User talk:Loonymonkey/archive3

The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		I'm awarding you this RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar for your great contributions to protecting and reverting attacks of vandalism on Wikipedia. Wikidudeman (talk) 20:28, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I invite your comment

Here: Template talk:Obama family#Ugly. Thanks. Just tips me hat but then 〜on thought bows deeply … 00:12, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Dreams from My Father

Hi Loonymonkey, since you had an opinion earlier, if you have a chance could you look at the ongoing discussion at Talk:Dreams from My Father#Real people? Thanks, Priyanath ^talk 23:48, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Uncivil

My comments about his chose of words was uncivil??? I was pointing out his lack of sensitivity in using such highly charged language in a discussion about jews when the first stereotype discusses the issue. I was offended , as I'm sure other readers/editors were. I'm not sure how you could consider my legitamate questions to be baiting? They were not directed at him and I feel your characterization of them was unfair. Where would positive stereotypes about Jews go in an antisemism article? Thuis is why we have the discussion boards. Now if I am missing something, please fill me in.Die4Dixie (talk) 08:59, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Magical negro

Please join the discussion on the talk page if you are interested. -- The Red Pen of Doom 00:21, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories

I've made all my arguments and points and explained myself a few times over in the article talk page and some on my talk page. If you're interested, you can read through that. If you'd still then like to discuss the issue further, we can but would probably be better to do it here. I'll start by answering one of your questions... Was the state of Hawaii in on it? The answer is, they don't have to be... at least not in the way you mean. Anyhow... if you'd like to debate the issue, then feel free. I'm right here. If not, then I understand. JBarta (talk) 00:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I have no interest in debating whether or not some nutjob conspiracy theories are actually true or not. They're not. My interest is in editing articles, and in this case, preventing an article from becoming a coatrack for people who actually believe such insanity. --Loonymonkey (talk) 02:13, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Geni 4

If you see this, would you mind responding to a request for evidence to support your claim here? Thanks. seresin ( ¡? )  00:02, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for not responding to this sooner, I've spent very little time here recently. The specific incident I was describing happened several months ago, so it will take some work to track down the diffs. I will try to get to it tonight or tomorrow. --Loonymonkey (talk) 01:23, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I've tracked them down and added them to my comments on the project page. --Loonymonkey (talk) 02:33, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

"Background" section discussion

I noticed you occasionally edit the 2008 presidential election article. I encourage you to comment/participate here. Timmeh! 02:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Nixon

Thanks for helping out with the article on Nixon, but we have already had this discussion about his name, and decided that there is no formal way to present the information. It was decided that the full name was OK for this particular article. please show me a policy that states otherwise.--Jojhutton (talk) 20:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Where did this discussion take place? I see nothing on the talk page of that article. Was it a private discussion?

I don't have time to track down the relevant MOS discussions at the moment, but in articles about people the common name or article name usually goes in the infobox (ie., "George W. Bush" not "George Walker Bush.") Of course the lede sentence always starts with the full name. --Loonymonkey (talk) 20:13, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

First of all, according to wikipedia, consensus is reached over time. The article was the full name for nearly three years. The discussion has been archived, but I have began a new discussion on the talk page if you wish to find a new consensus. I have no problem with that, but until a new consenus is reached, it should not be changed.--Jojhutton (talk) 20:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Where is this consensus discussion? I've looked through the entire archive and see no discussion of it at all, much less a consensus. I may be overlooking it, can you point me in the right direction? Regardless, we follow the manual of style for these things, so there would have to be a good reason to disregard convention. --Loonymonkey (talk) 00:03, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi, perhaps you would like to join a discussion at Talk:Richard_Nixon#Richard_Milhous_Nixon regarding use of his middle name/initial in the infobox? Thanks, Happyme22 (talk) 23:49, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Obama and Bombings

I'm disputing your revesion of Pexise' edits to Barack Obama regarding bombings; the discussion can be found on the Obama talk page. Zelmerszoetrop (talk) 01:39, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

ELection of 2008

Please do not make comments like "vt - Please don't use phrases like "as per discussion" when it is quite clear that you have no consensus for the change in the relevant discussion. Version 3 seemed to be the agreed upon text." when it is quite clear you do not know what you are talking about.

