User talk:William Saturn/2009

In Overdrive
Why did you only put the last names for the writers? WP:ALBUM says put the full names wherever possible. Also, links such as 2009 are generally discouraged. You might also want to check your links more carefully, as several were pointing to disambiguation pages. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 16:41, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Template:United States presidential election, 2008
Hi, can you provide the link where the discussion regarding some minor major party candidates were included while others weren't? Spinach Monster (talk) 18:43, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Per the link you provided, I removed Dal LaMagna again, as there is no FEC filing data on his article (per #2 of the consensus on the link you sent.) If you can find the filing data for LaMagna, i'd be happy to revert myself and put LaMagna back up. Spinach Monster (talk) 21:37, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Great! Good job on finding that. Spinach Monster (talk) 23:45, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Category:Terrorism
It's not just this category that is being discussed, but all the sub-categories including
 * Category:Terrorist incidents
 * Category:War on Terrorism
 * Category:Terrorism in the United States

You may notice that the article I edited is in all of these categories. There is no reason for it to be in the root Category:Terrorism, regardless of what is being discussed on the CfD. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 21:22, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Re:Secretary of Energy
As I said, I don't like the way the images are in little ovals. I prefer having the entire official photo of the secretary, not a cropped version. A rectangular image also looks better in the rectangular cells of the table. The fact that it's FL already does not mean it's perfect and may not be changed; I was WP:BOLD and went with a different style. If you significanly prefer the little picture frames, then maybe we can work something out or see what others think. Reywas92 Talk 20:45, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * First, that link is Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, not having anything to do with editing articles; all article layouts are based on personal preference. Yes, I don't like it. I'm not condescendingly saying my way's better, but I don't think the current version is the best. Yes, that article is an FL, but that was nearly two years ago, and nothing says that once an article is featured it must stay the same way for eternity. Apparently you prefer the ovals. Perhaps we should start a poll on the talk page? Reywas92 Talk  21:04, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I found a free image without the oval for all but two. Why didn't you just say that in the first place? Will it be okay when I find them? Reywas92 Talk  21:15, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I can't seem to find other images, but I think having two ovals still looks better than all ovals. I don't see any problem about POV; they're all still official government photos. Reywas92 Talk 21:49, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Email - The joker
I am a little bemused by your email to me, which appeared to be a part of a mass-mailing and claiming to be from the joker. Care to explain please? Ian ¹³ /t  10:49, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply. I was rather puzzled since you seem to be an editor in good standing. I'll send you a copy if you like! Cheers, Ian ¹³  /t  16:42, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Content as follows:
 * Tonight, you’re all gonna be a part of a social experiment. Through the magic of hacking skills and steward powers, I’m ready right now to blow your minds sky high. Anyone attempts to block me or revert, you all get desysopped.


 * Each of you has a button to block another editor. At midnight, I desysop and block you all. If, however, one of you indefinitely blocks as many constructive editors as you can, I’ll let that admin keep their admin powers. So, who’s it gonna be? Wikipedia’s most-wanted scumbag collection or the sweet and innocent contributors? You choose. Oh, and you might wanna decide quickly because the other administrators may not be quite so noble. — The Joker
 * Ian ¹³ /t  16:46, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I can only assume so :) Ian ¹³  /t  17:17, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Biden talk page
Thanks for the link to that page, but as per WP:TPO you should not have deleted my talk page comment. The discussion could also be potentially relevant and warrant a mention on the full article. So while in general I agree with you that the page you linked to is a more useful place to get the question answered, I hope you would not object to me restoring my comments to the talk page.Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 19:35, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Re:Tom Vilsack
They are incorrect. The ones I removed were either common or linked terms that did not require quotation marks or they were not even quotes. When it's a single word, that's paraphrasing that happens to use one of the same key words, not a quote. Most of the others in the article are correct, though. Reywas92 Talk 16:43, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You are allowed to use a few of the same words when paraphrasing; every single one does not have to be different. calling Obama the "only" candidate in the race for voters who want to change "the tone in Washington" against "partisanship"... Partisanship is part of the paraphrase; it is a difficult word to change. There is absolutely no reason to need them around Only. Again, you can't really replace that when paraphrasing. "the tone in Washington" is a quote, but the others are paraphrase. You could include the entire quote, including the other words. But your link is dead, so you can't even source it. Reywas92 Talk  16:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I know perfectly well what I'm talking about!!! They are incorrect! You can rephrase them, but as they currently are, they are paraphrasing, NOT quoting. You cannot quote a single word unless it is unique and requires it. He made a distinction between judgment and experience noting the importance of the former. That's exactly what he did! Sure, he said those words, but it's not a quote in that form. dismissing his Democratic rival's calls for capping the number of troops in the nation... Yes, capping the number. That's NOT a quote in that form, just using the same word. He called Obama the only candidate... It's a paraphrase! Reywas92 Talk 17:07, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

One of the things I do around here is review GA nominations. I was going to reveiw that one, but I guess not. Reywas92 Talk 17:21, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No, but I've written five FLs. And does it matter? I have over three years and 15,000 edits of experience here. I think I can review an article. Reywas92 Talk  17:40, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Incomprehensible? Really? I reworded part of my changes, but rather than quoting a single word, you should quote accurately. Some of those were very simple fixes to be truer to the original quote. You said I changed what was said by the candidate; I went to the references for those, so I don't think so. I know dead links are allowed, but a replacement is better. Reywas92 Talk 17:55, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Apology accepted. Now let's work on these articles constructively. I'm not perfect, so I missed the latter/former part, but putting the words together is much more accurate if you're going to quote. Many quotation marks are wrong and should be either removed or reworded. If it's a qoute, then be true to what the person said, or else it's paraphrasing. Reywas92 Talk 19:40, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

June 2009
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing.

Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. I DO know what I'm talking about, and do NOT call me a child! Reywas92 Talk 17:13, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
The Earwig (Talk &#124; Editor review) 21:11, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
— raeky ( talk 01:06, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

GA review of Tom Vilsack presidential campaign, 2008
Hello - I have reviewed Tom Vilsack presidential campaign, 2008, which you listed at the Good Article nominees page. My review of the article can be found here. As you can see, I've raised quite a few issues with the article. Before you panic/become depressed/burn me in effigy, though, here are some things to bear in mind:
 * The points I raise are not necessarily all things that need to be addressed before I list it as a GA. Instead, they are things that I think could improve the article.  In my view, the actual GA status is of secondary importance in the GA process; what's more important is improving the article, and I think that goal is best served by making as many suggestions as possible.
 * In my experience, I'm among the most stringent GA reviewers out there, especially in the "well-written" category, where I tend to review GA and FA candidates in essentially the same way. Again, I do this because I think it's best for the article; however, if you think the points I've raised are too nit-picky or minor and you'd rather not address them, I may be willing to promote the article without them all being addressed.
 * The opinions I express in my GA reviews are just that - my opinions (I also express some things, like grammatical rules or the requirements of WP:V, that are not my opinions). If you disagree with any of my opinions, please say so; you don't need to convince me that you're right, just that your position is a reasonable one. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:48, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You're it. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:59, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

DYK for One Iowa
Hello! there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath and respond there as soon as possible.

Re: Wikiproject invitation
Thanks, but I think I'll decline. What edits have I made that led you to invite me? Nyttend (talk) 00:19, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll decline as well, I'm afraid, as I don' have any particular interest in working on such articles (I focus more on Canadian politics, generally). I'd be happy to provide copyediting or peer reviews of such articles on request during periods in which I'm not too busy, however. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 22:31, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

3RR Warning
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Thanks. Mattnad (talk) 19:32, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I am currently awaiting information on the appropriateness of the above warning. --William S. Saturn (talk) 21:13, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * See Edit_war. If you think I'm unique in my interpretation, see this other editor's warning to your counterpart on his talk page.  Anyway, I'm not planning to debate semantics of what constitutes a "content dispute." You can do whatever you want, but think about it. Mattnad (talk) 23:55, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/Geraldine Ferraro/archive1 section headers
I won't press the issue any further (because it's a silly thing), but please see WP:FAC instructions: "Please do not split FA candidate pages into subsections using header code (if necessary, use bolded headings)." The FA delegates may remove them anyway, though. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:35, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, I see what you did. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:37, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Public_image_of_Barack_Obama
Strange that you are lecturing other editors about possible 3rr violations given your behaviors on other pages. Just a friendly reminder.RTRimmel (talk) 05:29, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Why? Because I made one revert? --William S. Saturn (talk) 18:15, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * []
 * []

There are two. And against consensus and the talk page because you believe a policy is being violated when 4 editors have told you it hasn't. One more and are you could be blocked and that would be unfortunate. You may want to read up on Disruptive_editing to avoid future problems. Just as a friendly reminder. Have a nice day. RTRimmel (talk) 18:44, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The initial edit is not a revert.--William S. Saturn (talk) 18:46, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * But wholly against consensus, which is a sign of disruptive editing. Just as a friendly reminder.  RTRimmel (talk) 18:52, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Please assume good faith. It was an attempt at compromise. --William S. Saturn (talk) 18:53, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: Ice Cube 2000
Alright, I'll report him now. Thanks for the heads up. &rarr;  Dylan 620  (Toolbox Alpha, Beta) 18:01, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

routine notice of Obama article probation
Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed is on article probation. -- guyzero | talk 00:50, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I accept it. --William S. Saturn (talk) 00:53, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:USPE tagging bot
Sorry about the long delay in completing this task, but it's finished. You can review the pages modified by the bot here if necessary. Thanks, The Earwig  (Talk &#124; Contribs) 16:24, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your help. --William S. Saturn (talk) 16:46, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Giuliani debate.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Giuliani debate.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Peripitus (Talk) 22:37, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Rudy giuliani larry king.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Rudy giuliani larry king.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. J Milburn (talk) 23:48, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Thompson june debate.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Thompson june debate.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. J Milburn (talk) 11:51, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Tommy Thompson debate.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Tommy Thompson debate.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. J Milburn (talk) 11:54, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Discussion about that image can now take place at the deletion debate, so that the closing administrator/others wishing to voice an opinion can see both of our points. The fact the article is a GA is not important; I've seen FAs with horrific violations, and the fact not everyone is well versed in our NFC policies means that GA reviewers will inevitably miss images. J Milburn (talk) 18:12, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Non-free debate images in campaign articles
Before I go on a nomination spree, is there anything I'm missing about the "This is X at Y debate, as shown on Z news network" images you've uploaded for the campaign articles? They seem to be in obvious violation of our non-free content criteria, in that they add practically nothing to the articles. Specifically, I am referring to File:Baldwin debate.jpg, File:Bob Barr on Fox News.jpg, File:Dodd december debate.jpg and File:Dodd november debate.jpg, which seem exactly the same as the two images already deleted, and the two I have just nominated. J Milburn (talk) 12:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Bullshit like this is the reason this website is in the state it's in. --William S. Saturn (talk) 18:53, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll take that as "no, they do not comply with the non-free content criteria, but I don't really care"? J Milburn (talk) 18:55, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This is simply a waste of time. It is taking away from article quality by forcing editors to stop everything they do and defend images. And then once you delete the images, you leave it in the article as a redlink. This causes one to question the purpose. Is leaving a bunch of redlinks lying around helping the encyclopedia? Or is it proper to led an inquisition against a simple rationale such as "the debate is important, and this shows the person in question, in action" wasting everybody's time and ending with a red link and a caption?--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:04, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Look, we're Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. We aim to promote the use of free content, and aim for the creation of an encylopedia that can be freely used and distributed. We do allow the use of non-free content in specific circumstances, as not allowing its use would detract seriously from the informational value of the encyclopedia. However, this is not one of those cases where we should be making an exception to the rule- using this content does not improve the encyclopedia in any real way, but it does detract from our mission. Basically, your issue appears to be with the rules themselves. If you're not willing to "waste" your time complying with our non-free content rules, I advise you avoid the upload of non-free content altogether. J Milburn (talk) 19:13, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Explain how the images are in conflict with each facet of the fair use law:


 * the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
 * the nature of the copyrighted work;
 * the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
 * the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
 * Then explain how you can determine if it would be detrimental or not. I am the main contributer to the article, and I see that the absence of the image hurts the reader's understanding significantly. Perhaps you have a problem with fair use images, but they are lawful on this site if used correctly. I don't see your crusade as noble, I see it as detrimental unless you can actually explain yourself and not leave behind a huge pile of red links. --William S. Saturn (talk) 22:26, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't care about fair use law. Not only am I not American, but, philsophically, I am not massive on law anyway. I am working from our non-free content criteria. I am, however, a very reasonable person- if you can explain to me why removing these images would harm the readers' understanding of the article, I will not only leave the images alone, but I will be happy to defend their use against any one in the future who calls for their deletion. I certainly have no problem with non-free images (many articles I have written contain them), and agree strongly that redlinks to images should be removed post-haste. J Milburn (talk) 22:57, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I explained on the MFD page. --William S. Saturn (talk) 22:58, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and nominated the four other images for deletion. The discussions can be found at Files for deletion/2009 July 17. J Milburn (talk) 12:09, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * And all have been given a valid rationale. Please withdraw. --William S. Saturn (talk) 00:41, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You're kind of missing the point of the Dramaout. I chose not to participate, and even explained why on the talk page, so I will continue to clean up non-free images with invalid rationales. To be honest, I think you may have already broken the terms of the "Dramaout" by contacting me on my talk page. I will not be withdrawing these nominations unless I am convinced that the images are required, and I am not. If you don't want drama, tag them for speedy deletion, or just wait out the discussions. If you do want drama, go and fight, or go and make demands of me. Your choice. J Milburn (talk) 18:38, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It's ironic that somebody who "doesn't care about fair use law" believes himself to be the authority on fair use images. I can only laugh and leave it at that. No drama, just a word of advice: you do yourself more harm when you waste other's time. --William S. Saturn (talk) 23:31, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:NODRAMA reminder
Thanks for signing up for the Great Wikipedia Dramaout. Wikipedia stands to benefit from the improvements in the article space as a result of this campaign. This is a double reminder. First, the campaign begins on July 18, 2009 at 00:00 (UTC). Second, please remember to log any articles you have worked on during the campaign at The Great Wikipedia Dramaout/Log. Thanks again for your participation! --Jayron32. talk . say no to drama 21:14, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for making WP:NODRAMA a success!
Thank you again for your support of the Great Wikipedia Dramaout. Preliminary states indicate that 129 new articles were created, 203 other articles were improved, and 183 images were uploaded. Additionally, 41 articles were nominated for DYK, of which at least 2 have already been promoted. There are currently also 8 articles up for GA status and 3 up for FA/FL status. Though the campaign is technically over, please continue to update the log page at WP:NODRAMA/L with any articles which you worked during the campaign, and also to note any that receive commendation, such as DYK, GA or FA status. You may find the following links helpful in nominating your work:


 * T:TDYK for Did You Know nominations
 * WP:GAC for Good Article nominations
 * WP:FAC for Featured Article nominations
 * WP:FLC for Featured List nominations
 * WP:FPC for Featured Picture nominations

Again, thank you for making this event a success! --Jayron32. talk . say no to drama 02:08, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Presidential Election 2012 article
Hi there,

Myself and Timmeh have had a strong discussion about major change to this article. Before we did anything we wanted to get feedback regular editors of this page, William S. Saturn, Hysteria18, Jerzeykydd, Ratemonth, JayJasper, GoodDay, Qqqqqq, GageSkidmore, Reywas92, and FallenMorgan. Please send this to anyone else I may have left and please read the thread on Ruled Out and give us your feedback.

--Diamond Dave 16:51, 3 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by David1982m (talk • contribs)

revert
I honestly thought I was using the "undo" (and NOT the rollback) feature. I left an edit summary. I do not understand why my autosummary was not included in the action. All I can say is that i was endeavoring to take your point seriously. Ny edit summary: material that conflicts with NPOV cannot be allowed in; I explain myself on the talk page." I hope we can continue to have an GF discussion on the talk page. I believe that you believe the section is saying something important.  I believe that at best it is not saying what you want it to say clearly and effectively; I believe it is actually saying something else.  As to what you wish it to say, I am not at all sure there is a need for the policy to have a section saying so.  Our policies will be easier for newbis to learn and for people to follow when they are concise and clear. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 22:38, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

moralizing
"I think you're reading too much into it, but let's ask Karada for a clarification. Honestly though, I will continue to edit with my interpretation of the policy, because I feel it is important that editors not moralize. This policy removes the urge to label a subject as a "racist," "pervert" or any other label, and instead state the facts of the subject, such as their participation in lynching or alleged sexual assault. It's good to point to, when a new user insists on using such a label on a subject"

I know you are making good faith points. I genuinely believe you profoundly misunderstand NPOV. You seem to be responding to editors who wish to add labels, at least about people - I hope I am understanding you correctly, you are asking what do we do when someone adds "The evil Saddam Hussein." Here is my problem: when you point to Kadara's statement in the NPOV policy as an explanation for why they should take out evil, you are giving them a reason that is (1) unnecessary, because NPOV already covers this, and (2) wrong, because Kadara's reasoning (and yours I say with respect) contradicts NPOV.

Here is what I think any editor should say to a new user who insist using a label on a subject. We say: NPOV (and V and NOR as well, they all unite on this point) forbids any editor from putting his or her own view into an article. Period.

That is all one has to say. That is why I think Kadara's statement is unnecessary.

But there is a reason why we do not add our own views. That is because we are not supposed to use Wikipedia articles to argue for or against any view. Neutral Point of View means that we provide a neutral (judgment-free) account of all significant views from verifiable sources. According to NPOV, none of these views are true, and we do not care to argue that any or all of them are true or false. We present all of them, as views, and neutrally.
 * If there is a significant view from a verifiable source that someone who committed sexual assualt is a pervert, we add that view, make sure it is identified as a view and not as "the truth," and provide the verifiable and reliable sources.
 * If there is a significant view from a verifiable source that someone who committed sexual assualt is psychologically ill, we add that view, make sure it is identified as a view and not as "the truth," and provide the verifiable and reliable sources.
 * If there is a significant view from a verifiable source that someone who committed sexual assualt is a sinner, we add that view, make sure it is identified as a view and not as "the truth," and provide the verifiable and reliable sources.
 * If there is a significant view from a verifiable source that someone who committed sexual assualt is justified as the so-called victim was asking for it, we add that view, make sure it is identified as a view and not as "the truth," and provide the verifiable and reliable sources.

