User talk:TheslB

This is the talk page.

Kessler

 * I removed the prod from it--we do not delete clearly notable people because of COI--rather, we edit the article and make sure there are adequate sources. go look for them. If you cannot verify the books as being bestsellers, or the Polk awards, then nominate for AfD. DGG (talk) 02:36, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Without sources, no subject is clearly notable. I have responded over at the talk page, which I am watching. TheslB (talk) 06:58, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Query on Ronald Kessler article
What additional verification do you want? All of the facts are in Who's Who in America. I do not want to make changes myself for fear of being accused of "vandalism."--Ronald Kessler —Preceding unsigned comment added by KesslerRonald (talk • contribs) 19:47, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I would suggest putting any sources we can review in a new section on the talk page (link to them). Consult the reliable sources guideline for information on what kind of sources we are looking for. As I understand it, Who's Who compilations are generally not considered reliable sources. The main content goals we are looking to achieve are verifiability while maintaining a neutral point of view and avoiding original research. Since the topic is you, the biographies of living persons policy applies as well. As for my vandalism warning, it concerned your past removal of comments from the talk page. It is important not to do that again.  With respect to editing the article itself, it is up to you how to proceed.  But be sure to keep in mind the autobiography and conflict of interest guidelines. TheslB (talk) 20:33, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Die4Dixie
Please check Talk:Jeremiah Wright, where User:Die4Dixie accused one of us of being a sockpuppet of the other one of us.  Grsz  ' 11 ' 23:21, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I just wrote it up at the administrative noticeboard here. TheslB (talk) 23:25, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * That is a miscaracterization of my accusation. I think you are socks, but of different users. A very different thing.--Die4Dixie (talk) 23:48, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Wright
Sorry I didnt just revert earlier. I didn't want to get into a 3RR.  Grsz  11  21:25, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No worries. The vandalous editor and the uncivil editor have both been blocked, albeit for a short period.  Hopefully, they will both return and moderate their behavior appropriately. TheslB (talk) 06:38, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

TheslB, could you please visit the talk page there to discuss at greater length your reasons for including extraneous remarks that Obama made not about Wright but about Clinton's comments about Wright? Your statement that "some response is needed" is insufficient without some explanation why. Thanks. -- Dachannien TalkContrib 21:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Why were my comments removed from the image description? I think that was a good edit since most of his face is covered by the drip bag and can be confusing when looking at it. Andrewschools (talk) 20:52, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Second from right is standard picture notation. Additional parenthetical text in the box is distracting and unnecessary. TheslB (talk) 20:57, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Though I do understand what you are saying, I think this would be an exception since the photo being used is not of the greatest quality. A big portion of his face his hidden by the hospital equipment and the guy behind him is mostly hidden by Rev. Wright.  Thanks, Andrewschools (talk) 21:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe it should be said like this: "Third from left", Thanks, Andrewschools (talk) 21:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Second from right is the correct way to notate the position in the photograph. I added behind I.V. pole, as a person also in the photo has described it that way. TheslB (talk) 06:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Jeremiah Wright sermon controversy
Hi ThesIB, I'm sorry if I came across harshly to you on the Wright controversy talk page. I am sorry to hear that you are still supporting a merge of the article, but that's not what I am here to talk to you about. I just recently added that it wasn't only critics that perceived Wright's comments as anti-American and racist, and I cited it. Believe me, I am an experienced editor here as well, and I know that Wikipedia needs to be NPOV, but I see nothing wrong with that edit. A quick Google search shows that thousands of articles were written on Wright's perceived anti-Americanism and racism; I know that you had good intentions by trying to remove it and take another route by labeling it as his manner of preaching, but it was the wrong route, because that completely misses the point. Every preacher has their own way of preaching, and if this had just been Wright's normal way of preaching, there wouldn't have been a controversy. But they were perceived by many to be anti-American preachings and racist preachings, something that needs to be included for the full background context. Thanks for your help with the article. My best to you, Happyme22 (talk) 23:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, I did not mean to edit what you had added insomuch as I was unaware of the change you had just made. Since this area of discussion is of interest to other editors on the article, I am going to start up over at the talk page. TheslB (talk) 00:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a plan. Thanks, Happyme22 (talk) 02:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

April 18, 2008 Midwest earthquake
Point blank, you are wrong, per the standard in the scientific world for the naming of seismic events. The original title of the article was correct and I intend to move it back. --InDeBiz1 (talk) 20:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Please keep the discussion on the relevant talk page. TheslB (talk) 20:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Getting close to 3RR
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. You have not yet violated the letter of the three-revert rule, but you're getting close. Please discuss the matter with other editors on the article's talk page. Thank you. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of 2008 United States presidential election controversies and attacks
An article that you have been involved in editing, 2008 United States presidential election controversies and attacks, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/2008 United States presidential election controversies and attacks. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Wasted Time R (talk) 19:36, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Why???
Why would you move the article? If I recall correctly, a previous discussion resulted in a consensus that once the USGS officially named the event, it would be moved to that name? --InDeBiz1 (talk) 23:05, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You are kidding, right? See the talk page, where no such consensus emerged. TheslB (talk) 23:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

