User talk:Wikidemon/Archive 8

Cabal
THAT IS UNACCEPTABLE AND I'M GOING TO SUE YOUR ASS!

No really, I already filed one: but it looks like it was locked so it really doesn't matter. Personally I'm tired of it and don't want anything more to do with it. Soxwon (talk) 18:35, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Gosh... Well, thanks for trying. I'm in the lucky position of not really having a position on this or being too concerned about the outcome, but I don't mind helping.  It's actually quite pleasant.  Wikidemon (talk) 18:54, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I would but as you'll see in this edit (warning, rant involved), I'm frankly not interested enough to have to endure being reverted b/c I represent something I hate: . Soxwon (talk) 18:58, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Awww. Considering you reverted, it's a pop-up rant.  Well, you're probably right.  There are far more rewarding places than that little corner of Wikipedia.  Wikidemon (talk) 19:03, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * If you'll stick around I'll give it another shot. I think that b/w you, LoS, and whomever Cabal and/or RfC send up we could work this out. I'm open to suggestion and compromise as I hoped my edits showed. And I have a feeling that the accusations will stop; I'll just leave if they don't. Soxwon (talk) 19:05, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Rez dog
LOL! I never even noticed that. --User:Woohookitty Diamming fool! 11:59, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

New image project
Hi. This little form letter is just a courtesy notice to let you know that a proposal to merge the projects WikiProject Free images, WikiProject Fair use, WikiProject Moving free images to Wikimedia Commons and WikiProject Illustration into the newly formed WikiProject Images and Media has met with general support at WikiProject Council/Proposals/Files. Since you're on the rosters of membership in at least one of those projects, I thought you might be interested. Conversation about redirecting those projects is located here. Please participate in that discussion if you have any interest, and if you still have interest in achieving the goals of the original project, we'd love to have you join in. If you aren't interested in either the conversation or the project, please pardon the interruption. :) Thanks. Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:08, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Obama evidence
Hey. I understand your apparent dedication to getting the issues with these articles solved, but could you shrink down the evidence? there's technically a 1000 word limit, and while I'm not going to ask for a massive reduction, at least bringing it to 5000 would be of help. I'd like to get the case quickly handled and your evidence alone is a day's worth of evaluation right now. Wizardman 01:21, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I will do my best. However, there are several interrelated issues behind this.  For one, I am the only editor who has presented a systematic account of the Stevertigo chronology, article patrol and probation, and the Aaron Klein debacle.  Perhaps others would have if I hadn't preempted them, but as of now my evidence is most of the total case.  For another, we are having a growing problem with one of the parties who I did not initially think was going to be at issue.  Administrators don't want to deal with ChildofMidnight now that the editor is a party at Arbcom, and are encouraging me to add the evidence there rather than dealing with it as a behavioral matter.  Finally, ChildofMidnight has made a whole bunch of false and misleading accusations against me.  Nobody has ever clarified whether my own actions are really under any serious scrutiny here - I would think not, but my experience elsewhere on the project is that some people believe false accusations by problem editors, and I end up suffering when I don't answer them.  So I'm essentially dealing with four cases in one - Stevertigo, me, COM, and article patrol / probation.  Perhaps beyond asking me to shorten things, maybe you can suggest how I should go about it?  What areas are of less interest or are less pertinent to the case?  Do I need to describe the reasons I add a diff or do the diffs speak for themselves?  I guess there's a chicken and egg problem there, you don't know the scope of the case until you review the evidence, I can't present good evidence without knowing the scope of the case.  Wikidemon (talk) 01:34, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * WD, I could submit some of the evidence.  Grsz 11  01:38, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Would you be willing to take on the material in my response to COM and also my section about COM's behavior? As the one who bears the most brunt of COM's personal attacks, the more I can get out of a role of defending myself the better.  It has to be in your words, and you should only post what you agree with - you can't merely re-post my words.  But nothing wrong with using some of my diffs, as far as I know.  Wikidemon (talk) 01:44, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Is there anything stating I can't copy paste? I'd rather avoid the CoM issue. Your evidence on him is solid and well laid-out. I would rather take on something less heated. Steve has disappeared since adding his evidence, and I don't imagine him being subject to sanctions. To start, I can take the Steve/Sceptre meta edit-warring.  Grsz 11  01:52, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Let me think it through.... Wizardman might opine on this but I don't think it actually changes anything for you to put your name on my evidence. It's still just as long.  The request wasn't over the technical infraction, just a request to shorten things.  Wikidemon (talk) 01:56, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I do think there are things that can be cut downed. The focus of the case has definitely changed, and we all know where it should be now.  Grsz 11  02:08, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * WTF? -- Scjessey (talk) 03:27, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * You can move some of the less important evidence to your user subpage and link it from the evidence page. Currently the evidence in your section still stands at approx. 7500 words. - Mailer Diablo 22:44, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that - The real world has required my time so I haven't seriously cut it, but I promise to do so in the next 2-3 days. I hope that's fast enough. Wikidemon (talk) 23:03, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the quick response. - Mailer Diablo 00:25, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Summation
Whilst looking through some of Benji's sources, I realized that most of his stuff was from 2006 onward. I looked through some of the older stuff and lo and behold came up with a different view of Frank. I've left my opinion on the talk page and was hoping to get your opinion. Soxwon (talk) 17:53, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

FYI
Just wanted to let you know that I replied to the discussion you were having with ChildofMidnight on my talk page (I didn't get a chance to edit yesterday). See here. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Question on Barney Frank
Do you think I have a point with the evolving behavior stuff? I really need to get off that article, but I would like to at least move the paragraph to the politics section first or at least make it more NPOV, heck even just getting the statement in context and someone other than Clinton's secretary making the statement. If you look at the March 20th debate I don't think consensus was necessarily reached. Soxwon (talk) 21:26, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Chicago Annenberg Challenge
Hi.

I think the intro to Chicago Annenberg Challenge should mention the actual results of the program. I don't think one sentence is undue weight. But I won't change it back, or get into an edit war. Grundle2600 (talk) 23:33, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note. Why don't we talk about it on the article talk page?  I don't think Wikipedia should try to make a definitive conclusion (a study has shown...) but if the observation is significant in comparison to the overall importance to the organization we could say something more like ("there are concerns that...").  As a nonpolitical example, say, there are concerns that certain cancer screenings don't actually improve people's health - because of the cost, people overreacting to a diagnosis, inability to cure the cancer anyway, etc.  I think it's more encyclopedic to say "medical professionals have expressed concern that the procedure is not helpful, because..." than to say "a study has shown that...".  Anyway, thanks again for reaching out and see you on the talk page.  Wikidemon (talk) 23:47, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

If you agree
why don't we just delete the disgraceful conversation between us since my comment gives a wrong impression to you and others. Sorry for the inconvenience. --Caspian blue 07:28, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure, fine by me. Wikidemon (talk) 08:06, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Done.--Caspian blue 11:50, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Flu

 * "I think we might need to make the same request of Scjessey." (diff)

Why? My only comment in that thread was this appeal for the thread to be closed, after which I templated the culprit and made no further comment on the matter. I even went to great pains to ensure my comment wasn't aimed at any editor in particular. Your note to Bigtimepeace came more than two hours afterward, a full hour after I'd logged off. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:02, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, I guess it was the "magnet for trolls" comment. Sorry if I'm too sensitive.  I'm really hoping we give Bigtimepeace the room they need to help out if they can, and not fan any flames they're trying to put out.  Wikidemon (talk) 01:08, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Okey dokey. You should go back to his talk page and complain about his "week off" like I did. What the hell are we going to do without his steady hand? It'll go back to being a zoo. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:36, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Question
I just credited you for the creation of a template (at Talk:2009 New York City airplane scare)but I'm not sure about it. If I remember right you're talking about working on such a while ago. Can you enlighten me? Thanks, --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 22:22, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * At the risk of WP:BEANS it's template:increation. I considered publicizing it more, but the project may benefit from its being a little hard for newbies to find. Wikidemon (talk) 22:28, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your reply. The "light of the past" came on the moment I clicked on the "increation" link ;) . And you shouldn't worry about beans; At least I won't stuff them up my nose, or would I? Curiosity kills the cat :))  --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 22:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Request for comment
Hi Wikidemon. Since I know you call em like you see em, I've pinged your talk page to appropriately canvass you wrt a deletion discussion currently taking place at "WP:Articles for deletion/Home and family blog." (In addition to you, I've also pinged all the participants of the deletion discussion from last year at "WP:Articles for deletion/List of blogs"; in any case, I've ensured that my notifications are to a small number of wiki-contributors that have been neutrally selected, per the stips at WP:CANVASSING.) I do hope you'll consider taking part in our discussion. Thanks.  ↜Just me, here, now … 07:51, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Headsup: a discussion wrt the possibility of renaming
"Internet homicide" has commenced at Talk:Internet_homicide.  ↜Just me, here, now … 20:44, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Impressive at the same time hilarious
You made me giggle.--Caspian blue 00:28, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Hate to say "I told ya so", but...
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Grundle2600/My own personal article about Barack Obama, and it was already snowballing by the time I got there. "AGF isn't a suicide pact", as the saying goes. :) Tarc (talk) 13:09, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Template
I have been playing with your template, and can't seem to get it to work. What code would allow me to have your template link over to User:DougsTech/RFAreason? Thanks! --DougsTech (talk) 03:35, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Excuse the intrusion, but I think I can help. I notice you wrote subst| with a pipe when it should be subst: with a colon.  Changing that one thing should make the template transclusible on the RfA page.  (Though I notice it includes your sig, and you may want to remove that).  Soap Talk/Contributions 03:48, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * (While I don't like templated votes...,) I don't think the idea was to subst the RFA reason page. It was to subst the User:Wikidemon/sandbox/dougstemplate, which has a link to the RFA reason; to attempt to prevent lengthy discussions on the oppose. So,...

