This is an archive of past discussions with User:William Saturn. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Welcome
Hello Southern Texas! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Kurutalk00:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
No problem! There are a few references missing and the list is by no means exhaustive so anything you can do to add to it would be much appreciated! - RPIRED17:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
George W Bush
Your last revert reverted changes I made that had nothing to do with images or the Time magazine box. ie, I fixed up the poor paragraphing in the lead per WP:LEAD. Please be more careful next time.
Yes, I know I removed content - in fact that was my intent - it was pointless content in my opinion. You have not established why it is important. As for the pics, please read the image section of WP:MOS. Further, please consider that a portrait shaped pic is considerably and inappropriately larger than a landscape size pic if it shares the same horizontal shape. It's basic maths. :) Also, I actually made some pics bigger, but you blunt revert removed all this. Again, please be more careful.
Please explain why that time magazine thing is important. Ie, dont' just point out I removed it - i know that. cheers. --Merbabu07:36, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
no worries. Of course I can live with a consensus against my edits, I just think it should be explained when i others go to trouble to explain themselve, and work in good faith. regards & happy editing. --Merbabu22:43, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
You seem to have an objection to my recent edit, which you keep reverting, but you give no reason.
My statement is verifiable from a reliable source, and is NPOV. As for relevance, this paragraph begins with:
"In May 1968, at the height of the ongoing Vietnam War, Bush was accepted into the Texas Air National Guard..."
This clearly indicates a connection between the Vietnam War and GWB's enlistment in the TXANG, without clarifying the nature of this connection. My edit attempts to do so, with a little more light (and, hopefully, a little less heat). If you feel this connection is beyond the scope of this article, as it is covered in other existing articles, then perhaps we should just delete the phrase "at the height of the Vietnam War."
Please let me know your thoughts on this.
Gatr19:13, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
The comment you left on this talk page was removed by me because it will encourage vandalism please do not do this.--Southern Texas03:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
What... I can't warn him and laugh at the same time? No... I probably shouldn't... that'll encourage to continue, as you said. Thanks for the heads up. Gscshoyru03:18, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
I liked the comment, it made me laugh and I understand what not to do now. I put it back up! MisterMonkey
I reverted your good faith removal of the word "alleged" describing those detained at Guantanamo Bay. It was probably hasty to perform as a revert and I should have manually edited back in "alleged" or perhaps "accused." Nonetheless, I think that calling them terrorists is premature if they have not been convicted. At minimum, since they are living persons, I would think that a reference would be required to a secondary source referring to them as "terrorists." --Evil198714:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Ronald Reagan
Oh believe me, I probably know Ronald Reagan better than anyone who edits the article. I met him 4 times and had a talk with him once, and I know Nancy Reagan. I know that President Reagan saved 77 lives and etched the count into a log. I think it should stay, but in Wikipedia, articles have to be somewhat concise. I did not - and do not - agree with how the phrase is written. I know that President Reagan used words like "well" and "you know" before he spoke, but it doesn't have to be mentioned, for what follows ("I was a lifeguard") is already said before, and doesn't need to be said again. I'm going to try and work on this phrase, because I think it could be a little better written.
I wanted to thank you for registering a "support" on the FAC page for Ronald Reagan. I've been trying to get his to FA status for a while, but to no avail. Thanks again, and let's hope it passes! Best, Happyme2221:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I'm not trying to cause a revert war (even though inadvertently I am). I truly believe that Cox is a major candidate. He is in some national polls and campaigning nationwide, like all the other candidates. He is not included in major debates because the media dosn't want him to gain attraction. I don't see why he cannot be included. Most small candidates are not campaigning nationally, like him, so it would not add to a slew of other candidates being added. Thanks for your time. Sorry about the revert war. I'd rather come to a consensus than act foolishly reverting. Casey1403:21, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Response
Last week is hardly "a long time ago." There was no consensus to remove the picture on the Speakers page. There was one person who said it should be put in the history. Your stated rationale for removing the picture of Pelosi was "If we can't have a picture of Cheney in Vice President of the United States then this picture should go as well." That is why I posted the suggestion that you read WP:POINT. That's why I went about it the way I did. I intend to add the picture to Pelosi again, unless a consensus exists for it being removed. The argument "This is a page about the office, not the person" is absurd. Should we make no mention of the current officeholder, since, according to your logic, it's not a page about that person? Why is the image so unacceptable if the text is allowed? JCO31222:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Because it offers an image of the current officeholder, something that is 1) informative, 2) absolutely relevant to the article. Please don't come at me like I've done something way over the top by suggesting that you read up on policy, and then admit that you were violating it. Your assertion that "now I know I'm right" is not how this works. The image was there, you removed it without any sort of consensus, so I put it back. Instead of engaging in a revert war, it would be incumbent on you to discuss it on the appropriate page. You have not done so, even now, and continue to simply revert. JCO31222:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Not to mention the fact that everyone who has posted on the talk page says that it should be included in the beginning. The only question is whether it should be in the lede or in the history. You are now ignoring the consensus that exists. Please stop doing that. JCO31222:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Have you looked at the President pro tempore of the United States Senate page? Robert Byrd's image is right at the top. Why is that inappropriate exactly? Should we remove Henry Clays image from the Speakers page because it's included twice? These people are significant to the article beyond simply the fact that they were the officeholder, they are either significant office holders or the current officeholder, and that is absolutely grounds for them to be there.JCO31222:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
I am calm. It bothers me, however, that you 1) accused me of failing to adhere to the process when, in fact, I had posted to the talk page, something you have not done, 2) denied that you had reverted for an improper reason and essentially chastised me for bringing it up at all. 3 editors have posted on the talk page, and all agreed that the picture should be included in addition to the list. I don't know why you insist on removing it without participating in that process, but if I came across as being anything less than calm, I would suggest that your approach may have triggered that. Cheers, JCO31222:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
I beg your pardon, you did write to the talk page, just not in the section about the picture. What you said there was "As for the picture I think its obvious were I stand on that." As far as I can tell, you are the only person who thinks the picture should only be on the page once. I'm not sure why you keep calling that a consensus. JCO31222:35, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
I am not the "only one who has a problem with it." JasonCNJ disagreed with you as well. Cmprince disagrees with you that the picture should only appear in the bottom section. So, that begs the question, if only the 4 of us have discussed it, and you're the only one who thinks it should only be in the list, where is the consensus? JCO31222:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
The fact that people chose not to engage you in an edit war is not evidence of a consensus. You are ignoring the discussion that took place. JCO31222:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
From WP:Consensus "When there are disagreements, they are resolved through polite discussion and negotiation on talk pages, in an attempt to develop a neutral point of view which everybody can agree upon." JCO31222:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
First, welcome back. I hope you didn't take the 3RR report personally, but it bothered me, particularly since I knew that you were aware of the rule. In any event, water under the bridge as they say.
I say that this should be the first question because it seems that some of your objection had to do with the repetition of the Pelosi image. If the list was separate, obviously that would no longer be a concern. Look forward to hearing your thoughts. Cheers, JCO31220:05, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Responded on my talk page
S.T. just wanted to let you know that I responded on my talk page. I hate conversations where only one side is found on a given page.Balloonman20:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Thought you'd like to know that I used your template on the President pro tempore page. I think it looks pretty good. JCO31218:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
In some browsers, such as L's, your text overlaps with the "Edit the page" button, making it totally impossible for people without technical know-how to contact you. This is unacceptable. If you continue to readd the text that makes it impossible for users to contact you, then you are disrupting Wikipedia, as you're stopping people from using this page as it is intended. Stop this nonsense now. --Deskana(banana)19:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Since you've refused to listen, this page is protected until such time you agree to remove that text that stops some other users from being able to contact you. When you've decided you'll keep it this way, you can contact me on my talk page and I'll unprotect it. --Deskana(banana)19:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
If you check the page history, I told you enough times. Don't try to blame me for this. Not only that, you mentioned "What buttons?" before anyone even said anything on your talk page, so you were clearly reading the edit summaries, and clearly knew why we were reverting. So, please tell me when you've agreed to keep the text off your talk page. --Deskana(banana)19:23, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
While I agree that the large text is hideous and likely causes problems on some browsers (and should thus be removed) y'all should have tried to talk to this user before or as you were editing his or her Talk page. Experienced editors like yourself shouldn't be relying on edit summaries to communicate with other editors, particularly in sensitive matters like editing another's Talk page. --ElKevbo20:51, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Your big name
S.T. something you could try is to make your big name occur after the table of contents. Put something else up there first. That way you're happy with your big name... but it's out of the way and doesn't interfere with other editors.Balloonman20:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I went ahead and added my experiment and asked L/Deskana to take a look at it. If they say it still causes problems, we'll need to revert... but perhaps this way both sides are happy.Balloonman20:44, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Don't get me wrong - I don't have anything against pink. It's a fine color if you like pastels or fluffy bunnies. It just seems like an odd choice for an infobox. I'm not sure that a color is needed at all in that infobox. Colors add complications given the vast size of our audience and the devices they use to browse Wikipedia and the inherent usability/disability issues. But if you really like pink then I guess you're entitled to use it... :) --ElKevbo20:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes I am aware of Ron Paul and I don't think his message of retreat and defeat is needed when we are fighting the Islamic fascists and facing potential attacks. A Ron Paul presidency is exactly what the terrorists want, freedom to plan and carry out attacks, taking away the tools that are necessary to fight the terrorists and overseeing a government that is weak, inable to protect its people, and inable to govern
Well, the Iraq war was completely sold to us on false information and was never in American interest. Ron Paul voted against the war for constitutional reasons and not to enforce U.N. police actions. He is the only candidate who wants to reduce legal immigration to the U.S. when every single other candidate wants to increase immigration, even from Arab/Muslim countries. Integration is only exacerbating our problem and completely against the legislative history of the country installed by the founding fathers. Do you think a candidate who proposes immigration from Muslim countries is qualified to deal with Islamic fascism? All of Ron Paul's policies are rooted in history and the constitution and I definitely would encourage you to watch his youtube videos for clarification. Let me know what you think.
I saw this on the above user's talk page and I had to respond. You gave me my laugh for the day. Thank you, Southern Texas. The CIA's foremost bin Laden expert for years has said that Ron Paul is the only Republican presidential candidate who has Osama bin Laden shaking in his boots.--Gloriamarie09:33, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
Please don't remove other's comments from Talk pages because you disagree with the editor who posted the question. While I agree that the political assertion that Bush is guilty of fascism is ridiculous there are many who hold that view and questioning why that view does not appear to be represented is a legitimate question. --ElKevbo03:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
As requested, I'll try to clarify. I haven't looked at your history with regards to the U.S. article in full detail. If you want that deleted, but are creating others, and/or are using all or nothing type arguments then the behaviour pattern is similar. If not, my apologies for shooting from the hip. GRBerry22:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Democrats and CIA POV pushing
Thank you for reverting the vandalism to hide this story. I am not a registered GOP voter. In fact, I say that the GOP could conceivably do that same (but no evidence as of now). There is some serious POV pushing at the articles that I put the warning in the talk page. Warningwarningwarning21:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't realize it was on your talk page...thought it was on your userpage, saw alot of spamming of the same types of messages by this new account and that is why I used the rollback. My apologies.--Jersey Devil22:20, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Crazily large text
I warned you about this before, and this is your final warning. Do not readd it. It is disruptive as it can prevent users from be able to use the edit links underneath. --Deskana(banana)22:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Why in the world do you insist on this? It's causing nothing but trouble, and frankly it looks like crap too. You're better just leaving it down. If you want to have a creative page title, have a look at {{User:One/Title}} --Lucid15:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
File:Southerntexas.jpgLooks dreadful, and damn near illegible Can you not see how awful this looks? Seriously. "If this causes problems just revert it", you say. Well, me and L have done, several times. Please just leave it off. I'm so tired of repeating myself. --Deskana(banana)17:22, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't see why my page Kucinich.us can't be in Wikipedia. it is unbiased & fair and does tell of its importance
I see why and I will soon nominate it for AfD. I hope SouthernTexas will support that nomination. We can continue this discussion on the article's talk page and the AfD nom. Sorry for the intrusion, Texas. JasonCNJ13:38, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
RFA
Hi Southern, Since I referenced our recent encounter in my current RFA, I felt that it was only fair to let you know that I have done so.Balloonman15:08, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
The template
doesn't seem to be friendly to colors, sorry, probably because of the way the MediaWiki software is designed. You should be able to deal with it fine. I still recommend you use Firefox instead of IE to test any webpage, as even if it works fine for you a more standards compliant browser will show how it looks like crap. --Lucid18:12, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
I see what you did thar! And it's rather clever ^^ Lucid
I just wanted to thank you for registering a support on Reagan's FAC page. I also wanted to appologize to you because I didn't "weigh in" on your page, United States Secretary of Energy, after the note you left on my talk page. Congrats on the FA though! Best, Happyme2202:50, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Hey there Southern,
Just wanted to let you know, that I hadn't seen your post about overcategorization. You have an excellent point there. Having said that, I probably am not going to say anything else on that page until after my RFA. During an RFA is not the time to get bogged down into a political dispute on a somewhat controversial issue... and I can see this going either way.Balloonman04:03, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
I am following guildines, and you are the one edit warring (3 times reverting I see). I have yet to even revert once. I hope you stop your edit waring on the issue and go by consensus on the question. This way you can be more constructive and help the project.Giovanni3323:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
You have threatened to revert and I have decided not to break 3RR to prevent edit warring. Please try to commit on the facts at hand instead of personally attacking editors. Going against policy is not consensus.--SouthernTexas23:21, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
You only reverted 3 times in order to "prevent edit waring?!" That is funny. This is not how you prevent edit waring, by reverting 3 times and almost violating the 3RR rule. Its not an entitlement and it IS edit waring, which you are guilty of on this issue, and which I am not. Which is worse? I am discouraging you from further edit waring by letting you know in clear terms that it wont get you anywhere, as I'll edit with connsensus, which means reverting you--if needed. Also, I never attack editors, unlike yourself (in fact that was an attack right there by making up that falsehood). Lastly I am following policy.Giovanni3323:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Making falsehoods? I am not going to break 3RR and it was not my intent to have an edit war. I wanted to talk to the editor so we used edit summaries until I reached him on his talk page to tell him that we should talk about this on the talk page. I read him the rules and he backed off because he saw that my actions followed policy. Please do not come here on my talk page attacking me and threatening edit wars when you don't understand the context of the situation.--SouthernTexas23:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
My real reason for "backing off" was because I have things I had to do in real life off wiki. Not because I was wrong in my edits. I do not edit 24 hours a day.--SefringleTalk00:05, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I see you are continuing with making more falsehoods. But your logic if flawed. You edit warred by reverting three times but that was not your intent? But you still did it. Actions prove intent unless you are going to argue you were "tricked" to edit war and you did not know what you were doing! hehe Your other excuse is likewise silly: that you were communicating with the editor by reverting him using edit summaries in your edit war "until you could reach him on his talk page?"--as if reaching him on his talk page was any more difficult than communicating with him via edit warring edit summaries? Makes no sense. And you came to my talk page, I am only responding to you. Lastly, again, I made no attacks--unlike you. Stop making up falsehoods.Giovanni3323:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Again you try to attack me on my talk page without any substance. I already explained my actions so stop replying on here with your attacks. I know what happenned because I am the one that did it. I am trying to follow the rules but editors like you try to bend the rules to try reflect your own "facts". The discussion already happened and I showed that I was backed by policy. So stop coming on my talk page and calling me a liar.--SouthernTexas00:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Then stop making falsehoods. Here is another one [[1]](btw I did not call you a liar, there is a difference, but to say I did is just yet another falsehood. I'm done responding here. Next time keep it to the article talk page if you dont want to discuss this on your talk page.Giovanni3300:12, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Well since the editor continued to edit other pages I had reason to believe that he backed off because I explained to him why the category did not belong per the guidelines. You choose to edit my talk page, I ask you to leave my talk page alone, stop coming on here and personally attacking me and telling me I am making "falsehoods" when I clearly have shown that to be to the contrary.--SouthernTexas00:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for listing your dispute at Wikipedia:Third opinion. Your request has been removed, because there are already more than two editors involved (I count yourself, Giovanni33(tc), Sefringle(tc), and Balloonman(tc) as having chimed in already). WP:3o is for disputes involving 2 editors only.
I do agree that asking for an outside opinion was the right move, but I'd suggest you perhaps add it to RFC by using the {{RFCbio}} template instead. RFCs are useful when there's a content dispute that involves more than 2 editors. --Darkwind (talk) 19:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the nomination. The Big Tree is really awesome, and I really like the image I got of it. The sun was setting and the light was nice, but low, so I did not get good depth of field. This is my first nomination for featured picture and the guys at Wikipedia:Picture peer review are really tough so this should be enlighting. -Regards 23:12, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
You will recall that a request was made to avoid a revert war and discuss the matter on the Discussion page. Could you please do that, and not contribute to the warring? - Arcayne(cast a spell)03:45, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I was being bold in editing. I saw a need for it so I just did it. The Brownback page is quite small so the political positions really don't need to be a separte article. He also doesn't have a separate article about a campaign so I saw "views" on the template as quite useless.--SouthernTexas03:59, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Time for a time-out
I think that Spooner isn't getting the point, and I'm dreading the thought of having to explain why he's being disruptive for the third time. Clearly, he either doesn't get it or doesn't care. Maybe a block is called for, so as to protect the article for a while. He is using 3RR as an electric fence to avoid reverting 3 times in a single day, but the same revert happens 6 times over 3 days tends to accomplish the same thing - it disrupts the article. - Arcayne(cast a spell)20:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
If you think it shouldn't have been deleted, you can go to WP:DRV and follow the instructions there to seek consensus for undeletion. Otherwise you can just recreate the article with sources that show notability other than his relation to Abraham Lincoln (because WP:BIO states that notability is not inherited). --Coredesat21:28, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Ross Perot.jpg. I noticed the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if not used in an article), per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. (Please see the talk page for the image for an alternative suggestion on using free image content already available!) Skybunny06:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
You either nominated a WP:FLC or closed such a nomination recently. As such, you are the type of editor whose opinion I am soliciting. We now have over 400 featured lists and seem to be promoting in excess of 30 per month of late (41 in August and 42 in September). When Today's featured article (TFA) started (2004-02-22), they only had about 200 featured articles and were barely promoting 20 new ones per month. I think the quality of featured lists is at least as good as the quality of featured articles was when they started appearing on the main page. Thus, I am ready to open debate on a proposal to institute a List of the Day on the main page with nominations starting November 12007, voting starting December 12007 and main page appearances starting January 12008. For brevity, the proposal page does not discuss the details of eventual main page content, but since the work has already been done, you should consider this proposal assuming the eventual content will resemble the current content at the featured content page. Such output would probably start at the bottom of the main page. The proposal page does not debate whether starting with weekly list main page entries would be better than daily entries. However, I suspect persons in favor of weekly lists are really voicing opinions against lists on the main page since neither TFA nor Picture of the day started as weekly endeavors, to the best of my knowledge. Right now debate seems to be among support for the current selective democratic/consensus based proposal, a selective dictatorial approach like that used at WP:TFA or a non-selective first in line/calendar approach like that used at WP:POTD. See the List of the Day proposal and comment at WP:LOTDP and its talk page.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 18:48, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Cut it out
Look, Rudy Crew is a well-respected individual. You are just embarrassed by him. You are abusing your power by immediately nominating him for deletion. He is not non-notable. Dogru14402:32, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Explain the controversial parts to the Rudy Crew page
Where are the controversial parts? The parts that reflect on Giuliani and race are a minor part of the article. The main part deals with Crew's own education and work.
Really, I only created the page to write a bio on Rudy Crew. I happened to notice his comments on Giuliani. He actually criticized Giuliani on the latter's character, not only on the race issue.
You are over-reaching your power to recommend an article for deletion just because of the parts that you object to.
Why not just edit the article itself, raise your points on the Talk Page, or communicate with me? I found it interesting that you were upset with my edits on the Giuliani election article page. Do you have some personal axe to grind? Just because there is something negative on Giuliani does not mean that the edits are done in an unprofessional or libelous manner. Dogru14403:40, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Straw polls
Thanks for the superbly illustrated straw polls article, you and I have been working on the same data. You are relying on David Terr's USA Straw Polls, which is excellent, but it has to be double-checked at times. For instance I tracked down his "NY straw poll" and it turned out it was only the NY-portion results of a nationwide internet poll. On top of that it was 05 instead of 06, and it was incomplete at the time of report (the news source was only a to-date summary of an ongoing poll). The correct nationwide (partial) results of that poll appear at my article (I have not found the final results for that poll; Terr's link to NewsCopy died this month) as "Hugh Hewitt Thanksgiving Straw Poll". I have been working these same polls for a month on and off and extracting the juice out of them, and I'd really be appreciative of a second pair of eyes over my work. It appears the two articles should be combined at some point (your pictorial format could be easily combined with a quarterly breakdown of my article), or else they should directly reference each other (and a Democratic article), but I wanted first to introduce myself and see what your thoughts were (we can also postpone arguing Paul v. Giuliani). Thanks also for fixing the election template, which is how I found you! John J. Bulten00:32, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, "potential candiates" on Template:United_States_presidential_election, 2008
I wish to express a belated appreciation and to congratulate you for elegantly handling the "potential candidate" issue by partioning those into the the "draft movements" and the "self-declared" candidates categories, a month or more ago. Well done. I'm sure we'll figure out something on the current conversation. -- Yellowdesk20:34, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Hey there SouthernTexas. You helped out a lot with the Ronald Reagan article, and continue to enage in discussions and revert vandalism. I don't know if you have an interest in First Lady Nancy Reagan, but I've nominated her for FAC here, and was wondering if you could take a look. Thanks and good luck, Happyme2202:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I've fixed all your minor concerns with the exception of the Strom Thurmond one, but please read my explanation on the FAC page if you wish. Happyme2223:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
If there's an issue, it's much better to tell someone by putting it on the template's talk page or my talk page. Also, a more relevant edit summary would've helped. I've partially reverted the code; if there are issues, show me them and I'll work on the code to fix. As it currently is, Template:Infobox Election is using some pretty nasty, ugly code; I imagine there will be future cleanup work. Cheers. --MZMcBride21:27, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm interested in how the 9/11 Commission report is biased against Guiliani. I admit that the showing facts alongside his attack on Paul makes him look bad, but it's not POV. 74.142.33.9318:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Since that poll occurred in October and the poll won by Mitt Romney was in November, the poll won by Mitt Romney is actually the latest.--SouthernTexas19:20, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand the need to use RFC for this. I issued a last warning, last month and instead of reporting him at AIV the next few people who came along just kept giving him warnings. CJ22:39, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Giuliani ad.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Giuliani ad.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
There have been a series of proposals to initiate a Featured List of the Day on the main page. Numerous proposals have been put forth. After the third one failed, I audited all WP:FL's in order to begin an experiment in my own user space that will hopefully get it going. Today, it commences at WP:LOTD. Afterwards I created my experimental page, a new proposal was set forth to do a featured list that is strikingly similar to my own which is to do a user page experimental featured list, but no format has been confirmed and mechanism set in place. I continue to be willing to do the experiment myself and with this posting it commences. Please submit any list that you would like to have considered for list of the day in the month of January 2008 by the end of this month to WP:LOTD and its subpages. You may submit multiple lists for consideration.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 15:30, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
FEC, committee activity
Can you say, over on the talk page for the presidential candidate template, 2008, your specific objections to a reported $5,000 minimum standard on listing a candidate on the template? Thanks. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 20:43, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
No Personal Attacks
Southern,
You're letting your temper guide you again. I was just looking at your recent DYK suggestion, and your comments have probably condemned Tancredo's article to NOT making it to the main page. A couple of comments. First, the person who made the comment about the use of the pipe is probably correct, the link was misleading. A better solution would have been to make the link to change the link as such:
But what really brought me to your page was to admonish you in a friendly manner. You have crossed the line with some of your statements. This statement is full of personal attacks against another user. I find it very uncivil for you to go asking everybody "Why is than unusual". To tell you the truth that doesn't make any sense and didn't really merit a response. First, if somebody doesn't see why it is unusual, they are free to ask. I often ask because it isn't readily apparent. If somebody asks it means that you probably should tweak the DYK suggestion. Getting a DYK to pass is as much politics as it is an interesting hook. The hook could have been reworked into something like: "When forced to select from the democratic candidates, Conservative Republican Presidential Candidate Tom Tancredo surprised everybody when he identified liberal Barack Obama?" You could possibly even identify Tancredo as "one of the more conservative Republican Presidential Candidates." See how the hook is now explained to people who are not familiar with US politics?
You then went on to say, I ask for an apology because I am tired of being treated like garbage by international users like you. Wikipedia is an international organization and thus is open to people from EVERY country. In fact, one of it's founding principles is that we are NOT US-Centric, but Globally oriented. If you are feeling like you are being treated like garbage, then perhaps it is because of the way you treat them?Balloonman (talk) 06:34, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Archiving?
On another subject, have you considered archiving your page? If you need help doing so, I could help you out or you could check WP:ARCHIVE. Your talk page is over 65KB and that is getting pretty large. Balloonman (talk) 06:40, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
FDR reference request
Hi. I am not trying to cause a problem with the FDR article -- I just think that statement should have a reference. You can read about why Wikipedia articles are not acceptable here. Thanks. Kborer (talk) 00:26, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
You could try asking, politely, for an explanation from the admin who took that step, rather than adding your banner (twice). End of thread. BencherliteTalk01:27, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
DYK
I was talking with some other admins, when suddenly one (not me) noticed that DYK mentioned a current presidential campaign in positive terms. This seemed - to all of us - to be a flagrant breach of our neutral stance, and frankly we were all surprised that it made it onto the front page. I volunteered to replace it, and did so without taking the time to consult the Suggestions archive. Since I had just that afternoon considered adding a hook from my recent article on We Want Your Soul, only to discover that it was a few scant hours too old to be eligible, that potential hook was still fresh in my mind. So I removed the potentially-presidential puffery and replaced it with the WWYS hook.
