User talk:Bobblehead/Archive 1

Welcome!

Hello, Bobblehead, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Dissenting Report
It gets bizzare because the council directed the executive to include the report but the executive branch has done everything possible to suppress the report including refusing to put it on the CACHE web site despite repeated requests by council members for them to do so. -- Coz
 * Thanks for your help editing these articles. I have the information but am still learning the writing style needed here. I appreciate your help!  :-)  -- Coz

Maria Cantwell & immigration bill
You wrote: ''Aside from not mentioning the republicans (which can be added rather easily 23 of 55 Republicans voted for it), what part did you find inflammatory? Only reason I left the Republicans off was because I wanted to show the Cantwell voted with a majority of the Dems.''
 * My response: I think I jumped the gun and was careless and I apologize.  I was editing in too many windows at once, and I thought that it was a disguised anti-immigration-bill description.  But you did mention increased penalties and such.  So, yeah, I'll put it back and re-word.  Sorry about that! -- Sholom 18:14, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks -- yes, I saw the previous one, too. BTW, I'm not happy with the previous paragraph either (about voting for Alito).  While those who criticize her vote on that have some good points, I think it's a stretch and/or original research to assume that a filibuster would have held.  Thoughts? -- Sholom 18:30, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm happy to be working with you . . . yes, we agree it's WP:OR. I'll make that change, too. -- Sholom 19:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting
You (and several others) saved me many keystrokes by reverting the most recent round of trivial/POV H1-B spam. All I had left to do was leave a message on a talk page: see 71.123.40.76. Much thanks from the second largest city in Washington. -- Paleorthid 01:37, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Dates
Next time you want to make a "major" change to an article you've never edited before, verify the regular editors for that page are in agreement with the change

I consider this message really sad; do you honestly consider removing multiple year links a "major" change? See article's talk page. --Guinnog 03:26, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your reply; that's how these things get progressed I suppose. Just trying to make the article look nicer! --Guinnog 03:38, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

POV on Gregoire
Hey can you take the POV tag off the Gregoire article. This ditto head is trying to trap me into a 3RV trap. --8bitJake 19:28, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Seattle
Hi. The page appears to have doubled, with the second half seemingly duplicating the first half, but for the added section, "45 Inline Citations -". I don't know if the halves are identical, which should be deleted. The change ssemingly appears between these versions:
 * 22:24 (UTC), 12 June 2006 Bobblehead (inline citations)
 * 22:01 (UTC), 12 June 2006 Bobblehead (->Climate)

--GoDot 01:13, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

My reverts
Actually, people were adding commentary and such, which if I am not mistaken is considered vandalism, so I don't think it counts as a violation. -- J Fred  23:56, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I'm with JFred on this one... The Extremely Crappy Wrestling reference is uncalled for...  Perhaps if it were worded as commentary that appeared on the show, but after one eppisode I hardly think that such a strong opinion from such an official person should be appied to the entire federation.
 * NickSentowski 16:14, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

are you mediating
There is sort of a medcab case opened about the tent city issue. Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-06-19 Tent City and Tent City 4(King County, Washington) Seems like you are already on top of it. Do you want to be the "assigned mediator", close the case out because you are handeling it, have someone else possible join in, take over writing the case up....? Or pick any other option. Reply here I'll monitor. jbolden1517Talk 03:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Any mediation I'm doing is more along the informal variety. Aside from communication on the article talk pages there hasn't really been any communications between the parties involved so I don't think it's quite reached the Mediation Cabal level yet.  The two articles cover a topic that is rather controversial in the east King County, Washington area and the two editors that are having the disagreement are on different sides of the issue.  At this point I've counseled the editors to assume good faith, to start cite their sources, and keep NPOV in mind while they do their edits in the hope that it'll solve some of the problems. We'll see how that goes for the next few days. --Bobblehead 16:38, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Just a note, Bobblehead... that's exactly what Mediation Cabal is for! :)
 * MedCom does formal cases and members have to be voted in, etc. MedCab, on the other hand, is a completely informal mediation. Basically, you don't have to sign up or anything, just show up, say "I'm going to try to handle this case" and do it. When you're done, just let MedCab know so they can close and archive the case page. :)
 * Not that I'm trying to persuade you! 207.145.133.34 18:27, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Ahhh. Okay. So many different forums, so little time. *laugh* I've pretty much limited myself to only editting on wikipedia up until now, so I didn't catch the difference between cabal and committee.;) thanks for the FYI. I'll pop over to the Cabal entry and note that I'm handling it. :) --Bobblehead 18:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Let me know if you need anything. Good luck. jbolden1517Talk 22:14, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikiproject?
Please see this.  Noble eagle  (Talk)  04:03, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

About the suburban discussion.
I added an entry to the talk page : My comment

And the following link, which discusses boomburbs (incorporated areas over 100,000), which has Bellevue listed: or.