~   (you could move this somewhere like User:DougsTech/vote for ease of use) results in: Oppose Too many administrators currently. see here DougsTech (talk) 13:03, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * hope that helps. –xeno talk 13:03, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks! That seems to work.DougsTech (talk) 02:14, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

What's got into them?
What is it about Talk:Hopey that causes people to lose their minds? Not being from the "faith based community", I hate to surmise demonic possession, but I start to wonder whether your unusual (for that page) ability to keep your head screwed on right has something to do with your somewhat alarming name: seeing that you are a goblin, other goblins don't mess with your head. Or something like that. The page does sometimes ascend to farce (see this delicious spin-off), but all in all I wish it had fewer contributors who seem to be in a near-permanent state of one or other stripe of indignation, and more contributors such as yourself. -- Hoary (talk) 08:26, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:Battle fatigue? Trouble with the medium?  Full moon?  People who see how silly, ridiculous, and surreal Wikipedia, politics, and life are and respond in kind?  I dunno.  On that specific point, the US was clearly at war in Iraq under most definitions if not clearly under the technical internal legal formality of a declaration of war, and was not in a war against drugs, terrorism, insurgents, poverty, or bad television programming except in the metaphorical sense - the US declares "war" on problems, some have jihads or crusades, others hold candlelight vigils.  Of course it makes sense to have a war policy when we've got 100K+ troops in another country using military means to deal with opposing forces...Thanks for the compliment.  Wikidemon (talk) 08:40, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Justmeherenow's request for your input
Viriditas is camped out on my user talkpage and I can't shake him. There's always two side to every story I suppose so perhaps there could conceivably be some merit to the bug he's got up his wazoo about me, although to me it's him just being one.... I don't wanna be pesumptuos but, would it be asking to much if ya could act the part of a disinterested third-party? That is, by following the diffs he just now posted on my page and chime in over there? (And If you'd then find I've been in the wrong somewhere I'll agree put my tail between my legs and try to do better.) Thanks!  ↜Just me, here, now … 14:24, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I haven't taken the time to inspect exactly what got the editor excited about your edits, or whether he is right to be concerned, but I agree that his approach in voicing those concerns is very exuberant and involves some wild claims (e.g. "vandalism" and "bad faith", claims the encyclopedia is very pointed in discouraging). Forgive me for not jumping in directly but I think that could escalate things instead of calming them.  You are within bounds to request that the editor desist, although I suspect that once he calms down you two can resume normal discussion.  You were also very cordial in your complaint about it.  I would ask again politely once or twice more, and explain that you are going to stop responding and close the discussion presently.  And then close it, or consolidate it with other complaints from the same user.  Every time they add a new one just politely move it without responding, maybe an edit summary like "consolidating with main discussion but not responding, per earlier request."  After a bit they will probably find something else to do.  I've found that a combination of politeness and firmness on one's own talk page works.  Arguing back while asking not to argue seems to have the opposite effect with some people.  You know, everyone wants the last word.  Wikidemon (talk) 15:44, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thx WD. And you were right about the time factor (...as e/g I've by now re-read his talkpage comments again more slowly than before and have come to see how a combination of his absolute self-certainty and his impatience with my obviously but cursory interest in the fine points of ya'all's arguments conspired to make him so pist off at some of my, as they seemed to him, too half-baked of edits. So I'm no angel.) BTW the urban dictionary def I just saw linked to on your user page is SIMPLY HILARIOUS ! )  ↜Just me, here, now … 03:30, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I thought so too. I didn't do it, I swear.  Now, I wonder which one of us did.  Funny how in talk space it would piss me off as a personal attack, but on urban dictionary it's really funny.  Actually, the two things that keep me going are realizing that all this is kind of funny, and that even the worst flamers are probably people I would want to have a beer with or maybe flirt with, depending on gender and such, in real life.  Some of my best real life buddies are former online enemies from various forums.  Wikidemon (talk) 03:35, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * LOl.  ↜Just me, here, now … 07:08, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * You seem a very logical person, so I'd love it if you could help unravel the following for me. (And I'm not being rhetorical here. I truly find your arguments quite convincing 981/2% of the time, Wikidemon!!)

Shouldn't inclusion/exclusion criteria apply across the board and not catch as catch can or willy-nilly? It seems that you (not to mention V.) over at Talk:List of Craigslist killers are somewhat overplaying your hand about a need to establish notability for the phenomenon. Off the top of my head, it seems to be a premise that"*' List-type' articles and article sections must contain sources that extol the notability of the combination of the underlying components of such lists itself"-- is that at all close to what you and/or V. are arguing over there? But, if this is so, wouldn't such a criteria be enforceable upon any random set of list-type articles that one could assemble from throughout the encyclopedia?

But...let's see!
 * 1) "Presidents" and "nickname" generates Presidential nicknames. "Nay." These are culled from the sources without citing any sources that comment on the importance of nicknames to presidential polics or whatever.
 * 2) "Obama" and "family" generates Family of Barack Obama. Yet no sources are provided that explain the importance of this combination.
 * 3) "Socks (cat)" and "cultural references" generates the section Socks (cat). "Nay." No reference explains the importance of Socks the cat to American culture.
 * 4) "Nikola Tesla" and "popular culture" generates Nikola Tesla in popular culture. Ditto.
 * 5) "LGBT," "characters," "television," and "soap operas" are combined to form the section List of television shows with LGBT characters. No references support the cultural significance of the combination of these components.

So we gotta conclude a "nay" there (and rightly so, to avoid mass deletions of quality material from the encyclopedia!)

If we seat patrons without dinner jackets at the bar and patrons with dinner jackets at tables, we're still serving customers coming in with/without jackets. That is, if "illegal activities by users of Craigslist" isn't a neologism, how is "killings by Craigslist users"? And, if it is to be thought that the premise"*' The article under review's list of Craigslist killers doesn't merit encyclopedic coverage due to some kind of 'neologism' within its defining parameters '"-- is true, then it only follows we must delete the list (as concisely titled) not merge it anyway, except to Craigslist controversies and illegal activities by users (as more cumberbunly...I mean, cumbersomely, titled). It is important to be consistent and well-defined in such criteria, or one class of patrons might get the impression they're not welcome because of their brogue accent when it's observed other parties who speak in Yankee tones get in, in informal attire, regardless of what inclusionary standard ostensibly is imposed..... How would you defend your position in response to this line of attack, as it were, WD?  ↜Just me, here, now … 07:05, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and striked through the above -- but hey! it actually makes sense if ya get past the rambling syntax and off-kilter lexical choices.  ↜Just me, here, now … 17:54, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I've composed a better argument here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Internet_killer&diff=286344070&oldid=286318820 .  ↜Just me, here, now … 01:13, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * FYI re my Q at the "No 'OR' noticeboard": Wikidemon, if you should be interested in chiming in {smiles} (?), I've made a philosophical statement here: WP:No original research/noticeboard.  ↜Just me, here, now … 12:42, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Ludwigs2 (an editor with comparable analytical/logic/argumentation skills to your own, at least IMO perhaps) has now made a suggestion wrt the Internet homicide article's name and therefore organizing rationale at Talk:Internet homicide. Is there something there to begin to address any of your longstanding "OR"/SYNTH/&c. concerns? (p/s Along with this ping, I consolidated the above spam section I'd sent you to this talkpage section too; hope you don't mind.) ↜Just  M &#8202;E &#8202; here&#8202;,&#8202;now   17:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of The Truth (painting)
An article that you have been involved in editing, The Truth (painting), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/. Thank you.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Newross (talk) 18:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Beat me to it.
I figured that was where he was going. Sigh... And people ask why I'm wikibonked at the moment. -- Good Damon 23:34, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The editor has a history of such things on the Obama article, and as far as I recall no constructive contributions there. Wikidemon (talk) 23:41, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Keep up the good work

 * Seconded! -- Hoary (talk) 15:17, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Deserved award

 * Um, that's a little odd in tone but why not? Wikidemon (talk) 02:07, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed! Meanwhile, I'm left wondering whether I'm one of these "agenda-based editors" or a member of a "small but loud opposition". Eight years from now, I expect that I'll be able to nostalgically revisit all of this and make sense of it when I see it neatly summarized within WP:LAME. Non-coprophagically yours, Hoary (talk) 02:22, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Obama AN post
I have undone my discussion closure. Happy editing to you :)  Keegan talk 03:10, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Aak! Thanks for letting me know.  Wikidemon (talk) 03:13, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Reply from Administrator Noticeboard/Incidents
Fair enough, Wikidemon -- The Legendary   Sky Attacker  22:42, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Removal of no license tag
An image that doesn't list its license information a speedy deletion candidate. Even if you added one to that page, no valid source is listed. All those supposed sources are Wikipedia mirrors. Jay32183 (talk) 06:28, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The image page describes supposed licensing information, even if improperly formatted, and comments that it is probably public domain. Even if not public domain, the subject is dead (killed in the holocaust) so quite unlikely to find a free image.  Further, it's almost certainly not a copyright problem.  Not a good candidate for speedy deletion.  Go the long route if necessary, but deleting this kind of image on process grounds isn't a good way to police copyright here.  Wikidemon (talk) 06:35, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That's exactly how to handle the situation. There is no source, that's an automatic delete. No particular license is indicated, that's an automatic delete. This image is not allowed at FFD because it has no source. The default position on images is delete. We must have absolute confirmation of the license. Some license tags automatically mark images for deletion and it doesn't require the 7 day waiting period. Jay32183 (talk) 07:50, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No, we mustn't. There's an issue of common sense.  Please explain, in practical terms, why you think the image may reasonably be a copyright violation.  If you would rather stand on process, although I cannot vouch for what the uploader claims I would be happy to attach a tag that indicates what the uploader is trying to claim.  Wikidemon (talk) 07:56, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll also add that this appears to be a "legacy" image.. uploaded in 2005 before WIkipedia had its shit together regarding image use and such. Carry on. - ALLST✰R &#09660; echo wuz here @ 08:12, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't say I think it's a copyright violation. All images must list the source and license or they get deleted. This is exactly what the speedy deletion is for. There's no author indicated, so any license applied can't be verified. That's all mandatory. From here on out you will be treated like a vandal because there's nothing you can do to save this image. When the admins get to it, it will be deleted. I know because identical situations have happened. Please note that the explanation on the page is not from the uploader. Jay32183 (talk) 19:58, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I will not be treated as a vandal. I will leave a message on your talk page about this, and ask that you seriously reconsider your approach here.  Such things have caused major drama and disruption in the past.  You're off on the wrong foot with image tagging. Wikidemon (talk) 20:16, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If you remove the tag again without adding a license tag and adding proper source details you are committing vandalism. Read WP:IUP and WP:CSD. I'm not stating an opinion and this is not open for discussion. Images without license tags get deleted, and they are not allowed at WP:FFD. Removing speedy deletion tags without fixing the issue is not allowed either. I'm not edit warring because I'm reverting edits that are against policy. I can do it 10 times a day and I haven't violated WP:3RR. Jay32183 (talk) 05:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I am quite familiar with IUP and CSD. They do not support your position.  I have cautioned you on your talk page to avoid edit warring and accusing other editors of vandalism.  You really are blustering through this, and making a fairly common but unfortunate newbie mistake regarding policy interpretation.  I see you're not a newbie, so it really is time you learned.  We have content policies, and non-free use policies, the interpretation of which is often subject to good faith disagreement.  You cannot turn a content disagreement into a behavior issue (much less vandalism accusation, for goodness sakes) just by insisting you are right as a content matter.  There are procedures to go through, and one of them is that contested speedy deletions go to discussion pages.  I've given you an opportunity to consider and discuss.  Other editors are disputing your tagging too.  Keep it up and you will be blocked.  Editors have and will be blocked for edit warring deletion tags.  Next time, try to get along.  Wikidemon (talk) 06:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not making any mistake. If the image has no source it has no source. No source means deletion. It's not a matter that can be disputed. You and I are not having a discussion. I'm informing you that this image will be deleted because it does not indicate the source or license. If you leave the image in the exact state it's in, no admin will question the deletion. I know, because it has already happened. Another user even contested it. No source and no license are not matters for discussion. You can't argue away lacking source and license information. User:Skier Dude, an admin, originally tagged this image. The changes made after that were a bunch of links to Wikipedia mirrors, which do not constitute sources. The person contesting the speedy deletion would be the one to go to the talk page, and it is done without removing the template. hangon exists for a reason. Jay32183 (talk) 06:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You're wrong. I dispute it, along with other editors, and it is therefore disputed.  Now cut it out.  Pull that one more time and you are going to AN/I.  Wikidemon (talk) 07:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It is impossible to dispute no source, and I have reported you. Jay32183 (talk) 07:04, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That's known as a retaliatory report. Don't tell me you don't know better than that.  I've taken this to WP:AN/I so the discussion here is done.  Wikidemon (talk) 07:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Non-partisan
Please remove or clarify the statement that ACORN is non-partisan. I provided a reliable source that disputes that claim. Here's another "But Ms. Kingsley (a washington lawyer who conducted an internal report for the community organizing group Acorn), found that the tight relationship between Project Vote and Acorn made it impossible to document that Project Vote’s money had been used in a strictly nonpartisan manner." The group worked to defeat G W. Bush and McCain. Part of it makes endorsements, and does so almost exclusively of Democratic candidates. It's funded by Democratic party sources. Let's try to be encyclopedic and accurate please. Clearly it's a partisan organization and we can't really on the organization itself and only those sources repeating their claim for this type of POV statement. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:28, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * My reversion was mostly due to the insertion of a new line in the lead describing Republican criticisms and allegations of fraud. I'm not sure what you're getting at regarding being nonpartisan.  Your point seems to be too complex to deal with here.  If you have a new proposal for improving the wording why not make it on the article talk page, where the question has been discussed at length?  Wikidemon (talk) 06:35, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If you look at the article history you'll see that I removed the innaccurate and disputed statement that the group (part of which endorses political candidates) is non-partisan. After this was reverted I provided sources. It certainly isn't appropriate to include such a controversial and disputed bit in the introduction of an article. I hope you'll help fix this. If it's claim of non-partisanship is to be included then the debate and other side also needs inclusion and the appropriate place to do that is in the article. That they've been investigated for voter registration in contrast is totally indisputed and very very well sourced. So it's ironic that you removed that content while restoring an innaccuracy. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:48, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It is accurate and sourced that the organization is nonpartisan, that's its technical classification. You seem to have two points, first that the technical classification does not reflect the common usage of the term nonpartisan, and second that there are claims that the group violated tax law and does not deserve to have that classification.  I would support an effort to clarify the description, but adding inapt criticisms and disputes is not the way.  Accusations that they have blown their nonprofit status don't seem to be well developed, but if they're worth covering it would be somewhere in the article body.  Both of those issues are far more detailed than I would care to get into here.  The article already mentions both that the organization has been investigated for voter registration fraud, and that it became a subject of the 2008 campaign.  Your adding the material to the lead is the problem; that's been rejected before.  Again, if you have a proposal to make, why not do it on the article talk page?  Wikidemon (talk) 06:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