If the advocates of these views (must I remind you, only those that are demonstrably significant and demonstrably verifiable) provide explanations and evidence to support their views, we can add that too. Now the crucial point: we add them as views and not because we editors want to support a given view.

We do not state the facts because fact are better than labels. We state the facts because - really if - a verifiable source expressing a significant view is using facts. We put in stuff because it is significant and comes from reliable sources.

Kadara seems to be saying that if an editor believes Hussein to be evil, the editor will convince more people if instead of using a label, the editor provides the evidence.

William (if I may), if I could scream I would, and it is nothing personal against you or kadara but this reasoning - if I am interpreting it correctly - is just the most blatant violation of NPOV and it stabs at the heart of Wikipedia. No editor should be using Wikipedia to advance a viewpoint This is also the heart of WP:NOR, another core content policy.

In all the discussion surrounding my deletion of this section, I seem to be getting two criticisms. First, that I am trying to tell readers what to think. Given what i have just written, do you still believe that of me? I am not trying to tell readers anything other than what other people ("signiicant views/reliable sources") think. Second, that facts are more effective than labels. But effective at what? Arguing a point? Supporting a point? Wikiepdia editors should never be trying to argue or support any point in an article.

A final point about moralizing - and a spoiler, all my comments are about what I think NPOV demands of me as a Wikipedia editor, not what I personally think if you and I were hanging out at a bar. The first question is, who is moralizing. (It cannot be a newbie or even an established editor, because no wikipedian ever puts their own view into an article (I do not have to say Wikipedians cannot moralize - it doesn't matter whether it is moralizing or any other view; we editors simply do not put our views into an article). Maybe moralizing is good.  Maybe moralizing is bad.  I have just expressed two views.  One of them is mine and I will not tell you which because my view never can go into a Wikipedia article.  We put the view in only if it is significant and from a verifiable source.

Example: George Bush says Saddam Hussein is evil. We have a discussion on the talk page. Some people say the president of the US is not a significant view. Some people say he is but even if he weren't others share this view. People look for sources and after much discussion come up with some kind of sentence that basically expresses this: Many people have publically agreed with Bush's denouncement of Saddam Hussein as evil." This view may be right or wrong.  Thinking it right or wrong is itself a view.  i happen to hold one of these views, but i will not tll you which because it doesn't matter because my job as editor is not to put in my own views.  Bush is moralizing - I certainly agree on that!  But that is not a reason to keep that sentence out of the article.  IF we agree the view is significant and IF it comes from verifiable reliable sources, we HAVE to put it in.  Now another editor comes to the discussion and says "Move.Org just put out commercials on all major networks saying Bush is wrong."  We have a discussion, we decide whether this is significant and verifiable and if we decide yes, we can put in the article the fact that some people hold the view that Bush's view is wrong. And if Amnesty International or the Secretary general of the UN issues a press release saying that "Bush's moralizing rhetoric is not only ineffective, it is inflammatory and dangerous" we have the same discussion: is this a significant and verifiable view/ If so, in it goes.


 * 1) NPOV demands we add all significant views from verifiable and reliable sources
 * 2) NPOV and NOR forbid us from adding our own views
 * 3) NPOV and NOR forbid editors to use Wikipedia to further a Wikipedian's own argument or view.

These are the only responses you ever need to give to a newbie who inserts the word "perverted" or "evil" or whatever into an article. You can keep deleting the word pervert as long as the newbie does not establish that it is a significant view found in reliable sources. But as soon as (IF) the newbie demonstrates that it is a significant view from reliable sources, William, honestly, you have to allow it. The only other question from an NPOV perspective is, are there other significant views from reliable sources? if so, we have to add those too and the newbie cannot stop you. But this - this paragraph - is as far as I can tell the only thing you need to know when a newbie slaps on the moralizing label "pervert."

The problem is never labels, the problem is never moralizing. The problem is one of the three points I just listed. And the section I keep removing is offensive to me because it violates point 1 by saying a view should be excluded on grounds other than lack of significance ofr lack of reliable source, and it is offensive to me because it violates point 3 by encouraging an editor to put in facts that support the editor's views.

I have bent over backwards to be as clear as possible about my position. Do you think my interpretations of NPOV and NOR in pts. 1-3 are wrong? Slrubenstein  |  Talk 12:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

3RR Warning (again)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Unit Anode  22:31, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * A report has been filed at WP:ANI about this dispute and the ominous band of Obama page protectors. --William S. Saturn (talk) 22:37, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Richard Nixon presidential campaign, 1968
Hello! there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath and respond there as soon as possible.
 * The answer to your question is frustratingly simple - I leave the assessment to another editor. Unfortunately, this is a common style at DYK - we cross-check various nominations, often merely pointing to technicalities like hook length. Length is Ok, the whole nom is Ok as far I'm concerned, but I am no specialist in this topic at all. Specialists often come from other angles (assessment of neutrality, copyvivo, overlap with other WP articles), sometimes even crashing the article. If I were you, I wouldn't worry at all. The nomination is stable, you'll either get a comment later from someone, or it will simply be accepted by a DYK admin. Regards. Materialscientist (talk) 00:12, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I respect your WP experience, but my observation of DYK for the last 2-3 months I'm assessing there tells me things go normal - there is no "one-editor assessment rule", some threads get >3 at a time. It is just summer vacation time, and usual lack of manpower at DYK. Technical comments like hook length neither count as assessment (after all, most hooks are reformulated by the DYK admins before posting, especially if too long) nor repel others. That said, technical comments do help sorting out problems there. Materialscientist (talk) 00:42, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi, the hook length problem has been resolved, but a few other things have popped up. Cheers, Dabomb87 (talk) 20:51, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Solution to Ruled Out Debate NEED YOUR FEEDBACK!
Proposed solution to ruled out debate on []. Please submit your feedback. Thanks. David1982m (talk • —Preceding undated comment added 14:10, 7 August 2009 (UTC).