Hoprfully the preceeding links helped.

--Moreau36 08:49, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

proper nouns?
I've fixed the "Iraq War" move now. I'm such a klutz when it comes to English grammar. :) &mdash;Gabbe 12:43, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Keith Olbermann
Hello. You made a bit of a error with the wikicode on the Keith Olbermann article. It now has two references sections and i'm not sure how to fix it. Please correct the error, ok? Thanks. dposse 03:59, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. ^_^ dposse 16:19, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Daily Kos
Thank you for undoing my erroneous edit of the Daily Kos article. My intent was to merely update the figures in the introductory paragraph, not to delete anything. Apparently I was not viewing the latest version when the spirit moved me to contribute. My bad. --Opelio 05:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Spokane Neighborhoods
Thanks so much Bobblehead, that made my work a lot easier! SpokaneWilly 00:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Disambiguation link repair
Please stop changing every occurrence of function or functionality in computer-related articles to redirect to subroutine. Several of the references to "function" that I've seen you change do not, when considered in context, actually refer to subroutines. Instead, they are referring to the abstract notion of "what a thing does" (something which doesn't appear to have a WP article, and probably shouldn't since it wouldn't be much more than a definition). In those cases it would be better to simply remove the spurious wikilink, or point it at wiktionary, rather than change it to point to an inappropriate article. Thank you. --Allan McInnes (talk) 14:39, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Eastern Washington
Hey, I just created a WikiProject for Eastern Washington, and since you are an active editor on the Spokane page (even tho you are from Seattle) I thought you might be interested and able to help with the project. Please check it out by clicking on my name, the link is on my userpage. Thanks SpokaneWilly 05:36, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

WOO HOO! SpokaneWilly 05:43, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

The project is now official, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_EasternWA is the official and permanant home of the Eastern Washington WikiProject! It may be a few days before the project is fully up and running but it is now official! WOO! SpokaneWilly 07:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing that image i put up on the spokane page. Hah SpokaneWilly 20:51, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Template:Opentask
I think you must have made a cut-and-pasto with this edit to Community_Portal/Opentask, which means that whatever change you intended didn't happen.... Thanks, BCorr | Брайен 23:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

fyi - reply on Talk:Seattle, Washington
FYI - I replied to your comments at Talk:Seattle, Washington, asking you a question. --Serge 03:25, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Working Man's Barnstar

Bahnstah
I suppose two so close up is a bit much. :p But I'd say you deserve it. Luna Santin 09:32, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

WOT
The odd "some of these may be allies" was added because NYCJosh insisted the template was stating factually that all of those groups work together. So I added the stupid tag to prevent him from using that arguement to edit massive parts of the article, as seemed to be the alternative. -- zero faults   ' '' 20:40, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Alan Mulally
Please add sources for the content on Alan Mulally or I will reduce the article to "Alan Mulally is a businessman." I realize you did not create the page, so I am also contacting the article's creator with the same request. Regards, Ya ya ya ya ya ya 22:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

"American"
Dear Bobblehead. You are right about "American." I've often thought about this issue--"ambiguity" of this concept--and how our "other" "American" friends perceive ous as arrogant--as if Canadiens, and Mexicans, and South Americans, and "Caribbeans", etc., etc-- were NOT Americans. Perhaps--I think I've just invented a usage--I/we are AmericanAmericans?
 * Thanks for pointing out the problem! Let me just tell you that I've become a Wikipedian on August 31, 2006--so any help I can get from my fellow Wikipedians is very much appreciated. Actually I'm learning WPdianism, "the [Ropes]," by trial and error. But its exciting--like being born into a New World!!!

Yours truly,Ludvikus 12:23, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Mea culpa
You're absolutely right, thank you for the message! &mdash; ripley/talk 13:02, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to revert the vandal
Thank you for taking the time to revert the vandal. I appreciate your work and your good efforts. Travb (talk) 16:34, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Just to keep your talk page clean, I'll respond here. No prob. Enjoy the wikibreak, you seem to need it. ;) --Bobblehead 16:40, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Explanations

 * 1) There was already discussion on how the criticism is irrelevant to what the article is talking about, it criticizes it on the basis that you cant have a war on a tactic, and that there are different ideas of what terrorists are. The problem is that, as defined, it is not a war on a tactic, it is a war against people who are defined as using this tactic, and further, the definition is stated in the article along with the criminal code from which the definition is taken. The person who originally defended the inclusion of this criticism also added the perpetual war criticism, which stated that the tactic will never be gone so it will last forever. I edited it to say "To critics, such goals create a state of perpetual war, and have argued that groups that are labeled terrorist organizations could continue to arise indefinitely," which is actually a pertinent criticism to the WoT as defined. Only actual criticisms of the WoT are to be included, not criticisms of something it isnt, for instance the article on Pizza Hut might include criticisms talking about shoddy service or poor quality pizzas, but not criticisms about how Pizza Hut does not provide adequate shelter for homeless Pizzas, as the Pizza Hut isnt a homeless shelter for Pizzas but instead a restaurant.
 * 2) Looking at the source, it for one an editorial which cites a survey, and notes itself that "The Columbia study does not conclude the White House intentionally used terror alerts to influence the president's popularity." This was not how it was portrayed, and instead it seemed to say that the study itself came to the conclusion that the Bush administration was using it to raise poll numbers. The jist of the article is that terror alerts raise awareness and concern levels, which it goes on to say is the very thing that the terrorists want. This would be a legitimate criticism, but in its current state it is not as it misrepresents what the study is saying.
 * The person who added these things has been bugging me in various places, and brought into question whether I should be an admin, when I am not one to begin with, and stated he beleived me to be a "sockpuppet or paid propagandist." At first I thought he might be from Uncyclopedia, where I actually am an Admin, but the fact hes carrying on this joke that far makes me think hes got something else going on and came to conclude I was an admin for other reasons. I guess I just didnt want to deal with him again so I removed rather than reworded in that specific case. ~ Rangeley ( talk ) 03:17, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


 * 1) How exactly does that mean it is a war against a tactic? It is a war, or campaign against groups designated as terrorist groups or state sponsors of terror. And again, the name holds no more bearing than the name Pizza Hut holds on what the store actually does. Some names are well chosen and reflect what it is, some names arent. It isnt a valid criticism because it is not a war against a tactic.
 * 2) Nope, it doesnt. ~ Rangeley ( talk ) 03:53, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I have indeed read it, and it is not against a tactic. Its a war to try and stop people from using this tactic, you could say, but there is a difference. You literally cant have a war against a tactic, for instance one cant declare war on fundraisers, though they can seek to end fundraisers by targetting groups that do fundraisers or states that sponsor them. This is why the criticism is inevtiably irrelevant, either it is talking about how you cannot have a literal war against a tactic (something not being alleged in the first place) or you cant have a war that seeks the end of the use of a tactic, which you obviously can as shown in the fundraiser example. ~ Rangeley ( talk ) 04:45, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Zarqawi
Just to point out the dif you provided contained only a single sentence about the Zarqawi program, this clear case of WP:OR even fooled you. The Informations Operations Roadmap and the Smith Mundt Act, which make up 90% of that section you provided the dif for, were never linked. The idea of bleed over was one I supported highliting numerous times, it was actually added to the header, but removed by Nescio, apparently he did not want ot mention it until he flanked it with his Original Research that the operation violated Smith Mundt and then a piece on the Information Operations Roadmap which was never linked. Please go through all of the difs before jumping to judgement. --User:Zer0faults 14:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Grip Strength
You must have mistakenly edited the page for Grip Strength. Your revision completely replaced everyone else's work, and put absolute nonsense in its place. I will not attempt to contact any moderators about this now, but if it happens again I will be forced to.