xrxty
Check the contributions list of Special:Contributions/72.192.216.42

Arbcom
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Arbitration/Requests/Case and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks,

User:ChildofMidnight
Discussions gathered from elsewhere

WP:SOAP
Article talk pages are for discussion of article issues such as content and sources. Also, thank you for reverting my resoration of a post on the talk page. I had not realized the editor removing it was the editor who posted it. ChildofMidnight (talk) 08:36, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Please stop trolling. I was responding to an earnest poster's sincere question there.  You really need to tone it down and try to conform your behavior to collaborative, civil editing.Wikidemon (talk) 08:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It's troubling that you make yet another personal attack against me saying I'm trolling. This comment  that you reverted back onto the talk page does not have anything to do with article content or citations and violates WP:SOAP. There is a reminder at the top of the article talk page that says "This is not a forum for general discussion of Barack Obama. Any such messages will be deleted. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article." I hope you will remain civil and focused on article improvements in the future. It would also be good if you showed fairness in reverting and warning all editors who make personal attacks and inappropriate comments and not just those whose statements you disagree with. You commented soon after a statement was made about "batshit insane fringetards (and the poor sheep that follow them)," and I hope you're aware that this statment violates our civility guidelines and is grossly inappropriate. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:03, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I stand by what I said. There was a reason I added that commentary, because I was engaging an editor who made a strong point a number of people disagreed with.  I don't think it's worth engaging you over this subject, however.Wikidemon (talk) 18:14, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikidemon's making false accusations
Wikiedmon, please don't make false accusations on the usertalk pages of editors with whom you disagree. There is no personal attack in this edit summary: "The info is in the source. Stop making up bogus excuses to censor everything I add to this article." Nor is there one in the other diff you posted. Please refractor your false accusations and apologize. As you know these articles are on article probation and the subject of an Arbcom proceeding in which your inappropriate behavior is featured. If you make false accusations like this again I will take it to a noticeboard for admin intervention. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:21, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * You're over the line here, and again stating untruths.  I'm not going to waste time responding to this nonsense. Wikidemon (talk) 21:01, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * @CoM - Grundle was accusing everyone of censoring him, which is a clear assumption of bad faith. Wikidemon was right to warn him. Perhaps if Grundle would stop his agenda-based approach to Wikipedia, there would be no need to remove anything of his. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:07, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Talk page notices
I have asked you repeatedly not to post on my talk page except to call my attention to a discussion on an article talk page. This was necessary because of your history of harassment. There is already an Arbcom case about your biased editing. I suggest you consider carefully the guidelines for editing and behavior on Wikipedia. Thanks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:04, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You have made various requests in connection with your talk page, and I have said that I would not post unnecessarily there. I have never agreed to avoid your page entirely, and when your edits or some other mater warrant attention on your talk page I will post there. The tone of your message, above, is unfounded, unreasonable, and unduly combative.  This seems to relate to your long-term denigration of my behavior and edits as being somehow detrimental to the encyclopedia, and if I cannot dissuade you from thinking of me as some kind of Wikipedia boogeyman I would at least appreciate it if you would hold that opinion to yourself.  I have never harassed you, nor is it reasonable to say that there is an arbitration case about my editing.  More to the point, I posted a notice on your talk page regarding a disputed edit you made to the Barack Obama article, telling you I was about to restore the article to an earlier state, and inviting you to discuss the matter on the talk page.  Your talk page is the appropriate place for such a notice, and I am sure that whatever the outcome of the arbitration case may be, something along those lines would be considered a reasonable way of going about handling a disagreement about article content.  Wikidemon (talk) 18:15, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Please stop posting on my talk page. As noted above I have asked you repeatedly to use the article discussion pages.  I'm not sure why you fail to respect good faith requests by other editors.  The excuses you make for your biased editing and harassing comments just don't cut it.  PLEASE STOP!!! ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:34, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe my earlier comment is self-explanatory, but to reiterate: I will post to your talk page when that is the appropriate place for a message that is important to pass along. I have refrained and will continue to refrain from posting unnecessarily there.  The latest comments on your talk page are a case in point, stated neutrally and non-confrontationally, and entirely appropriate.  Despite a temptation to do so I avoided characterizing what I think of your behavior, something I note you have not refrained from doing.  I would ask you to extend me the same decorum - your comments above, as I note, are unduly confrontational.  Thanks,  Wikidemon (talk) 18:46, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

April 2009
Please don't troll my talk page. You've been asked repeatedly not to post on my page unless you need to call my attention to a discussion on an article talk page. Your behavior is disruptive and you've been warned many times. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:04, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Characterizing my notices as "trolling", my behavior as "disruptive", and your complaints as warnings, is vexatious and unreasonable. That is particularly given acute given that your protests come amidst an overall campaign to disrupt the Barack Obama talk page.  As I have said many times, I will use your page for its appropriate purpose, including admonitions and notices, but have and will continue to avoid unnecessary chatter there.  If you do not wish to be cautioned for disruptive behavior, stop engaging in it.  Wikidemon (talk) 05:30, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Please stop harassing me
I've asked you numerous times not to post on my talk page. Please respect my request. If you need to call my attention to a discussion on an article talk page that would be fine. Thanks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:56, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not harassing you. Because of your request, and the general vituperation you have directed at me for several months, I have generally disengaged from any involvement with you on the project.  You have not always done the same.  I have been patient, but that does not give you a free ticket for gross incivility and disruption to the encyclopedia, as you have been doing lately on the subject of Obama.  If you disrupt an article I am working on and your talk page the appropriate place, that's how it is. If you don't like it, a better start would be cleaning up your act than complaining to me about it.Wikidemon (talk) 18:05, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * My focus is on article building and improvement, so I have no interest in arguing with POV warriors like you. I think the damage you do to the encyclopedia speaks for itself.  Your comments on my page have nothing to do with article improvement and were pure harassment.  Please don't post on my talk page unless it's to call my attention to a discussion of article content on an article talk page. Thank you. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:13, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Nope. That one is transparent, and you get a warning for that one.Wikidemon (talk) 18:16, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikidemon, you POV warrior you. Lol.  Grsz 11  18:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Please stop harassing me Wikidemon. I've asked you numerous times not to post on my talk page. Your posts don't haven anything to do with improving the encyclopedia and are harassment. Leave me alone. Thanks.ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:28, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll refer to my initial response, and this picture of Doctor Evil. Wikidemon (talk) 18:36, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

OMG, not the picture of Dr Evil!!! :) Brothejr (talk) 18:49, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Might as well just ignore him Wikidemon. You and I both know that crowd can't handle being called out on their bullshit.  Grsz 11  18:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Ignoring is the best response, but it only goes so far. Eventually, it may be necessary to put together an RfC/U in order to make a case for a block or ban. --Ronz (talk) 18:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Personal attacks
Please refrain from making personal attacks. I am a good faith editor and while I've tried to avoid you as much as possible because of your history of disruptive and antagonistic behavior, I cannot ignore your incitements toward a troubled editor and your personal attacks against me. You know better than that Wikidemon. Come on now. Let's try to steer clear of each other and where our paths cross to focus on article content and improvement of the encyclopedia. Thanks very much. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:17, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? My behavior has never been a problem, as much as you try to paint me with that claim.  You have been one of the most tendentious, vexatious editors around, on a number of important articles, and you seem to be heading for a complete meltdown.  You are now engaged in edit wars and insult matches across the encyclopedia.  You are in no position to be lobbing accusations against other editors.  Wikidemon (talk) 21:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Refactoring
Please don't refactor my comments again. You've been warned repeatedly about this type of inappropriate activity and it needs to stop. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Please just quit it and go away. I don't need this nonsense from you.  Deal with it on AN/I, where your behavior is under question now.  Wikidemon (talk) 02:46, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you going to cease refactoring discussions or do I have to file a report against you? You've been asked repeatedly to refrain from personal attacks and soap boxing, and the last report you filed every response suggested you shape up your activities and cease attacking good faith editors.  I'm not sure what the issue is, but I like to spend my time editing, not dealing with your incivility and improper activities. Please stop. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:48, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, please stop the nonsense and go away. Adding section headings is not refactoring comments, and don't edit war over that to game AN/I.  I'm not going to respond to yet more fabricated accusations here on my talk page.  Wikidemon (talk) 03:54, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Adding thread title to the comments of other editors, particularly those you are in dispute with, is grossly inappropriate. Please do not do this type of refactoring again.  ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, you're wrong. Please don't pester me with this nonsense.  You're trying to defend your own mean-spirited attempt to spread untruths about other editors.  Just go away.  Wikidemon (talk) 04:46, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Please don't make accusations that aren't true and remove my comments from talk pages
Your violation of our content guidelines is bad enough. But leave my comments alone thanks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:02, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

