Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:59, 9 April 2008

kinda funny

you're in the national media bitching out Andy for POV. hi-larious... 72.0.180.2 (talk) 06:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Blogs as sources

FYI in general, MSM blog entries are sometimes allowed as sources, see WP:V footnote 5. This has become common in this presidential election, e.g. MSNBC's FirstRead, the NY Times' The Caucus, and others of that ilk are okay to use. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:01, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Look at something like this. It's a straight NYT news story, not an opinion piece, but it happens to be filed under their politics blog. Same with this. There's no reason these can't be used as WP:RS. That's the trend that footnote 5 is covering. I'm not saying this with respect to any particular edit you've made, just as a general FYI, because some editors are under the impression that nothing ever associated with a blog is allowed. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Review of Barack Obama's status as a featured article

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. Stifle (talk) 17:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I like how we get no answer to this. Pathetic. Grsz 11 18:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you mean...

"when God created the Big Bang" (lol) 72.0.180.2 (talk) 21:39, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

well it's common sense that if God created Nascar then He (definitely a he) must have also invented the big bang. but I know thats a little pov. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 21:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Socks

I think I'm gonna head to Wal-Mart and look for socks, wanna help? Grsz11 16:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Innocent until proven guilty

Is that the standard we are using for rezko, as far as descriptive words like tainted or now-indicted? 72.0.180.2 (talk) 21:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Obama concerns

Hi there. As an editor who seems to watch the page closely, I wonder if I can get your comments on some of the issues I left on the talk page; I know that you have commented on some of them and I thank you.

I just find it appauling that not many of the concerns are even considered "concerns" by some editors. Thanks for your time. Best, Happyme22 (talk) 02:51, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I'm a non-admin helper at the 3RR noticeboard. I've posted a comment there noting that the 3RR policy says that multiple reverts may not constitute a breach of the policy if they are "reverts to remove clearly libelous material, or unsourced or poorly sourced controversial material about living persons (see Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons);". This seems to me to apply in this case, although that's just my opinion. Thanks for keeping unsourced and poorly-sourced statements out of the article. You might want to consider listing the article at Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard to get more people helping. --Coppertwig (talk) 23:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Re your message at the 3RR page: I wouldn't worry too much about that 3RR report, because you have both BLP exemption and the fact that quite a bit of time has passed since your last revert, each of which would probably be a reason in itself for admins not to block you. However, as a point of information for future reference – and I'm just giving you this information in an attempt to be helpful – note that the 3RR rule applies per editor per page: you might be reverting 4 different things from 4 different other editors and it would still be a violation if it's within a 24-hour period.

Also, the fact that you hadn't received a recent warning is generally not considered an excuse either. It's considered courteous to warn a user, but not necessary unless they're a new user who might never have heard of the 3RR. Once you've been warned once, you're supposed to monitor your own reverts and can be blocked without warning -- though in some cases some admins might not block if there had been no warning in the specific situation, I suppose. 3RR warnings from a long time in the past are sometimes referred to to demonstrate that the user has knowledge of the 3RR, and I think these are generally accepted (or even other evidence of knowledge, such as you mentioning the 3RR yourself.) The WP:3RR policy doesn't say there has to be a warning.

Hmm. In the example report at the bottom of the 3RR noticeboard page, it used to say that the diff of 3RR warning was required for new users; now it doesn't say that. But I assume that's still the case. Or perhaps each admin has their own way of taking into account whether there was a warning or not.

Anyway, that's my understanding of how it works. --Coppertwig (talk) 01:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, Stifle has declined the 3RR report and upheld the BLP interpretation for 2 of your edits. --Coppertwig (talk) 11:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

...although there's continuing discussion there. --Coppertwig (talk) 13:20, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

And I am not taking futher action, but please be very careful when editing a high-visibility page like that one. Stifle (talk) 14:59, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Damn, that was fast

My effort to give proportionate NPOV coverage in the Barack Obama article to the Wright and Obama contgroversies lasted exactly two minutes. There's a very good reason why people like Andyvphil, Happyme22 and TheGoodLocust have accused you of whitewashing the article. That revert is a perfect illustration of the reason. Consider the results of the Featured Article review. Kossack4Truth (talk) 23:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't hate Obama. I hate efforts to elevate him to some sort of sainthood in this article. There is no criticism in it. None whatsoever. Kossack4Truth (talk) 23:28, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Dealing with nuissances

In light of this edit, I propose either one of two options:

1. Some sort of report on him citing his edits and his disruptive behavior on the talk page, so an admin can deal with it, not us.

or

2. We agree simply not to acknowledge any post of his containing any unwarranted negativity/complaints of Obama or his article (and especially any mentions of POV or bias), or any other post from him that detracts from progress on the article or discussion thereof.

2 would be easy to do. The only problem for 1 is that I don't know where to report this to (but would like to know). It certainly wouldn't be hard to compile his edits for a report, that's for sure. --Ubiq (talk) 18:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me he is using a single-purpose account - to be a dick. Hope you don't mind my two cents. Grsz11 18:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Replied at User talk:Ubiq#The Plague of Locust -- Scjessey (talk) 19:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree with some things you said. I'm too against a silencing of him. Ideally, he'd find a way to stop/change his behavior, and start actually contributing to[REDACTED] as a whole. But somehow I don't see that happening unless something miraculous happens. I see no problem in ceasing from enabling him though in cases where his posts do nothing to contribute to the improvement of the article. No problem on the 3rr support, I'd be utterly shocked to see some sort of punitive action against you for that. --Ubiq (talk) 02:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC)