretation, 2) properly sourced from a reliable publication and 3) at least as relevant and significant as the opposing view stating his victory was "narrow". If you believe that NO characterization is needed, then why not remove BOTH positions, rather than just one? Which is is?

Please remember that one central tenet of Misplaced Pages is that articles should remain neutral by "representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles, and of all article editors. So why are you removing only ONE perspective? Please be fair. if you think this information doesn't belong in this section, then neither does the adjective 'narrow'. if you think 'narrow' is appropriate, then (as required by the above quote) then the publication of a reliable and sourced counter-position should not be removed either. CaptainChrisD (talk) 19:07, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Unless you can provide a justification for your revert, then it appears to be in violation of wiki's NPOV strictures. So please either provide an explanation, or revert your unjustified revert of my addition. Thanks. CaptainChrisD (talk) 19:10, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Please don't lecture me about NPOV. What you are trying to do is replace one perspective with another perspective. Since both perspectives are contrary, (and can be sourced) it's better to have no characterization whatsoever, just state the facts (which is what I said in my edit summary). You are incorrect when you state that I am pushing for the word "narrow" to be used over the phrase "clear-cut." I favor neither. --Loonymonkey (talk) 19:24, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I am trying to replace NOTHING. I did NOT replace 'narrow' in my last edit. Nor in the one before. In the last one, I cited a legitimate, sourced additional point of view. If you want to remove 'narrow' AND 'clear-cut' please do so. But you didn't...you left 'narrow' and removed 'clear-cut'. So how is that NPOV. So is there a reason you chose to delete ONE side and not the other? If there is no9 legitimate reason for having done so, please remove the word 'narrow'. Thanks CaptainChrisD (talk) 19:27, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, you're correct. I thought that my edit was removing the characterization, not replacing it. I have removed "narrowly." Let's see how long that stays. --Loonymonkey (talk) 19:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. And I apologize for my vitriol last night. I should know better by now than to discuss/post politics late at night. I'm sorry. :) CaptainChrisD (talk) 19:38, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Sr/jr. distinction out

Please, look at the talk page. Cassandro (talk) 21:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up, I wasn't aware of it. We should probably put hidden text stating as much in the infobox for now, otherwise it will just keep getting changed and reverted. --Loonymonkey (talk) 22:42, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Please clarify your comments on this edit

Hi. Please explain why you think the paragrpah that you erased in this edit is not relevant, and please tell me what specific weasel words you think I used. Thank you. Grundle2600 (talk) 22:15, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi again. I understand that you are not here very often. In the meantime, I have reverted your edit to restore my paragraph to the article. When you do come back, please answer my questions from my previous comment. Thank you. Grundle2600 (talk) 18:31, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The best place to discuss it is on the talk page of that specific article, not on my talk page. That way, a consensus can be developed with the input of multiple editors. --Loonymonkey (talk) 01:00, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

That makes sense. Grundle2600 (talk) 01:45, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I did what you suggested, and I took it to the article's talk page. I asked you a question on the talk page. You responded, but you did not answer my question. Why do you think the way the bailout money is being spent is not relevant to the article on the bailout? Why do you continue to refuse to answer this question? Every source that I cited talked about the bailout, so how can you say it's not relevant to the bailout? Grundle2600 (talk) 14:20, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

129.100.197.110

Have fun blocking a government proxy IP! or should I say Cheers, mate! 129.100.197.110 (talk) 03:25, 13 February 2009 (UTC)