User talk:Jersyko/archive8

Obama comments
Please see the article on http://www.examiner.com/a-534540~Can_a_past_of_Islam_change_the_path_to_president_for_Obama_.html?cid=dc-article-obama where it states in his first book:

“The Indonesian school Obama attended in Jakarta is a public school that is not and never has been a Madrassa,” said a statement put out by the senator’s staff.

But the school did teach the Quran, Islam’s holy book, along with subjects such as math and science, according to Obama, who attended when he was 9 and 10.

“In Indonesia, I had spent two years at a Muslim school,” he wrote in his first memoir, “Dreams from my Father.” “The teacher wrote to tell my mother that I made faces during Koranic studies.”

So he DID attend a Muslim / Islamic school, which is a fact. Therefore there should be no reason to exclude it from his biography.

EisenmondEisenmondEisenmond

Obama semi-protection

 * 21:53, 22 January 2007 David.Monniaux (Talk | contribs) m (Protected Barack Obama: too much vandalism, complaints etc. [edit=autoconfirmed:move=autoconfirmed])
 * 21:39, 20 January 2007 Jersyko (Talk | contribs) m (Unprotected Barack Obama: time)
 * 10:22, 3 January 2007 Robdurbar (Talk | contribs) m (Protected Barack Obama: disruptiob/vandalism [edit=autoconfirmed:move=autoconfirmed])

Time? With the recent FAR now finally closed, I'd prefer to see the article unprotected now, then we slog through some stings and arrows for awhile (and hopefully we don't retreat so quickly this time?). I'd prefer that to waiting until later in February. I do understand and appreciate Tvoz's view, but I think it has to be opened for IP edits every few weeks at least to stay true to Wikipedia's higher hopes. I'm posting the suggestion here in part to avoid putting the vandal brigade on early notice, and the other part because you've got the shiny tools. --HailFire 16:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * This time not even 10 days?  I'm sorry, HF - and honestly I'm not trying to be obstructionist -  but your logic makes no sense. Getting the FAr closed, absolutely. But what does that have to do with protection? You just haven't given any credible reason for this. Wikipedia's highest hopes are that the encyclopedia be truthful, verified, stable and open. No one is asking for full protection which would indeed step on "open", but sprot is designed for pages like this (like Hillary Rodham CLinton, Bill Clinton, and many others) that get heavily hit by vandals. With increasing visibility, there will be increased vandalism.  I'm not even guessing this time - it has already begun, 4 hours in.  Now the vandals are going to come from both sides - pro and con.  I don't get why we play this game over and over - nor do I want to venture a guess about why you're suggesting a timeframe of late February. I would hope instead that this will be decided by the experience we have on the page, nothing else.   I'm not saying this over on talk either, but I think this is out of line, and I wouldn't be honest if I didn't say so.  That's not why I came over here, by the way - I came over to ask you, Jersyko, to take a look at the page just set up for Barack Hussein Obama, Sr. - it is  non-page, and is sourced by the London Evening Standard, which I think is questionable under WP:RS.  I couldn't figure out how to make a request for speedy deletion, but I think this should be removed.   Thanks Tvoz | talk 23:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Sr redirect a good idea - didn't think of that myself. And I agree about the economist point - if there's content, then fine - this was not that. Thanks. Tvoz | talk 00:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Fyi. --HailFire 14:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Another Fyi. --HailFire 15:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

That's good news. Perhaps I should stop running myself ragged now. Maybe we can now reach a consensus on when and for how long to request sprot? I think the article has been holding up remarkably well these last days, with broad and speedy participation in responding to sporadic vandalism and badly behaved children at play. Any ideas about how to put a safety on that sprot trigger would be welcome. I think we may have something different happening here that needs time to take shape and Admins should be made aware. I'm planning to do some more editorial work on the article this weekend. --HailFire 16:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Fyi. --HailFire 18:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Help over at CAT:CSD
Hi, and congrats on your promotion! Per this discussion, I'm dropping a friendly note to some of the recently-promoted admins requesting help with speedy deletions. I am not an administrator, so if you don't feel comfortable diving into deletions - or if you need more info - please don't come to me, but I'm sure that Cyde Weys would be happy to guide you if you want to help. Any help is great, but I'm sure that Cyde and others would deeply appreciate it if you could put the page on your watchlist and do a bit of work there on a regular basis? Maybe weekly? Thanks in advance! Anchoress 18:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Copyright as a verb
Hi reading the entry for Copyright today I noticed that you're one of the main contributors to that article. I have a problem with the word copyright being used as a verb, as in "copyrighted". An invention gets patented, a trademark is registered. I believe that intellectual property posseses copyright, nobody takes it somewhere and copyrights it. What are your thoughts on that?

