User talk:William Saturn/2008

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXII (December 2007)
The December 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Well that's that
Nice pics by the way -- sorry for being a hard ass about the fair use pics, but they've got bots running around cracking down on this hard anyway. See ya in 2011! -- Kendrick7talk 04:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 2011? Are you leaving? I think that now that Dodd is dropped out I'll nominate the article for GA. Thanks for clearing up those images.-- S    TX   05:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 2011 is when the next primaries kick off -- I was mildly kidding. I'm sure I'll find something else to keep myself busy around here. It's a good article in my book. Good luck with the nomination. -- Kendrick7talk 22:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. :-) -- S    TX   22:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Duncan Hunter cruft
There's nothing encyclopedic about big quotes citing the candidate's claims; such material should be (and is) in the body of the article. In addition, the "The following is an account of" statement is 100% useless; of course it's an account, it's a Wikipedia article. :) EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 19:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Reagan's role in the Cold War
I know I've just recently asked for your helpl, but I could use any of your comments here. If you ever need anything, please feel free to drop me a line. Thanks, Happyme22 (talk) 01:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much for the comment. Again, if you ever need any input or help with anything, please feel free to contact me. Happyme22 (talk) 05:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:DuncanHuntercampaign.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:DuncanHuntercampaign.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

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 'image' 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 "Image" 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. Rettetast (talk) 21:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Photos on Dodd's article
I'm wondering why there are so many photos of Dodd's political opponents on this page: Chris Dodd presidential campaign, 2008. There are a few of these stock photos in the article, and I don't think they provide much to the article. This practice (putting stock photos of other candidates) doesn't seem to be followed in the comparable Hillary or Obama articles. I know that Dodd has ended his bid, but it still seems unfair to put photos (which are essentially advertising) of these folks on his article. I saw that you pretty much wrote the article, so I figured I should get your input on this. Thoughts?--RedShiftPA (talk) 01:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Its been answered.-- S    TX   02:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Question
how come you reverted my edit.

Never mind. -- Antonio Lopez (talk) 00:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Straw polls
Hi again, and I'm sorry that we started off by glaring at and cussing each other. Shake hands, OK?

The user who wrote the long objection earlier has calmed down quite a bit and is being polite, but clearly he's still upset. I haven't carefully gone through any of his objections (let alone the latest one), because I'm busy in "real life". Even if the "straw poll" article is squeaky clean, it's clear that, at least in his view, it isn't; so it seems likely that some rewriting is needed. All the best with it. -- Hoary (talk) 12:22, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Brilliant Idea on Template:United States presidential election, 2008
For your edit...

Thank you very much.-- S    TX   04:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The Map on the Straw Poll / Republican Party page
Howdy! I understand that you are the keeper of the color for the map. I am trying to figure out how to get this page on track.

I was drawn to this site by the name; "Straw polls for the Republican Party" because I pretty much live politics.

The Republican Party has been polling for over a year, and I have kept up with those results (they mail me copies), so I was knocked out last week when I noted that Ron Paul was declared a general "winner" of only 18 small polls (some with only 4 or 6 people voting in them, and not even Republicans), while thousands of actual Republican Party straw polls are being ignored. Ron Paul didn't win even a single county in my state, yet my state is marked "yellow" so I was eager to get to the bottom of what this is about.

Anyway, four states have had their polls taken down; Oregon, Florida, and Pennsylvania), and Delaware also hasn't had any information, so is there any reason that you would have against turning those states back to white?

I guess that my second question is why the general rules of statistics are also being ignored. These "one off" polls are outliers and shouldn't be used at all, yet not only are they being used, but whole states are being called for these folks.

Someone "gave" Fred Thompson the entire state of Idaho on the basis of THREE solitary votes (four showed up and three votes for Thompson) and, again, this wasn't a Republican event. The Republican Party had nothing to do with the poll.

Another thing, I was linked to a Ron Paul site, and I was told that the reason that the Republican Party Straw Polls were unfair against Ron Paul is because the Republicans are using landlines for their polling. But the Republican Party straw polls are all done in person. Phone lines have zero impact on the straw polls.

Do you have any idea why the title says "Straw poll for the Republican Party," and then none of the Republican Party straw polls have been used? That doesn't make sense. I mean, what if the site said it was going to have NFL stats and then they ran high school numbers.