United States Senate elections, 2006
Hi. You removed a link to a Washington Post article from the United States Senate elections, 2006 article citing WP:EL. Could you elaborate on which section of WP:EL you think was being violated by the inclusion of that link? Thanks. -- noosph e re 23:57, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Hong Tran
You are a self-identified Progressive from the Northwest, yet you make reasonable, unbiased edits to the Hong Tran article. The "Emcee" person is someone with an agenda, and that person's dozens of edits is prima facie evidence of that. I have nothing against Tran, and I have made it very clear in the talk page that I believe she is talented, accomplished, admirable, hard working, energetic about helping others, enthusiastic about public service, and a good human being. However, when "Emcee" writes that he/she believes that Tran was a more viable Democratic candidate for Senate than Cantwell, he/she demonstrates a level of bias, animus, and motivation consistent with his/her ridiculously biased edits. Note that I have only edited for NPOV, to stop "Emcee" from violating Wiki guidelines by using a partisan site as a factual source. I assume it is fairly likely that you are personally acquainted with Emcee in real life, and as friendly advice I would suggest that you tell him/her to calm down and be more reasonable in trying to advance his/her personal agenda. He/she would probably be more successful by doing so.

--Nottingham 21:18, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't have wasted so much time on Wikipedia today (its addictive . . . ), but I respect and appreciate your remarks. No personal offense intended. --Nottingham

Thanks for your constructive comment. I agree. --Nottingham 13:42, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

- Hello Bobblehead,

In case you haven't seen -- Nottingham has been banned for 24 hours by User:Snottygobble for Nottingham's attacks against him and a sysop, User:Rebecca related to this article. I also think Nottingham's treatment of User:Sdedeo in the AfD discussion was clearly uncivil. I'm sad that you chose to proceed with an AfD request as a means to try to end the edit war rather than the mediation I had been seeking; assuming that it is denied (and it seems that there are a lot of users now who are in favor of keeping the article, not to mention Nottingham's latest uncivil actions discrediting his own edits/actions), we really haven't solved anything. I do appreciate the initial civility warning that you posted on Nottingham's page and your reversion of his most extreme "streamlining"; however, I'm sad that, subsequent to that, you didn't seem to be doing much to control his personal attacks on me or edits to the page. I know that you and I have different opinions of Hong Tran's notability; I am aware that we all three participated in that edit war, and all of us could have done things in a better way and used less contentious language; however, I think there were enough personally-directed comments and overtly biased edits from Nottingham in particular that it would have been better if you could have helped control and defuse the situation. You may have let it go because you felt the article should be deleted anyway, but there is a process for that that doesn't involve WP:MASTODONS, and your opinions about the article don't erase the nature of his actions during the editing process. In other words, I don't think the ends justify the means.

I don't know how much trouble Nottingham is going to get himself in, but if he is allowed to continue to edit the article after the AfD request is closed, right now I am anticipating more difficulties. He has seemed to listen to/respect your comments to him thus far (though I think you're the only one on WP at the moment). As a step of good faith, I'm asking that you comment to him on his latest behavior, and also asking that you consider changing your position on the AfD request. I don't know that there is the ability to withdraw the nomination once it has started, but if you can recognize that the circumstances/motivations were not proper to make that request, I think that we will have a better basis for cooperative collaboration moving forward, both on this and on the WA Senate Elections page.

Regards, Emcee 05:36, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Bobblehead,

Just to be clear, I'm not saying I hold you responsible for Nottingham's actions, but I think we all have a communal responsibility to address problems with civility and other standards when we see them take place. My ability to do this with Nottingham was limited because I was the direct target of his attacks and had a different viewpoint; all I'm saying is that if he continues to edit the page and behave in this manner, assuming that you also are still active on the page, I hope that you will provide additional comment and restraint.

Regards, Emcee 18:28, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Of, for goodness sake, this is ridiculous. I made no edits to the Hong Tran page after Bobblehead's suggestion, and until Emcee threw a hissy fit all over Bobblehead's AfD about too many reversions in one day. For goodness sake, there were more than 4 reversions by Emcee and me in the previous days, but it wasn't until Emcee continued violating the spirit and letter of Wikipedia guidelines that he/she chose to make a huge stink about it. For goodness sake, I had one entry on the AfD, until after muliple and multiple and multiple pleadings by Emcee that I responded to what Emcee said that was misleading.

My goodness, half the people on the AfD page haven't even read the original article, they have just been following Emcee's vendetta against what he perceives as a slight to his heroine Hong Tran. Amazingly, Bobblehead, a reasonable, responsible, self-proclaimed progressive is the one who had the idea for the AfD, yet Emcee has droned on and on and on about me, making me the issue. It is ironic that Emcee is using the tactics of Lee Atwater and Karl Rove, two political strategists I am pretty sure Emcee would detest.