False accusations
Please refrain from posting false accusations on my user talk page. Two of the diffs you provided are to a budget issue and the third is to an issue about enhanced interrogation. So clearly it's not 3RR. Knowingly making false accusations is against policy and can result in administrative action. Please also note that I've asked you repeatedly to avoid my talk page because of your persistenet harassment and abusive behavior including numerous frivolous ANI reports. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:12, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Please retract your latest false accusation
Please retract your false statement that I am "gaming". As is clear from the post I made on your talk page that you deleted immediately, and the edit history, I haven't gamed anything. As I've made clear to you, making false accusation and personal attacks violates policy. I've asked you repeatedly to cease harassing me, to stick to content issues and to keep discussion on article talk pages rather than on my talk page. Please cease your abuse and improper actions and remove your personal attack. Thanks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:53, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Third request to stop posting on my talk page and to stop making false accusation and personal attacks
It's inappropriate to refactor my comments on your talk page. I don't appreciate having my comments moved about inappropriately. This is another example of your inappropriate and policy abusing behavior. Also, I'd like to again ask you to please stop posting on my talk page. I haven't changed anything you've said and I'm certainly allowed to remove your harassing personal attacks and smears against me from my talk page. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:06, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikilawyering and harassment
Please abide by our guidelines and remain civil towards your fellow editors. Misrepresenting policies to censor content is unacceptable. Thank you. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:03, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Please stop and disengage
If CoM behaves wrong, there are many other editors willing to warn him or report his behavior to ANI. Your first 3RR warning today contains your pledge to report him to ANI, that sounds like a harassment to me. Since he has repeatedly assured you that he does not want your visit, why don't you bother arguing about your integrity there? If you think that you behave from good faith and some justice to be done, just add diffs to the ArbCom case. You may know that your frequent and frivolous filing to ANI just makes your image very bad (FYI, I trusted your report at first because your fair vandal-fighting activities, but as time goes by for your excessive ANI activities, things changed in my mind). That fact that you did not revert much does not make you NPOV or on a better ground to accuse others. This message to request another user to report CoM on behalf of you is very concerning. Just disengage in contacting with CoM from now. ArbCom case can solve the issue soon. Regards.--Caspian blue 23:19, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * In case you hadn't noticed I was trying to disengage with ChildofMidnight, who repeatedly misrepresented a post of mine on his talk page until I decided to let him have his way with it. You're not a neutral bystander in any of this, as your recent series of edits shows.  The long and short of it is that ChildofMidnight has once again been edit warring Obama pages to add anti-Obama material, while accusing editors who disagree with him of POV, harassment, abuse, vandalism, wikigaming, and goodness knows what else.  Yes, it makes a big difference how many times one reverts.  Having a content position is what Wikipedia is all about, and supporting that content position is editing.  Edit warring against consensus and making accusations of bad faith, however, is a problem.  You're fundamentally misstating the nature of 3RR warnings.  The proper procedure is to first give a caution on his talk page and, if it continues, report it to AN/I or some administrative board set up to handle it.  Whether ChildofMidnight wants to be warned or not is beside the point.  His calling me a liar and heaping on abuse for the warning is typical behavior from this editor, and your defending and encouraging that kind of disruption is unfortunate.  Wikidemon (talk) 06:03, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You're mispresenting my view on the case. I only recommended you to "add your evidence" to the ArbCom case. I know you do not want to increase your evidence over the current 7500 words, but you need to let things sorted by the Committee, not by your warning. Even if CoM is topic-banned as you wish, I may not feel sorry for him because I do not share with his view at all. Wikipedia is not Americanpedia. See my view, my thought, or Scjessey's extreme incivility; accusations of behaving "BS", being mentally challenged and vandalism accusation. I think you can enjoy the outsider's view although I have to add diffs. Cheers.--Caspian blue 06:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry if I misinterpreted - your views seem rather harsh. Yes, please do add diffs because ArbCom probably can't fully process it without them.  I will be adding some evidence, but the fact that an ArbCom case is underway is no excuse or shield for edit warring, incivility, etc., in the meanwhile.  I do share your view that Scjessey needs to tone down the language and is wrong about BLP.  I have not been able to get through to him on that.  Wikidemon (talk) 06:39, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: suggestion
In regards to your notes complaining about removing talk page discussions, including that copyvio, there are zero arbitrators supporting that. I only put it up for completeness purposes and don't expect it to pass. I'll look o ver the rest of the comments later (I'm behind on that) Wizardman  16:28, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification. I realize that I have not put together a full case regarding my statement that ChildofMidnight has been vexatious against me for six months and that I've responded appropriately.  My evidence is already very long, I've spent a lot of time going over the case history, and I didn't really consider that to be at issue in the case.  If the remedies proposed are enacted, it is moot anyway.  The only place ChildofMidnight and I have interacted is politics-related articles connected either loosely or directly to Obama.  ChildofMidnight's work in other parts of the encyclopedia is exemplary, and as much as I share his love for bacon and some of his other interests, they are not in my editing range.  My experience with arb cases is that it's usually pointless to introduce new evidence or open up new concerns tangential to the main case at the last minute.Wikidemon (talk) 16:39, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Let me make this clear
You do not understand Wikipedia's Image Use Policy. I was blocked for edit warring, not for tagging images for deletion. Many of those image have been deleted. All images must list sources and have evidence of permission. I'm not marking them as nld, but nsd and npd are fair game for the PD tag. That tag has been deprecated and is not supposed to be used, not just by new images. If there isn't a source or evidence of permission the license tag cannot be updated. These are perfect candidates for speedy deletion. You can check my "User Talk" edits for file redlinks and see how many were deleted per F4 or F11. Many of those images had PD. The tagging is not inappropriate. You're removing no source tags from unsourced images is inappropriate. Stop removing the tags and let the images get deleted. Jay32183 (talk) 09:02, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm quite familiar with image use policy. You seem to be heading for a meltdown over this.  Surely you know that your position on this is disputed.  Whatever your concerns are, you must know that you represent a minority positon and are better off discussing them on policy space rather than taking such a strident position on image and article space.  If you want to achieve a broad deletion of an entire class of images you're better off dealing with this in discussion rather than by taking potshots at images.  Wikidemon (talk) 09:34, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not in the minority and there's already been discussions on this class of image. The discussions resulted in WP:CSD and WP:CSD. No source is not something that's open for discussion. Saying "This is in the public domain" is not a source. File:Corgarff Castle.jpg got deleted after being tagged by me. It was marked PD. Maybe you should ask User:Drilnoth about the deletion of that image. Jay32183 (talk) 10:27, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * F4 and F11 are not applicable. The uploader is clearly the source on these, and by using that tag they donated their images to the public domain.  If you don't want to discuss it, then don't.  Your block clearly didn't have the intended effect - when people disagree you need to work with others instead of simply declaring that you're right and don't want to talk about it.  Wikidemon (talk) 15:54, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject User Rehab
Hey WD -- per your history of a pretty consistent, IMO, altruistic support of i-d-e-a-s ummm I thot dzust maybe your interest might be piqued to help support some -- individuals whose histories here were formerly wayward and might be afforded a way back to constructive participation here? Well, the gist of the project is probably better indicated in the message I myself received about it, which goes like this:

"We need more editors who share a burden for rescuing promising editors who have gotten into serious trouble because of behavioral issues. IF (a fundamental condition!) they are interested in reforming and adapting to our standards of conduct, and are also willing to abide by our policies and guidelines, rather than constantly subverting them, we can offer to help them return to Wikipedia as constructive editors. Right now many if not most users who have been banned are still active here, but they are here as socks or anonymous IPs who may or may not be constructive. We should offer them a proper way to return. If you think this is a good idea, please join us."

If you find this not spam but palatable fare, the link is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_User_Rehab#Project_supporters . ↜Just  M &thinsp;E here&#8202;,&#8202;now  15:45, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Winfried Freudenberg
Hi Wikidemon. I hope you don't mind...I found this article and it was about to go stale (in a day or so) for acceptance to the main page as a DYK. I did some minor copyediting and added a couple of citations, then nom'ed it for DYK. You will receive credit when it hits the mainpage. :)  Sy  n 01:58, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No, not at all. Thanks for helping.  Wikidemon (talk) 02:39, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Response to your comment
I just read the comment you left me about Grundle's edits and it sounds like you are running for office. We both know that Grundle is conducting a systematic, agenda-driven war on any article related to Obama and his administration. He uses poor sourcing, synthesis and original research and eschews any kind of prior discussion. He also ignores pleas from other editors and other administrators, carrying out his edits as if blissfully unaware of the warnings he has received. He's also received coaching from another well-known agenda-driven editor that has gone largely ignored. And while Grundle gets away with appalling examples of POV pushing, I get warnings (and even overly-sensitive blocks) for subtle expressions of frustration.

Frankly, I'm starting to wonder why I bother. The people defending the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia get warned and blocked more than the POV pushers because the system is setup to protect people adding material. What kills me is that Grundle's behavior should have long since been caught by the article probation, and he should've been topic-banned or blocked. The same goes for his "mentor". Lately, the answer has been to "wait and see how the ArbCom investigation turns out", but it is proceeding with geological slowness and leaving the people doing article patrol with no solutions to the problem.

So please don't give me any more crap about edit warring when I've only twice reverted what is an obvious bit of agenda-driven editing. If you look at my reversions, they are always accompanied by attempts at talk page discussion. My second reversion only occurs if that talk page discussion is ignored by the POV pusher - a reasonable approach. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:27, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, I don't know what Grundle is up to. I can tell he has a bias, and agree with you that often the sourcing, point of view, etc., are poor.  I can also see that he responds to messages from all sides, but beyond that I won't speculate.  Bigtimepeace has been watching his edits but is on vacation now, so there is not a whole lot anyone can do.  The "coaching" you refer to is not being ignored; it is an issue in the arbitration, and something I am preparing evidence on.  It's not surprising that better behavior is expected out of people who are supposed to behave.  You're one of the article watchers / maintainers, not a stray partisan, and the regulars should hold themselves to a higher standard.  I'm frustrated too at the pace of arbitration, and I'm concerned that it might not achieve anything.  When neutral arbitrators, administrators, or observers do watch it, it's  helpful if the people on the side of stability and good editing are as dignified and straight as they can be.  Otherwise you risk falling into the trap you fell into before.  If you engage in name-calling or revert warring, even on the right side of things, and particularly if you get blocked for it, it hurts your credibility and to some extent everyone's.  It's better for you, and better for the cause of keeping the articles in shape, if that doesn't happen.  Wikidemon (talk) 02:38, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm
I have a concern. You may wish to monitor this new user with a highly suspicious edit history. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:41, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I see that. Very odd.  Certainly fishy.  It could be one of the affected editors, they may be the same editor, it could be a third party from Wikipedia's past, or it could be a saboteur trying to discredit them.  Or something else.  Hard to tell.  Wikidemon (talk) 22:42, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I've notified the blocking administrator (Sheffield Steel) just in case my hunch is correct. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:44, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That one popped up on my watchlist too. It's one of those "clearly a disruptive sock of somebody" ones. Whose disruptive sock it is isn't worth the time to think about. Hopefully will be blocked in short order.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:54, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Steve Berman (lawyer)
Regarding your recent edit to the article, please keep in mind that a hatnote is inappropriate for article names that are not ambiguous. In this case, "lawyer" is specifically stated in the article title. Please see WP:NAMB for further information and feel free to contact me if you have any concerns. just64helpin (talk) 00:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Chop suey
Hi, thanks for your work on chop suey. As it happens, the various "unsupported" claims in the article come directly from the works cited in the bibliography, though they weren't attached directly to the claims in-text. I have now added them as ref's so that the connection is clearer. --macrakis (talk) 14:24, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, good. Thanks.  Food origins are one of the murkiest things around, especially since the question of whether one dish in one place derives from or is the same as another dish in another place is a matter of interpretation and definition.  Plus, when someone (as in my source) says the origin is unknown it often just means the writer does not know.  Wikidemon (talk) 19:57, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Obama opinions pro and con
no personal attacks, just challenging the bias of the "revisionists". I consider the US news media as a much bigger propaganda machine. Pravda online has been in existence for 10 years the staff defected from the original paper. they have been there; done that. just a caveat from them. i didn't realize the page was probationary. i do object to the unilateral treatment, like he's a rock star, when he's never even signed a payroll check. he cannot even complete one take for youtube without a teleprompter. if you want a fair page, include all opinions. could it be that the soviet journalists have more foresight than in the usa? i placed the pravda opinion where it belongs: economic opinion. if you don't want opinions, then delete the section. hindsight is 20/20.