Chris Longley Chris Longley 07:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

BHO
Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008 &mdash; goethean &#2384; 19:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

textualism
With all due respect there is a substanial difference between Thomas's originalism jurisprudence and pure textualism. That is why a made a fairly lenghthy discussion on his version of jurisprudence. If you read what I wrote and compare it to the textualist article you will see some marked differences. The forementioned article only gives a general notion of textualism and Justice Thomas has taken this notion and developed his own theory of jurisprudence. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ngord (talk • contribs) 22:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC).

COPYVIO
Most of the content on the Neo-confederate article was copyed from the SPLC (Southern Poverty Law Center) website. Trust me, I am in the SPLC. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Truth Teacher (talk • contribs) 21:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC).

pov
thanks for your reply. its not apov or otherwise. its an observation regarding he's statement. my observation is that the statement is unrealistic in its "requests". my 3 observations can be seen in other wikipedia articles Eevo 16:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * not my perception of the incident, my observation of the statements and there realism in line with other wikipeida articles. reference to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Defence_Force

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Army Eevo 22:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I can understand your point, and I know its rhetorical but apart from his comments, I dont have an opinion either way about him (if anything I wish him luck with his bid and overcoming racial problems). I was only trying to point out the "problem" with his statement, not spread pov. enjoy your day Eevo 22:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Clarence Thomas
Hello! I just have a question regarding your edit to the article Clarence Thomas. You have erased the "along with william rehnquist" phrase and said no need to mention rehnquist anymore. Can you state the reason why please? Thanks. Wooyi 01:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

John Edwards Blog Controversy
I don't see how you can disregard a source by the Catholic League, when all that it is stating are the actual Anti-Christian quotes by Marcotte. The way the article is now, it's making Donohue to look unpovoked at calling for her firing. If I can not edit the article using rhetoric such as "Anti-Catholic", when her statements are blatantly Anti-Catholic, then there needs to be a banner disputing the neutrality of the article. It is ridiculous to one-side this entry as it is now. I realize many posters may have a liberal bias or favor John Edwards; however, neutrality is still needed.

Catholic League aside, I fail to see how Foxnews.com can't be used as a source. Where do you draw the line? Moveon.org?

johnnybgood1234 16:04 February 13, 2007 (UTC)

redirect pages
Following your good idea about Sr, I did the same for mother and step-father. Tvoz | talk 20:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

First Amendment
I have not put in any commentary only facts. How else do I contribute? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.185.209.66 (talk • contribs).

Have you read the district court's ruling? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.185.209.66 (talk • contribs).

Personal Attacks
I just need advice on how to obtain some redress for personal attacks on Dental Amalgam Controversy talk page by an unregistered editor. It's growing seriously tiresome and highly insulting. Any help from a more experienced editor such as yourself would be greatly appreciated. Dr-G - Illigetimi nil carborundum est. 17:37, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate the advice and will take it up forthwith. I'm glad somebody finally got my tag line ;-). Omnes testicales et nemo coitum dat. Dr-G - Illigetimi nil carborundum est. 20:19, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Just wanted to say thanks for the reply to the Copyright query. I'm afraid I don't know the etiquette for doing this, should it be a new thread? Placed on my User Talk page, or whether I should have edited the original entry (Copyright as a verb above). Anyway thanks for taking the time I appreciate it. Chris Longley 18:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Not copyrighted
I was curious why you deleted my article claiming it was copyrighted, even though I don't see any material considered copyrighted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jackcornelis (talk • contribs).

The only sentence that is even similiar to the mention site was the first, which I rewrote. Please let me know if you still believe that it contains copyrighted material.