I love this Emcee line "I don't know how much trouble Nottingham is going to get himself in". Oh, for goodness sake, I might have transgressed a holy law of Wikipedia! I've wasted far too much time on Wikipedia in the last week. Some weeks, like anyone else, I waste time playing bridge or backgammon or other games online. Other weeks I waste time reading blogs or newspapers from around the world. This past week I wasted my time on this insignificant article.

--Nottingham 16:51, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

American & British
Thanks for adding those to the "Adopt A Shroom" page. I had been meaning to do it, but got sidetracked. thanks!--Ling.Nut 10:47, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

AfD Suggestion
As Emcee is abusing the AfD page that you created, I suggest that you or others delete his abusive remarks towards me from the page. It is quite fine with me if he posts those remarks to my User Page, or creates a new entry called "Reasons to Detest Nottingham". However, in the interest of having a proper AfD process, it would be constructive if the page was actually an AfD. A link to "Reasons to Detest Nottingham" on the AfD would probably work, so that Emcee would not be upset that his pearls of wisdom were not visible.

And as for Emcee, who is reading this, have a great day! You don't need Bobblehead to start that "Reasons to Detest Nottingham" entry. You can do it yourself.

--Nottingham 00:46, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Fresh AfD
As a courtesy, since you initated the AfD, I am in rough agreement with Dennisthe2 that the AfD should be restarted fresh. I suggest there be fresh new without making Nottingham the subject.

I also suggest that Emcee start a page called "Reasons Nottingham is a Bad Person" or something similar. I have no objection to that page being started or that topic being listed on my User Page.

Thank you.

--Nottingham 12:45, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed
Thanks. Sound voice of reason.

--Nottingham 17:27, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

disambiguation and native americans
sorry, i think i was stepping on you there for a minute...didnt realize you were doing it until i saw the number going down too fast. --Mattarata 00:28, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

635, not 634 seats in the House
Thanks for fixing my stupid mistake in United States House elections, 2006. Grover cleveland 21:36, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

worst person
Do you really believe most "worst person" honorees are apolitical?? Each night a conservative politician or commentator recieves one of the awards. I am concerned that no one wants to report this overt liberal bias propogated by Olbermann--Bairdso66 21:54, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

All I would say is their needs to be more on his overt liberal bias. I am certain that it wasn't hard for people to label O'Reilly conservative(which he is),the difference is Olbermann dosn't have the courage of his conviction to come out and admit that he's partial to one side. Cheap shot's are the one thing on his radar There is a cover-up here, thanks Bobblehead--Bairdso66 22:31, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Disambiguation Talk Request
This is a form message being sent to all WikiProject Disambiguation participants. I recently left a proposed banner idea on the WikiProject Disambiguation talk page and I would appreciate any input you could provide. Before it can be approved or denied, I would prefer a lot of feedback from multiple participants in the project. So if you have the time please join in the discussion to help improve the WikiProject. Keep up the good work in link repair and thanks for your time. Nehrams2020 22:01, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

worst
The most frequent recipient of the honor is Bill O'Reilly. Other frequent honorees include Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Roger Ailes, Fox News Channel, Pat Robertson, and various members of the Bush administration (Donald Rumsfeld) and members of Congress (Senators Rick Santorum, Orrin Hatch, and Conrad Burns).-frequently apolitical??--Bairdso66 20:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I just don't believe that most recipents are apolitical, I would like to see data on that. Then I will agree w/that assesment but as of now I don't see how most recipents are apolitical, I watch the segment--Bairdso66 01:10, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

How do I clear up this rubbish?
Chocolateboy is violating rules regarding civility & good faith through personal attacks on my usertalk page. The sockpuppet charge is rubbish & unclear if this is a prank. Plus Chocolateboy keeps deleting my templates on his usertalk page warning him against violations of good faith & civility. Plus must I prove I am not a sockpuppet? OMG.

What do you recommend for peacefully resolving our dispute? LOL Will not go to war over this 'bloke' I promise! ;) Do you really think I'm a sockpuppet, mate? Don't want to be drawn into other people's disputes if this is the situation as it stands.

Requesting help to work this out, if we can.