Furtive admirer (talk) 19:17, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for taking the time to respond. Opinions per WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE, etc., usually must have a certain amount of adherence before they are included.  But the main deal is revert warring.  A lot of people are anxious over the Obama articles, there have been dozens of account blocks if you look at the link on the notice, and there's even an Arbcom case.  So please do be careful.  Cheers,  Wikidemon (talk) 19:59, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikidemon/CoM restriction and other thoughts
I just noted your "no objection". I am curious to know how you would go about ensuring you don't step on CoM's toes. Are you planning to examine the history of an article you revert to make sure that you aren't reverting something of CoM's? I mention this in my own response to this proposed restriction. Also, what are your thoughts about the lack of a time limit on these restrictions? And have you noticed how many of the arbitrators are performing several dozen votes within the space of a couple of minutes? It worries me that diffs are not being properly studied. I'm deeply troubled at the lack of attention given to agenda-based editing as well. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:15, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I share your concern that Arbcom members have not reviewed all the evidence carefully, and they got a few things wrong. But they do understand the gist of the case. And I think there is a lot of practical wisdom behind their approach. There are lots of little implementation details, and rather than assuming the worst it's best to assume that sanctions will be interpreted and applied by reasonable administrators. The duration is one of those details. If everything is quiet for 6 months or a year, we'll be back to normal anyway. Like you said, the way to avoid stepping on toes is to check the edit history to see who is active on an article. On a talk page you can use text search. I doubt anyone would be blocked for an accidental, inconsequential mistake. Also, the way the proposed sanctions are set up there's unlikely to be much contention in the first place because of the one revert per week rule, and the other bans and restrictions. The voting pattern is something I don't know about. Maybe they make up their minds first, then check them all off at once to avoid multiple edits - you know, like a ballot box. Wikidemon (talk) 02:20, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Neoconservatism
There is currently a discussion going on at the talk page that I hoped you could comment on. Soxwon (talk) 20:48, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom musings
I've just been reading the latest "comment flinging" sparked by the (timely?) return of Noroton, and I'm amazed. I've been tempted to offer my own opinion, but I've decided that it can only dig me into a deeper hole than I appear to already be in. The ArbCom procedure, to my surprise, seems to coming down rather hard on me and I find myself questioning my own judgment.

We have worked hard to defend the project, particularly in this group of articles, and we are being unfairly treated for our efforts. I don't know about you, but right now I feel like one of those Vietnam veterans returning from the war, only to have their own countrymen spit on them. The agenda-driven efforts of certain editors are being ignored by the ArbCom procedure, while our work to protect the project against such efforts is attracting censure. How thoroughly depressing. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:25, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I share your disappointment. A few characters have come out of the woodwork, and surely one or more have been here before in different guises.  The Arbcom members seem to be making the fundamental mistake of failing to distinguish between efforts to protect the encyclopedia versus efforts to subvert it.  They also seem to conceive of things in a very superficial way that validates the troublemakers, assuming based on seeing a dispute that there are two sides fighting and both need to be pacified.  There is not a whole lot we can do about that, and fighting it will not help.  It is a fair process, and as in life a fair process often generates unfair outcomes.  You don't deserve the punishment that seems likely, but all the same you should have seen it coming.  A lot of other editors, including me, cautioned you for a long time to tone down the language.  Also, you must know by now that your interpretation of BLP is at best a minority position: repeating well-sourced, common disparagements of a public figure may violate other policies but not BLP, and thus edit warring on them is not covered by the 3RR exception - it becomes common edit warring, for which there is no right side.  A topic ban for you is unfortunate because we need everyone's help given the persistence of the troublemakers.  But one way or another, if you want to be around long-term you have to deal with those two issues: maintaining decorum while going about it, and avoiding edit warring even if on the right side of the content question.  Wikidemon (talk) 13:49, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * To be fair, I've done very little edit warring. You can count the number of times on one hand over the last 2 years. And my interpretation of BLP is not that different from yours, although I put a little bit more emphasis on the stuff about avoiding "guilt-by-association". Folks like Tarc and Grsz11 seem to have stricter interpretations than I do. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:02, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Copyright question
Wikidemon, in 2007 you were active on the image copyright issues here on Wikipedia. I noticed you moved to a more serene area, presidential politics. I have a favor to ask, would you look at Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content Am I barking up the wrong tree or are these old advertisements public domain? See File:MITS Calculator 1200 Series 1973.jpg If you don't want to give an opinion, I will understand.

I noticed you are from the San Francisco area. I lived there in the 1970s and have added some photographs to Carol Doda and North Beach, San Francisco, California. -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 05:39, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Per your request
I amended my statement on you per your previous request (I did not know what "catch22" is, and why you kept talking about "catch22"), and I think I quiet reduced the negativity on your part. I have to admit that is partially because I've seen you've done some good works on cuisine articles just like CoM and your good-faith help for some user's struggle at RfAs. In fact, your interaction with CoM led me to write the evidence because you should've let CoM alone since he persistently asked you not to. I think the remedy for you and CoM is good for the both. In the end, my evidence weight more of Scjessey. Anyway, I hope you're doing good jobs. Regards.--Caspian blue 12:29, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It's from Catch-22. I would comment further, but I would like to get into the habit of not dealing at all with that editor.  Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 13:34, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Illegal immigration to USA
Just wanted to let you know that a nationalist indian has removed info from the page because hes finds it offence to show that indians are the fastest growing illegal group in USA this pov pushing by wikireader41 is the sole reason he joined wikipedia you should revert his trash cheers 86.158.178.91 (talk) 17:12, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I think this fustrated the indian user wikireader41 because he lives in USA himself what ever the reason his pov needs to be neutralised cheers 86.158.178.91 (talk) 17:25, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Immigrants from India are the fastest-growing groups of illegal and unauthorized aliens in the US. This is the portion deleted because wikireader41 felt It was offensive to Indians nationalistic pride no doubt even though he doesnt live in India lol 86.153.132.231 (talk) 18:07, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


 * This ip is banned user Nangparbat. please see

User:Hersfold/Vandal_watch

User:Thegreyanomaly/Nangparbat the evader

Suspected sock puppets/Nangparbat

Sockpuppet investigations/Nangparbat/Archive

AKA

AKA

AKA


 * Interesting... Well, the edit blended in on this article because the article is a semi-mess subject to lots of agenda-driven editing as it is.  In a better article, singling out (or else deleting) a statistical claim would be more obvious.  Wikidemon (talk) 23:23, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Note, the above was deleted by an IP, who accused the editor posting it of being a sock. Although socks shouldn't be posting anywhere, I'm reverting here just to preserve the record...  Wikidemon (talk) 15:11, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Dont you think you should revert wikireader41 hes obviously pov pushing due to his indian heritage and thats the sole reason for him deleting the well sourced info on the growing numbers of illegal indian aliens in the USA im sure you agree nationalist rants on wikipedia should not be tolerated BTW i have several diffs showing his blatant pov take care:-) 86.153.129.95 (talk) 20:50, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

?Question
Is there a 20/20 tag on Wikipedia for articles with an episode? Thanks --TalkAbout (talk) 19:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't see any special tag or template in the 20/20 article. Some fictional shows have well-developed episode guides, like the Simpsons.  For example, a given episode would have the template  and  .  But I don't think anyone has ever gone into that much detail with news shows.  Wikidemon (talk) 19:19, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks--TalkAbout (talk) 20:04, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Undulus asperatus
I have nominated your new article for DYK on the Main Page. Figured I'd let you know. - Running On Brains (talk page) 20:30, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Cool. We should see if there are any public domain images... the article says a U.S. federal employee has been tracking the clouds so maybe there is a free government picture available.  Wikidemon (talk) 20:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Obama edit.
Hi, your edit removing the praise/criticism looks good, but instead of saying 'at the other page', which could mean any of a dozen talk pages, please link it next time? Or use the article being edited's talk page to provide a link, rather than make others sort through your contrib list. ThuranX (talk) 21:13, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It refers to the immediately preceding edit summary. Wikidemon (talk) 21:14, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Criticism of Barack Obama
Well, it looks like the Arbitration Committee are about to do a U-turn on their normal policy line of BLP enforcement in the Obama case. Of course, I'm going to appeal to have some of the remedies vacated as soon as I can. But we need to think about other things as well, such as creating a criticism article, because it's obviously NPOV. And we need to cover the important issues, like him swatting a fly yesterday, or him ordering mustard on his cheeseburger, or him making a joke about the Special Olympics! Sceptre (talk) 00:02, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The only way to get your remedies vacated would be to petition Arbcom and I doubt that, having considered the case for three months, they would be in a mood to overturn their own decision very quickly. I won't comment about the appropriateness of the sanctions but I do think you could have been less confrontational and more polite with other editors, and done less reverting.  Structurally, I think the same argument against your own revert restrictions would apply equally to the other three editors who received them: they are too harsh and unspecific because they relate to editing everywhere on the encyclopedia, and no evidence was introduced or mentioned by the arbitrators of edit warring outside of the Obama-related articles, Obama-related political matters, and meta-pages relating to Obama article-related disputes.  I think the best way to have the editing restrictions lifted would be to do a lot of good work, in an exemplary fashion, without getting into any edit wars or disputes, for a few months, then go to back with a promise to continue like that.  I don't see that Arbcom reached the question of BLP, and was not very definitive about criticism articles. Wikidemon (talk) 02:27, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You do have a point about there being no real edit warring outside Obama pages. And my point is that, by issuing the same sanction to Steve (who was previously desysopped for edit-warring) and to me (who was trying to uphold BLP, even if I did edit-war) shows a lack of thinking through on the Committee's part. Besides, the only thing that the AC got right is that I edit warred on the FAQ; I reverted Steve "outside" Obama articles as he was, at the time, being exceedingly disruptive, and that's what contribution logs are for; and the word "fuck" does not a personal attack make. Sceptre (talk) 04:56, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Your special friends
Basically, you have two editors who absolutely hate you. There is nothing you can say to either of them that will change that, so I recommend you simply say nothing. It's really obvious that their comments about you are without merit, so you really have no need to defend yourself. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:22, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I will have to craft a canned response to the attacks, lest they continue on other pages. As I commented (and as you know from the case), when people throw enough mud, some of it sticks sometimes.  Letting accusations sit unanswered makes people believe they must have some merit.   One of these two will shortly be prohibited by Arbcom from interacting with me.  The other, should he continue, is a real problem - he announced (in the diffs I posted) that he will hound me indefinitely until he shuts me down, and he has appeared several times since then to try to do so.  You've probably also noticed from the history of AN/I that the fastest way to gum up an AN/I report is to accuse the original poster of bad behavior.  The upset editors on the Obama pages seem to have learned from each other on that front.  Wikidemon (talk) 15:29, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I completely agree with you, and I think the canned response idea is definitely the way to go. I feel that we have both suffered from the "mud slinging" approach by both of these problem editors. I think you can understand why I pulled out of all the Obama articles when I did - I refuse to have all the work I do in good faith mischaracterized in the way that these two editors (and others) always seem to do. Now, it seems, all the good work I do in other areas of Wikipedia will be affected by the harsh restrictions that will be applied to me by ArbCom - largely because of the actions of these two editors. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:54, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Chris_Brown_(entertainer)
Hello, neutrality concerns over the criminal conviction of Chris Brown have been raised on the talk page. Since you have been previously involved in the discussion, will you answer the request for comment? Thankyou. The Bookkeeper  (of the Occult)  21:41, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks.
Hi. Thank you for your kind words about the article that I wrote about Obama and the fly.

Grundle2600 (talk) 00:34, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Ruling
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above.


 * ,, , and  are admonished for their edit-warring. Furthermore, they shall be subject to an editing restriction for one year. They are limited to one revert per page per week (except for undisputable vandalism and BLP violations), and are required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page.
 * In addition, and  are topic-banned from Obama-related articles for six months, including talk pages.
 * and are not to interact with each other, including replying or reverting of each other’s actions.  and  are not to interact with each other, including replying or reverting of each other’s actions.

Non-compliance to the above are grounds for blocking for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling.


 * is admonished for his part in the edit warring.
 * and are reminded to be civil when dealing with hot-button and controversial situations.
 * is reminded to be more civil when dealing with users and to not use talk pages as a forum.

The probation on articles relating to Barack Obama will be reviewed by a group of involved and non-involved editors and administrators to see how effective it has been. The process will last two weeks. After the two weeks elapse, the working group will provide their findings to us and the community, and will outline how the article probation will run in the future.

- For the Arbitration Committee, Mailer Diablo 15:38, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Notification
OK, I am hoping we can draw a line in the sand and move on. Please avoid posting anything from this point which could be considered inflammatory. Thankyou for not seeking 'action' at this point. Taking a deep breath, I am posting this advice all round and hoping everyone can calm down and move on. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:43, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Proposed community ban of NYScholar
Hello. You have previously commented on issues related to User:NYScholar. I have just proposed that NYScholar be community banned here. I am contacting you partly because your participation in the discussion would be welcome, but also because I have referred to your past comments, and want to give you the chance to ensure that I am not misconstruing them or using them out of context. Best, Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 07:11, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Namespace vio
I am very unhappy about these Barack Obama sub-pages being in the (article) namespace. Surely they should be in Talk: or Wikipedia: ? &mdash; RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 08:59, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't understand the concern. Nothing specitic meant here, just trying to organize a cluster of articles around a community article probation.  Would you kindly elaborate?  Is there a better place to put them?  Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 09:19, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

The pages are patently not articles: they are discussions about article content. Therefore they go in a namespace different from (article). I suggest the better place is Talk:Barack Obama/... Was that not obvious from my first message? &mdash; RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 18:22, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * They're not article talk page either. They're metapages, each (potentially) with an associated talk page.  For example, there is an Obama article probation page which describes the terms and nature of article probation.  My motivation for dividing this up to begin with was that various editors had been talking about probation, which is a different issue than the probation itself.  Then there are reports and requests for enforcement related to probation, and finally a log of sanctions and notifications.  I don't think Wikipedia has a regular format or process for this because community-enforced probation is a newish, infrequent thing.  The models would be arbitration cases (with their associated notice boards, request pages, talk pages, etc), the general sanctions pages, and the administrative noticeboards... all in WP space.  I could move it all there myself but would prefer to get some guidance and discussion first as to where they belong.  Would that discussion belong in village pump, WP:AN, or somewhere else?Wikidemon (talk) 20:07, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

You are self contradictory: a page which "describes the terms and nature of article probation" is by definition not an article so it should not be in the (article) namespace. I have moved a few of your pages - see your contributions (or mine). I leave you to fix the links. Preferably leave them in the Talk: namespace but definitely seek a third editor's opinion before you move them back into the (article) namespace. &mdash; RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 18:33, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No contradiction. That's what a metapage is.  I'm fixing the mess, have left you a note, and am bringing this to WP:AN.  I know you're trying to help but we can't leave it in a messy state.  I'm all for getting this right, though.  :)  Wikidemon (talk) 20:17, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Editing study
Hi. My name is Mike Lyons and I am a doctoral student at Indiana University. I am conducting research on the writing and editing of high traffic “current events” articles on Wikipedia. I have noticed in the talk page archives at Barack Obama that you have contributed to the editing or maintenance of the article. I was hoping you would agree to fill out a brief survey about your experience. This study aims to help expand our thinking about collaborative knowledge production. Your participation would be immensely helpful in making the study a success. A link to the survey is included below.

Link to the survey: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=P6r2MmP9rbFMuDigYielAQ_3d_3d

Thanks and best regards, Mike Lyons lyonspen | (talk) 19:51, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Chicken fried steak
Saw your name pop up in RC patrol. Surely chicken fried steak should ALWAYS be "sauced" with some sausage gravy! -- Scjessey (talk) 17:03, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That's so POV, dude. Bacon is the only way to go.  I'm aware of the religious wars on that one.  Some people think white gravy is the only kind, but that would involve throwing away the pan drippings, which is a hanging offense in some parts of Texas.  Wikidemon (talk) 17:07, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Pah, Texas. Isn't that "country fried" steak (instead of "chicken fried")? Is Texas still even part of the US? My wife is a North Carolina girl who states that sausage gravy is the only way to go. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:12, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello
Hi. I was wondering if you would please read my various comments at Talk:Gerald Walpin, and then add your own thoughts on the subject at that talk page. Grundle2600 (talk) 15:19, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Obama articles arbcom case
I've requested an amendment to the Obama ArbCom case to examine and remove several of the findings of fact and remedies passed by the Committee. Your comments would be appreciated here. Thank you. Sceptre (talk) 13:59, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Request
Hi. I’m looking to add free-licensed photographs to the articles of the various seasons of MTV’s The Real World, so I’m contacting editors whom I find have edited the articles for those cities. Do you live in San Francisco, and if so, would you be able to take some nice pics of the San Francisco residence, and upload them here if I give you the locations? If not, do you know anyone who can? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 04:08, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

You are invited and welcome to join us!
Greetings! Please come and join us for the The Great Wikipedia Dramaout Grundle2600 (talk) 19:23, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Ha! Thanks, that's very kind.  I don't think I should join formally but I'll take a look at the rules and have my own private drama-free celebration.  Wikidemon (talk) 20:05, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Whatever works for you! Grundle2600 (talk) 20:07, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I could hardly contain my laughter. In fact, I couldn't and pee'd myself laughing out loud so hard. - ALLST✰R ▼ echo wuz here  03:14, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Just a reminder...
Hi. I'd like to remind you about a comment you made in this section of the talk page for Presidency of Barack Obama a while ago. If you changed your mind about it, that's OK - just please let me know. If you didn't change your mind, I'd appreciate it if you followed through. Either way, thank you. Grundle2600 (talk) 02:01, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I was just remembering that today. I just did that.  Let me know what you think.  Wikidemon (talk) 02:24, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow! Thanks! I like it! I also like that you put so much effort into defending it on the talk page. It's too bad others keep erasing it. I don't want you to get into an edit war. You already put in far more effort than what I asked of you. Thank you so very much! Grundle2600 (talk) 14:11, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:Hornbook -- a new WP:Law task force for the J.D. curriculum
Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 06:02, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Before things get out of control...
I'm not serious. It's just a joke, because it seems to me that AN/I is Baseball Bugs' favorite page on Wiki. ;)-- The LegendarySky Attacker 23:07, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It was pretty amusing. Wikidemon (talk) 23:12, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed you had an AfD issue with a certain someone so I thought I'd reassure you that I have had a similar unpleasant experience. As long as you kept it just to the AfD and not all over various other talk pages (if that was the case) I think you did rather well and the main thing is it is over now. Have a nice day. -- can  dle &bull; wicke  03:52, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, a little potato-ish where potato = X = ?. Not sure why Wikipedia = tolerance of vegetable thinking.  Wikidemon (talk) 09:54, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:Hornbook -- a new WP:Law task force for the J.D. curriculum
Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 04:18, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

"Mooted"
For your information. Axl ¤  [Talk]  19:28, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't usually bother arguing a point when I know I'm right, what's the point? Only when I may be wrong.  If it's good enough for Alex Kozinski it's good enough for me.Wikidemon (talk) 01:52, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Re:Obama RFAR
I saw your comment about my not responding. Basically I saw your initial question and didn't have a quick answer, so it slipped my mind and I never got around to it. My answer would have been to point you back at the clarifications page, since I'm just a clerk and I don't get to make any decisions about what cases mean. Sorry for the delay.  MBisanz  talk 07:43, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I had assumed it was a minor wording issue that could quickly be fixed without a clarification or an amendment, perhaps with recourse to some secret Arbcom bat-channel.  I had no idea people were so confused about the timing issue.  Wikidemon (talk) 07:46, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Only twenty dollars!
(But maybe there's also postage?) http://www.zazzle.com/custom_urban_dictionary_mug-168243605698579412 ↜Just  M &thinsp;E  here&#8202;,&#8202;now  13:53, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey I'd paypal ya the funds if you'd be interested. It would be so cool! ↜Just  M &thinsp;E here&#8202;,&#8202;now  21:31, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow, I think we should start a gifting program on Wikipedia. We could give wiki article mugs too. Wikidemon (talk) 00:24, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think this should be brought up with Jimbo. I'm going to do this right now. (Dirty filthy lucre.) ↜Just  M &thinsp;E here&#8202;,&#8202;now  12:47, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Hampster dance.gif
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Hampster dance.gif. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. macbookair3140 (talk) 18:17, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Obama article probation and the "beer summit"
Hey Wikidemon, there is some question being asked on the "Gatesgate" talkpage about whether discussing the White House meeting with officer Gates and the president's friend Professor Gates is part of Obama articles probation and I'd really appreciate it if you could chime in there. The link to the discussion is here: Talk:Henry Louis Gates arrest incident. ↜Just  M &thinsp;E here&#8202;,&#8202;now  12:52, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

(Note: I also have opened up a discussion here (WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Is Crowley-Gates an Obama related page?) I hope that would be an appropriate venue for such a question. Please advise!) ↜Just  M &thinsp;E here&#8202;,&#8202;now  14:53, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * You might want to move your comment, or repeat it, at the AN/I thread to avoid having the discussion in 2 places.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:32, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, thanks. Wikidemon (talk) 15:35, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * What percentage of Bill Ayers presidential election controversy genuinely concerns Obama? Not much, truth be told. (But then, that was a trick question! ;^) ) ↜Just  M &thinsp;E here&#8202;,&#8202;now  16:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Family Guy template
Hi there, Thanks for commenting on the delete log I started (Templates_for_deletion/Log/2009_August_10). Just thought I'd point out that you mentioned you'd vote for delete, but you started your entry with the word "Keep". Just thought I'd point this out :P. Ta, Cooltrainer Hugh (talk) 21:51, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