Rants
Have you checked out 1957 Georgia Memorial to Congress? may be the same as. In any case, that article is a mess. -Will Beback · † · 23:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Dear Jersyko: Thanks to you, and to editors Will Beback, Zantastik, and Calton for salvaging what was a huge train wreck at the article on 1957 Georgia Memorial, etc. I deal with this kind of thing all the time in the Wikipedia articles on taxation (tax protesters always wanting insert wildly false, unverifiable POV original research) and to some extent in the article on the Federal Reserve System. Yours, Famspear 15:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Timothy Noah
Hi

I am seeking clarification as to why you deleted my post regarding Tim's slate article? Clearly it is of relevance to many people, even if you do not agree. As such, please point me to the Wikipedia guideline I should be reviewing.

Kind regards,

Phil —The preceding unsigned comment was added by PhilistineWA (talk • contribs) 15:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC).


 * Thanks - I edited my comments to take into account good faith assumptions.PhilistineWA 16:11, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi,

I do not see anything about the notability article...

Frodeman 02:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Selfworm's Hidden Link
Nice job finding the link. By finding the page without cheating you rekindled my reason for being and so I shall give you the reward that you deserve.

Congratulations! selfworm - just downgraded to version 0.4B! 01:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Democrat Party
Trying for a NPOV on the Democratic Party article. Center-Left should describe Democrats and Center-Right Republicans. Which party is more "Centrist" is a POV I think. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Oleanna1104 (talk • contribs).

Hi again. Sorry about deleting without giving an explaination again, I'm new to Wikipedia. I removed that blub about the origin of the Democratic party from the beginning since it was a) fragmented and made no sence b)A history of the Dem-Reps and FDR doesn't belong in the introduction and c)history/origins of Democratic party is in another part of the article. I really think I improved the coherence of the beginning though. I know you're looking out for this article so if I try again to make it better, I will do so without tearing pieces out.  Frankly I think the section on the DNC is way too long and detailed and should be in its own article.Oleanna1104 23:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Accyweb
Could you please protect Accyweb real quick? Keeps being recreated. Thanks! BlackBear 02:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Accyweb
Thanks! BlackBear 02:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Revert to Doug
FYI, the IP vandal was two revisions back. I caught it, but it seems you accidentally reverted to the vandalized version.

This is major deja vu for me, since I just did this about half an hour ago myself :-) so no sweat, but thought you too would want to watch this a little more closely.

-Quintote 04:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Hi Jersyko, thanks for your message. I was unaware of the ANI thread. I have replied there. Thanks again for contacting me about the revert. Johntex\talk 15:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Ralph Nader
Hi Jersyko. Long time, no see. You helped me out with "Democratic-Republican Party" a while back and I'm wondering if you would like to weigh in on an editorial concern at the Ralph Nader article. I put the following in the first paragraph: "In the Atlantic Monthly's list of the 100 most influential Americans, published in its December 2006 issue, the magazine ranked Ralph Nader as the 96th most influential American: 'He made the cars we drive safer; thirty years later, he made George W. Bush the president.'[1]" However, some of Nader's fans want to drop the 17-word quote from the magazine article and just say that Nader was 96th on the list. I think the quote is necessary to explain why he's on the list, but some think it's unfair to Nader. Want to weight in? Griot 20:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

GNAA protection
I don't want to get into a pissing war over this, but I'm curious to know why you overruled my decision to decline protection to the GNAA disambig page? Did you just not see the request at WP:RFP? A Train take the 14:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Not a problem. I'm not looking for a wheel war, either, just wanted some salve to soothe my sysop ego. :) A Train take the 14:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: Obama; to > Jersyko
Jersyko:

Possibly you are quite a scholar, indeed. Yet the reiterations of Obama's name seem so horrid and obstructive. It is conceivable to most (as I believe I can relate to commons) that someone dislikes him more than that one is attempting to record historical data. Can you agree? Or, not?

I can get lost in my passions, and if I did have a tiff or two there, I pretty much will watch my passion a bit closer in the future, I simply hope we can come half way on how Obama is ordained in Wikipedia.

Sincerely, Bigsis

Fluoride Action Network
Hi Jersyko,

Today I added a link to, "Fluoride Action Network," on the Fluoridation page, and 44 minutes later you removed it.