Anyway, let me know, please. Thanks a lot,  Suttonplacesouth (talk) 09:08, 17 January 2008 (UTC) Hi,

List of foiled terrorist plots in the United States
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article List of foiled terrorist plots in the United States, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add  to the top of List of foiled terrorist plots in the United States. 69.218.57.86 (talk) 10:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I added this template because most of this article appears to be constructed from one press release. I'm not against having an article of this type, but it would need to: I again am not against an article of this nature, the article just appears to have a significant number of major flaws. Unfortunately, I don't have the time to correct the article. The article is correctible, it just should not stay on Wikipedia in its current state. Thanks, --69.218.57.86 (talk) 10:27, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * span a time frame before and after 9/11
 * not include things happening outside of the US (per the article title)
 * be based on a variety of reliable sources
 * try not to cite press releases, specifically as its primary or only source

Chris Dodd presidential campaign, 2008 GAN on hold
Hi. I chose to review the article and have left notes on the talk page. It is a good article definitely soon within reach of GA status. Thanks, Happyme22 (talk) 04:34, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:DuncanHuntercampaign.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:DuncanHuntercampaign.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image 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 image 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 'image' 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 "Image" 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.  Mønobi 01:44, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This is a waste.-- S    TX   04:10, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

President Eisenhower
President Eisenhower was truly Jewish. This is not vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tgannon (talk • contribs)

Sorry for the confusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tgannon (talk • contribs)

Comment
Please see the new additions to Ds338537's talk page. Although I'm with you that the additions seem bogus at face value, I don't think we should be reverting it anymore - a crude reference has been put in place, and I sort of verified his added info on the web. Dunno, I don't really want to get any more into this quagmire, but I want to uphold WP:AGF... Tanthalas39 (talk) 00:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Alright.-- S    TX   00:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: User:Tgannon
Hi Southern Texas, I have to disagree. Edits like these 2 minutes after editing Presidency of Dwight D. Eisenhower shows s/he's obviously not here to be productive. Also, the source cited doesn't even exist and has no connection to the article whatsoever. I don't believe this is biting newcomers at all. This is just a standard block of a typical vandal. Spellcast (talk) 04:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I just realised this was the ref he tried adding (before, it said no site was found because I didn't remove the apostrophe). But it's hard to see how someone can be taking this seriously when they make an edit like this 2 minutes earlier. If I knew the ref actually existed, I wouldn't of made the block indefinite. I've unblocked him and hopefully he knows better. Spellcast (talk) 04:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

About your page
Hi. Some of my family is muslim and I have to say maybe your I support the mission box is offensive.Ismailmk (talk) 17:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I think your comment is offensive.-- S    TX   22:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * That is very immature Ismailmk (talk) 21:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Question
At Requests for adminship/Gwen Gale, you made a reference to Majorly's RfA. Could you elaborate why this request reminds you of Majorly's RfA? Nishkid64 (talk) 03:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Explained.-- S    TX   04:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I have replied to your comments. Nishkid64 (talk) 04:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Map Man, the list is ready
I have a list of candidates that are ready for you to "color" on your map (did you realize that there isn't even a color for John McCain, nor his name on the legend?) but I need to know if there is a special way to send "attachments" on Wikipedia (for my sources). I have a wordy explanation of my thoughts so far, if you would please visit my talk page. Thanks much.Suttonplacesouth (talk) 09:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Grrrr! I have worked hours on this list but when I put it up it all "smashes" together as straight text. I have tried it in rows and columns, as a table, and as Excel, and it doesn't appear in a readable format. I have no idea how to make it transfer. I will continue to try to figure out how to do this.Suttonplacesouth (talk) 00:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

SUCCESS
Hooray! I have finally figured out where all the signs and symbols go and my initial test was a success. I know now how I will be spending Sunday! Expect the list late Sunday or early Monday, as soon as I have re-cut and pasted! No football so lots of time! Suttonplacesouth (talk) 07:50, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Reagan
STX, as a fellow dedicated editor I am asking you to watchlist and help me out with some of the discussions going on at Talk:Ronald Reagan. There's an issue of Reagan's nicknames - "The Great Communicator" and "the teflon president" - being mentioned but more specifically the style/tone/prose. That one was over, but has since been re-ignited because there was a blog source and what I feel is some POV writing "in disguise". You can see it in the second paragraph at Ronald Reagan. Then there's the Cold War issue, which has gotten kinda rough. Any help is apprecited. Thanks, Happyme22 (talk) 05:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