DOn't remove my edits
Not fair. We need to protect gates from those racists who want to make him look bad. He was railroaded buy the police. It's wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.107.115.2 (talk) 22:56, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Please join us on the talk page of the article and explain your concerns. As a very strong suggestion, please don't accuse other editors here of being racists.  That violates a couple principles around here, especially "no personal attacks and "assume good faith".  You'll find it alot easier to get along here if you assume the best of people.  To be sure, there are probably some racists on Wikipedia but it's a careful group and probably less racist than most of society.  I doubt that's why they added the photograph.  The event itself had some racial overtones, which is a problem.  But we're just reporting the event.  Perhaps the editors who wanted the photographs in the article are upset too, and the photos help illustrate for them the troubling aspect of the arrest.  I've started a section to discuss this.  You might want to review WP:BLP, a "biographies of living people" policy, which might suggest why the photos should be removed.  It's not racism as such, but just that it's unfair to an innocent person to post their arrest photos.  I'm not trying to get into an argument with you, just trying to keep things stable on the article page.  Hope that helps.  Wikidemon (talk) 23:08, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I've read other editors say its hurt gates - why would they say that if it's not true? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.107.115.2 (talk) 23:12, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think they may be right - you'll see the message I left on the article's talk page that I agree with the concern. There's a good question of whether the photo hurts gates by showing him in an unpleasant situation, or maybe it helps him by showing people the truth of what happened.  You could argue that it's the arrest itself, not the photo documentation, that hurt him.  I guess you would have to ask yourself, do you think Gates wants this all to go away or would he want the photo to stay here?  My real concern with your comment wasn't that you think the photo should be gone, just that you're accusing Wikipedia editors of racism.  That usually doesn't go over well, nobody likes to be called a racist (even if it's true).  Best,  Wikidemon (talk) 23:16, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

The whole article hurts gates. If the arrest is wrong - we should not write about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.107.115.2 (talk) 23:32, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

A fine way with words.
Wikidemon will you be my spokesperson, you have a very fine way with words.:) Respect. Off2riorob (talk) 00:06, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Regarding the head count, could you perhaps leave a note on perhaps a couple of other pages to let as many people know and add their comment. This is an important decision for the community and we need a wide response as possible. Off2riorob (talk) 00:17, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I left a note here Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard any ideas where else would be good to leave one? Off2riorob (talk) 00:27, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I also left one at ANI. Off2riorob (talk) 00:37, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Conspiracy
The article is now loaded with misinformation, please undo your edit until the problem is fixed. --William S. Saturn (talk) 06:04, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I have responded on the article talk page, here. Rather than using an obscure new template that calls the entire article a bunch of lies, why not use that page to say what your specific concerns are?  Best to centralize the discussion there.  Thanks,  Wikidemon (talk) 06:18, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The article (as edited by RedThoreau) is a bunch of lies. If you feel it is acceptable that is your prerogative, however it reflects poorly on wikipedia. --William S. Saturn (talk) 06:32, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, I urge you to discuss any specific concerns on the article talk page. Wikidemon (talk) 06:37, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Why don't you try to explain how the additions are acceptable, since you did remove the template? --William S. Saturn (talk) 06:39, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Please use the article talk page. Wikidemon (talk) 06:42, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I have been using the article talk page. I advise you to do the same. --William S. Saturn (talk) 06:46, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Q
(While we're at trying to figure out consensus in the in/out poll wrt arrest photos... )

 What would you venture is community's consensus as to the Q of whether Gatesgate is on article probation?? (That is, supposing the ANI thread's closing admin doesn't discern a consensus therefrom: since I'm in favor of it, should I re-template its talkpage and see if it holds? or would I then best be served by posting up yet another poll on the topic on Gatesgate's talkpage ? ↜Just  M &thinsp;E here&#8202;,&#8202;now  11:52, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I've striked the above cos I've now got some direction with regard to this same question from xeno on his talkpage. Thanks! ↜Just  M &thinsp;E here&#8202;,&#8202;now  16:08, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:NOTIFY
I was sure that this existed. As I said at Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents, I had understood the warnings on the various noticeboards (AN, ANI, WQA, SPA, etc.) that you should notify an editor if you are reporting their conduct there to be manifestations of a deeper policy, or at least community norm, of notification. Viz. that as a matter of wikiquette if nothing else, if you are trying to get someone into hot water, you should notify that person so that they have basic due process (notice and opportunity to be heard). Thus, whether you are asking for sanctions against someone at ANI or on an admin's talk page, or anywhere else, you should let that person know.

I therefore have three questions. (1) Is my understanding correct, in your view, that there is a broad community norm of notification? (2) Is this reflected in any existing policy? (3) If the answer to 1 is yes and to 2 is no, how do I go about proposing such a policy? Do I just create WP:NOTIFY and slap the "proposed" tag on it? - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 14:32, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I think there is a broad norm (I would call it a convention, or expectation) that an editor bringing a complaint against (or involving) another editor should notify that person on their talk page or, if they are not getting along well enough for that, in a place where they are sure to see. But it's usually not a big deal, because if the complainant forgets someone else will usually do it, or else the person usually finds out one way or another.  The penalty for failing to do so is usually just a gentle chiding, or statement of exasperation if the discussion goes too far without hearing from the most important person because they weren't told.  There's a feeling that it's unfair to discuss someone's behavior (or content up for deletion, or other matters involving someone) without giving them a chance to respond.  I'll bet this is written up somewhere but I'm not sure.  Personally, I learned from being gently chided and observing that with others.  New guideline proposals can be brought up at one of the "village pump" pages, but there's a strong reluctance to add new pages because of WP:CREEP and other sentiment against adding rules.  You might look at the pages for how to file an AN/I report, I think they mention notification as one of the steps.  The Obama probation notice board is very new so nobody has written instructions for filing one.  That may be the issue right there.  Also, you can always write an essay on any topic you want then ask around at the village pump to see what people think of it.  Hope this helps.  Wikidemon (talk) 18:15, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you. It is sincerely appreciated. I'm sorry about what happened last night, I don't think I handled the situation the best I could, so hopefully we can move on from this. --William S. Saturn (talk) 19:06, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Rapleaf logo.png)
Thanks for uploading File:Rapleaf logo.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 06:20, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Moshe Ya'alon misquote
Wow, I don't know how you're able to put up with this Moshe Ya'alon misquote issue. I stumble into it a few weeks ago, and it just seems crazy. Especially as I really do think Moshe Ya'alon was treated unfairly by the misquote, but some of the editors are taking it to such an extreme POV point... Anyway, I thought I would draw your attention to this. Singularity42 (talk) 18:28, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

don't get it
You are attacking me with comments like that!

I don't get it. Why would people want Wikipedia to be less accurate? It is very plausible that some people want the most favorable article even if it is somewhat inaccurate. I am not saying that the President is a rapist. I am just advocating the most accurate information. Gaydenver (talk) 19:06, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Let's keep this on your talk page. Wikidemon (talk) 19:08, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Gates postscript
Hiya, I noted that you were wondering above in a discussion with an IP, "do you think Gates wants this all to go away or would he want the photo to stay here?" Just with respect to the latter question, Gates was quoted at the time as saying, [http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2009/07/22/no_charge_but_gates_case_seethes/?page=2 “Because of the capricious whim of one disturbed person. . . I am now a black man with a prison record,’’ Gates said. “You can look at my mug shot on the Internet.’’], which I think made his feelings clear.

I am just posting this in case it's of interest to you; I recall you argued against having the mugshot in the article at the time anyway (I am not trying to reopen that discussion at this time ...). Cheers,  JN 466  12:25, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

ChildofMidnight topic banned
As a party to the Obama articles arbitration case, you are notified as a courtesy of this amendment to the final decision.

By motion of the Committee at Arbitration/Requests/Clarification,

Discussion of this motion should be directed here.

For the Arbitration Committee, AGK 12:53, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Just Happenned to Notice Your Comment Here
I think that it's highly commendable of you to be active in regards to that article. I, myself, no longer have the energy to do battle in such fora anymore. It's so exhausting. --NBahn (talk) 21:37, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Your note
There are no Obama articles on my watchlist. I came across the violation while watching for vandalism on RecentChanges, and reverted it as an obvious BLP vio. My sanction states "except for undisputable vandalism and BLP violations" so I saw no issue with it. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:39, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you. In retrospect, it is probably better for me to stay away from those articles even in cases of vandalism. It's not like there isn't going to be someone else ready to invoke Twinkle about 5 nanoseconds after me! -- Scjessey (talk) 15:48, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

LOL ...
VERY good! I hereby vow to never use my powers for evil! ;) — Ched : ?  09:42, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Obama and Godwin
kthx. Sceptre (talk) 15:14, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Columbia grad without honors
Howdy. I too have never heard of "graduating without honors," I always thought that was just plain old graduating. Thanks for posting that link to the TNR article; they seem to have really gone off the deep end since Buckley passed away. On the other hand, it illustrates quite clearly why many of us here in NYC haven't used Sulzberger's fishwrap for anything but theater listings and book reviews for many, many years. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 19:12, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The name is suspiciouly like ass-fucking-ski. I´d report it, but am too lazy.--Die4Dixie (talk) 06:09, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It is a funny name, no? I googled a bit and it does not seem to be an actual last name, nothing like Phuc Nguyen.  Wikidemon (talk) 07:18, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If he continues to be disruptive ( blanking pages, and other stuff) it might be an account that has nefarious purposes.--173.20.157.45 (talk) 16:29, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Generous
You were quite generous on ANI. I did go off the deep end a little last month after I was initially right about a subject and ended up saying a couple of things for which I apologized ( and some that I will not). The bottom line is the fellow might need a little direction. I was to the point with him, butremained civil. The behavour is problematic. I just want it to end. I am willing to work towards a concensus about the issues there, but certian behavours are disruptive.--Die4Dixie (talk) 21:43, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now
Google news links rot quickly. Do you have another? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 01:36, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I took that link from an earlier article edit - it's an AP story so it should be available on the AP site, and if not yet it will soon be reprinted by traditional newspapers. Incidentally, I'm thinking of asking for page semi-protection if things don't calm down fast.  Lots of IP and SPA editors doing vandalism, bad edits, and stuff that just doesn't make sense.  Wikidemon (talk) 01:38, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * There's a NY Times link now, so all is well. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 01:43, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikidemon, why remove the paragraph I added to the lead, and the video links I provided at the end? I don't understand this decision? The lead of the George W. Bush biography cites a "close and controversial election," "increasingly heated criticism," and "widespread criticism," also mentioning that Bush's "popularity declined sharply." And ACORN has been indicted in Nevada. Bush was never indicted for anything. George W. Bush, unlike ACORN, has been rated as a Good Article. I believe we should try to emulate the Bush biography since it has been rated as a Good Article. 71.57.8.103 (talk) 14:59, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I think your question reveal the answer about the controversy / scandal. The Bush article mentions that his administration faced a popularity decline and had a controversial election because those in summary are the main issues - it doesn't detail the specific events that made the election controversial, or that lead to the popularity decline, because that would be shoehorning the article into the lede.  Also, with ACORN it is not the specific facts (specific incidents of fraud, the fact that the video was made) that affected the organization directly, it is the scandal that arose out of those incidents.  If four low level employees are arrested and convicted, the organization keeps functioning as if nothing happens.  It was not until the activists raised the issue, the press covered it, and the revelations of these problems mounted up, that something happened.  You might want to take a look at WP:LEDE and WP:COAT if you haven't.  If you do want to mention the controversies in the lede, I think a better approach would be a shorter section, 1-2 sentences, that says something like "From 2005 through 2009 ACORN was the subject of a series of scandals involving embezzlement, management fights, voter registration fraud committed by its workers, and the release of an undercover expose, leading to public controversy and the loss of its contract with the US Census Bureau".  That's not worded perfectly, I'm just trying to show an approach.  Then you would have to make sure all of that material is supported and cited in the body of the article.  I wouldn't object to that kind of mention.  In fact, I won't revert anything at this point because I'm at my quota.  In case you don't know, take a look at WP:3RR and be sure not to violate that -- reverts to different sections all count!  About the links, this is a slightly different case but normally you wouldn't post links to videos about an organization in the external links section.  For example, if there is a documentary about General Motors, you wouldn't use the external links section to link to that, or to an interview with the CEO, etc.  These may seem helpful, but if you start linking to sources like that there's no real way to manage that section.  That's all probably covered in the WP:EL guideline.  If a reader does want to see the videos, most of the news sources already listed as citations will link to them. It might also work to put the links in a footnote.  I'll see if I can do that in just a bit.  Thanks for asking.  Cheers,  Wikidemon (talk) 15:33, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Ooops, I think my recent edit just removed that new paragraph. I reinserted a re-worded version: ACORN has been the subject of public controversy involving embezzlement, management fights, voter registration fraud committed by its workers, and an undercover expose on employee misconduct that lead to the loss of its contract with the United States Census Bureau.
 * I took out the 2005-2009 part, because it has been the focus of criticism and controversy much longer than that. However, the publicity does seem to be growing in step with its size and importance in the political arena.  In my own opinion, it appears as if ACORN's woes all stem from personel problems which are exploited by critics to maximum effect.  One person embezzles, so obviously the whole organization is corrupt. A couple dozen workers over the past decade try to make a fast buck by filling out fake forms, so obviously the whole organization is trying to steal elections somehow.  Another part of the problem is that much of the ACORN workforce is derived from the very communities it is trying to help -- lower class, under educated, socially depressed -- I doubt there are a lot of Ph.Ds on the payroll.  They are an easy target, which elicits a certain amount of sympathy, but at the same time I'm hoping some of these recent hard knocks will motivate them to shore up some of their weak points. Xenophrenic (talk) 16:59, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. The way you reworded the sentence looks good to me.  We'll see over at the article whether that meets with approval from others.  Wikidemon (talk) 20:20, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters has now unilaterally removed the paragraph that was added by the consensus of no less than three Wikipedia editors: Xenophrenic, Wikidemon and myself. Please resolve this situation. Thanks. 71.57.8.103 (talk) 18:47, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The consensus is only the consensus until it changes. Just because a couple editors expressed mild support for having something in the lede section, that doesn't mean other editors won't disagree or have better ideas.  Nothing is set in stone.  Your best course of action would be to start a section on the article talk page and lay out your best reasoning for your edits, and see what most editors say.  Three people discussing possible edits on a user's talk page doesn't equate to final judgement on an article.  Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 01:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I'm leaning slightly in favor of a brief mention in the lede, and am okay with the version discussed above (as subsequently improved on the article page).  However, other people have different opinions, and we won't know for some time how important this is in the long run to the organization.  It could blow over, or it could cause the organization's downfall.  Only time will tell.  Wikidemon (talk) 04:30, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

User:71.241.218.107
NB: Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. —12.72.73.42 (talk) 11:13, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

re: your recent vandalism
Please refrain from your continued vandalism of my talk page. Since you are a firm believer in the law, please take up your concerns with whatever forces are generally appealed to in such matters. If you believe that I have committed a crime, it is your duty as a law advocate to see to it that I am arrested. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.241.218.107 (talk) 18:36, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Note - above IP editor subsequently blocked for tendentiousness, edit warring, COPYVIO, incivility, etc. - Wikidemon (talk) 04:28, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey there
Hey Wikidemon! I've been out of the game for awhile and missed all the Obamadrama. Would you mind pointing me in the direction of the final result/decision to the Arb case, and then the follow-up as well. Thanks!  Grsz 11  14:29, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The case and decisions are at Requests for arbitration/Obama articles. I would prefer not to comment on the specifics because I (along with three other editors so far) are currently under a "no interaction" injunction arising from this.  However, as a general matter the ruling was very superficial and narrowly drawn to several incidents and user behavior taken in isolation, with relatively little guidance or review of the larger issues of Obama articles.  It has probably done a little good to stabilize the articles but there have already been 4-5 trips back to Arbcom and several to AN/I on enforcement.  You can see those in the archives of requests for clarification, requests for enforcement, requests for amendment, and of course AN/I and the talk pages of the editors involved.  Wikidemon (talk) 20:35, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Your Handling of ACORN and Nonpartisanship
An excellent piece of work, in both conception and implementation. It's particularly good that the new article will be referred to regarding other organizations. PhGustaf (talk) 02:07, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I could use some help creating links from all those articles, and also adding some representative cases where nonpartisan orgs have been accused of violating, or found to be violating, the restrictions.  It's actually a pretty important subject with no Wikipedia article until now.  Wikidemon (talk) 19:28, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Notification
Please see WP:AE - I intend to interpret the mutual interaction restriction between you and ChildofMidnight to include making reports. I have also filed for a request for clarification. Your input at both is welcomed.--Tznkai (talk) 16:11, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * For goodness sake, how unfortunate. I wish you would take a little more time to familiarize yourself with the history of the matter - you seem to be under a number of misconceptions here.  Wikidemon (talk) 16:47, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you
For your words of support as an editor, and not for the comments that I made. I was pretty angry and felt that it had already been personalized. See you around.--Die4Dixie (talk) 18:06, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Question
You would know better than I do; is this of BLP concern?  Grsz 11  01:26, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Personally I'm never worried about things that are truthfully discussed in good faith on talk pages, so I wouldn't be concerned about Grundle's mentioning on the talk page there that a Washington Times editorial accuses Jennings of breaking the law. Some people who believe in strict interpretation of BLP say that talk pages should have the same sourcing standard as article pages, but I don't think that can be true.  If that were the case one could never propose to include material, or dispute it, because even talking about it without solid sourcing would be forbidden.  However, there is a big BLP hurdle to cross before putting it on the article page.  First, the claim has to come from a reliable source and be credible.  That's unlikely to happen.  No reliable source is going to claim that he broke the law, unless and until he's convicted.  Meanwhile, a reliable source might report an allegation, an indictment, a trial, or (assuming this was long ago and nobody is ever going to prosecute) could conceivably report that some accuse Jennings of having broken the law, or it having been an issue.  That's unlikely to rise to the level of noteworthiness, even without BLP.  It would have to be a Van Jones type thing where he gets hounded and it becomes a real scandal.  Its mere existence as a conservative blog meme, even if reported, doesn't justify covering it.  Suppose, for example, that someone accuses X of being a pedophile.  Though the accusation is never very well reported, or corroborated, a reliable source somewhere mentions that the accusation was made.  If that's all there is to it, we wouldn't repeat the accusation.  That's not a very good explanation... but that's how I think these pan out.  Wikidemon (talk) 01:37, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That's pretty much how it broke down for me as well, but I wasn't sure about the talk page. I reverted the addition to the article by an IP.  Grsz 11  01:41, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It's probably fair to give a gentle reminder on the talk page that speculation that somebody's past actions might have been illegal, even if occasioned by an editorial about that, are pretty far afield and we should give some respect to article subjects until and unless we have some good sourcing. I just don't like banging the BLP drum too loudly because if overapplied it tends to chill talk page discussions and thereby make disputes worse rather than better.  Wikidemon (talk) 01:47, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I will do that, though I'm not sure they are ignorant to that. A NPOV noticeboard post about Van Jones as a first edit - not so sure about that.  Grsz 11  01:49, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you talking about Grundle? Surely his first controversial edit was something about Obama, not a meta-page about Van Jones.  You know I have a fondness for working with him.  Wikidemon (talk) 05:48, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I meant the IP.  Grsz 11  13:50, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Barack and Michelle
Nice job with your work on Barack and Michelle. Perhaps you'd like to start an article on this upcoming book. Grundle2600 (talk) 21:49, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow, you are fast! Thanks.  That story came out only 30 minutes ago.  I've gone ahead and created an article... obviously it will expand greatly as there are more sources and we learn more about the book.  Wikidemon (talk) 22:00, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think we can use this as a source, although the picture is pretty funny. It looks like something my brother would have drawn in high school.  Wikidemon (talk) 22:02, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That's an awesome picture! Grundle2600 (talk) 02:51, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Statement to ArbCom
Regarding I'm pretty sure that "Should The undertow be de-sysopped for nominating and supporting Law" isn't what you meant. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:56, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Oops, gosh. I hope the rest of my argument was a little more cogent :)  Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 21:11, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Request for comment
I moved a Wikipedia contributor's paragraph about an anti- Glenn Beck spoof website from Beck's blp (oops! actually it was removed by somebody else, while the matter was pending discussion on the talkpage; but anyway...) to its own article space, here: "Rumor website parody of Glenn Beck." Yet, Wikidemon, my problem is, that's an awful name! I don't want to repeat the website's name as the name of the article for obvious reasons (for BLP problems, that is). But the name I came up is simply lacking. Would you happen to have an opinion as to whether a better name for it might even be "Beck v. Eiland-Hall"? As this, after all, is the name of the case receiving an overview at the realiable source of Harvard Law School's Citizen Media Law Project, per the link here. ↜Just  M &thinsp;E here&#8202;,&#8202;now  11:08, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Btw, Wikidemon, now I've started the thread: WP:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard, too. ↜Just  M &thinsp;E here&#8202;,&#8202;now  15:28, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Boston Herald too. For goodness sake!  People do the strangest things.  I do so love Gilbert Gottfried.  - Wikidemon (talk) 15:29, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Lol ↜Just  M &thinsp;E here&#8202;,&#8202;now  15:48, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you think info about the suit could find a place here: Anonymous (group)? ↜Just  M &thinsp;E here&#8202;,&#8202;now  16:09, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Is it sourced that this is related to Anonymous? Only if so; otherwise, if it's just our analysis, it's OR.  - Wikidemon (talk) 16:14, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikidemon, here (link) is a pretty good primary source for the Anonymous linkage, but I'll surf for a mention of this in the legacy media, too (thanks for encouraging me to find sources!) However, although it started Anonymous, once both the subtext of the meme and Mr. Eiland-Hall's participation got outed, perhaps the Anonymous crew's participation outside of Eiland-Hall's efforts became minimal? (I know: speculation. But, I'll see what turns up in some reliable source.) ↜Just  M &thinsp;E here&#8202;,&#8202;now  17:03, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * This one? ↜Just  M &thinsp;E here&#8202;,&#8202;now  17:06, 4 October 2009 (UTC)