Why?

petergkeyes

disruptive editing
hi Jersyko -I posted this on bbatsell's page but then saw that he may be on wikibreak, so I'm cross posting it here - any suggestions on how to proceed? see also previous exchanges that are on the talk page. thanks - hope all's well, haven't seen you around much lately. Tvoz | talk 22:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe we have a problem - please see this - the edit summaries and the edits themselves. I reverted the whole thing back to an earlier version from today as it's too much to wade through, but I think some intervention might be needed. I can't tell if this is well-meaning or not - maybe you can. See also the article's Talk page. Thanks Tvoz | talk 21:50, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * And, it appears to be the same individual as this. Tvoz | talk 21:57, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * hello again - same thing happened today - I reverted a bunch of stuff, some of which had new errors, some of which is obviously unnotable, and tried reason, but it's not working. Some of the edits would be ok,and I kept a few,  but the volume and the nature of some - and the edit summaries - makes it difficult to go through one by one, for me anyway. So I think this fellow could use some mentoring, giving the benefit of the doubt (which I'm not so sure is warranted).  thanks for any insights you have Tvoz | talk 22:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

thanks - I'm not holding my breath..... good luck on the new job! Tvoz | talk 23:47, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Thought of the day. --HailFire 14:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

My first barnstar
Thanks!! --HailFire 14:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Alex Atkind
Hey, my bad. I didn't look deeper into Alex Atkind, and mistakenly flagged it. Could you please restore? Link is here: Alex Atkind in The Ithica Journal  --HubHikari 02:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Understood; the original author told me that he didn't have enough time to more than stub it, but had enough time to do that. Odd.  --HubHikari 02:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Nurture Networks
Jersyko, I note that you changed the speedy delete to a proposed deltion on Nurture Networks. Could you take a look at this page? It seems the page is being used as a project management page or some sort of guide. It does not appear to be any sort of content appropriate to Wikipedia. It looks like it might even be an advertisement page. I can't the links from where I am today though. Slavlin 20:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

About BJAODN
Ok then, sorry I didn't realise it had been there for such a long time, I just checked the history. I appreciate your help :) Keshidragon 14:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

"United States copyright law" page and "Copyright" page
Links were removed from "United States copyright law" page (under External Links) and "Copyright" page (under "United States") which linked to http://law.copyrightdata.com/ and http://chart.copyrightdata.com/. The "User talk" feedback stated, "However, the external links you added do not comply with our guidelines for external links. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it."

Both links provided by me were as appropriate as those already in place. Some existing links went to external sources which reproduce the 1976 and 1909 Acts. The page I provided as a link has all of the versions of the U.S. Copyright Act from 1909 to the present. (Incidentally, the link for the 1909 Act goes to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Act_of_1909, which in turn links to http://www.megalaw.com/top/copyright/1909cact.php, which misidentifies the 1947 Act as the 1909. This is easily verified by the numbering of the sections.  The 1909 Act as passed in 1909 and as altered prior to 1947 does not have a "Chapter 2" or "Chapter 3", nor are any of the sections numbered in the hundreds.)  The pages linked do not have advertising. Although the host of the page is intended as a commercial venture, this is no different than some pages already linked, which are hosted by law firms.

The page http://chart.copyrightdata.com is similar in intent to the already-linked http://www.bromsun.com/practices/copyright-portfolio-development/flowchart.htm (which is the URL for "A flowchart which helps to determine the copyright status of a particular work in the US."). However, the suggested link rejected is more informative, going into determinants of copyright not mentioned by the bromsun.com chart. Furthermore, this page currently linked gives inaccurate information when it states that works published prior to 1964 were subject to a renewal that had to occur between December 31 of the 27th anniversary year and December 28 of the 28th year. In actuality, U.S. copyright law did not establish the December 31 policy until the 1976 Act (section 305). Prior to the 1976 Act becoming effective Jan. 1, 1978, the rule was that the actual 27th anniversary of publication (or the anniversary of the date in the notice, if earlier than publication date) was the start date of the renewal window. (See http://chart.copyrightdata.com/c07D.html for citations and court decisions on this subject.)

Incidentally, the aforementioned bromsun.com page currently linked cites and thus promotes Bromberg & Sustein LLP.

Please reconsider whether the copyrightdata.com pages are worthy enough for their comprehensive factual content (moreso than any other known by me to be on the web) outweighs any concern that the mere presence of the links promotes a site. Feel free to rewrite the links to downplay any sense that Wikipedia is being misused for advertising.BBCD 01:39, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for removing the incorrect vandalism warning from my talk page. I can only presume that the fellow who left it didn't read my edit summary on the Dental caries article. +Fenevad 03:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Sure. I think so; I left a note on the editor's talk page. · j e r s y k o talk · 03:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Another Notability Debate
I imagine you'd have something to say about Articles_for_deletion/Menachem_Z._Rosensaft, given your position on Timothy Noah.

