User talk:Die4Dixie: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 05:53, 30 December 2008 editAvraham (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Bureaucrats, Administrators49,160 edits →Geographic area: response← Previous edit		Revision as of 06:46, 30 December 2008 edit undoSceptre (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors79,172 edits →O hai: new sectionNext edit →
Line 356:		Line 356:
	: but not ,say, Two or three states, or a continent , or Northern US vs. Southern US. More specific than that, right?] (]) 05:34, 30 December 2008 (UTC)		: but not ,say, Two or three states, or a continent , or Northern US vs. Southern US. More specific than that, right?] (]) 05:34, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
	::Usually. I'm sure there are experts out there who can explain this better. Also, if the IP is a proxy, then unless it's forwarding the headers, the user can log in from anywhere, so it may be hard to tell without knowing the actual IP. -- ] (]) 05:53, 30 December 2008 (UTC)		::Usually. I'm sure there are experts out there who can explain this better. Also, if the IP is a proxy, then unless it's forwarding the headers, the user can log in from anywhere, so it may be hard to tell without knowing the actual IP. -- ] (]) 05:53, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

			== O hai ==

			Stop being a patronising twat. ''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 06:46, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 06:46, 30 December 2008

This is Die4Dixie's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

As requested, my argument for ACORN sentence, organized

This is a form message I'm cross posting on various user talk pages: As requested, I wrote up my argument in one spot, consolidating what I'd said before and adding just a bit. Please take a look at it at User:Noroton/The case for including ACORN and comment at Talk:Barack Obama#Case for ACORN proposed language, restated. Thanks, Noroton (talk) 03:01, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

re Salon

I checked out your user edits but I couldn't find what you were referencing. It probably was staring me right in the face ;) Can you point me to what it is? Trilemma (talk) 21:59, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Barack_Obama_presidential_primary_campaign%2C_2008&diff=prev&oldid=225719164

i think that the whole salon thing is over the top vand every reference needs to be removed. My edit should highlight the inappropriateness of the source. I know WP point, but when I tried to touch it the folks climbed out of the wood work to revert.--Die4Dixie (talk) 01:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to Talk:Barack Obama

Let's keep it simple and civil. You know they will try to bait us and provoke us into something and then get us blocked for it. You have described this as the disagree/ provoke/ report cycle. Don't let them do it. When they start baiting you, report them. WorkerBee74 (talk) 16:36, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

July 2008

Welcome to Misplaced Pages. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at WP:ANI, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Cailil 19:24, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Your welcome is passive- agressive. I have been here long enough that a welcome can only serve one purpose. I see that you are involved now, and that you , by claiming the mention of my name to be legitimate in that context, you condone the attack. I will leave this to see if there is any more behavior on your part that is questionable. Please leave me and my talk page alone after this.Die4Dixie (talk) 19:29, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Per policy, editing other user's comments has few exceptions -- none of which is applicable in this case. Please cease this behavior, and assume good faith. seicer | talk | contribs 19:32, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

My goodness. a veritable band wagon.-Die4Dixie (talk) 19:33, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

"Removing personal attacks and incivility. This is controversial, and many editors do not feel it is acceptable; please read WP:ATTACK#Removal of text and WP:CIVIL#Removal of uncivil comments before removing anything." this falls under the policy of acceptable practice.Die4Dixie (talk) 19:34, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Removing personal attacks may be acceptable, although as noted it is controversial. If you must do so, you should remove the entire comment and indicate clearly in the text that the personal attack has been removed. Changing someone's words without any indication of this on the page is not acceptable. -- SCZenz (talk) 06:26, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I did note that I removed the attack in the summary. Next time I will be less ambiguous. Thank you for your moderate tone. Other Administrators could learn from you.Die4Dixie (talk) 01:01, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Words in precise senses

Could you maybe talk to lulu and scjessy? LuLu is an atheist, which is ok, but I question his labeling a member of the clergy a mere orator and perhaps he is not familiar with naming conventions within Christian sects. Judging from his statements on the talk page, he mistakenly believes that a visiting pastor from another denomination cannot give a sermon in a differently denominated house of worship, and that this was merely a speech. He then edited the page ignoring our working towards consensus. If you can talk to them and reign them in , I will try and contact Worker bee and do the same. I'm sick of the constant bickering about the pettiest of things. This appears to be one.Die4Dixie (talk) 23:28, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I stumbled across this comment of yours. It seems as if you are operating under a certain misunderstanding about my comments and edits. Specifically, you seem to think I believe the word "oratory" is somehow a pejorative or dismissive word. It really isn't. I happen to know something about the history of terms (and of rhetoric), and about the history of religious practices, and I think "oratory" is, if anything, rather a term of praise or exaltation. Of course, I'm also admittedly slightly curmudgeonly about newfangled misunderstanding of fine classical words with precise meanings. For example, in a Protestant denomination, I would cringe at a pastor being described as a deacon (or vice versa), but not because the one role is better than the other, rather entirely because the words mean different things (even if some people confuse them). LotLE×talk 00:58, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