wright picture
I just got your message, but how do I put a fair use rationale tag on it? I'm not exactly sure how it is done. please respond soonTallicfan20 (talk) 18:45, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You also blanked your talk page, where a bot had alerted you to problems with those images already. Per the missing fair use rationale and copyright problem message, your question should be asked at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. TheslB (talk) 19:17, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Why would you delete this picture? The picture has everything to do with Jeremiah Wright. That picture is having a HUGE impact on the world, and on Wright's career, and what people at large know of the guy. Why would the page even have a section on the controversy without that picture? You had on one of you tags how it "didn't increase understanding of the guy" and it was "just a picture of two people." JUST "a picture of two people?" Their relationship is signified by that picture, as it was far more than some prayer breakfast he attended once, and barely knew the person. The political controversy centers on Barack Obama's relationship with Jeremiah Wright, and this picture is shown on TV many many times when there is a segment about the Wright story. Jeremiah Wright was called by Obama his "moral compass" and his sermons helped sell two books into the millions, by Barack Obama putting the name of one of his sermons "The Audacity of Hope" on the cover of his second book, and Jeremiah Wright was written about in his first book. Bill Clinton or LBJ did not know Wright at that level, and did not know him for 20 years. The picture absolutely increases a reader's understanding of Wright as it is symbolization of what is currently going on, and he shaped the life of the man with whom he was in that picture, according to Obama, who said he brought him to Christianity. The picture absolutely belongs on the page. It is far more than a picture. It is part of the story line of the 2008 Presidential campaign, and what Wright is most likely to be remembered by the most members by far of the public and researched about that anything else he did or pictures he was in. This picture is also being used in commercials, and newspapers. People are spending millions and companies are earning millions because of the story which arises from the picture, and it is shaping Wright's image, and the campaign. The picture may change the world, in the form of either Hillary or McCain being President, being that the controversy could give her the nomination, she could win the White House, or she could lose the Presidency making McCain President, or Obama could get the nomination, and lose because of the picture, and the story which comes from it, as the picture could be used in commercials, like it is being now, in the North Carolina GOP advertisement. Or it could be merely a bump into Barack Obama's ascension to the Presidency. The picture belongs there. It has every reason to be there.Tallicfan20 (talk) 07:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I have read the non free content guides, and I know you can't put AP photos unless the photo itself is the subject of sourced commentary in the article and for all of the reasons I mentioned in the above post,IT IS. This picture IS "the subject of the sourced commentary" on Wright, and it also relates to Wright on the whole. It relates to the sourced commentary, being in the political controversy section, as on TV and in the newspapers, whenever the controversy comes up, the picture can is frequently seen, from TV segments and specials to newspapers and is now a symbol of their relationship and the controversy. The picture is not only the ubiquitous symbol of the controversy, it also is significant to the article on the whole, being that we know Jeremiah Wright was Barack Obama's "moral compass" for 20 years, baptized his kids, and married him to his wife. That is much more notable, doing those things to a potential President and first black major party nominee than some prayer breakfast, being one amongst hundreds at the White House that you allow a picture to be up on. The picture symbolizes the relationship, as Barack Obama's books relate to the man, and their picture is indicative as a relationship, as it was taken in the church, it is NOT as you put it "just a picture of two people" as the "Audacity of Hope," the line which made Obama's 2004 DNC speech and helped sell millions of books comes from Wright's sermon, and the picture shows this relationship and symbolizes it. The same goes for the "Dreams" book, as the book mentions his first encounter with Wright and talks largely about it. As you put it "as pointed out on talk pages; please respond there if you think it is okay to use AP photos on the GFDL licensed Wikiepdia website" OF COURSE I THINK IT IS OK BECAUSE THE GUIDELINES CLEARLY say you cannot upload onto a page "A photo from a press agency (e.g. AP), UNLESS THE PHOTO ITSELF IS THE SUBJECT OF SOURCED COMMENTARY IN THE ARTICLE. This IS the subject of sourced commentary, so it damn well can, and should be in the article as it completely relates to it. If this picture is not relevant as you claimed earlier, why is the Bill Clinton photo so necessary? The content in that picture isn't even discussed in the "Career as minister" part, so it has ZERO relation to the segment, as opposed to my photo being in the controversy part, because the photo I posted IS subject of the commentary.Tallicfan20 (talk) 05:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Please discuss it on the relevant talk page, as indicated in the edit summary. Thank you. TheslB (talk) 05:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Can you help end the war on Jeremiah Wright controversy?
Hi, TheslB. As you may have noticed, we've recently had some problems with edit warring on Jeremiah Wright controversy, I've made a post about working together constructively at Talk:Jeremiah Wright controversy. I'd appreciate it if you could add any thoughts you have there. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 08:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:45, 24 November 2015 (UTC)