John Edwards
Hi! I took your suggestion and deleted the "however" part because you thought it showed POV. However, I reverted the part mentioning the type of disease she has, i.e. stage IV metastatic breast cancer, along with wiki link.

It's a disservice if we sugarcoat and hide this tragic disease. If we make it sound too unimportant, people with breast cancer could shug their shoulders and say "oh, it's nothing, just like the Edwards' may have implied". Even if one person dies from misinformation, that's one too many. Breast cancer awareness is VERY important.

Don't worry. She having metastatic breast cancer does NOT mean the her husband is no good! In retrospect, at least in today's times, FDR hiding his very serious heart condition was bad because he got re-elected for the 4th term and was too sick to negotiate smartly at Yalta resulting in Stalin's win at Yalta.

Bottom line: I've taken your idea about "however" being POV (even though I think it's not) and I've incorporated the disease name in order to be informative, not vague.Dereks1x 21:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Accusation
If you are an adminstrator, then you should not be making contributions to articles. That's like being a judge/jury/prosecutor in one.

Why complain? That's just being aggressive, not being neighborly!Dereks1x 21:37, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Isn't evidence, evidence.'

Evidence is not just your evidence.

You are a lawyer. Can we settle?Dereks1x 23:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * There is no reason why an administrator can not edit any article that they want. It would only untoward if Jersyko blocked you for disruption.--Bobblehead 23:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed with Bobblehead on all points. That's why I told you on your talk page, Dereks1x, that an uninvolved admin would have to do that. · j e r s y k o talk · 23:35, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Do not blank other user's comments in their entirety from your SSP case, as you did to Bobblehead's comment here. This could be considered vandalism. · j e r s y k o talk · 01:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

It isn't vandalism because I was trying to put my comments in when it jammed up so I just cut and pasted.Dereks1x 01:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, will you just cut it out. You keep being so aggressive. I compromise, you keep pushing. How about dropping the case. Don't be so disruptive.Dereks1x 01:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

You are poisoning the atmosphere. When you attack me in the sockpuppetry case, does that make me want to compromise in articles? It would make most people angry and militant. Consider withdrawing putting a note asking that the matter be dropped and forgotten. In the past, I have compromised with your friend, Bobblehead and both of us have stopped edit warring and let our level heads prevail.

Your little gesture of saying "ok, if it was accidental" is a start. Make it more meaningful and state that you are withdrawing your complaint. How do you expect us to be civil if you complain...it's just like if someone sued you in your personal capacity and you had to pay the legal fees. Besides, tell me where I have been disruptive....never. You can see that I compromise and don't insist on things, just try revised wordings, etc.Dereks1x 01:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

It should make you more realistic, not more suspicious. I am considering taking a less jellyfish approach to compromise. You keep attacking, maybe because as a lawyer more billable hours just means more money for yourself. Why should I compromise and accept compromise language when you are so aggressive? Compromise is better than confrontation. On the contrary, you are encourage fighting, which is disruptive on your part. Don't!Dereks1x 01:51, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm missing where I have "attacked" you. SSP is not an "attack".  My comments at John Edwards talk have focused on Wikipedia policy and content.  Please provide edit diffs for these supposed "attacks", or refrain from claiming that I've done so. · j e r s y k o talk · 01:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

RFCU
My suggestion is for you to follow your idea and move the SSP to RFCU. Regardless of the result of the SSP, I suspect it won't be the end of it.--Bobblehead 02:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree. FYI, I am working on a comment for the SSP and will have it up later tonight. Tvoz | talk 03:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * DOne. Tvoz | talk 09:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

protecting from redirect
Barack Hussein Obama is correctly redirected to Barack Obama, but the redirect has been vandalized three times today by User:24.170.194.60. Warnings were posted on the user's page (who blanked one of them and it was reposted) and the redirect was fixed twice, but can the page be protected to prevent further vandalism of that kind? I don't remember if that's "move protect" or something else, or where to post such a request. Thanks Tvoz | talk 21:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Task for you
Here's your chance for equal treatment. See the Tony Snow article. People put these cancer laden details. I cut most of it out even though may have thought that I put it in because you might not have read the earlier version. Isn't this OR, the gory details? I'm saying this not to taunt you but because you are good at doing this stuff.Dereks1x 02:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

You said that you don't understand my message. You wrote on the talk page: Your motivation to "raise cancer awareness" is no more appropriate here than at the Edwards article, as it is soapboxing. I wasn't trying to raise awareness. In fact, I cut out a lot of the stuff out but left one phrase in. I think you thought that I inserted language in for awareness. This is not the case.

You also wrote: I don't take inconsistent positions based on politics on Wikipedia, if that's what you're getting at. No, that's not what I'm getting at. In fact, I wrote to you that I didn't want you to think that I am taunting you. I wrote to alert you of the problem and for you to possibly use your resourcefulness and knowledge to correct it.Dereks1x 02:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

My concern with the Edwards cancer part and calling an expert is because Edwards seems to be putting a false and misleading message that could hurt public safety. He did this by saying the cancer is completely treatable and comparing it to diabetes. I don't think Wikipedia is for publishing lies, even if a citation exist, unless there is a comment of the truth, too. I don't think Tony Snow said "my cancer is nothing, I'll be back in a week and live forever". If he did, some comment of the truth (not necessarily health awareness but refuting the statement in a polite way) may be in order.

In the news, the Iranian have captured some British sailors. If there's a wikipedia article on the Iranian navy, I think it would be wrong if there were only mention of the Iranian claims that the British were in Iranian waters because it's not true much as I think Edwards' characterization is misleading.

This is not to say Edwards is evil, just that misinformation in wikipedia is not desirable. As far as Tony Snow, I don't care whether there's no mention of prognosis or a few bloody details So with the Edwards cancer issue in wikipedia, assume good faith!Dereks1x 19:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

While I'm not very concerned about the wikpedia article, why aren't you doing anything to fix the POV and OR parts of Tony Snow's cancer? Is that an example of blatant political motives? Or is there another reason which is more acceptable?Dereks1x 19:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Sue me next???
Why do you have to be so confrontational? I hope you're not confrontation with Tvoz and fight with her in real life. You're supposed to be a wikipedia expert, yet you continue to confront. It's even worse than edit warring. As far as being even more sockpuppets, when you are you going to accuse Jmatthews1102 of being the puppetmaster and that I am his sockpuppet????? Ecostaz, too. Are you going to accuse Jmatthews1102 of being the ringleader and Ecostaz and me? While you're at it, accuse Gov. Bill Richardson, too. He's running against Edwards and Obama, too.
 * My advice is to calm down and assume good faith.Dereks1x 04:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I have no interest in suing you. Please calm down. · <b style="color:#709070;">j e r s y k o</b> <i style="color:#007BA7; font-size:x-small;">talk</i> · 03:38, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

bye
can't talk because ban could take place in seconds and i want to post a few articles. re: cabel, I don't think there's one but there are at least small groups of friends who can back each other up. if they are ethical, that's good. it is conceivable that they are not. if you do employment work (not employment defense) you know how employers can work in cahoots and deny due process. so to say it's impossible to have a localized cabel; you know better as a lawyer! byeDereks1x 03:32, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

ATT poll
My !vote is not broad opposition to ATT, but opposes this merger to its present text. I have classified your vote in the same category; please correct if I am wrong. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:37, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Yay!
Cheers!  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  14:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Atlas87
I have a hunch that this Atlas87 character might be a sock of Dereks1x. Seems a bit odd that he headed right to WP:CN despite his account being only a few days old. Might check later ... just thought I'd give you a heads-up. Oh, belated congrats on adminship ... Blueboy96 23:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

My mistake ... ugh, I misread what he was doing ... that's what happens when you move to night shift ... Blueboy96 23:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