Plus formerly apologize for violating 3RR rules & will be more careful in the future. LOL Lost count. Will await your answer.<IAN 71.208.89.57 ADDED: Ah, just caught your charge that I was engaging in personal attacks. Seriously, mate? If so, will you please hold chocolateboy to an equal standard & will you remind chocolateboy his personal attacks directed at me are 'also' unjustified? If my wikilawyering remark is perceived by you as a personal attack, without a doubt his knee-jerk attacks labeling me a sockpuppet & sarcastically responding to moi at every turn should be interpreted as "a personal attack" according to WP:CIV & WP:AGF. Is asking for fair treatment too much? Perhaps I wandered into a wikiclique & I'm not invited? Nobody deserves such incendiary disrespect, not by him & anyone else falling victim to his manipulations. Please be fair to all kind friend. ;) 71.208.89.57 01:49, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Campaign web pages
Thank you for commenting on the Cantwell talk page. The WP:C&E proposed policy is pretty much what I had been arguing based on my reading of WP:RS. Now that you have revised your position and are in agreement, please restore your deletions of the "Issues" section on the Hong Tran page.

Thanks, Emcee 04:44, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

You rock
re:

Pacific Northwest
I'm writing to you as one of the people who contributed to this article. I hope I could contribute to defusing the emotional debate and I would appreciate if you could participate in the new effort of finding a good name for the article. &mdash; Sebastian (talk) 22:52, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Edit summaries
thank you for your concern. not all communication is on talk. edit summaries are a perfectly reasonable means of communication. when two editors have made a short, but reasoned, argument in the summary, that is communication. when it is reverted without any response whatsoever to that repeated point, that's failure to communicate. if i hit 3 reverts, i simply stop editing the article for a week or two to save myself annoyance. that's the case here, so it's not an ongoing point of contention with me. if you care to respond, please do so here. Derex 04:22, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

NOR Obama
So Bobblehead and JRSP..since a Chicago newspaper columnist published this controversy..doesn't that reduce the NOR claim? Someone somewhere has to do original analysis. Since this was in a published and much repeated citation, wouldn't that qualify as NOR? How could there ever be a controversy if no one ever did analysis of a candidates claims that was repeatable in Wikipedia? --Jbpo 21:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Firestone Edits
Thanks for those fixes, it looks much better the way you formatted it. I keep forgetting that Americans spell Tyre as Tire. I hope the article is more informative now and that all the anti firestone issues are dealt with. I have tried to accomodate all points of view with appropriate links to relevant articles and nuetral POV where appropriate as suggested on the discussion page. Thanks again. Mobile 01 02:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I tried to do something with that Jingle edit, I still dont think it even belongs on the page but another user keeps putting it back. There is coment on it in the discussion page. Hadnt thought about NPOV for this but your wording is as good as any. Personally I would just delete the whole section. Mobile 01 22:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Robert Gray edits
See here, for my reply (just in case you are not "watching" my talk-page). -- Lonewolf BC 01:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC) P.S. Please answer there, if you wish to answer at all, so's to keep any discussion coherent. -- Lonewolf BC 05:24, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Chattanooga
Thanks, and apology accepted. I either cry or bite back when I'm cornered and outnumbered, and this time I bit back. Sorry. - BillCJ 02:14, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

John Edwards
Have another peek at JohnnyBopper, I think you might find it is an appropriate link. While the site describes itself as a supporter resource, its links are unbiased, there is no editorial content, and there is no spam or advertising of any kind. I'm somewhat new at Wikipedia, let me know if I have addressed you in the proper way. Thanks, Saccenti 05:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Inappropriate speedy tagging on His Hero is Gone
I see you tagged His Hero is Gone for speedy deletion. Note that speedy deletion only applies for articles which make no assertion of the notability of the subject. This particular article makes several which satisfy criteria in WP:BAND: Tagging for speedy deletion short circuits the normal safeguards of deletion procedure on Wikipedia, so please use it only in really obvious cases. Also, an article which has been around for quite some time is a bad candidate for speedy deletion on notability because the article creators/maintainers are not likely to be watching for any deletion notice you might give. &mdash;Dgiest c 16:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) "They toured the U.S. extensively several times, as well as Europe and Japan"
 * 2) "They released three albums... ...and two 7" EPs"
 * 3) "The Core of the band Todd Burdette, Paul Burdette, Yannick Lorraine went on to form the Hard Core band Tragedy."