Five minutes later, DYK was updated and all the entries - including the WWYS hook - were replaced anyway.
I think that replacing the article with one of his own was just an oversight here. Three was some genuine concern that the reference to a presidential campaign could be construed as a lack of neutrality. This should be discussed in more detail at the village pump, so we know what in the future what to do. In this case, it was just a quick reaction to change the DYK. I think it's reasonable for your DYK to be added to the archive, which is much less prominent; you can take credit for it. But until the matter is resolved one way or another, it would probably be best not to nominate election-related articles for main page status. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi, and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.
A few features that you might find helpful:
Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
We have a number of task forces that focus on specific topics, nations, periods, and conflicts.
We've developed a style guide that covers article structure and content, template use, categorization, and many other issues of interest.
The project has a stress hotline available for your use.
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask one of the project coordinators, or any experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! Kirill16:10, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Nope. I already spend too much time on WP as it is, and what I enjoy doing is writing content, not policing others or getting in rules disputes. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
A WikiProject or task force for "U.S. presidential elections"
Hi, As I see there are several editors who work on the articles about "the U.S. presidential elections". I wanted to join but I couldn't find any wikiproject or task force relates to this issue. I propose making at least a task force in Wikipedia:WikiProject United States. Please answer to this comment here--Seyyed(t-c)10:36, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
DYK
On 29 November, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Salado Creek, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
If you feel that you have a legitimate concern, you should take it to WP:ANI or WP:WQA. Taking an issue to a specific admin is not generally viewed as the appropriate avenue. It's best to get an independent perspective of somebody who is 'independent' of both parties.Balloonman (talk) 00:30, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXI (November 2007)
The November 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot02:45, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
My participation in Political positions of ...
Hi, I'm not American. I'm from the country which George W. Bush considers it as a member of axis of evil;-) I'm not aware about your history very well but I usually read articles related to the U.S. foreign policy like "Foreign Affairs". I found most of the articles which relate to candidate of 2008 presidential election are weak from technical viewpoint such as this one. I intend to use the articles of "Foreign Affairs"[4], cfr and some other think thanks instead of speeches which can be found here and there to improve those articles, but can you please give more information before I engage in it. You see, I'm not familiar with political atmosphere of your country which may led to editorial war and prefer to work in a calm situation. Although the history of the articles like [5] don't show editorial war and even the articles don't have semi-protected tag, but please help me to have more useful participation. --Seyyed(t-c)18:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Your assessment of HRC article
Hi. You just assessed Hillary Rodham Clinton as GA-class. It is indeed a GA article ... but by your own project scale, it should be A-class, since it was in FAC not long ago and had a good deal of support, even though it didn't make FA. Thanks. Wasted Time R (talk) 20:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Please address your concerns on Talk Page: Giuliani campaign and Al Thani association
Read my Talk Page contribution. In an edit war you need to discuss this on the Talk Page.
His candidacy = 9/11. Thus, his professional association is most certainly pertinent to the campaign. All the news stories on this associate his resignation and embarrassment to the campaign.
Any Three RR was an accident/technicality: I put the Al Thani wrong guy in and corrected his name & the undo technicality was resulting from the formatting thingies that are hard to remove on the restore I'm talking about the + sign that appears on the left margin. Secondly, any exceeding two edits on this article are not re our present dispute. This would be apparent if you'd note our present dispute. That is, my other edits on this were not battles over the point that we are battling (the Al Thani issue). Yes, I'd like to put past disputes aside. Nonetheless, this dispute needs arbitration. Dogru144 (talk) 02:13, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Southern Texas, and ditto if you are ever nominated, but after my current project with Dick Cheney I'm going to work on some less controversial articles and maybe start voting in some FACs. I really am honored that you would vote for me and I might just take up Epbr123's offer in the future. Thanks a lot, Happyme22 (talk) 00:41, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions with User:William Saturn. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
With regard to your comments on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Political positions of Michael Bloomberg: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.