PS - I think you know but I promoted the Chris Dodd presidential campaign, 2008 to GA. Great work! --Hap

My Rfa
I wish to thank you for being supportive of my effort to regain my adminship. Though it was not successful, your support was still very much appreciated. Let me know if there is anything I can do for you. Thank you!--MONGO 06:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Candidate Changes
I was curious to see how the map would look with accurate numbers. I also expect lots of changes after Feb. 5



Fred Thompson has withdrawn, but he still carries three states until there is a newer poll to move those states into another candidate's column.

Since this is "straw polls for the Republican Party" would it be possible for you to pull up (or recreate without too much work) the original map? The one with the actual Republican Party straw poll results?

I thought that it might be instructive if we could compare the list of a year ago with the list today? We could show how close the numbers stayed in a year (or didn't). [Those yellow (Ron Paul) states are pure fantasy, and can't be compared to anything since they are not legitimate.]

I thought was John J. Bulten's page but I read it was your page. Do you know who wrote the first three paragraphs? There are some substantial errors about the Republican Party and I'm surprised that someone who feels comfortable enough to write the text doesn't know very much about how the Party actually operates.

Cheers!

Presidential polls as of January 27, 2008

Many front-runners will change after Super Tuesday, February 5, 2008

[*]next to caucus date = final; however, those states holding presidential primaries will not distribute all delegates until after both caucus and presidential primary

[**]indicates that there has been a reduction in delegates due to unresolved issues between the state party and the RNC

There will be lots of changes in the next few days, weeks, and months! Super! Suttonplacesouth (talk) 12:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Protecting the Giuliani articles
I'd love to, but I think that that might be perceived as wheel warring after the idea was rejected twice at WP:RPP. I'll suggest reconsideration to the others, though. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 03:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you.-- S    TX   03:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, I think semi-protection is the best we can hope for; that way, only established users can edit, and we can at least let them know on their talk pages that he's not actually out. I've also added a sentence to the template about how it's been announced that he's dropping out; hopefully that will convince some of these people that we're not actually out of date. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Mistake at WP:RFP
Sorry to be so useless, but that's not what full prot is for - there's no edit-warring with multiple parties on both sides, there's no ongoing BLP vios or anything of the nature. By the way, it's still quite up in the air - the AP reported ten minutes ago that Rudy had dropped out, then retracted it quickly. east. 718 at 04:00, January 30, 2008

Giuliani articles
I'll watch the articles for a little while tonight. If you remind people not to add the material, and they add it over and over, they may be blocked. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 04:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Rudy Giuliani
I never removed Giuliani. Zachorious (talk) 04:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

GA on Chris Dodd Article
Congrats on the GA on the Chris Dodd presidential campaign, 2008 article. It is one of the better campaign articles on wikipedia.--RedShiftPA (talk) 04:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much.-- S    TX   04:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIII (January 2008)
The January 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Woodrow Wilson And Segregation
"Wilson was a strong proponent of Segregation, and held controversial views on blacks" - This information is easily verifiable see:

Ethical Sidenote: Your edits in this matter may constitute editorial bias. As a member of the wikiproject against censorship, You should know better. -- BE  TA  04:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Categorizing a figure on the basis of today's norms without regard to the popular views of the time is a fallacy.-- S    TX   20:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * You can't dictate encyclopedic content based on how people might interpret facts. His administration did engage in practices of segregation, an his views were controversial. If readers decide to love or hate him based on these facts, we can't help that.  BE  TA  04:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * That isn't the issue. Also, you need to understand what Vandalism and censorship actually are before you make assertions pertaining to them. It is also not appropriate for you to fuel edit wars or to restore trolling on a talk page.-- S    TX   04:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the misuse of rollback in content disputes...
Southern Texas, Rollback policy says: "Rollback should only be used to revert vandalism and should never be used to revert good faith edits or in content disputes. By requesting the permission, you agree to only use the tool for the accepted purpose; any misconduct with rollback will lead to its revocation."

This edit regarding Woodrow Wilson and Segregation looks like a clear content dispute, not obvious vandalism. Reversions of any good faith edits, including content disputes and so on, and anything other than obvious vandalism, must be done manually and with an appropriate edit summary. I'm not going to remove your access to rollback, but I am warning you to be more careful that you only use rollback for obvious vandalism otherwise you will lose it. Thanks, Sarah 17:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Response to allegations of sockpuppetry
At first, I couldn't find a way to disprove your allegations, but I was flipping through my preferences, and I found something that let me see the server time for edits, to the second.

server times for one of my edits, and for one of Krimson's:

2008-02-05T05:35:24 krimson's edit to Woodrow Wilson 2008-02-05T05:35:32 My edit to book of genesis

If we were sockpuppets, I would have to log off immediately, log back on as beta, jump to book of genesis, click the edit this page button, find my place in the article, delete theoretical, add storied, then write "maybe this will work better", and save the page, all in only 8 seconds. That's highly unlikely.

I appreciate the vote of confidence.  BE  TA  04:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * This is why I shouldn't get involved in junk.-- S    TX   04:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator elections
The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by February 14! Kirill 17:01, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Old Standards
I invite you to put the proposal forward on the presidential template for full comment. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 04:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for barnstar
Was meaning to thank you for the barnstar for "putting up with all the garbage that goes along with political articles and for being able to keep cool for 3 years without running away like many of us have considered" ... then soon after that I got upset over stuff and had to take a few days off before starting up again. So it happens to all of us! Wasted Time R (talk) 18:16, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Warning
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. --Vera from upstairs (talk) 04:50, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, you've been reported.-- S    TX   04:51, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Please see here. Reply on my talk page so that I can be sure you understand the terms. Thank you. Master of Puppets   Call me MoP! ☺  05:42, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree, it is a content dispute. However, if the other user feels the images shouldn't be present then she has a right to her opinion and should be able to express that. My advice is to settle this on the talk page; if a clear majority wants the images, then they should stay per consensus. Master of Puppets   Call me MoP! ☺  05:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Block ordeal
in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text below. Sorry, but your last edit to the article was basically just a revert to your previous version, barring two new images. I'm sorry, but I don't see any compromise here. And I know that the other user isn't willing to cooperate, but in that case go to the article's talk page and bring it up; see what other editors think. See you in a day, Master of Puppets   Call me MoP! ☺  20:34, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

To the reviewing administrator: On a side note I find it very difficult to edit Master of Puppets' talk page, which I was about to address until I was blocked. In my browser the right margins are cut off and the "edit" button is hidden. Please talk to that editor about my concern.-- S    TX   22:24, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You can also use the 'edit' button on the top of the page and then just scroll down. Useight (talk) 23:03, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


 * That doesn't help anything since I still can't read what is written on the right edge.-- S    TX   23:04, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I never violated the 1RR sanction and was hoping to compromise with the other user. He decided to revert my attempt at a compromise rather than addressing it on the talk page or making another edit closer to what he wanted. I never reverted him nor was going to. In the blocking administrator's mind this seems to be punitive but blocks are supposed to be preventative.

Clear violation of WP:3RR. If that page is under 1RR sanction (or if you are), you went way beyond that. —Preceding irrelevant comment added by Yamla (talk • contribs) 23:40, 16 February 2008

I'd like a real review and to be unblocked. The reviewing administrator obviously did not look into the case. First of all blocks are supposed to be preventative not punitive, secondly I did not break the 1RR sanction started after the edit war.


 * I have looked through it some, and the problem appears to be that you were simply reverting each other without much discussion. Having engaged in a little discussion some months back is not enough. That said, it was a less than optimal decision not to block User:Vera from upstairs after the first 3RR violation, who has engaged in absolutely 0 discussion on any talk pages other than to violate the spirit of WP:TEMPLAR on your page, and didn't bother to use an edit summary (rather popups) in reversion. There's little more I detest than edit warring without discussion when it comes against people who have engaged in discussion. I would endorse an unblock here only given a promise to change your habits when it comes to edit warring, which do seem to be a problem I've also encountered at the 2008 presidential templates. Neverthless, you have engaged in some discussion, and the change you made was indeed a form of compromise (which should have been hashed out on the talk page before you made the change), not necessarily a straight out reversion. The Evil Spartan (talk) 02:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Block ordeal concludes
Do you realize that you aren't blocked? east. 718 at 21:28, February 17, 2008
 * I am auto-blocked still.-- S    TX   21:28, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Not anymore, I just found it and killed it. :-D east. 718 at 21:29, February 17, 2008

Thank you.-- S    TX   21:29, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It's obvious that this was all a misunderstanding, would you like your rollback rights back? east. 718 at 21:35, February 17, 2008
 * Yes please.-- S    TX   21:36, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. east. 718 at 21:37, February 17, 2008

Biden 2008 campaign GA review
You added a few Words to avoid. To have the article pass GA, please go through the article looking for these words and remove them. Thanks.User:calbear22 (talk) 22:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The article needs to be renominated before I can approve it. Renominate it and I will approve it.User:calbear22 (talk) 01:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Milhist coordinators election has started

 * The February 2008 Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of fifteen candidates.  Please vote here by February 28! --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 16:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

sleeping conversation on thresholds, presidential template
Might I interest you in letting 20 or 30 occasional editors to the template know about the sleeping topic Template talk:United States presidential election, 2008, which I'm so far neutral on? -- Yellowdesk (talk) 03:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Done.-- S    TX   04:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I closed the conversation, such as it is, after three weeks. Cheers, -- Yellowdesk (talk) 20:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Reversion to Talk:George W. Bush
I undid your restoration of the comments made in the GWB talk page. I do not believe someone stating "I never liked Bush, but I love him now" and "Honestly, I never liked the guy. In fact, I despised him. But I have totally changed my opinion after he recognized Kosovo. Now, I love the guy. He is a true visionary and it took me so long to realize it." has anything to do with the content of the page. Remember, talk pages are not for discussion of the subject of the article.--Finalnight (talk) 05:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I did a partial restoration of the discussion in question, specifically only the parts of the discussion that actually related to the contents of the page, not the editor's opinions of the subject.--Finalnight (talk) 05:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Obama image
I was actually placing a message on the associated talk page when you were placing one my talk page. Still, when I first removed the image, I put my reason in the edit summary. When Harry Barrow put the image back onto the page, he did so without giving reason in his edit summary. Of course, for someone who uploaded the now-deleted derogatory Image:Barack Hussein Obama.jpg, his (or her) intentions can be guessed at. →Wordbuilder (talk) 22:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * How is the name of the fellow "derogatory"? Harry Barrow (talk) 23:37, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I apologize, Harry Barrow. I may be thinking of another image. →Wordbuilder (talk) 01:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The campaign against the picture continues
May I draw your attention to Harry Barrow (talk) 23:37, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Revert of your edit
Were you unaware that non-free images cannot be used on talk pages? I would not have reverted had I felt your edits this evening had all been in good faith. But, some have been questionable. →Wordbuilder (talk) 01:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

3RR
3RR is not set in stone; edit warring is edit warring. You did break 3RR, and then broke the 1RR restriction I put on you both by undoing Vera from upstair's edits while claiming she had been undoing yours. Also, that's a strange reaction to have as the result of a block; I hope you reconsider, as a tendency to edit war will only create more problems. Master of Puppets  Call me MoP! ☺  02:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Just a small clarification; yes, I accept that your last revert was an attempt at compromise, but you were still largely just undoing her edit. Discussion was the crucial element, not the compromise of just one editor. Hopefully, this doesn't repeat itself, and we can all go on to be happy editors... sound good? Master of Puppets   Call me MoP! ☺  02:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring.
I'm not sure if you were just having a particularly bad day or what, but your edits to Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008 really crossed a line today. I am only taking the trouble to say this because I know from experience that you can be a very good editor, but today was just too much. The edit warring and violations of WP:3RR were bad enough but at a certain point you set aside all pretense of being a real editor and started acting like some sort of anonymous vandal. This is a good example of such. Come on. Those edits (combined with the deceptive edit summaries) indicate that you weren't merely being tendentious (which is bad enough), but were being intentionally disruptive in order to make a point. I know you are very familiar with Wikpedia, so I'm not going to patronize you by providing links, but you may want to read the guidelines on edit wars again, particularly the part about stepping back from the brink. I say this not trying to draw you into an argument; quite the opposite. I am trying to stop a good editor from melting down. You may think I'm an a-hole for posting this, but I'm not alone in my assessment of your edits today. Consider the possibility that you may have gone too far. --Loonymonkey (talk) 05:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

War on Terrorism
I'm actually trying to raise a discussion on how this section should be addressed. You have no right deleting this from the talk page. I just wanted to address the lack of pre-war coverage in the section. Grsz11 (talk) 05:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You are presenting it in a very disruptive manner that is in no way constructive. We are not here to discuss the merits of the Iraq war. If you have a problem with content discuss the problem with the content, don't troll the talk page.-- S    TX   05:12, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Please see my points on the talk page. I'm trying to discuss the one-sidedness of the section. Grsz11 (talk) 05:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, and I concede. Might I add your political beliefs are incredibly sporadic. Grsz11 (talk) 05:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIV (February 2008)
The February 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 08:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

re:Wikiproject membership
Hi, Southern Texas, and thanks for welcoming me in to the WikiProject! I would like to point out that I haven't frequently edited in a while, so I'm concerned that I might not be able to "jump" into the project. Do you think that this is going to be an issue?--Dem393 (talk) 23:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Electoral histories
Hey there STX, I've got a question for you regarding electoral history sections on the articles of US politicians (such as George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush). How do you feel about them? One user, User:Darth Kalwejt, continues to add them to almost every politican's page. I am largely opposed to them in their current form(s) (both the extended and collapsable) because they are lists with no encyclopedic prose; they contain usually ten citations, none ever in full, complete citation format; they draw out the page anywhere from 2 to 10 KB (depending on how many elections the individual participated in), which, as you probably know, is a huge number for many already long articles; it throws off the formatting/style of the page; the styles are not consistent from page to page; and I'm not sure if they even interest people. I contacted the user who keeps putting them in about four days ago, and then yesterday, but have not received a reply (see here). Anyway, I'm just out getting opinions and judging how fellow editors feel about them before proceeding. Thanks, Happyme22 (talk) 01:05, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Well I'm ready to take some form of action to get rid of them. How would you suggest proceeding? Happyme22 (talk) 20:34, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Chris Dodd
Sure thing; I've got it watchlisted. Happyme22 (talk) 05:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXV (March 2008)
The March 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:Governor_Connally.jpg
An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Governor_Connally.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 01:33, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

You might be interested...
...in some of these debates regarding Obama and the Rev. Wright controversy, particularly the merges. Thanks, Happyme22 (talk) 01:48, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

PS - If you have anymore trouble with the Dodd presidential camp article, let me know and I'll watchlist it again. --Hap

Endorsements
Hi there. Is there anywhere that people agreed to use collapsible tables for these things? I can see for pages like Dennis Kucinich's campaign, even before I viewed it, a prose list was being used. Please direct me somewhere that these have been discussed - personally I find having to open a concealed list, particularly one spreading to more than one column - to be needless extra work - however if this has been discussed someplace before please show me where.

I have no hard feelings if these go back, it's just simpler if the lists are uncollapsed. Bobo. 09:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * That's fair enough. If you feel they should go back in, put them back in, I'll try as hard as possible to keep myself from reverting them. Thank you. Bobo. 21:36, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Barr logo.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Barr logo.jpg. 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 'image' 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 "Image" 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) 10:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Not sure if you're aware of this, but it was that changed the logo.  This seems to be a pet project of CoolKid1993's -- converting bitmap logos to SVG.  Not everyone has been supportive of his efforts.  Indeed, CoolKid1993's SVG version of the Barr Campaign's logo is not an exact copy, so I'm not sure what benefit it has over the JPG image you uploaded originally.  That said, I do like CoolKid1993's version, but I don't think this asthetic issue is relevant for the article. -Noca2plus (talk) 16:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the help
Thanks! --213.40.96.218 (talk) 04:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up
I'll put the article back on my watchlist. -- Kendrick7talk 17:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

edits to Template:United States presidential election, 2008
It is actually in your editorial interest to mention your desired improvements (and the good reasons for them) on the (article or template) talk page; the edits tend to last longer that way, and you learn why some less-than obvious conventions may exist in the process. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 04:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC) - All the subarticles under the Republican and Democratic Parties made it bigger, actually. Could you put them back into a line like before? It's also easier to read and there wouldn't be a reason for all the parties to be underlined. (Convention should be left under them). Thanks Therequiembellishere (talk) 20:03, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

-
 * I'll say again, two months later: It is in your editorial interest to talk about your intended changes on this template. Otherwise, lack of consensus or agreement by other editors tend to result in editing of your carefully constructed work. It's not going to fly to have some candidates requiring extra effort to see in order to navigate to. A drop down template is OK, but two levels of effort has had zero justification. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 01:01, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I have to agree with Yellowdesk here. BOLD only goes so far and we were talking about several changes that now cannot be made due to your edits. Therequiembellishere (talk) 01:03, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Dodd december debate.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Dodd december debate.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 18:09, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Blocked
You have been blocked from editing for in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for engaging in an  edit war. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text below. Scarian Call me Pat!  16:09, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I support the unblocking and have contacted the block admin. This is starting to get ridiculous. -- Kendrick7talk 16:39, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the support. What is the root of all these strange happenings on this article?--William Saturn (talk) 16:41, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't have the slightest idea. I've requested page protection and I'm going to start handing out vandal warning templates (, etc., if it continues. -- Kendrick7talk

Fair enough. I have unblocked the editor. I see it to be my own error. My apologies. Scarian Call me Pat!  17:21, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Considering leaving wikipedia
Because of today's events I am seriously considering leaving wikipedia. I used to enjoy reading articles and editing anonymously. After I created an account I now see the utter disregard of editors and of making an encyclopedia, I see administrators helping with page blanking of articles considered GA after blocking me for making one revert of the page blanking. I see editors who have no business editing pages ruining articles. I enjoy editing wikinews because the people there are nicer and are more committed to bringing information to people.--William Saturn (talk) 17:26, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I made an error William and I do apologise. Wikipedia isn't a bad place. Unfortunately it falls victim to human error. You will find this where ever you go in life. There's no escaping it. I do apologise on behalf of Wikipedia for your troubles but please reconsider leaving. Scarian  Call me Pat!  17:34, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I laughed it off and decided to stay.--William Saturn (talk) 00:15, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Your query of Christopher Dodd presidential campaign, 2008
If I recall, I passed that article quite a while ago. If you feel that it no longer meets the GA criteria, then by all means you may delist the article yourself. Happyme22 (talk) 02:10, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Dodd november debate.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Dodd november debate.jpg. 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 'image' 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 "Image" 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) 05:16, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Dodd december debate.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Dodd december debate.jpg. 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 'image' 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 "Image" 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) 05:16, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Warning
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appeared to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. -- Kendrick7talk 19:01, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Oops, I think I got you and the other "W" account mixed up. -- Kendrick7talk 06:22, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Tommy Thompson presidential campaign, 2008 DYK
Hi. I've reviewed your DYK submission for the article Tommy Thompson presidential campaign, 2008, and unfortunately found a problem with it. Please feel free to comment on the DYK submissions page. Cheers, Olaf Davis | Talk 21:58, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * User is currently blocked, but I'll try to clean this up. -- Kendrick7talk 22:21, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Unblock (second chance)
This request for unblocking has been declined due to your history of vandalism and/or disruption to this encyclopedia. However, we are willing to give you another chance provided that you can earn back the trust of the Wikipedia community. To be unblocked you need to demonstrate that you are willing and able to contribute positively to Wikipedia. You can do this by:
 * Familiarizing yourself with our basic rules.
 * Pick any pre-existing article you wish to improve.
 * If you have trouble choosing an article to improve, see this index of articles needing improvement for ideas.
 * Click edit this page on that article and scroll down past the message informing you of your block.
 * Copy the source of that article and paste it to the bottom of your talk page under a new top-level heading (like this: ) and save the page before you improve it.
 * Propose some significant and well researched improvements to your article by editing your personal copy of the article. Please note that we are not looking for basic typo corrections, or small unreferenced additions; your edits should be substantial, and reflect relevant policies.
 * When you are done with your work, re-request unblocking and an administrator will review your proposed edits.
 * If we (including the original blocking admin) are convinced that your proposed edits will improve Wikipedia as an encyclopedia, you will be unblocked.

If you need help while working with your proposed edits, you may add " " to your talk page. Thank you.


