User talk:Adavidb/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

a cappella discussion clean up

Can I delete some basic information after 4unity & I agree and add it to the main article? I don't mean anything major, just small entries like footnote resolutions, and/or duplicate information. Can I re-format the alt view section with subheadings? --Trackn (talk) 03:34, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

You can make minor updates, including deletions and additions like you described, at any time. New subheadings may be alright, though I'd suggest review of related info in the style manual and help pages. Of course, other editors can also modify or undo your edits. It's all part of the article improvement process. —ADavidB 05:33, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

If you meant deletion of info from the talk page, guidelines suggest that you not do so. —ADavidB 05:43, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I formatted the text and grouped conversation between 4unity and I together. There might have been a few minor comments by 4unity that I deleted, but they were only duplicate type sentences that commented on my duplicates. Most were comments from me, which I just summarized to conserve space. We were so scattered that we were posting things twice. I looked at the guidelines and as long as 4unity doesn’t get upset, I should be okay...I think. Trackn (talk) 07:57, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

could i get you opinion

Just wondering if I could get you opinion on something Talk:Manchester mayoral election, 2009 (New Hampshire) is where the discussion is. So there is an disagreement between me and another editor on what the page should be I believe it should be the one posted above and he thinks it should be Manchester, New Hampshire mayoral election, 2009 just wondering if you could contribute thanks Gang14 (talk) 05:11, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for soliciting my opinion. I see that a consensus, with which I agree, has already been reached. —ADavidB 02:49, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Washington Metro GAR notification

Washington Metro has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:00, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Please be aware of this CfD

Please be aware of this CfD to rename Category:Universities and colleges by affiliated with the Stone-Campbell movement to either

• Category:Universities and colleges affiliated with the Stone-Campbell movement or
• Category:Universities and colleges affiliated with the Restoration Movement, and read and comment there if you wish. ^{Carlaude:Talk} 16:16, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Planning Discussions Now Ongoing Regarding DC Meetup #8

You are receiving this message either because you received a similar one before and didn't object, or you requested to receive a similar one in the future.

There is a planning discussion taking place here for DC Meetup #8. If you don't wish to receive this message again, please let me know.

--User:Nbahn 04:29, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

just fyi...

A Counter-proposal (September 26) is being discussed at DC 8 (talk).
--NBahn (talk) 04:57, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Teddy Roosevelt

I've noticed that you've edited the Teddy Roosevelt article a lot. I thought it was too big, and am trying to get a portion of the article moved from there to a new article called Political positions of Theodore Roosevelt. You'd be OK with this, right? If so, put something Here (in the Political positions sections). Purplebackpack89 (talk) 18:41, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

POV problems, Soapbox-ing at Death panel

The lead section of Death panel, which you have contributed to, currently contains content that misrepresents the origin of the term "Death panel", and provides a misleading summary of an article by Nangia and Wilson in Foreign Policy. Most of the problematic content appears to have been added by an editor or editors at IP 209.6.238.201, possibly in violation of WP:SOAP. I am calling on contributors to the page to revisit this issue and either come to a consensus on the proper content, or propose it for deletion. Cnilep (talk) 16:10, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Why?

I don't understand why you think that Sowell is more important to explaining Palin's death panel remarks than Ezekiel Emanuel. According to Palin, Palin's spokesperson, and ABC News, TIME, The Atlantic and others, Palin's opinions about Ezekiel Emanuel were the main reason for her death panel remarks. If you disagree, please read the following carefully and point out my error, if you still thing there is one at that point. In addition to the following, Palin also mentioned Ezekiel Emanuel at length in her August 12 and September 8 posts to her facebook page.

As TIME said,

Within days, the Post article, with selective and misleading quotes from Emanuel's 200 or so published academic papers, went viral. Minnesota Representative Michelle Bachmann, a fierce opponent of Obama's reform plans, read large portions of it on the House floor. "Watch out if you are disabled!" she warned. Days later, in an online posting, former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin attacked Emanuel's "Orwellian thinking," which she suggested would lead to a "downright evil" system that would employ a "death panel" to decide who gets lifesaving health care.

As Palin said,

Rep. Michele Bachmann highlighted the Orwellian thinking of the president’s health care advisor, Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, the brother of the White House chief of staff, in a floor speech to the House of Representatives.

Palin posted a link to a YouTube video of the Bachmann speech at the bottom of her facebook page.

As The Atlantic said,

Reading the post, it's hard to see what Palin actually meant. Her political spokesperson later confirmed that Palin was referring to the principle of "community standards," which she linked to a New York Post piece about Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel.

As ABC News said,

Palin refers in her statement to Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., who in a speech on the floor of the House, Palin said, described the "Orwellian thinking of the president’s health care advisor, Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, the brother of the White House chief of staff. ... I commend her for being a voice for the most precious members of our society, our children and our seniors."

Bachmann's speech was based on an op-ed article in the New York Post, titled “Deadly Doctors,” by the former lieutenant governor of New York, Betsy McCaughey, that took a number of leaps of fact when discussing the academic writings of Ezekiel J. Emanuel, health-policy adviser at the White House’s Office of Management and Budget and a member of Federal Council on Comparative Effectiveness Research.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimmuldrow (talk • contribs) 19:47, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't "think that Sowell is more important to explaining Palin's death panel remarks than Ezekiel Emanuel". I do think an otherwise-fully quoted paragraph written by Palin should be allowed to include her mention of Sowell as a source, however. Even so, as you may recall, I was willing to replace Sowell's mention with an ellipsis, as a compromise to our differing beliefs on the matter, but other editors disagreed. I also consider that the depth to which you apparently want to cover Palin's political position on health care is inappropriate for this article (which is to cover all of her positions). As an example, if Emanuel is mentioned, I understand you'll want to include a full analysis of Palin's reference to him and whether others agree with the validity of Palin's position; such analysis is not within the scope of this article. —ADavidB 00:07, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Planning Discussions Now Ongoing Regarding DC Meetup #9

You are receiving this message either because you received a similar one before and didn't object, or you requested to receive a similar one in the future.

There is a planning discussion taking place here for DC Meetup #9. If you don't wish to receive this message again, please let me know. --NBahn (talk) 04:55, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Vandal warning

I see you have placed a vandal warning here. But its the vandal warning level 3. When a new month comes up and there's no warnings, please use level 1. Going out of order not only messes up the system, but also confuses other wikipedians and they might then place vandal warning 4 when it really should be vandal warning 2. I'm sure this was an accident. Please be more careful next time. BIONICLE233♥♠♣ 13:37, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for expressing your concern. I don't often issue vandal warnings. Though lower-level warnings were not present, the vandal in question has repeated such edits to the page. I understood the warning level to be based in part on such repeated evidence, rather than only an escalation within the talk page. (Otherwise a repetitious vandal could simply delete prior warnings to avoid receiving higher than level 1 warnings.) If/when such history is present, I'll consider mentioning it within a warning. —ADavidB 14:14, 26 November 2009 (UTC)