| Revision as of 00:42, 9 June 2008 editNoroton (talk | contribs)37,252 edits editing← Previous edit |
Revision as of 00:43, 9 June 2008 edit undoNoroton (talk | contribs)37,252 edits archiveNext edit → |
| Line 5: |
Line 5: |
|
*] |
|
*] |
|
*] |
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
|
|
==On Wikibreak== |
|
|
|
|
|
I'm off to fix the world, which I expect will take one to three weeks. While I'm gone, please don't wreck the place. I'll be back for brief moments to tweak the 'pedia in a few things I just can't trust you other 2 million editors with, but otherwise you're on your own. Try to handle it responsibly, will ya? |
|
|
|
|
|
== RFA thanks == |
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for your support in my ], that didn't quite make it and ended at 120/47/13. There was a ton of great advice there, that I'm going to go on. Maybe someday. If not, there are articles to write! Thanks for your support. <span style="font-variant:small-caps"><font color="#800080">] § ]/]</font></span> 17:46, 12 April 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Newbie user== |
|
|
Hmm, I could see how that could veer off course into personal attack territory, and I understand your concerns - But on the other hand I feel some sternness may be needed when it seems like the new user is either not understanding that he has to follow these comments or is willfully disregarding them. I'll look at that and see what to do. ] (]) 17:11, 14 April 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
* I wonder how dropping the "You know" would work. AFAIK it doesn't get into personal attack or incivility territory but it still shows urgency... - It reads like this: "When you get messages from others on your talk page, please ''pay attention to them''." ] (]) 17:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
** I switched to ''please respond'' - And I like that even better when I think about it :) ] (]) 17:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
==Image copyright problem with Image:PostcardWinchesterINBigFourRailroadDepotCirca1919.jpg== |
|
|
Thanks for uploading ]. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Misplaced Pages's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate ], it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well. |
|
|
|
|
|
For more information on using images, see the following pages: |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
|
|
|
This is an automated notice by ]. For assistance on the image use policy, see ]. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. ] (]) 13:21, 30 April 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Reformatting tables in museum lists== |
|
|
I see you have reformatted several state table listings. I understand that you may find it easier to edit, but I find the other system easier, particularly for long lists. Please do not change other state list formats unless you add a major number of museums to the lists. Thanks. ] (]) 13:38, 13 May 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I hope to eventually work on all the museum lists that need attention. I'm wondering if your monitor may be smaller than mine, so that the listings I use may be too wrapped on your screen. I can work with your system, but for very long lists, like in New York and even CT, I have to scroll down so far that it's extremely time consuming. I'll try to leave extra spaces if that helps. I don't want to make things harder, but I do want to help make as complete a list of museums for each state as possible. ] (]) 20:54, 14 May 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==ED== |
|
|
You bought something yourself- that's very dedicated! |
|
|
|
|
|
{| style="border: 2px solid gray; background-color: #fdffe7;" |
|
|
|rowspan="2" valign="top" | ] |
|
|
|rowspan="2" | |
|
|
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: bottom; height: 1.1em; color: black" | '''The Citation Barnstar''' |
|
|
|- |
|
|
|style="vertical-align: top; border-top: 1px solid gray; color: black" | As it's slightly less boring than some of the relevant barnstars, awarded for parting with your own monies to find out more about an alleged source of notability for an article. ]</font></b> ]</font></b> 20:07, 15 May 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|} |
|
|
|
|
|
I like your style, but I still think you're way off base on your interpretation of notability guideilnes. Still, I don't think I'm accomplishing much in that discussion, so I'm just going to let it go. No hard feelings, happy editing. -] (]) 22:24, 16 May 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Oregon regions== |
|
|
This is following the museum association map. The tourism map may differ slightly... |
|
|
|
|
|
*] -- All of Clatsop, Tillamook, Lincoln, Coos, Curry counties. Portions of Douglas and Lane counties (Anything west of Scottsburg on Hwy 38 and Mapleton on Hwy 126, including those cities). |
|
|
*] -- All of Josephine, Jackson, Klamath, Lake counties. Most of Douglas County (except as noted in Coast). |
|
|
*] -- All of Yamhill, Polk, Linn, Marion, Benton counties. Most of Lane County (except as noted in Coast). |
|
|
*] -- All of Gilliam, Morrow, Umatilla, Wallowa, Baker, Union, Grant, Wheeler, Malheur, Harney counties. |
|
|
*] -- All of Crook, Deschutes, Sherman counties. Most of Wasco County except cities along I-84. |
|
|
*]/] -- All of Hood River County. Cities in Wasco County along I-84. Eastern portions of Multnomah and Clackamas counties. It looks like the line they draw puts the cities of Sandy and Estacada to the west (in the Portland Metro) region. Everything on Hwy 26 east of that would be in this region, as well as everything on I-84 east of Crown Point State Park, including Multnomah Falls, Bonneville, etc. |
|
|
*] -- All of Columbia and Washington counties. Portions of Multnomah and Clackamas counties west of the line described above. |
|
|
|
|
|
Best. ] (]) 19:43, 19 May 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Thanks Noroton, for all your hard work on ]. Please don't overdo it and wear yourself out! Seriously though, the summary for ] might be a bit long. I'm mostly worried that you worked too long writing that; not that a thorough summary isn't appreciated. How complete do you think the list is, in terms of the number of entries? —] (]) 01:30, 22 May 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::No one is even slightly interested in deleting the article. It's likely to attract further work though, perhaps even by myself. I'm certainly in no hurry: I'll wait until long after you're done. —] (]) 01:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Thank you and Question == |
|
|
Thank you for directing me to WP:REDLINK. I have been working on the project "Red Link Recovery, Possibly Unwanted", and the items look as if they do not need teir own page. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Red_Link_Recovery/Possibly_unwanted). Is this correct? I'd appreciate any advice on the topic. Thanks! |
|
|
|
|
|
] (]) 04:59, 25 May 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Thanks! == |
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you very much for the barnstar! I feel I have done far too little on ], I have worked mostly on ]. I also think ] is not a very good article, and I hope I will have time to work more on that in the future. Thanks again! Regards, ] (]) 04:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==]== |
|
|
|
|
|
The article is ]ed by a small but extremely dedicated group of Obama campaign volunteers, who rely on the fact that on any given day, ] allows them more reverts than the three or four people interested in ] who happen to be interested in that article that day. If everyone who is not an Obama campaign volunteer would show up on the same day, a consensus against them would be clearly established. If you would like to discuss this further, e-mail me. ] (]) 12:48, 30 May 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Re:]== |
|
|
|
|
|
Let's see how the edits I put in go over first. ] (]) 20:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
Whoops. That was from me.. ] (]) 20:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
What's going to change in "several days"? I started getting "Afrocentric"(cited) as a description of Obama's church reverted out six months ago. ] (]) 00:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:''Afro-centric:'' how can I augur some sense of this term? Would it apply if Trinity had preached as part of The Gospel a sort of ''communal'' sense of redeption? Partially involving resentment against anti-African American social contraints? Or even a somewhat formalized ''liberation'' theology? Well, whatever ''this'' is, exactly. (I'll admit it to you guys, I ''support'' Barack; ''vote Democrat in 2008!'') ''':^)'''] ] 12:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
But...back to contributing to Misplaced Pages: Jeez! where'd Floorsheim ''go?''] ] 12:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Request for comment (times 2) == |
|
|
|
|
|
I respectfully request you to humor me (if possible) with |
|
|
*'''INPUT''' re a pair of re-titling proposals for '''2008 Barack Obama presidential campaign''' "Controversies" daughter-articles, ''both'' ''and'' ] ] 08:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Input from Pump == |
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry for misplacing my thoughts on the pump page. I added some of my thoughts on the Obama talk page. Thanks. - ] (]) 19:47, 3 June 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Bill Ayers == |
|
|
|
|
|
Today I noticed you put your notification of the Barack Obama article in ], but not ] - which is where all this information belongs, and where Wikipedians working on this information would actually see it. ] (]) 17:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
Re your comments on my Talk page: Plenty of perfectly sincere people believe in libel in various articles, but I am not one of them. If you would check the history of the above article, you would see I believe in the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. I work on Misplaced Pages, NOT Conservapedia or anything else along those lines. Consensus is one thing, negotiating to agree that 2 +2 = 9 is absurd. ] (]) 21:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==re: Delay on Barack Obama proposal== |
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry for being out of commission for so long. Am in the middle of moving. Should have given a heads up, my bad. Next time, just go ahead without me. On the bright side, I think we've managed to sway Lulu and scjessey off some of their exclusionist leanings. Will be on again Sunday. --] (]) 05:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Thanks Noroton == |
|
|
|
|
|
For your kind words on my Talk page. This completely defeats any argument by Scjessey along the lines of "this article is different from all the rest like ] or ] or ], because we're using summary style." This demolished his entire "summary style" argument very thoroughly. He uses the "summary style" argument to banish negative material to satellite articles that no one ever reads. But the "summary style" doesn't seem to apply when talking from the Obama campaign's list of talking points, regarding his political positions and his few years in the Senate. That sounds like Obama's campaign manager talking. ] (]) 13:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:First, I'd like to narrow down the choice to 4, 5 or some combination thereof, as a compromise that is acceptable (even if not terribly attractive) to both sides. Then the next step would be to iron out the details of the compromise. ] (]) 01:27, 6 June 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Waiting.... == |
|
|
|
|
|
As per your request I'm waiting on the Bill Ayers-related articles. I think you're going way overboard on BLP and criticism stuff, but I respect your insight and thoughtfulness as an editor. So I'll wait at least until morning. I also started a discussion on the Bill Ayers article. Cheers, ] (]) 06:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== latest quest for consensus == |
|
|
|
|
|
I'm the second highest contributor to the article, Noroton - I know it's one of the most prominent. I'll take a look, but please note that I didn't vote or !vote - I expressed an opinion. We don't vote or tally votes about these things - that's not how to achieve consensus - and frankly I'm not too happy with the way these discussions have developed on the talk page so I'm attempting to avoid it. However, I'll take another look and see if I am moved to express another opinion. <strong>]</strong>/<small>]</small> 00:39, 7 June 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:Well, I'm not sure that's really the best way to achieve consensus, by wearing people down - but I'll take a look later on tonight. By the way, we've had plenty of controversy on this page over the last year or more, and in the past we've reached real consensus on numerous things. Right now there are some POV pushers who may not let that happen which is a shame. We'll see. I remind you - this is not an article about a political candidate, it's supposed to be a biography of a notable individual - his whole life and career, not just a few hot items that some people want to use as cudgels against his candidacy. <strong>]</strong>/<small>]</small> 01:16, 7 June 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== ] == |
|
|
|
|
|
It is O.K. if you want to contact us for subsequent votes, but instructing us how to change our votes is a form of ]ing, IMO.--] <small>(]/]/]/]/]) </small> 22:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Respectfully, I agree with TonytheTiger that posts on user talk pages regarding this issue have not been in keeping with the spirit of ] and ]. Noroton, I believe you personally have approached this in good faith, but some of the other editors involved (with whom you have communicated) have been aggressively cross-posting, edit warring, etc. Those actions have called into question whether this process is motivated by a desire to have an informed and reasoned discussion about improving the article or whether it's about rounding up enough "votes" to "overturn" consensus among editors actively working on the article. From an outsider's perspective, it looks like collusion. On the whole, I don't think your requests for comment have been particularly egregious, but I would ask you to keep ] in mind going forward, so that your actions are not lumped in with the actions of others that have damaged the process.] (]) 22:52, 7 June 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Thanks. Your ] on my talk page has convinced me that you have thought through these issues and will continue to think about them going forward. Thanks for your good faith efforts in helping to improve the encyclopedia. best, ] (]) 01:04, 8 June 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Thanks. == |
|
|
|
|
|
I noticed your comments earlier, but find it best to ] and not respond when folks make heated comments. I appreciate the retraction, which speaks well of you as a person and an editor. I know I've said this before, but I reckon the discussions on Rezko and Wright will be much more productive than this last one. ]<sup>]</sup> 03:37, 8 June 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Jeremiah Wright controversy - title == |
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Noroton, |
|
|
I am in complete agreement with your comments regarding the proposal to change the existing title "Jeremiah Wright controversy" that I supported last month, to a long, unknown title that includes Barack Obama's name. If you could "Oppose title change" on the talk page ], it would be appreciated. Thanks, '''IP 75''' ] (]) 08:08, 8 June 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
==Information== |
|
|
From Talk:Barack Obama: |
|
|
|
|
|
'''"A brief reprieve"''' |
|
|
|
|
|
I just noticed that Kossack4Truth has been, rightly, . That's a relief. When that 48 hours ends, let's report the next violation promptly, which will hopefully result in a longer block than 48 hours. Admins tend to escalate these periods in a sensible way (it's a mixed bag, but mostly). |
|
|
|
|
|
FWIW, I'd really appreciate it, Justmeherenow, if you don't rant about some false equivalence between Kossack4Truth's edit-warring, and the efforts of some responsible editors (like myself) to remove vandalistic POV additions... and still more, don't put in the unencyclopedic stuff yourself either. <font color="darkgreen">]</font>×<font color="darkred" size="-2">]</font> 17:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I can't say I'm sorry that K4T has been blocked for edit warring, but I certainly do ''not'' think it is appropriate to encourage people to report 3RR violations in an article talk namespace. Furthermore, I would like to request that we allow sufficient time for K4T to have a chance to contribute to the discussion above (on building consensus, ''et al'') before moving toward the next step. Within reason, all concerned editors must have a chance to weigh-in or we risk building a lopsided consensus. -- ] (]) 17:33, 2 June 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:*Your constant use of language like "rant" and "vandalistic", as well as charging POV violations even when sincere editors are doing their best to try for fair treatment of an important issue is not helpful, LotLE. You've pretty much lumped in irresponsible with responsible efforts to change the article, and your efforts overall haven't helped to get us anywhere near consensus. Pot. Kettle. Black. ] (]) 17:35, 2 June 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::The difference here is that I don't mistake "mob rule" for "consensus", as you seem to want to, Noroton. The only things I care for are making WP articles better. That means following ] and other WP policy, not making fake votes, recruiting sympathetic editors, using sock-puppets, and so on, to create some illusion of "consensus" for policy violations. I've been editing a lot longer than anyone else in this discussion, and I'm not inclined to pretend that obvious bad faith is "responsible". <font color="darkgreen">]</font>×<font color="darkred" size="-2">]</font> 17:40, 2 June 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::FYI. You can plug in your, or my, name, if you want. ] (]) 22:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Provide diffs for your charges or take them back.] (]) 17:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::Read any of the dozen or so "polls" K4T has put on this talk page, where he "votes", and declares consensus for violating ]. Sadly, sometimes with your "vote" for the same thing allegedly proving we can ignore policy. Policy will remain in effect, period! (I'm not sure how I would "prove my charge" that policy governs... if you don't get that, you don't get WP). <font color="darkgreen">]</font>×<font color="darkred" size="-2">]</font> 18:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::Oh no you don't. Stop being cute about a ]. A list of your accusations against me: |
|
|
:::::#''The difference here is that I don't mistake "mob rule" for "consensus", as you seem to want to, Noroton.'' In addition to diffs, describe the difference. |
|
|
:::::#''The only things I care for are making WP articles better.'' Strongly implying that I don't. This is a minor attack, and it's not an attack at all if you can prove I don't. The problem is, you can't. |
|
|
:::::#''That means following WP:BLP and other WP policy, not making fake votes,'' Not following BLP and other WP policy is simply a difference of opinion and I can't criticize you for saying that, but ''not making fake votes'' is an accusation that I've done that. |
|
|
:::::#''recruiting sympathetic editors, using sock-puppets, and so on, to create some illusion of "consensus" for policy violations.'' You're addressing me and then bringing this up, strongly implying that I'm doing all of these things. |
|
|
:::::#''I've been editing a lot longer than anyone else in this discussion, and I'm not inclined to pretend that obvious bad faith is "responsible".'' So now I'm acting with "obvious bad faith". |
|
|
:::::#''consensus for violating ]. Sadly, sometimes with your "vote" for the same thing allegedly proving we can ignore policy. Policy will remain in effect, period!'' As you well know, I interpret WP:BLP differently than you do. I've provided quotes of WP:BLP above. As you well know, consensus is generally how we interpret policy. If you believe any consensus decision on this page interprets policy in voilation of WP:BLP, you can bring it up on the BLP noticeboard. Oddly enough, when I quoted WP:BLP above, you didn't have a cogent reply. |
|
|
:::::So prove it or take it back. ] isn't meant for situations where bad faith has been demonstrated. So prove my bad faith. Otherwise you're in violation of ]. Rather than raise the heat any further, I'm going to ignore you for 24 hours in case this is a simple heat-of-the-moment situation. Say anything you want in the meantime, but it would be a good idea to think about what I've just said. If you're going to stand by this, provide the diffs, please. ] (]) 18:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Just for the record, we can ] policy, as long as we can show that it is in the best interest of Wikpedia. --] (]) 06:24, 5 June 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
==Information 2== |
|
|
|
|
|
====Option 3: Identifies Ayers as ''former radical activist''==== |
|
|
from Talk:Barack Obama |
|
|
|
|
|
*The problem with Noroton's characterization is that it is ''at best'' ], and at worse an outright lie. There is '''zero''' ] evidence that Ayers formerly engaged in violence or created any bombs. Noroton might speculate on what is "likely" (in his mind), given Ayers' associations 40 years ago, but that's only appropriate for Noroton's blog. No matter what anyone opines in this endless stuff, it will '''never''' be acceptable to invent that claim under ]. Whether Ayers' is "repentant" is always and completely subjective, that can also never go into an encyclopedia without violating ] and ]. <font color="darkgreen">]</font>×<font color="darkred" size="-2">]</font> 00:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
**I don't need to speculate. Ayers admitted it. See post in Option 1. This removes the ] objection and the NY Times isn't the only source. There is a mainstream of reporting from ] sources backing this up. LotLE, you are again engaging in ] personal attacks and lack of civility with "Noroton's charactherization ... is ... an outright lie." Stop poisoning the discussion. You don't have to attack me to make your point, and you're making yourself look bad and me look good whenever you do it. ] (]) 01:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC) |
|