Please see the discussion section "2004 re-election inappropriately described as "narrow" (or "close")" where it is quite clear that there is significant 'consensus' that the word 'narrowly' is inappropriate. I simply reverted to a change made by another user. I did NOT add in the '3 million vote margin' as was discussed in the subsection, only removed the unnecessary adjective 'narrowly' (already removed by another user), and recognized as inappropriate by BAM/tripodics, myself and other editors including IP 71.178.193.134.

But you are correct about the 3-edit issued. My bad. I will wait until the 24-hour period before re-editing the article. In the future, please refrain from the wording you used to revert my edit. Thanks CaptainChrisD (talk) 02:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Loony, why did you revert my edit? It is 1) a valid interpretation, 2) properly sourced from a reliable publication and 3) at least as relevant and significant as the opposing view stating his victory was "narrow". If you believe that NO characterization is needed, then why not remove BOTH positions, rather than just one? Which is is?

Please remember that one central tenet of Wikipedia is that articles should remain neutral by "representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles, and of all article editors. So why are you removing only ONE perspective? Please be fair. if you think this information doesn't belong in this section, then neither does the adjective 'narrow'. if you think 'narrow' is appropriate, then (as required by the above quote) then the publication of a reliable and sourced counter-position should not be removed either. CaptainChrisD (talk) 19:07, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Unless you can provide a justification for your revert, then it appears to be in violation of wiki's NPOV strictures. So please either provide an explanation, or revert your unjustified revert of my addition. Thanks. CaptainChrisD (talk) 19:10, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Please don't lecture me about NPOV. What you are trying to do is replace one perspective with another perspective. Since both perspectives are contrary, (and can be sourced) it's better to have no characterization whatsoever, just state the facts (which is what I said in my edit summary). You are incorrect when you state that I am pushing for the word "narrow" to be used over the phrase "clear-cut." I favor neither. --Loonymonkey (talk) 19:24, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I am trying to replace NOTHING. I did NOT replace 'narrow' in my last edit. Nor in the one before. In the last one, I cited a legitimate, sourced additional point of view. If you want to remove 'narrow' AND 'clear-cut' please do so. But you didn't...you left 'narrow' and removed 'clear-cut'. So how is that NPOV. So is there a reason you chose to delete ONE side and not the other? If there is no9 legitimate reason for having done so, please remove the word 'narrow'. Thanks CaptainChrisD (talk) 19:27, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, you're correct. I thought that my edit was removing the characterization, not replacing it. I have removed "narrowly." Let's see how long that stays. --Loonymonkey (talk) 19:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. And I apologize for my vitriol last night. I should know better by now than to discuss/post politics late at night. I'm sorry. :) CaptainChrisD (talk) 19:38, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Sr/jr. distinction out

Please, look at the talk page. Cassandro (talk) 21:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up, I wasn't aware of it. We should probably put hidden text stating as much in the infobox for now, otherwise it will just keep getting changed and reverted. --Loonymonkey (talk) 22:42, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Please clarify your comments on this edit

Hi. Please explain why you think the paragrpah that you erased in this edit is not relevant, and please tell me what specific weasel words you think I used. Thank you. Grundle2600 (talk) 22:15, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi again. I understand that you are not here very often. In the meantime, I have reverted your edit to restore my paragraph to the article. When you do come back, please answer my questions from my previous comment. Thank you. Grundle2600 (talk) 18:31, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The best place to discuss it is on the talk page of that specific article, not on my talk page. That way, a consensus can be developed with the input of multiple editors. --Loonymonkey (talk) 01:00, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

That makes sense. Grundle2600 (talk) 01:45, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I did what you suggested, and I took it to the article's talk page. I asked you a question on the talk page. You responded, but you did not answer my question. Why do you think the way the bailout money is being spent is not relevant to the article on the bailout? Why do you continue to refuse to answer this question? Every source that I cited talked about the bailout, so how can you say it's not relevant to the bailout? Grundle2600 (talk) 14:20, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment (Please don't block me because this is all I can do!)