 * I have asked the blocking admin to comment.  Sandstein   08:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

re:wikipedia
I wasn't questioning your ability to use Wikipedia, nor your knowledge of it. However, what you did was far more than what you brought up and the way I've seen Wikipedia going, as of late, we discuss major changes befroe implementing them to avoid edit wars and arguments. Therequiembellishere (talk) 15:24, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Re: Request
✅ Sorry for the inconvenience. J.delanoy gabs adds 00:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Reverts to Chuck Baldwin presidential campaign, 2008
Please be careful In your edit summary reverting me, you claimed "all the information is cited. please be more careful." This is clearly not true, as the article contains several direct quotations and statistics which are neither common knowledge nor attributed. You also re-linked a number of dates in spite of WP:MOSDATE. I get the impression that you didn't even look at what I did. I have consequently reverted your reversion and ask that you take your own advice by carefully considering whether or not you should revert an edit correcting attribution, capitalization, formatting, and a host of issues with such a blithe and inaccurate edit summary. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:02, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Citations Please see CITE. If you quote someone, you have to cite that reference at the quotation. You can't just put a citation in the article somewhere arbitrarily; it has to be associated with the claims that are made in the text. Readers should not be required to check every source for each claim, just the source(s) that make that claim. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:48, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Attribution versus citation Yes, the quotes are attributed to Baldwin, but I still don't have a verifiable source for them. If I inserted a controversial passage such as the following:
 * "Baldwin says that all women are 'baby machines who shouldn't be taught to read.'"
 * that would be attribution, but I would need to use a tag to cite how I got that quote. Readers shouldn't have to pour through every citation to find out that Baldwin was quoted by a disreputable source or out-of-context; that citation should be right there with the quote itself (especially considering the controversial nature of something like my bombastic example.) You can't simply attribute a quote and then add a pile of references and claim that the article's citations are okay; this is why the tags exist in the first place. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:23, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay We need to back up a little bit and be very clear at this point, because we might be miscommunicating. You wrote:
 * "I don't remember adding that quote. The reference is found at the end of the paragraph. Its not necessary to add a footnote at the end of every sentence. Thats not in MOS."
 * If "that quote" refers to the quote I made up above this post, you are correct - you did not write it. That quote was purely hypothetical and made up by me.
 * You write that "reference[s] [are] found at the end of the paragraph[s]." Sometimes that might be true, but sometimes not. The following is a direct excerpt from that article:
 * "Baldwin announced that he would use the Internet as Ron Paul "to circumvent the media," which he deemed responsible for holding back the possible prospects of third party candidates.[citation needed] He stated back in 2004 as vice-presidential nominee that "the American people haven't rejected our message; they haven't heard our message."[11] Following the nomination, Baldwin set up a campaign website and opened accounts on MySpace and Facebook. A MySpace account was also created that included former supporters of the former Arkansas governor and Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee.[12]"
 * As you can see, there are two references in this passage, neither of which supports the quotation about "circumvent[ing] the media." That quotation needs a citation and that citation is not offered in this article anywhere. It is possible that one of the sources used in the article has that quotation, but I don't know since there isn't a citation for that particular quote. I suppose you should err on the side of over-attribution rather than under-attribution, as the former is easily fixed. Does that make sense? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:44, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure Look, the fact that you wrote this shows that something is still not being communicated here: "I don't see why a cite needs to be listed at the end of every sentence but I did it anyways to put an end to this frivolous edit war. I don't think you should be so inclined to tag up an article without any regard, its not very helpful." You do not have to have a citation at the end of every sentence. You do have to have one for every quotation. You have to have a citation for claims like "Chuck Baldwin is endorsed by Party X." You cannot have original research and this is not frivolous; it's an essential part of Wikipedia. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Why?
Please stop it Take a look at the revert you're making. Why are you - e.g. - taking out the Constitution Party category? Why are you re-linking dates in opposition to WP:MOSDATES? Are you just blind reverting for fun or something? Do you have some purpose in this? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:02, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for catching my clumsy self-revert to Bob Barr presidential campaign, 2008, I wasn't sure if I was right in reverting that edit, so I decided to self-revert to avoid upsetting anyone. Sorry.--res2216firestar 17:13, 25 September 2008 (UTC)