User talk:Mister Zoo

Barack Obama
The swearing in of Obama 2 times is an interesting fact. To me, it's not too important but more important that some of the facts in the article. But good luck trying to discuss it! Two or three people will just revert you and say "against my consensus". If the stubborness is against irrational things, like he's a Muslim or he's not a citizen, then that would make sense but such opposition is against genuine suggestions. JB50000 (talk) 04:47, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm personally open to Obama being sworn in twice being covered, but I don't think it belongs where you are inserting it as it seems to derail a clear paragraph with a (parenthetical trivia note.) It's true that this spot is the most convenient to insert it as that is the spot that mentions the inauguration -- it might be that we'll have to actually create a spot in one of the articles for this piece of information. In other words, it might better belong in Presidency of Barack Obama, I don't know. What I suggest is looking through the Obama article set, see if it isn't already mentioned somewhere, finding a good spot for it, and proposing rewording text on the talkpage of that article (that doesn't use parenthesis :-). Not sure what JB50000 means above -- folks have spent a lot of time discussing his proposals with him. take care! --guyzero | talk 22:27, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Guyzero didn't realize that some folks just reverted stuff and did not provide a reasonable explanation or any explanation on the talk page. Essentially, it was me editing at 1:00, someone reverting at 1:05 but not discussing anything on the talk page.


 * Mister Zoo, I responded on my talk page.


 * About Obama's swearing in twice, that kind of fact is not a fundamental, essential fact of Obama's life story. Those fundamental stuff is the most important. However, the 2nd swearing in is a very interesting fact that people will say "geez, I didn't know that".  If you look at the article, you will find some stuff that is neither fundamental information nor "geez, I didn't know that interesting fact". JB50000 (talk) 05:09, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Mister Zoo, you absolutely didn't break any "formal etiquette", so don't worry :-) ... my view is the retaking of the oath is covered in both the presidency article and Inauguration_of_Barack_Obama ... the Inauguration article is linked in that introductory sentence of the biography, so the reader will definitely get quick access to this information if they want more detail, etc. This is just my view though. As the article is written in WP:SUMMARY style, some details are spun out into the children articles, and that may continue to be the consensus regarding this detail. But consensus can change, so it is always right either propose changes on the talkpage, or to use the bold, revert, discuss cycle as we've done here. Hope this clarifies why your edit was undone, but also why it is good to continue to discuss to see if we can write it a different way to get consensus, etc. If we can figure out a way to cleanly insert it into the biography, without it seeming like an WP:UNDUE detail, then I'm all for it. I'm no "expert" at wikipedia, but please don't hesitate to get in touch with me if I can help or point the way. :-) (I'll reply to JB50000 on their talkpage.) regards, --guyzero | talk 20:18, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Halle train collision
Please see WP:REDLINK. I've raised the issue at talk:2010 Halle train collision. Mjroots (talk) 06:14, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem, your delayed response is partly my fault because I signed with 5 tildes instead of 4 tildes, so it wouldn't have readily been ascertainable who the message was from!. Anyway, I've corrected that now. Mjroots (talk) 06:01, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Kingball
It might be helpful if you gave an approximate date for your "version" of the Kingball rules. Regards, Jonathan A Jones (talk) 06:41, 23 December 2011 (UTC)