I have received this message today:

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Mao Zedong. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. User:Free Tibet (talk) 03:14, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I do not know why I received it because all I did was change the picture of Adolf Hitler to Mao Zedong on the Mao Zedong page. I do not think it is vandalism and it hasn't even been reverted, as the message says.

And I got to your page when I hit the "talk" link after Free Tibet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.9.86.23 (talk) 05:21, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

NPOV

Wikipedia NPOV policy states, "Neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles, and of all article editors." Reliable sources have reported that the banks and the government have refused to answer questions about how the banks are spending the bailout money. You keep erasing this content, in violation of the wikipedia NPOV policy. Please stop doing this. Grundle2600 (talk) 12:20, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not against mentioning the controversy (as it is already discussed in the article) it is the non-neutral way you've written the additions and the extraneous editorializing that you're attempting to add. So far, you haven't received much support from other editors on this, but if you think you can generate consensus the best place to do so would be on the talk page of that article, not on my talk page (as I've already mentioned to you above). --Loonymonkey (talk) 02:19, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Barack Obama FAR

I have nominated Barack Obama for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. -- Avi (talk) 20:54, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Michelle Obama FAC1

You are one of the leading editors of Michelle Obama and may want to participate in the discussions at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Michelle Obama/archive1.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:28, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I've left a ridiculously short message on Talk:Political positions of Barack Obama#"Outside opinion" versus "political position"

For you, I guess. --Raijinili (talk) 05:19, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

FYI

Your edit to "separation of church and state in the U.S." was fine. But, for your information, there is more than one possible interpretation of the Religion clauses of the Constitution than making "separation" into "the law of the land." Not everyone sees it that way - including a plurality of present Supreme Court Justices, and a number of prominent past Justices. Non Curat Lex (talk) 19:00, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

The points you make are already discussed in the article. I did not say it was the "law of the land." I just removed a childish edit in which someone added "Separation of church and state is not the law of the land!" to the first sentence of the article. --Loonymonkey (talk) 20:24, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

And it was a good edit! We must keep those POV-pushers and their nonsense off that page. Non Curat Lex (talk) 08:29, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Funny

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you.[1]--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:22, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Of course, this is a "joke warning" only, not meant serious at all. LOL. Best, --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:22, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Hardy har har. Yeah, that's the problem with Twinkle. If you accidentally pull the trigger, there's no undoing it.

Take care! --Loonymonkey (talk) 23:32, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Obama talk page

Please see the discussion I started at User talk:ThuranX regarding the citizenship conspiracy theory question. It is best not to use the article talk page to raise, or answer, complaints about other editors because it can make things deteriorate. The simple question has been answered, with a few stray comments at the end. Let's leave it at that and let answered questions sit. Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 22:48, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Brian62275

That guy had been on my watchlist due to some tomfoolery dating back to the fall. I wonder if you know that some time prior to your "final warning" to him today, he had already been indefinitely blocked: [2] Blocked before you even asked. That's what I call "service". :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 22:40, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

We're rid of one more petty vandal, but sadly, the ones that REALLY deserve to get blocked seem to hang around and waste our time for a much longer period of time. --Loonymonkey (talk) 22:59, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

It's a never-ending battle. This guy was under the radar for 6 months or more, and finally pushed it too far. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:07, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Nancy Pelosi

Your most recent edit [3] added information in that was already contained at the end of the 2nd paragraph. Now the section opens and closes with basically the same sentence. Could you please delete either the first sentence of the 1st paragraph, or the last sentence of the 2nd paragraph? TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 18:02, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Done. I removed the one at the end. Since we're discussing her political position it should probably be stated upfront, not after a couple paragraphs of analysis. --Loonymonkey (talk) 18:30, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Loonymonkey. You have new messages at TharsHammar's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 01:14, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Recent edits

Hi Loonymonkey,

Even though you don't appear to have technically violated WP:3RR, you've made three reverts on CNN and Tea Party protests. Also, please don't make edits like this (I see you've refactored it already). It's easy to get mad in these situations; just keep cool. Firsfron of Ronchester 01:39, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for the note. Actually, I only made two edits to CNN, but I'm well aware of 3RR. Note also, that these reverts were of a particularly tendentious and uncivil editor that has since been blocked. Thanks for paying attention, I'll keep it on ice for a bit! --Loonymonkey (talk) 01:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

TomCat4680 (talk) has given you a kitten! Kittens promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Kittens must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a kitten, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Spread the goodness of kittens by adding {{subst:Kitten}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

sorry it looked like an edit war to me. my mistake. TomCat4680 (talk) 02:11, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

No problem. All's well that end's well. Thanks for taking the time to smooth it over. Talk to you soon! --Loonymonkey (talk) 02:15, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Loonymonkey. I'm the publisher of ESA blawg, the law blog discussing the Endangered Species Act. It is my independent, non-profit, educational effort. I am an authority on the topic, with numerous published law reviews, conference appearances, experience as a Justice Department attorney, and service on a relevant federal advisory board. Every week, I track ESA announcements in the Federal Register, ESA caselaw, and ESA articles in the news, and offer links, excerpts and commentary. I make ZERO money on this effort, and have ZERO advertising. But I do have a collection of all the essential ESA related links on my page. My content is useful, tasteful, informative, factual and accessible. I do not use copyrighted material without permission (and rely almost entirely on public domain government entity photos with attribution). Yet twice now, after I add the link to this resource, you deleted it. I notice that you allow the Center for Biological Diversity to keep their link -- and they deserve mention as a critical organization involved in ESA implementation -- despite their obvious self-interests and fundraising issues. I also note that the ESA opposition letter is published. I respectfully request that you re-evaluate your edits. I am not a spam link, and I meet the notability guidelines, with significant and reliable coverage, including links to all sources, and fully independent. Please visit my site. Indeed, many past wikipedia readers have visited my site to learn more about the ESA. In sum, while I commend you for your diligent watchdog activity on wikipedia, I ask you to please reconsider your views in this case. Thank you. http://esablawg.com Keith Esablawg (talk) 03:46, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Stop

Do NOT change the edits on US Citizenship except the ones you disagree with. You keep changing 20 of them instead of the one you claim is "POV" which is BS anyway as an objection. I will find a ref for it if this makes you happy, as it is an obvious point, so keep your shirt on and Do Not change the other edits. Thank you for observing basic courtesy in futuro.

Sorry, but nobody would agree that this edit is anything but POV and WP:OR Inserting your own editorializing into the paragraph, hidden by a ref tag, is absolutely not allowed. If you don't want your good edits thrown out with your bad edits, then don't make bad edits. Also, don't remove tags without correcting the problems they were tagged for. That's simply disruptive. I would suggest you drop your edit war before you get banned and try discussing this on the talk page of that article. (don't forget to sign your posts too, please). Thanks. --Loonymonkey (talk) 20:11, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

New York Times article

The NY Times in generally known to take a liberal stance on issues. In the article concerning the Washington Times, the introduction says that the newspaper is known for its conservative stance. I have no problem with this, but I think the statement of political leanings should be applied consistently to every article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Falconclaw5000 (talk • contribs) 23:13, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

The edit you made was inappropriate for the lede (and allegations of bias are discussed further down in the article). I don't edit the Washington Times article, but that would seem to be a case of other crap exists. --Loonymonkey (talk) 00:07, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL

I am writing this message to you as a notice of my withdrawal from Wikipedia following the recent events/edits on the CNN and Susan Roesgen pages – events that you were involved in. Never in all of my years in academia (the better part of a decade) have I been privy to such patently-insincere and downright academically-fraudulent work as that which I have encountered on Wikipedia.

While I was initially willing to set aside all of the negative things I had heard about Wikipedia in an effort to contribute to a seemingly beneficial project, the actions of editors and administrators on the Susan Roesgen and CNN pages has made it eminently clear that “scholarship” and Wikipedia truly are mutually exclusive – propaganda has carried the day.