Sanctions log
Hey, WSS. I reverted your addition of Tarc to the sanction log. This wasn't done on the merits, per se, but just because having you and tarc edit war over the sanctions log was unproductive at best. In the future try to avoid logging sanctions for an editor who was recently in a dispute with you--it will likely do nothing but inflame the issue. Protonk (talk) 19:48, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll be more clear. Don't add people to the list when you are party to an immediate dispute with them. Protonk (talk) 20:05, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you point me to a policy on that? --William S. Saturn (talk) 20:08, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:UCS? I can't believe I'm having this argument.  You do not need to shepard the sanctions log.  If this were an action undertaken due to the sanctions (which is debatable), a neutral editor is free to edit the log.  The last person who should be editing that log is the person in the dispute because all that will happen is Tarc will get mad unnecessarily.  I'm not going to wikilawyer about this. Protonk (talk) 20:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I don't see how the reverts could even be construed as not falling under the sanctions guidelines. The action is simply logged, no commentary is added. There should be no dispute here. --William S. Saturn (talk) 20:14, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Protonk has a history of being rather one sided on issues related to this subject. If he doesn't want you to add the sanction to the list then he should simply do it himself. There's no controversy about the violation. It's cut and dry. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:43, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

A block 'review' of sorts on AN/I
A user has asked that your 3rr block of Tarc be reviewed on AN/I. Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents is the link. After some discussion with the user, another admin shortened the block (which seemed reasonable to me). Just figured I'd give you a heads up that folks were talking about you (however tangentially) on AN/I. Protonk (talk) 19:14, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Also, it now appears that the Sanction log can only be edited by admins. I'm feel Tarc's case is an obvious violation, since the article is under probation and he was edit warring on it. --William S. Saturn (talk) 20:44, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I was aware of that page before I made the block, and I intentionally did not add Tarc's block to it. I didn't/don't think it's necessary. --  tariq abjotu  10:01, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

August, 2009
Please do not use article talk pages to make personal attacks on other Wikipedia editors, as you have where you say you "question [my] judgement as a wikipedian because (you claim) I find a particular version of an article acceptable, here. Your recent edits to various Obama-related articles have already caused some concern with respect to edit warring and incivility.  You are on notice that these articles are under "article probation", which means that they are subject to heightened scrutiny and a streamlined enforcement process.  If you wish to continue editing these articles, please try to get along with other editors and do not make these kinds of accusations.  Thanks,  Wikidemon (talk) 06:48, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah. Like I said, I question your judgement, so that will be factored in when I read the above. --William S. Saturn (talk) 06:50, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Please lay off the Obama articles for a while - if you continue there in this way I will file a notice-board report and you may be blocked or otherwise restricted from further editing there. Wikidemon (talk) 07:01, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I choose to ignore your request, the acceptance of misinformation and bias cannot be construed any other way. --William S. Saturn (talk) 07:03, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * And now you've accused me (and possibly others) of bad faith. and begun to edit war the article talk page. I've done my best to counsel you on how to use these pages per policy.  Consider this a final warning. I'll give you a few minutes to revert your re-opening the thread you started and/or remove your accusation of bad faith.  If not I will file a notice-board report and you may be blocked or otherwise restricted from further editing there.  Wikidemon (talk) 07:01, 11 August 2009 (UTC) striking this part of warning - no need to go that far - Wikidemon (talk) 20:51, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * WikiDemon, you have done nothing but helped to inflame the situation. --William S. Saturn (talk) 07:08, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * What situation? There's no situation beyond what you care to make of it.  I'm simply asking you to adhere to the editing policies and guidelines regarding accusations and personal attacks - and in substance, if you have any objection to the content of the article to say what you're objecting to.  I have no idea what you're talking about when you say the article is full of misinformation.  You have to be more specific than that.  Article talk pages are for discussing proposals to improve the article, not for nonspecific complaints about articles and editors.  Wikidemon (talk) 07:30, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

WQA
Hi William, I'm responding to a "Wikiquette" alert placed here. I don't think we've interacted before, but I've tried to help out as an admin on some Obama-related articles for awhile. I'm not sure that a Wikiquette report was the right place for it, but obviously some editors have taken issue with your edits.

I don't see anything blockworthy in terms of your comments and edits at Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories, but obviously as you know the article is under article probation, so there's less leeway in terms of edit warring, personal comments about other editors, etc. Admins will be quicker to enforce that kind of thing on an Obama page per the terms of the article probation, and you need to bear that in mind.

The main concern I have, and you seem to have acknowledged this yourself, are a couple of edits where you make direct or implicit accusations of bad faith ( (in the edit summary) and ). Those kind of sentiments always throw up a red flag for me on Obama-related articles. Unfortunately, the assumption tends to be that editors on one side are just there to defame Obama, and editors on the other side are just there to whitewash the article. Rarely do I find that to actually be the case. Rather you have a number of editors who tend to be fairly supportive of Obama, and others who are at least somewhat critical, and there is an argument about whether a given article, section, or sentence is NPOV or not. It gets pretty intense, but usually it's a matter of a content debate between well-meaning editors.

I have not looked at all aspects of this dispute and have not really looked at the article in detail, so I don't have a particular position on your complaints about it. What I would recommend is that you detail specific issues, preferably one at a time, and see how far that gets you. At least in terms of your remarks from the last day or two that I read, they seem to be fairly generalized, complaining of general bias and misinformation, etc. etc. It's usually difficult to respond to those kind of comments because there's no specific point to latch onto. You might find that there are more editors who agree with some of your specific complaints than you would think, and if not, and if you feel they are not receiving proper consideration, you can consider getting outside opinion about the content dispute, or help from a mediator.

What I don't want to see is more accusations of bad faith, or a tendency to personalize the dispute by calling other editors biased. If you've seen this from other editors (for example directed at you), please let me know and I'll discuss that with them as well (as I said I've just looked through this quickly, and I'm not trying to single you out).