As I stated before, oratory robs the action of its religious context. This would seem to substantiate this. Sermon is unambiguous. I do appreciate your cordial response.Die4Dixie (talk) 00:58, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Funny. "Oratory" is usually used in its religious context. Enough so that the first listed sense in many dictionaries is this historically secondary specifically Catholic meaning:

oratory 1 |ˈôrəˌtôrē; ˈär-|
noun ( pl. -ries)
1 a small chapel, esp. for private worship. 
[ORIGIN: Middle English : from Anglo-Norman French oratorie, from  
ecclesiastical Latin oratorium, based on Latin orare ‘pray, speak.’ ]
2 ( Oratory) (in the Roman Catholic Church) a religious society of secular 
priests founded in Rome in 1564 to provide plain preaching and popular 
services and established in various countries. [ORIGIN: from Congregation 
of the Fathers of the Oratory.]

Obviously, I mean that speaking itself in this discussion, rather than the noun for the place Catholics designate for the religious speech. Oh well, I don't really care that much about "sermon" either; I don't know enough about Obama's UCC denomination to know specifically whether they would call a visiting priest's talk a "sermon" or not, but unless there is a specific source indicating it, it's not an inaccuracy we need to worry unduly about. LotLE×talk 01:27, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your patience. I think the three sources that I showed on the talk page make the case for it having been a sermon. A wiki link to oratory here would confuse readers, while one to sermon would edify them.Die4Dixie (talk) 01:32, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean "edify" as in?

ORIGIN Middle English : from Old French edifier, from Latin aedificare 
‘build,’ from aedis ‘dwelling’ + facere ‘make’ (compare with edifice ). 
The word originally meant  also  
hence to “build up” morally or spiritually.

Just curious. :-). Best wishes, LotLE×talk 01:35, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

(Spanish: Edificio = building/structure) Just to give more input reg. this ;) . Regards from another curious one, --Floridianed (talk) 01:58, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Ops. In context: Spanish: edificar = build on, enhance etc.! That comes closer to Dixi's context. --Floridianed (talk) 02:04, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Main Entry:

   ed·i·fy Listen to the pronunciation of edify

Pronunciation:

   \ˈe-də-ˌfī\

Function:

   transitive verb

Inflected Form(s):

   ed·i·fied; ed·i·fy·ing

Etymology:

   Middle English, from Anglo-French edifier, from Late Latin & Latin; Late Latin aedificare to instruct or improve spiritually, from Latin, to erect a house, from aedes temple, house; akin to Old English ād funeral pyre, Latin aestas summer

Date:

   14th century

1archaic a: build b: establish2: to instruct and improve especially in moral and religious knowledge : uplift; also : enlighten, inform.

It is in this sense that I use the word. I attended a public school in the UK, and my mother is a British subject. We often used edify in the sense of instruct. I love language and am seeking a Masters in Spanish linguistics. I enjoy this more than Obama.Die4Dixie (talk) 13:03, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Also from your source on oratory :or·a·to·ry2 • n. the art or practice of formal speaking in public. ∎ exaggerated, eloquent, or highly colored language: learned discussions degenerated into pompous oratory. DERIVATIVES: or·a·tor·i·cal / ˌôrəˈtôrikəl/ adj.

To describe his speech as exaggerated, highly colored, or eloquent, we would need a third party source. We have three that called it a sermon. ;) Die4Dixie (talk) 13:23, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I definitely didn't intend to use the sense of characterizing Pfleger's speech as exaggerated, eloquent or highly-colored. I don't necessarily disagree with any of the characterizations either, but it's not my place to make such WP:OR characterization. I do think the first sense is the one readers are more likely to read. I also wouldn't characterize the speech as Sermon: (informal) a long or tedious piece of admonition or reproof (again, not because I disagree as such, but because it's original research). Those darn words often have multiple meanings :-). LotLE×talk 17:25, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Main Entry:

   ser·mon Listen to the pronunciation of sermon

Pronunciation:

   \ˈsər-mən\

Function:

   noun

Etymology:

   Middle English, from Anglo-French sermun, from Medieval Latin sermon-, sermo, from Latin, speech, conversation, from serere to link together — more at series

Date:

   13th century

1 : a religious discourse delivered in public usually by a clergyman as a part of a worship service 2 : a speech on conduct or duty — ser·mon·ic Listen to the pronunciation of sermonic \ˌsər-ˈmä-nik\ adjective It's hard to see where you get your definitions from. ZI think the only religious context for "oratory" is the part in a church. There is no acceptance for a religious context other than this. I can't imagine anyone trying to use the word for a part of a building for a religious sermon. I imagine that if you use a good dictionary, like the one I'm referencing, it would clear up any misconceptions you might have about le mot juste with oratory and sermon (tongue firmly in cheek :0Die4Dixie (talk) 17:54, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