1957 Georgia Memorial to Congress
Dear fellow editor: In trying to revert the POV pushing by you-know-who, I may have botched it a bit. Please double check my work. Yours, Famspear 17:56, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * While the version reverted to might still be a bit problematic, it's certainly better than the one that existed after the changes made today. I think you got it right; or at least as right as it should be for the moment. · <b style="color:#709070;">j e r s y k o</b> <i style="color:#007BA7; font-size:x-small;">talk</i> · 18:12, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * OK. By the way, at some point POV pushing does become vandalism, the way I'm reading it. You-know-who is now also attacking the article on the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution with a similar tactic. And if the repetition is repeated in either article, doesn't the repeated putative vandalism call for some sort of action to protect Wikipedia? I can't watch this very closely right now, as the real world has me firmly in its clutches. Just curious as to your thoughts. Famspear 18:21, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * PS: I know the 14th Amendment article is semi-protected right now. I am just wondering, at what point do administrators take action against the tortfeasor? Famspear 18:29, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Message received. OK. I guess from my perspective I'll just sit tight for now, as I am swamped with my work. We'll see what develops. Yours, Famspear 18:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

HELP!
Dear Jersyko,

Hi its me Pearl from about 3 months ago on Wikipedia. You might, (but probably not because you see a lot of usernames) remember me as "Peridotprincess". Unfortunately, I forgot my password and I did the whole new password thing but for some reason I don't recieve the email... Please please please help me... I love that account =] and I have stuff about Uchiha Sasuke-kun (I <3 THAT HOTTIE...sorry) on it... once again please help me and if I had my account I would sign it. Yours Truly, Peridotprincess —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.193.138.93 (talk) 22:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC).
 * Hi its me again I wasn't sure you remembered me so here is some proof of mine being that account...

how do I post stuff on my own talk page? are we even capable of doing so? Peridotprincess 14:45, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

thanks I found out how to do so xP Peridotprincess 17:39, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stuffies Guys, if anyone would like to post cool but NOT perverted stuff on my talk page you are welcome to do so. Enjoy but be aware that highly inappropriate stuff may be removed... xP Peridotprincess 22:51, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More Questions... =P from Peridotprincess Can I create a How To page or is it a bad idea kind of article? I am good at that kind of stuff but I'd like to know before I write the whole thing and it is deleted... xP Peridotprincess 22:58, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

What is a sock puppet? Peridotprincess 23:07, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

What are all the archives about is it just a continuation? If so, which page is the most recent? =P Sorry if I use these =P a lot but I happen to take a liking to them. xP Peridotprincess 23:07, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

How do you add pictures to a page and not just text? Peridotprincess 23:09, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if I ask a lot of questions and am annoying but I am kind of new. xP Peridotprincess 23:09, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Publishers If anyone knows about a publisher who is willing to publish a book for an author that is as new to the book-writing world as a flower bud on the first day of spring (sorry for the corny stuff =P) then please let me know by posting the name, number and/or e-mail address on my talk page...please NO pranks...I am serious. Thank You! Peridotprincess 23:40, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

yes its long... but please i hope this helps... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.193.138.93 (talk • contribs).

Guantanamo
YMMV.

Maybe I need to re-read some policies. If you think I do, please give me the URLs. But, I thought we were encouraged to find other means to raise our concerns that material was unsourced than immediate excision.

I didn't see that anyone had placed a fact or cn, tag next to the paragraph you excised.

Now, if the paragraph in question was "patent nonsense", I think that would be a different matter. But, I think it would be hard for anyone who was following the Guantanamo camp could be unaware the allegations had been made.

Editors are only encouraged to edit material they know something about, and discouraged to edit material they don't know about. The bar for how informed one should be to edit this paragrpah is low. If you weren't aware a thirty second web search would have shown you the allegations had been made.

Maybe I shouldn't have used the word "impulsive". My apologies. But, I encourage you to consider the point behind the comment. You excised a paragraph that a thirty second web search on "Guantanamo abuse koran" would have shownn you was verifiable. I encourage you to ask yourself whether you should be excising material that you think is "unsourced" that a 30 second web search would show was "verifiable". Someone wrote that paragraph. I think I can guarantee that they spent far more than thirty seconds adding it. Removing verifiable material, that someone spent an effort drafting, because it is, IYO, missing citations, does not, IMO, improve the wikipedia.

IMO excision is the wrong approach for verifiable but unsourced material. Agreed?

Do you think it is unreasonable for us to ask editors to, either, use some technique less extreme than excision to raise concerns about material they think is unsourced, or we should ask them to make an effort to test for themselves whether they think the material is not just unsourced, but unverifiable?

How about instead of edit summaries that say, "Rm'ing unsourced material" saying "Rm'ing unsourced, and, IMO, unverifiable, material"?

Cheers! -- Geo Swan 18:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)