To be perfectly frank, editing politically contentious topics is not necessarily very much fun, as you are probably well aware. Lengthy and heated arguments are essentially endemic to those pages. As such civility, AGF, and an ability to respect consensus and refrain from edit warring are particularly important, so please do your best to hold tightly to those guidelines on the Obama articles, where they will be enforced tightly, by myself or other admins.

Again, if there are other issues of which you think I should be aware don't hesitate to contact me. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:10, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for explaining all this to me, it is appreciated. I will avoid the bad-faith accusations in the future, and will be more specific on discussions.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:15, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Re:Arbcom Elections
I appreciate ths concern but i am Not running for the ArbCom elections. User:Smith Jones 14:22, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * thank you for your notification; I have spoken to him. I think that he might have confused me for someone else with a simialr UserName Who is Running for the Arbitration Committee elections. Hopefully i have Cleared This mattter up with him. User:Smith Jones 18:36, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

DYK Nom
Hello! there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath and respond there as soon as possible. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:52, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Image Denoised
Hillary Clinton denoise request

Since no one took the task, I looked for the software myself and did the modification. The tool removed some of the fine detail of her face as well, an acceptable trade-off for less background noise, I don't know. But request has been fulfilled. — raeky ( talk 18:11, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you. --William S. Saturn (talk) 18:52, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Propose move
Would it make sense to move Jim Gilmore presidential campaign, 2008 to Jim Gilmore 2008 presidential campaign? As is, the 2008 is just stuck on the end of the title, and in my opinion doesn't look good. And it implies that the whole campaign took place in 2008, which it did not. I think the new title would make more sense as his campaign was intended for the 2008 election, but that's just me. Feel free to disagree.

Also. congrats on the recent GA! I might as well give you this while I'm here:


 * Thanks for the barnstar. As for your proposed move, the practice of placing the election year at the end of an article is customary. If you would like to change this, you could start a thread at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States presidential elections and gauge editors' opinions on the matter. --William S. Saturn (talk) 06:58, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your reply. I don't want to change anything major, I'm just familiar with the other layout, and thought it made sense. So never mind. A little insignificant talk to me! (please!) 14:27, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Blackskin Gadget
Yes, those for those templates which have a class, that should be possible. However, I don't have the skills to do it, I only ported the Blackskin.css into a gadget, I didn't write it. Kormoran is the author. However, if you (or someone you find) is willing to make any changes to it, I'd be happy to add them to the gadget for you. Cheers - Prodego  <sup style="color:darkgreen;">talk  11:24, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Since its still being worked on (As recently as < 60 minutes ago) why don't you ask Lemmiwinks2 to let me know when it is done (and clean up some comments), and I'll update the gadget? Prodego  <sup style="color:darkgreen;">talk  20:55, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Tabbed browsing...
This would be tangential to the Village Pump discussion, so I took it here. I don't know which browser you use. However, the three major browsers families have supported Tabs for a while - IE since IE7, Firefox and Safari since longer than I can remember. All three are available for free on the supported platforms, and between them they support the vast majority of operating environments. Unrelated to you proposal, you can probably make your life easier with a free upgrade. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:40, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Mark Sanford on 2012 Republican Primary Page?
I think the Sanford debate will never end, lol. I have 3 sources that are still discussing Mark Sanford in conjunction to 2012 that are less than 6 months old, but JerzeyKydd is still insisting that discussion for him has ceased for 6 months. The sources I added are less than 6 months. I agreed to take down Ensign because no one is talking him in conjunction 2012, but why are people still talking about Sanford in conjunction 2012? I was wondering if maybe you wanted to add your feedback to this discussion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Republican_Party_(United_States)_presidential_primaries,_2012. Thanks. --Diamond Dave (talk) 22:08, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Waterboarding
Please be aware that Waterboarding is under ArbCom discretionary sanctions as described here. Your watering down the long-standing consensus version without discussion and, plainly, bogus edit comments, is disruptive. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:30, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The editors that protect the page, such as yourself, refuse to discuss the issue and disregard other definitions or uses as "fringe" or "bogus" as you stated above. --William S. Saturn (talk) 23:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * We have discusses the issue ad nauseam, and I'm quite willing (though in no way eager) to discuss it again. Your argument that the change "accounts for military training" is indeed complete bogus - and even clashes with your previous claim of "no difference". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:18, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * No difference in meaning just the military training aspect is being accounted for. Not "bogus" at all unless you disregard facts.--William S. Saturn (talk) 02:03, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, either there is a difference, or there is not. And the military training use does no more change the status of waterboarding than the existence of blanks makes the AK47 not a lethal weapon. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:29, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * AK47. --William S. Saturn (talk) 20:32, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Barack Obama article probation
Regarding your edit to Talk:Barack Obama, please see Talk:Barack Obama/FAQ, 8, and 13. The question was not "about content", and the talk page section was properly closed to prevent further disruption. As a reminder, the article is on probation; "to avoid being subject to remedies":"* Do not edit-war; * Avoid making repeated comments unrelated to bettering the article; * Not much leeway in pages under probation, so basically be a model Wikipedian;" Thank you, --4wajzkd02 (talk) 09:26, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

November 2009
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on List of terrorist incidents, 2009. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 21:27, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Fort Hood terrorist attack listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Fort Hood terrorist attack. Since you had some involvement with the Fort Hood terrorist attack redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). ~YellowFives 22:40, 9 November 2009 (UTC) ~YellowFives 22:40, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I have left a comment. --William S. Saturn (talk) 22:41, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

ANI
William just to inform you that a section related to you has been started at WP:ANI.  Grsz 11  23:53, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Would you please stop going out of your way to insult me. ~YellowFives 07:29, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


 * What are you talking about? --William S. Saturn (talk) 07:40, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Going out of your way to call me mindless. Stop it. ~YellowFives 07:44, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not going out of my way. That is what I meant. You didn't use your mind when you made the revert. You refactored my comment, so I changed it back to what I meant. It is best not to refactor others' comments. --William S. Saturn (talk) 07:49, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * "It is best not to" be uncivil nor to assume bad faith. It would be "best" if you refactored your comments. --4wajzkd02 (talk) 14:56, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The revert action was mindless, I stand by that statement. It is not a personal attack, it is a criticism of an action he made. --William S. Saturn (talk) 18:44, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

fyi
Hi. I just thought I made reference to your posts here. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:35, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:ANI notice
Hello,. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --4wajzkd02 (talk) 19:19, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Warning
This type of comment is not conducive to the type of collegial atmosphere we wish to have here at Wikipedia. When a user asks you to stay away from their talk page, please do so. Don't needlessly escalate conflict. Thanks, <font color="#B38F00">henrik •<font color="#AFA29F">talk  20:20, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

BLP and 3RR
The BLP problem is the defamatory comparison between a living person and Hitler / NAMBLA. The purpose of BLP is to prohibit unsourced, non-neutral statements about living people; this particularly includes statements that are controversial or defamatory. You might also take a look at WP:3RR, as you've passed the revert limit on the RfD page already. <strong style="color:#0033CC">Nathan <strong style="color:#0033CC"> T 23:43, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Where is Hitler mentioned on the RFD page? --William S. Saturn (talk) 23:45, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Hitler is the user talk page. NAMBLA and Islamic extremism on the RfD isn't enough? <strong style="color:#0033CC">Nathan <strong style="color:#0033CC"> T 23:51, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * They are simply mentions. --William S. Saturn (talk) 23:52, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * FYI, see . <strong style="color:#0033CC">Nathan <strong style="color:#0033CC"> T 23:53, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Your note
Hi William, if you feel my close was improper, the correct venue for addressing that would be Deletion review. Thanks, Crum375 (talk) 05:07, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * No way, it's already been closed three times today, this is highly inappropriate. --William S. Saturn (talk) 05:08, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
Please don't vandalize Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. If an admin wants to close it, they can close it. 99.166.95.142 (talk) 18:20, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I "vandalized" the page because I removed your attempts to inflame the situation. --William S. Saturn (talk) 18:22, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.166.95.142 (talk) 18:25, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Weeeeee
(with apoligies to the magician) I'm back, thanks for the welcome. How are things with you, Dr. Saturn? -- Kendrick7talk 03:36, 22 November 2009 (UTC) (Esfandiari calls everybody doctor; he's my hero)


 * Hey, I'm really glad to see you back. I've been involved in a wide range of scandals lately. Hopefully I'll get back to doing something constructive around here. It seems that troll ( I've always wondered who that was ) ceased his disruption on Chris Dodd presidential campaign, 2008, so luckily I don't have to deal with that anymore. --William S. Saturn (talk) 03:45, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Small weiner
Mr. Nixon was overheard uttering the comment, at a Washington Generals game, in 1958. He felt he had been badly cheated on the deal, but managed to maintain his composure. Never a man who wore his own heart on his sleeve, he appeared to enjoy the remainder of the game. Regards, Hamster Sandwich (talk) 05:37, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * That is an interesting story. Thank you. --William S. Saturn (talk) 05:39, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * If you believed that one... no really, it's about hot dogs. Regards, Hamster Sandwich (talk) 05:43, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I would assume he was fan of that team, given that their opponents were a band of thugs from a shady neighborhood. --William S. Saturn (talk) 05:48, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

um...
Which one of my edits were you referring to when you said Wikipedia is not a face book? ★☛☛undefined★ 23:53, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * 109 edits, 0 to articles. Looking for friends on wikipedia, and wasting space with a ridiculous signature. Further use of the signature on this page will be reverted. --William S. Saturn (talk) 03:40, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
If you don't answer by tomorrow, I'm going to delete the message cuz there's no reason to keep it there if yer not gonna reply. --The voice oɟ mudI am your voice!!my sandbox 15:26, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * It's your page, but the list will always remain in the history. --William S. Saturn (talk) 20:29, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * So?-- The voice oɟ mud <sup style="color:#8B4513;">I am your voice!! <sub style="color:#8B4513;">my sandbox 16:07, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

talkback
--It&#39;s my Junior year in High School! (talk) 18:34, 6 December 2009 (UTC)Chris

Your request
✅ -  Tiptoety  talk 07:04, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. --William S. Saturn (talk) 07:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Your request
Done. And yeah, it's pretty interesting. Steve Smith (talk) 02:14, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. --William S. Saturn (talk) 02:46, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

All I can say is ...
I'll look at it. The thing is, there are diffs out the kazoo on this, plus whatever he may have done to offend the US Politics area, and I really don't have time to look at it tonight because I made promises to review some articles. I will try to do it all tomorrow, but I can't guarantee stuff. I'm way behind. OK?--Wehwalt (talk) 01:01, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * As Sandstein has looked at it and declined to intervene, I think that G. would have to submit another unblock request.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:01, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Which he has. Sigh.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:54, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

The Great Wikipedia Dramaout
Hi! As you have expressed an interest in the initial The Great Wikipedia Dramaout, you're being notified because we are currently planning another one in January! We hope to have an even greater level of participation this time around, and we need your help. If you're still interested please sign up now at The Great Wikipedia Dramaout/2nd. Thanks, and Happy Holidays! JCbot (talk) 04:45, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Tags
Simple misunderstanding. No harm done. Doc Quintana (talk) 23:34, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

de
There seems to be yet another debate over Mark Sanford and now whether not Bobby Jindal should remain on this page. Since you are an editor on this page, I was hoping you would be interested in joining the discussion at the link below.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Republican_Party_(United_States)_presidential_primaries,_2012#This_article_is_not_about_who_will_be_running.3F

Please provide your feedback! Thanks so much!

--Diamond Dave (talk) 20:05, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008
Just a note to let you know that I've failed this article's request for GA status. I've left a host of comments on the talk page as to things that need to be improved; it's certainly a good start though. Rebecca (talk) 23:57, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: Hats
There is no discussion. It's just you complaining about other users, which is not appropriate for the talk page, which is for discussing the article's content, not its contributors.  Grsz 11  01:25, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

"Complaining"? No, it's about talk page etiquette. --William S. Saturn (talk) 01:26, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You accuse others of not assume good faith, yet you open with "I understand now. Hats are used on this page so that consensus will never change". What gives? Your chain of thought makes no sense here. You were trolling for an argument, that isn't what the talk page is for. Get your kicks some other way.  Grsz 11  01:35, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * How was my observation trolling? If I was truly being malicious, I knew there wouldn't be an argument since it would be removed or hatted. You are not making sense. --William S. Saturn (talk) 01:39, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * On an aside, if you put at the top of the page, it'll solve your color problem.  Grsz 11  04:33, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It seems to be a mix of green and white now. --William S. Saturn (talk) 04:39, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

WikiCup
Hi, thanks for signing up, but the flag you've picked has already been chosen by somebody else, and two people cannot both represent the same place. Please pick a new flag, or one will be chosen for you tonight. Cheers,  iMatthew  talk  at 20:27, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

List of terrorist incidents
Maybe you haev information or not that 7 CIA agensts killed in that sucide attack which you add as a terrorist incident. I know all news and i update first in war in Afganistan. As sucide atttacks in Afghanistan hundreds of nato soldiers killed like this once.2 british soldier killed in sucide attack.This news doesnt add in terrorist incidents. Terrorist attacks means attack in which target is innocent civilians.A few weeks before on 14 december 16 afghan police killd in taliban ambush.That news also add in terrorist incident.But i delete that news because that news is a part of war.No one again write that news.But you again and again write the news which is part of war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.152.38.240 (talk) 20:38, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * A Suicide attack is not a tactic of warfare, it is an act of terrorism. --William S. Saturn (talk) 20:41, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Thats exactly what I said, the 119.152.38.240 dude insists on taking it down, and the finnish shooting isn't an act of terrorism, it just a shooting massacre, terrorism is done to prove a political goal, all this shooter done was get revenge on his ex girlfriend. go vandalize another page 119.152.38.240, don't muck about on the serious pages. Make sure you keep reverting his attempts to take it down william d-Battalion-The-Rifles-Killed-In-Suspected-Suicide-Bombing/Article/200912315501122 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.152.38.240

Please read full message which i write above.Then also add thsi news and add other hundreds of news in which hundres of nato soldiers killed and add all crimes news too.http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Afghanistan-Two-Soldiers-From-3rd-Battalion-The-Rifles-Killed-In-Suspected-Suicide-Bombing/Article/200912315501122 As you add a attack which is a part of war, so i think maybe revenge is also in wikipedia so i add that news.And that news is headline of several news websites, yahoo, msn, cnn, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.152.38.240 (talk) 20:48, 31 December 2009 (UTC)


 * You need to write in understandable English on this page. Thank you. --William S. Saturn (talk) 20:51, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorryy for my english. Please read full message which i write above.Then also add this news and add other hundreds of sucide attack news in which hundres of nato soldiers killed and add all crimes news too.http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Afghanistan-Two-Soldiers-From-3rd-Battalion-The-Rifles-Killed-In-Suspected-Suicide-Bombing/Article/200912315501122 As you add a attack which is a part of war, so i think maybe revenge is also in wikipedia so i add that news.And that news is headline of several news websites, yahoo, msn, cnn, etc. If you doent want to remove that news then please correct it there are 7 CIA agents

We go by the BBC News, and tidy up your URL on the finnish shooting Please - Billygoat

killed.http://www.kyivpost.com/news/world/detail/56269/ I doesnt mke account on wikipedia but i update war in Afghanistan artile with its sdub articles, like civilians casalties, afghan casualties, etc and i also check for terrorist incident of afghanistan on list of terrorist incidents 2009.Several people add sucide attacks on nato soldier on terrorist incidents.But i delete those news.Because thats a part of war, but if in a attack mostly civilians killed and anybody write that here then i doesnt delete that because that is really a terrorist incident.

It doesn't matter if its civilians of nato soldiers it's still an act of terrorism for god sake - billygaot

119.152.38.240, please can you just go away and leave the page alone, your talking a load of shit, just go away. . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.152.38.240 (talk) 20:57, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Go away for what.I always check only two pages.Terrorist incidents and war in Afghanistan and its sub articles.If you doesnt want to remove that news then please correct the deaths.7 CIA agenst kill. Read news on this page. http://www.icasualties.org/OEF/index.aspx Icasualties add that 7 CIA aenst in US soldiers casualties.Why?Think.There are hundreds of forions civilians killed like yesterday a Canadian generalist killed alongwith 4 Canadain soldiers in an IED in Kandhar.But icasualties add only 4 Canadain deaths and they doesnt add journalist death.Why?Think.Icasualties doesnt add any american civilian or journalist deaths in Us soldiers casualties.Those CIA agenst are fighting alongwith American soldiers against talibans.So they add this as Soldiers casualties. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.152.38.240 (talk) 21:18, 31 December 2009 (UTC) Please read above message.And after reading if you doesnt want to remove a that so caleed terrorist attack which is actually part of war then please write correct deaths.Dont increase deaths.CIA said that 7 CIA members killed.8 CIA agents killed was a slightly wrong news spread by all media chennals.But CIA said that 7 CIA agents killed.So please correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.152.38.240 (talk) 21:42, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

The 2010 WikiCup begins tomorrow!
Welcome to the biggest WikiCup Wikipedia has yet seen! Round one will take place over two months, and finish on February 26. There is only one pool, and the top 64 will progress. The competition will be tough, as more than half of the current competitors will not make it to round 2. Details about scoring have been finalized and are explained at WikiCup/Scoring. Please make sure you're familiar with the scoring rules, because any submissions made that violate these rules will be removed. Like always, the judges can be reached through the WikiCup talk pages, on their talk page, or over IRC with any issues concerning anything tied to the Cup. We will keep in contact with you via weekly newsletters; if you do not want to receive them, please remove yourself from the list here. Conversely, if a non-WikiCup participant wishes to receive the newsletters, they may add themselves to that list. Well, enough talk- get writing! Your submission's page is located here. Details on how to submit your content is located here, so be sure to check that out! Once content has been recognized, it can be added to your submissions page, from which our bot will update the main score table. Remember that only articles worked on and nominated during the competition are eligible for points. Have fun, and good luck! Garden, iMatthew, J Milburn, and The ed17 22:41, 31 December 2009 (UTC)