The definition I copied for "sermon" was from Apple's dictionary. I'm pretty sure they license Merriam-Webster, with various additions, but I can't see that right now in the About screen (it might be interesting to know edition, version, etc). Apple's dictionary is pretty good, but so are lots of others. LotLE×talk 19:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: "Spanish in United States Virgin Islands" and "Userpage"

Hello, Die4Dixie. You have new messages at Floridianed's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

(noticed that one link

"Userpage"

Responce here: [http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Floridianed#Userpage ]

Derrick O'Brien

Please see Talk:Derrick O'Brien and add a title to the new image. Regards, --Floridianed (talk) 23:52, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Barack Obama/Article probation/Incidents

Aloha. My reply is posted here. Cheers, Arjuna (talk) 06:58, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

User name

I've read through the discussion and looked briefly at your contribution history. I really don't know what to make of both. I personally find your user name to be misleading, promotional, offensive, and disruptive -- which means it violates the four criteria for inappropriate usernames. However, you have impressed enough people with your edits such that they have basically given you a free pass. I'm not going to fight the shitstem, but I will say that I found your user page more offensive than your user name. I get the sense that you are putting people on and this is all an "act", but I doubt I'll be able to prove it. Viriditas (talk) 14:26, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

'WTF?' At any point you would like to discuss any of the above you are welcome to do so. My edits had nothing to do with my username issue. My name is certainly within guidelines. Sorry you find my mixed heritage, of which I'm very proud, offensive. For the record, I also had a federal Indian number courtesy of a Muskogee grandmother.That I'm a five point Calvinist offends you? Sorry again. I would recommend you not view my user page as I will be uploading pictures of busts of John Knox. Also Of Adam Smith. Now if you return to my userpage, then I will ask that you have the same respect for my culture that you would expect me to show Polynesian ones. I doubt you will be back, as it is certainly easier to trow stones as one runs away, than to have a mutually respectful debate on the issues.--Die4Dixie (talk) 17:58, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I have never commented on your "mixed heritage". And, although you conveniently hide behind them in every discussion, culture and heritage are not the issue. On the one hand, Wikipedians have taken issue with your user name. After what happened in October 2007, I find it surprising you haven't tried to fix this problem. Good standing Wikipedians with questionable user names often attempt to assuage editors with a simple explanation on their user page; For some reason, you have avoided the issue. Instead, you use your user page to promote fundamentalist religious beliefs, southern politics, and race, three more controversial topics. Additionally, a userbox of Barack Obama appears with an "X" crossing out his face. This could be construed as "inflammatory or divisive". Userboxes are used "to directly (or even indirectly) help Wikipedians collaborate more effectively on articles." As WP:UBX reminds us, "Misplaced Pages is not an appropriate place for propaganda, advocacy, or recruitment of any kind, commercial, political, religious, or otherwise, opinion pieces on current affairs or politics, self-promotion, or advertising." Your user page does not conform to these principles. I would also like to note that "fundamentalism" of any kind on any spectrum of belief, from religion to politics, is contrary to and incompatible with the purposes of a free, secular encyclopedia like Misplaced Pages. Viriditas (talk) 20:24, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that you, Viriditas, are seriously over-reacting to Die4's userpage. Diversity in the Misplaced Pages project includes fundamentalists of all stripes, if they edit in good faith. I say this as a former Baptist (turned Quaker), a socialist, a descendant of loyal Union Tennesseans who feels that the Confederacy was a contemptible treasonous conspiracy, and an escaped Southerner who thinks that the Republican Party of the South is a disgrace to the once-honorable history of that organization. WP:NPA, WP:AGF and all that; react to the edits, not the userboxes. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:22, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Orangemike. Congrats on your admin status. Long time no see. Fancy meeting you here. I gues us dumb ole hicks are the last people it's ok to disparage because of culture. I don't think I like a world view that says that every world view is ok except the ones I don't like. Sounds Orwellian and generally icky. We did , however , give ya'll hell the first few years;). Just passing through, or been around a while?Die4Dixie (talk) 21:30, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Orangemike, but we will have to agree to disagreee. The userbox I mentioned above does not meet the criteria for WP:U, and the user name does not meet WP:UN. You can hit me over the head with your admin status until the cows come home, but it will not change my position. And, I repeat: Fundamentalist belief systems of any kind are at odds with the goals of this project. Viriditas (talk) 21:36, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely not! there is nothing wrong with his fundamentalist belief system, as long as his edits in the article space are NPOV. There are many contributors to wikipedia with many different beliefs. How is a fundamentalist editor any better or worse than an avowed atheist? The thinking that anyone's belief disqualifies them from the project is wrong, wrong, wrong! I am sure that most of the editors to articles like Sola scriptura or Restoration Movement are people who subscribe to the beliefs that these topics are about. Should we ban all of those people? Delete the articles? I don't think so. --rogerd (talk) 22:30, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. There is everything wrong with a fundamentalist POV and it has no place in a secular encyclopedia. You are welcome to your opinion, however. But this is not the issue under discussion. The issue in question concerns the appropriate use of a user name, which User:ArielGold has accurately summarized: "I hope you can realize that there are many users who may see your name as not appropriate, or inflammatory, especially considering the specific (and possibly controversial) nature of the area you've chosen to contribute to." I suggest that the reason User:Die4Dixie cannot see this problem (and the subsequent user box issue I have brought to his attention) is due to his belief system. Anyone who believes that "science has brought on corruption of society" and all the rest of the junk on his user page cannot be taken seriously, and much more importantly, should not be taken seriously. If it weren't for science, we would not be having this conversation, and the vast majority of us would be dead from some horrible disease. The line has been drawn. Viriditas (talk) 22:45, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

BTW, how do you "promote race"? If you cant play nicer Veriditas, I'm going to tear logical holes in your whole diatribe, line by line. You might want to chill out and find a hick more your speed. I think you are unprepared to pick a fight with me on my userpage with your intemperate, irrational statements. Have a nice cuppa tea, and then you come back when you can act like a guest in my house.Cordially,--Die4Dixie (talk) 21:39, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but you are a guest on Misplaced Pages, and your account is a privilege, not a right. The issues are your user box and your user name. If you can't address those two things, then I will accept your failure. Viriditas (talk) 21:41, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

We're all guests here, Die4 - you, me and Viriditas; let's strive for the ol' civility, all right? --Orange Mike | Talk 21:44, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry , in a conversation between you and me, Viriditas, it is a right, as you lack the authority and are impotent to circumvent or hinder my exercise of this privilege. My username is not inappropriate, nor are my userboxes. Next please.Die4Dixie (talk) 21:50, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't need any authority, and your user page is a privilege, not a right. This seems to be an ongoing theme. You do not have a right to use an inflammatory user name and user boxes. Many editors expressed concerns with your user name, and you have done nothing to address those concerns on your user page. And, I have also expressed concerns with the use of a user box on your talk page. You have no rights here. Viriditas (talk) 22:15, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

You have the right to shriek and make an ass out of yourself. I would link to WP:DONTBEADICK, But I can't be bothered. You have every right ot ask me civilly about my username, etc. Great leeway is given to userpages and usertalk. You've been around awhile. there are those that will find your harassing and shrill demands for explanations to be over the top. I am not required to answer your concerns about anything. This is a strange world you want me to live in. I can't have a belief system, and I am compelled to answer your questions. You do not have a right to an answer. Please review my responses to questions that are similar to the ones you posed, and be satisfied. Or not. Or ask nicely and I will give you an individual response.--Die4Dixie (talk) 23:33, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Using a user name and user boxes to promote belief systems is against the rules. You know that. You've been told that. You've been pointed to the policies and guidelines. Since you aren't interested in following rules or being respectful of other editors whose beliefs differ from your own, I question your very purpose on this site. If the song remains the same, I suggest that your only purpose on Misplaced Pages is to promote your belief system. Viriditas (talk) 23:39, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

No attempt to promote, only to inform. Next.Die4Dixie (talk) 23:41, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Orangemike, have I crossed a line in civility with this editor, or am I being provoked? I think I have been very circumspect in my responses, but will defer to your judgment. If I have I will apologize forthwith, and expect a more humble one from my editorial colleague.Die4Dixie (talk) 21:50, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

What would you like me to apologize for? I stand by every word. Viriditas (talk) 22:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, so tempting.... But I won't take the bait,thanks.:)Die4Dixie (talk) 12:29, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Intermission. Now the 50 clowns jump out of a tiny car

For your comic delight, I will respond to this: My world view has a question mark after it. The text is what Quizzfarm attributed based on my answers to a survey, cut and pasted from their site. I would recommend the hysterically commenting editor have some fun and take the same quiz, and share the results with us. Might be edifying and instructional ;0.--Die4Dixie (talk) 23:52, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I must say, I would link to WP:DONTBEADICK, But I can't be bothered. is one of the funniest things I've read on Misplaced Pages. --jpgordon 01:08, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
- I scored the exact opposite of you with two exceptions - my modernist and existentialist ratings are close to zero too. BTW, the link isn't working. There's an extra ' at the end.Wikidemo (talk) 01:12, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality Tag

Hello,

I have added a tag to the Barack Obama article requesting that it be checked for neutrality. I thought you might be interesting in coming in as a neutral editor and checking the article out. QuirkyAndSuch (talk) 12:02, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Sarah Palin Article

It has come up in discussion that the Sarah Palin article seems biased against the subject. I hope you consider reading the article and consider coming along to help us make it better. :] Sleeping frog (talk) 01:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

True Georgia flag

I found the true Georgia flag's image: Hope that helps.--King Bedford I 22:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I lack the technical skills( please view the state of my userpage) to make the userbox. Feel free to help a compatriot by wikifying my boxes and/or creating the box. Any consideration would be taken as a kindness and be greatly appreciated.:)Die4Dixie (talk) 00:57, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure thing. By the way, I have a new userbox that says "This user supports Sarah Palin for President". Should I add it as well?--King Bedford I 01:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Please do! Funny how subversives throw around terms like "racist" and "misogynist". Hell, I'd love to have a userbox that says "This user supports Clarence Thomas for any political office" to put next to my anti-Obama and ones showing my multi-ethnic roots. Last time I went to a Sons of Confederate Veterans meeting, I met an obviously African-American member. Funny how the people who claim to be the most tolerant amongst us are the least tolerant of people who don't think as they do or as they feel we ought.Die4Dixie (talk) 14:32, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:FAR for Barack Obama

Barack Obama has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.

I have nominated Barack Obama for Featured Article Review. You are welcome to participate in the discussion. Curious bystander (talk) 00:09, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: Image deletion

To answer Your question, Yes (see encyclopediadramatica.com/Encyclopedia_Dramatica:Copyright) . feydey (talk) 21:53, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Your Userpage

I love your userboxes -- pretty much all of them. In fact, I think I'm going to have to "barrow" some if thats ok with you.

Oh, and I'm not Wikistalking, I just clicked on your sig just to see what I'd find :-D

Happy editing! Digital 04:52, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely. I borrowed most myself, and one was created for me.Die4Dixie (talk) 05:02, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, and I read your message on my talk page. I'm more than willing to listen to others' suggestions. Digital 05:29, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Your comment on my talk page

Has been replied to :) Digital 05:27, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Your typing skills can't be that bad! I did leave you a reply on my page too. Digital 06:05, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

replied...

...to your note on my talk page. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 21:24, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Re:Barack Hussein Obama II

I got bored and made this account. Not sure how it violates policy but could you tell me how to delete it? Thanks. ~electricRush (T C) 07:02, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Acorn Again

This is the last place i want to be. You know the way things work. That tag started with false, unsupported accusations, syntacticus basically started a flare up over it, a sock or two (one immediately blocked, not sure about the other) drifted in, and now you're at the same bone. In none of these cases has any of the tag proposers on talk actually provided a reason, never th eless tried to open a meaningful discussion of why this is needed now (i note that Dixie and Syntacticus began their long back and forth after the "regulars" on Acorn accept for me were well away for the day.) This notice is to ask you to desist.Bali ultimate (talk) 05:46, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Look, the tag really belongs. I have made a good faith effort to have him list his grievances. If he doesnt gome with some links to reliable sources, then I'll back you 100% even though I know that huffington post piece should not be there .( same reason you argued against the WSJ) I can be as reasonable as you want to be, really.Die4Dixie (talk) 05:56, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Stop making allegations against other people dixie. "that's tiresome." (I won't be responding to you on my talk page again; the WSJ conversation taught me it's not fruitful.)Bali ultimate (talk) 05:49, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Tiresome is not an accusation, it's an observation. It is in no way a personal attack.Die4Dixie (talk) 05:56, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

December 2008

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now. 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. Bstone (talk) 21:18, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Personal remarks

Making personal remarks about other editors is off-topic on article talk pages, which exist only to discuss improvements to articles. Issues with an individual editor may legitimately be brought up on several other pages, including the user's talk page, requests for comments on users, and the administrators noticeboards. I looked at the posting that User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters placed in WP:ANI. It does not appear to contain material that would violate WP:NPA. Rather, it deals mostly with your editing behavior. Rather than objecting to the complaint, it'd be more helpful to address its substance. Your motives may not be relevant (or more to the point, are unknowable) but the edits themselves are important. Most relevant to that ANI thread is the concern that there may be violations of WP:SOCK requiring administrative action. POV and bias issues are off-topic on ANI, except as part of a discussion of actionable policy violations. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:42, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I am certainly not a sock puppet of anyone, and my ip adresses have been revealed several times. Feel free to run any check user account. It is hardly surpriseing that more than one person has problems with the article, hardly a case of socckpuppetry. My problem is with the huff post piece. Please suggest what part specifically that you would like me to address? that I am " a long time problem editor"? how do you answer that? the one link he provided I don't appear in? How the hell does one answer unsubstantiate charges? Please specfically give me something to answer, and I will gladly do so.Die4Dixie (talk) 22:47, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I ever said anything about you being a sock, just that there may be sock issues on that article. As for LOTLE's assertion about you being a "long time problem editor", you can either argue about his right to say that or you can show that your editing hasn't been a problem. I'd recommend focusing on the latter, as the former will tend to come off as "WP:wikilawyering". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:02, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it would be better if the other editor provided diffs. Feel free to say so. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:17, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: Awesome template job

Everyone has been templated. I template without reservation. Bstone (talk) 23:55, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes , but you object to being templated. We are all regulars here, so what's the deal? Please treat others by the same standards that you want. No one likes to be templated, it's passive agressive behaviour.Die4Dixie (talk) 23:58, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I am totally cool with being templated. I even wrote Misplaced Pages:Do_template_the_regulars. Bstone (talk) 00:00, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Blood libel

Thank you for your refreshingly courteous message. I may have reacted a little more sharply than necessary, particularly due to the deletion of the word "false" from the lead. When that's happened before it's usually been the opening shot in a frustrating, unproductive conflict with a tendentious editor who is not here to help the project. After a few posts, I realized that we had crossed paths briefly before and that, although I suspect we disagree about a wide variety of issues, your editing is both honest and insightful. I'm sure we can amicably resolve whatever disagreements we still have on the page. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 04:07, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I look forward to it. I think that if we get the article polished , it would make an interesting GA. I have something that I need to work on with a deadline of tomorrow, but i'll get back with you and siscuss any edit befoorehand. Deal?Die4Dixie (talk) 04:16, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

history

Yeah - the whole thing was offensive in addition to being irrelevant. But even if I hadn't deleted it, unfortunately your comment would remain in history which is where it is now - I did not archive it, I just removed it. Tvoz/talk 23:51, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Acceptability of Capital Research Center Research

I have started a discussion on the Capital Research Center talk page to hash out the issue of the acceptability of citing the think tank's research in Misplaced Pages. Please participate in the discussion at ]. Syntacticus (talk) 07:26, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Request for Mediation

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at ], and indicate whether you agree or disagree to mediation. If you are unfamiliar with mediation on Misplaced Pages, please refer to Misplaced Pages:Mediation. Please note there is a seven-day time limit on all parties responding to the request with their agreement or disagreement to mediation. Thanks, Syntacticus (talk) 02:18, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Fixed, I hope. Syntacticus (talk) 02:51, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Responded to your ANI note at my user page, FYI. Syntacticus (talk) 06:30, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Request for mediation not accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted.
You can find more information on the case subpage, Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now.

For the Mediation Committee, Ryan Postlethwaite

10:20, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

WP:ANI

I have taken my concerns about your behavior to the ANI page. Baseball Bugs 23:40, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Barrack 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, Barrack Obama, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Talk:Barack Obama/Article probation. editing restrictions seicer | talk | contribs 23:47, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

And blocked for three hours for tendentious editing and commentary. When you return, please seek dispute resolution for the content edits or accept that Barrack Obama is under editing restrictions, which you have now been informed of. Note that this is not a block regarding the article itself. seicer | talk | contribs 01:13, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Please provide link so that I can request unblock to the appropriate page that explains how to request.Die4Dixie (talk) 01:17, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Check Misplaced Pages:Guide to appealing blocks. For the record, this block was a giant crock!--Gen. Bedford 01:23, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Formatting

Please review the WP:TALK#Technical and format standards on how to properly format posts on discussion pages. Numerous editors have had to cleanup mismatched headers, broken signatures, comments inserted in inapproperiate places, and so forth. Relevant DIFFs include: seicer | talk | contribs 01:09, 24 December 2008 (UTC) Please address my appropriately formatted complaint ther.Thank you.Die4Dixie (talk) 01:10, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Request for unblock

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Die4Dixie (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have not edited the talkpage of the article since being notified of the meaning of the article probation. I am engaged in a discussion at ANI about this topic. Since I am not editing the article since the same blocking editor informed me of the probation status and provied links, I am unsure as to the purpose of the block. The article is protected, since I am not editingg there, and havent in a couple of hours. I believe the block can't be protective, since with my understanding , the behaviour for which I was blocked is no longer a problem} since my understanding of the situation.

Decline reason:

The block has frag-all to do with the article probation; you were blocked for your behavior at AN/I. Unblock declined. -Jéské Couriano 02:10, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Die4Dixie (talk) 01:25, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Note to any incoming administrator: As noted above and at the ANI case, this short, three-hour block was not for the article probation, but for the tenacious editing and commentary post-notification, as indicated here and in the block log. seicer | talk | contribs 01:27, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

So you blocked me because we disagreed at ANI? Because I opened a complaint after someone questioned my orientation nand made references to me sucking dick?Die4Dixie (talk) 01:30, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

You mean when he said "Nice try, girlfriend" in an edit summary, implying that you were an effeminate homosexual? I agree, that was way out of line, even when you were disagreeing with each other. It was probably hard for you to resist responding to that in some way. Wait, do I have that backward? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:54, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

"Nice try, girlfriend" as penned by D4D. When you have BB comically replying with remarks such as this, how can anyone take this as BB stating saying to D4D to "suck dick"? seicer | talk | contribs 01:58, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

No you mendacious editor. it was this ] and you know it. this is further evidence of the unfairness of the block.Die4Dixie (talk) 02:30, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to accept or decline your unblock request and will leave it for another admin to consider, but for what it's worth, please take some free advice. With a user name of "Die4Dixie", you are not likely to have a long prosperous career editing political articles. Good, bad, or indifferent, that name is going to come with some amount of baggage and the assumptions that others will make when they see it. Yes, Baseball Bugs' comments may have been inappropriate, but you don't become a saint through the sins of others. --B (talk) 02:09, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

(ec)I generally stay away from user talk pages when they're blocked, other than to revert vandalism, so this is exceptional; fittingly, as I took exception to his comment, as questioning my orientation. The closest I came to expressing anger was "what's that supposed to mean," and then I thought it better to temper that comment with my best verbal shield, sarcastic humor, or attempts thereof; specifically, by throwing his insulting comment back at him in a similar vein. After that, he explained that he somehow thought I was female. Yeh, right. Being a sports fan must have been the tipoff, as men don't follow sports anymore. Baseball Bugs 02:27, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

What exactly was my blocakable sin? Is it appropriate for an admin toi block someone with whom he is actively disagreeing? was I blocked for availing myself of ani having been personbally attacked?Die4Dixie (talk) 02:21, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

You "personally attacked" me first, and I responded by throwing the same attack back at you. But you don't hear me whining about it (other than the previous paragraph). Baseball Bugs 02:31, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Seems like you have a personal admin willing to do your dirty work. Perhaps you could find something constructive to do. Elssewhere.Die4Dixie (talk) 02:35, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

You're winning friends fast~~, son~~. Baseball Bugs 02:37, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I just followed procedure. You were fomenting an edit war, and I learned long ago that edit wars are futile. The right thing to do is to take it to WP:ANI and let others weigh in, and hopefully a wise decision will arise. Baseball Bugs 02:39, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Son? How about ytou go ~~fuck~~ yourself, you ~~self righteous~~ ~~prick~~. Any admin can block my talkpage to get this ~~unsufferable~~ ~~douchebag~~ off it.Die4Dixie (talk) 02:41, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Dixie, please stop. You know the above comment is a personal attack. It will only serve to hurt your cause. Please just wait out the block. Rgoodermote 02:43, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

BB, please don't reply on D4D's talk page; likewise D4D, you shall refrain from commenting on BB's talk page. Further incivility and gross personal attacks will result in a lengthier block. seicer | talk | contribs 02:45, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

finally a warning before a block. Now please have the decency to give diffs for excatly what comment I was blocked for.Die4Dixie (talk) 02:47, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Die4Dixie (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

My behaviour at ani was to object to this edit ]. I can see nothing tendentious about this. Heated discussions don't seem to be blockable offense. What , specifically was the problem there if I am to remain blocked?

Decline reason:

It's a 3-hour block with under an hour to go. —Travis 03:21, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

The Resilient Barnstar

		The Resilient Barnstar
		For continuing the good fight even through you are being seriously mistreated by admins who chose sides when they shouldn't have, you have earned this: the Resilient Barnstar.Gen. Bedford 02:52, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Die4Dixie (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

RE. last admins comment, duration is not important, fairness of a block is the consideration. Please make a determination based on the merits of the block, not duration, as this will permanantly appear associated with my usernameand appears to be a repudiation of my actions.

Decline reason:

First off, the block has expired, so I can't unblock you, you are already free to edit. As to the merits of it, this seems to me to have been a "cool down" block; things were getting pretty heated between you and Baseball Bugs, and the block, I can only suppose, was meant to get things to cool off. As such, it failed, as such blocks almost always do. So as it stands I disagree with it, but there's not much point discussing it any further. The best thing for Misplaced Pages is for everyone to move forward, focus back on the articles, and keep cool. Mango juice 05:39, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Sun-Times story

User:Landon1980 found a Sun-Times article taken from the AP, that states that Obama left the denomination as well as leaving the congregation. It's possible the writer was jumping to conclusions about that, but nonetheless it's a citable source. So now we might have a chance at arriving at consensus in the wording in the infobox as well as further elaboration in the body of the article. Baseball Bugs 03:13, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I have followed the discussion.The church based it's overture to the Obama's based on my same reasoning. Believe me or not, this is how that works. He broke communion with the "Church" which is the communion of believers. I am certainly willing to let by gones be gone. Most edits that I make to mainspace have merit and reason. Sometimes I get a little frustrated about small things. I have always edited with an eye to accuracy, even when it is unpopular.Die4Dixie (talk) 03:17, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

All I wanted was a citable source. Now we have one. I also told Seicer that he could unblock you early if he wants, but that's not my call to make. Baseball Bugs 03:19, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the block was for my Obama edits. I think it was some WP:IDONTLIKEIT issue with me. Another admin will se the unblock request and act or not. It was a bad block, but I only want to be unblocked if vindicatedDie4Dixie (talk) 03:22, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, I tried to get you a get-out-of-jail-free card, but no dice. Landon is looking for more sources. The most telling thing about that article is that various D.C. churches are trying to snag Obama, which stands to reason, and especially the UCC, to "re-establish" (I think that was the term), which implies they consider that he at least implicitly left the denomination. As I see it, there are 3 ways the infobox could read, along with this new supplemental info in the article body. It could stay as is; it could just say "Christianity"; or it could say "former" (after the denomination, not before, as putting it before implies "former Christian"). Baseball Bugs 03:27, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I guess it could also say "most recently". We don't want the infobox to get too wordy, though. Baseball Bugs 03:29, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

never before. to say formerly member of TUCC after would be fine. In fact, I had reverted my last revert and added an edit to that effect at the page before the ANI crap came up. really, that was my only agenda, that it be accurate. I make comments on talk that are not proposals for adding of content. Since you seem to be vbeing reasonable, you might find I clarified the antecendent of "thay", which was never the Obama's( also before ANI. As for "girlfriend" sorry, I never checked your userpage, and would have assumed, had I(dangerous proposition) that you were a male. Certainly wasn't any code code or homosexual advance.Die4Dixie (talk) 03:33, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

The last I had seen, it had "former" between "Christian" and "UCC", but that must not have been your version. I didn't take the comment as an "advance"; as a straight male, I took it as an assault on my masculinity, something I'm certainly not used to seeing here. I've had countless slings and arrows fired at me, but never that one. Generally, I don't care what someone calls me, I care about article content, and in recent times (really since the election season got geared up) I seem to be spending a lot of time fighting vandalism and contentiousness and stuff-like-that-there. Other than being stunned by what I (mistakenly) took to be a verbal assault, the only time I can recall ever demanding a retraction on a personal attack was when I was accused of sockpuppetry by some bozo. The other thing would be if someone were to call me an "upstart", but that hasn't happened yet. Baseball Bugs 03:44, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I believe we can work together, although we may disagree on (most ;) things. Have a good night.Die4Dixie (talk) 03:49, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Don't quit now, you're only 17 minutes before your block expires. Baseball Bugs 03:54, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

misc.

Lest you think I, a native Yankee, have issues with the South, it happens that I have "Dixie" on my iPod. :) Baseball Bugs 20:05, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I was certain that that was not the case. I believe that the problem stemmed from a misunderstanding of what I wanted to do. I think( if I can presume to do so about another's belief) that you thought I wanted to say in the article that Obama was not a Christian. This was not the case. I freely admit that I believe his conversion to be suspect, in as much as I doubt he was convicted by the Holy Spirit/Ghost, and that his conversion based on his expressions of the faith being a vehicle for social change etc.. I have never believed that my own personal feelings about this belong in the article and are not really germane to the project. Articles should refelct the self identifying statements of the individuals. My lask of comma in the "compromised" version that I proposed last night could only deepened the misunderstanding. I will have to be more careful with my typing & unclear antecedents to avoid problems like this in the futureDie4Dixie (talk) 22:34, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Gen. Bedford is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Re:Obama

I replied to your comment on my talk page. Landon1980 (talk) 14:27, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Obama and the UCC

I'm not trying to be ad hominem, Dixie, but I really think you're straining at gnats here because of your opinion of Obama. The one reporter's passing remark, and your interpretation of UCC regs, seem pretty weak reeds to lean on. Unless we have something from the UCC stating that he's left the UCC, I'd say he still qualifies. (Heck, I'm technically a member in good standing of three denominations, although I define myself solely as a Quaker nowadays.) --Orange Mike | Talk 00:53, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Mike, I do value your opinion. Now was your membership gained through 3 separate professions of faith or by transfer? I also raised hell at the Sean Hannity page about his citizenship and really pissed off a fairly conservative fellow there a while back.(He dragged me to a Username complaint, you might remember). I am sure that this is correct( as I was then);however, I am waiting for a response from the UCC headquarters, which I hope it will clarify the situation.Die4Dixie (talk) 02:56, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Neither of the denominations I joined after being baptized S. Baptist require a formal "profession of faith", nor a "transfer." I've never formally withdrawn my membership from Bethel, despite all the horrifying things that have taken place in the SBC since my youth. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:29, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

WNA editting

I'm currently dealing with this nonsense. He is in the wrong of a policy he himself is citing. Might take it up with the task force if he continues.--Gen. Bedford 02:18, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

My username might cuase you discredit in the eyes of someusers if I were to insert myself. After my recent block, I don't trust some admins to look at my opinion as not being a COI, which of course it wouldn't be. The user in question is wrong about this. I would counsel taking to the task force. you are a highly respected editor in subjects that relate to the Civil War, and I'm certain you will find widespread support for your opinion in the matter. I'll investigate it a little more, but I was reluctant to edit the section on Slavery and the Civil War because I felt thatmy goodfaithed attempts would be misconstruedDie4Dixie (talk) 02:27, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Geographic area

It depends on the IP. Some are allocated to neighborhoods or villages, others can cover multiple counties. -- Avi (talk) 05:31, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

but not ,say, Two or three states, or a continent , or Northern US vs. Southern US. More specific than that, right?Die4Dixie (talk) 05:34, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Usually. I'm sure there are experts out there who can explain this better. Also, if the IP is a proxy, then unless it's forwarding the headers, the user can log in from anywhere, so it may be hard to tell without knowing the actual IP. -- Avi (talk) 05:53, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

O hai

Stop being a patronising twat. Sceptre 06:46, 30 December 2008 (UTC)