| Revision as of 23:53, 9 February 2009 editEclectix (talk | contribs)46 edits →RFC on Barack Obama talk summary censorship and deletion: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 01:43, 10 February 2009 edit undoWard3001 (talk | contribs)25,782 edits →RfC on Obama: new sectionNext edit → | ||
| Line 70: | Line 70: | ||
| Per Misplaced Pages Guidelines I posted a bio RFC and a PM to BubbleHead about BubbleHead's summary deletion without (IMHO) justification. Thanks for any support. ] (]) 23:53, 9 February 2009 (UTC) | Per Misplaced Pages Guidelines I posted a bio RFC and a PM to BubbleHead about BubbleHead's summary deletion without (IMHO) justification. Thanks for any support. ] (]) 23:53, 9 February 2009 (UTC) | ||
| == RfC on Obama == | |||
| The comments left by this user do not fall under the ] code, since this user was not trying to sway a vote or discussion.--] (]) 01:24, 10 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Bullshit. "''deletion without (IMHO) justification. Thanks for any support''" on your page and "''I'm absolutely certain you know what it is like to have a justified but minority viewpoint.) Thanks for any explicit support''" on another user's page is '''clearly''' not neutral and violation of policy. ] (]) 01:43, 10 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 01:43, 10 February 2009
| This is a Misplaced Pages user talk page. This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Misplaced Pages, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Misplaced Pages. The original talk page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jojhutton. |
If you leave me a message here, I will answer here
If I rollback your comments on my talk page, its because I have nothing constructive to say to you. I am allowed to use rollback on my userspace. Read the policy.
 Archives |
43 President
I really appreciate the information you have added to Barack Obama 2009 presidential inauguration. However, I am not sure what usefulness it has. It seems to be rather trivial information and it doesn't help the reader's understanding of the subject of the article. I really do find the information fascinating but I think it should belong on a different article, perhaps on List of Presidents of the United States. Thank you, Bovineboy2008 (talk) 18:01, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- There is no such policy that forbids this information. That is the article that it belongs in. As a historian, I am appalled by the president's apparant lack of knowledge on U.S. History. I have no idea why. Perhaps it comes from his many years going to school abroad, but he has a serious lapse in that department. There is no other article or section to place this information. It is best suited there. Regardless of party or support, the sentence was cited properly and has been placed in its proper section. Any removal means that those removing it are not interested in improving wikipedia, but are only here to protect Obama's image.--Jojhutton (talk) 18:07, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- I too cringed when I heard that, Joj. I stayed home from work to watch the events of the day with my decidedly disinterested 14-year old son, and immediately told him of the error. Then I decided that Obama couldn't possibly have not known this, but chose to say it this way because he thought that most Americans, in their ignorance, would have thought him mistaken if he had not counted GC twice. (Can you say, "wishful thinking" on Unschool's part?) I wish he had just said that, "This oath of office has now been taken 64 times" (or whatever the right number is, I'm not going to calculate it precisely right now). That would've provoked some thoughtful discussion on a few of the creampuff "news" shows like Today, and maybe people would have learned some history. Oh well. Unschool 09:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks unschool, its nice to hear from you again too.--Jojhutton (talk) 13:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- I too cringed when I heard that, Joj. I stayed home from work to watch the events of the day with my decidedly disinterested 14-year old son, and immediately told him of the error. Then I decided that Obama couldn't possibly have not known this, but chose to say it this way because he thought that most Americans, in their ignorance, would have thought him mistaken if he had not counted GC twice. (Can you say, "wishful thinking" on Unschool's part?) I wish he had just said that, "This oath of office has now been taken 64 times" (or whatever the right number is, I'm not going to calculate it precisely right now). That would've provoked some thoughtful discussion on a few of the creampuff "news" shows like Today, and maybe people would have learned some history. Oh well. Unschool 09:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Re: Sockpuppet investigation
I know you don't want me to comment here, but I simply wanted to apologize for the accusation, as the case has now been closed and the account deemed unrelated. I hope we can work together in the future, or atleast not butt heads too much. Grsz 02:06, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
- I would have come to the same conclusion, given the timing of the vandalism, but I hope you realize that I am not the only one who feels that some articles are overly "protected". Compromise is a major foundation to this web site and comments such as this ] are usually counter productive and do not show an attitude of compromise. My rollback of your previous comments was probably just pouting on my part, but the policy on rollback allows me to use the rollback on my user space, regardless of reason.--Jojhutton (talk) 05:54, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Change?
What gives? Unschool 07:09, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
- Oh. Well lately I have just been a bit turned off to the whole[REDACTED] process. I still wish to participate and edit articles, but some of what goes on here gets a bit too serious for my taste sometimes. Who knows, maybe I will change my mind in the future. Misplaced Pages isn't all that bad though. A person can do great work here. Keep up the good work and I will be looking forward to hearing from you soon.--Jojhutton (talk) 14:13, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages Signpost, February 8, 2009
 |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 5, Issue 6 | 8 February 2009 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 15:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 22:13, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
RFC on Barack Obama talk summary censorship and deletion
Per Misplaced Pages Guidelines I posted a bio RFC and a PM to BubbleHead about BubbleHead's summary deletion without (IMHO) justification. Thanks for any support. Eclectix (talk) 23:53, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
RfC on Obama
The comments left by this user do not fall under the WP:Canvassing code, since this user was not trying to sway a vote or discussion.--Jojhutton (talk) 01:24, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
- Bullshit. "deletion without (IMHO) justification. Thanks for any support" on your page and "I'm absolutely certain you know what it is like to have a justified but minority viewpoint.) Thanks for any explicit support" on another user's page is clearly not neutral and violation of policy. Ward3001 (talk) 01:43, 10 February 2009 (UTC)