My failure to grace the project with some actual academically-sound work was not made in vain; with every neutral editor that you drive out of the project with your blatantly POV-pushing agenda, you further bolster your reputation as nothing but an unreliable propaganda board. Your reputation for unreliability was perhaps best captured in a recent statement made by my corporations professor: “I decided to make myself more ignorant on the topic by looking at the article (Dodge v. Ford Motor Company) on Wikipedia.”

I strongly encourage you to alter your course, set aside your agenda, and reverse your – and Wikipedia’s – reputation as a laughing stock. This will not only benefit the public in general, but will, I submit, actually make you feel better about yourself. Best, J.M.Jm131284 (talk) 03:32, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Haha, okay. Whatever. No loss. The few brief times we crossed paths, it was clear that not only did you not understand how Wikipedia works, but you were unable to interact with others while maintaining even the most minimal level of politeness and civility. I wonder if you consider This edit to be an example of your "academic scholarship." --Loonymonkey (talk) 22:53, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

That edit, which includes the term "terrorist piece of shit barack Osama", makes it pretty clear Jm isn't entirely the "neutral editor" he claims to be in the above message. Firsfron of Ronchester 00:12, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Tea party Astorturf

Just making sure, what was your opinion on the new edit I put up? Soxwon (talk) 21:48, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Indiana Pensioners v. United States Department of the Treasury

Obama's comments are about the actions of the plaintiffs, so they are relevant. Even though he said those things before the plaintifs filed to have the case heard in federal court, Obama's comments are still relevant, because he is trying to justify what the defendant in the case is doing. Actions that took place before the filing of the case are relevant to the case, and thus, to the article. Also, as President, Obama is the boss of the boss of the Treasury Department. Grundle2600 (talk) 20:03, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

No, those comments were not made about the specific plaintiffs in this case. This case did not even exist yet at the time he made those comments. To state otherwise is simply to lie. --Loonymonkey (talk) 20:13, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Obama's Public Image

The ideology section is necessary and relevent because shows what many pundits think of him. Look in public image of Sarah Palin and public image of Hilary Clinton. Both of those pages have negative opinions of what pundits think of them. FOr example, Clinton's page it mentions how she is a polorizing figure. In Palin's article, it mentions how many have criticized her on a number of things, including her ideology. So why is ok for there to be criticisms of Palin/Clinton but not Obama?--Jerzeykydd (talk) 17:58, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't edit those pages, so I can't speak for them. But on this article, it's not criticism that's the problem, it's whether it's actually relevant to the subject. Lengthy editorial quotes from unreliable sources like WND have nothing to do with the public image of Obama (it's doubtful "the public" has ever even heard of WND). I would suggest taking this discussion to the talk page of that article, so we can get the involvement of other editors in this discussion. --Loonymonkey (talk) 18:16, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Editing study

Hi. I know you are on a break, but it would great if you could participate in this. You have played an important role at Barack Obama. Best Mike Lyons (User: lyonspen)

I am a doctoral student at Indiana University. I am conducting research on the writing and editing of high traffic “current events” articles on Wikipedia. I have noticed in the talk page archives at Barack Obama that you have contributed to the editing or maintenance of the article. I was hoping you would agree to fill out a brief survey about your experience. This study aims to help expand our thinking about collaborative knowledge production. Your participation would be immensely helpful in making the study a success. A link to the survey is included below.

Link to the survey: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=P6r2MmP9rbFMuDigYielAQ_3d_3d

Thanks and best regards, Mike Lyons lyonspen | (talk) 19:31, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

3RR

Just so you know, I reported you for your 3RR violation. Please discuss matters on the talk page. --William S. Saturn (talk) 23:46, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

That would be an incorrect report then. And you should know that in matters of dispute, the burden is on the editor seeking to add material to the article to justify its inclusion. You have not made a single post discussing this on the talk page. --Loonymonkey (talk) 23:52, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I didn't add the information, but I saw that its inclusion made the most sense. You should have brought it up on the talk page after the first revert, especially considering the probation. --William S. Saturn (talk) 23:55, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, you should have brought it up on the talk page after the first revert. That's the nature of WP:BRD and also the basis of the "burden for inclusion" that I mentioned above. Since you and Ferrylodge seem quite willing to engage in a tag-team revert war, I'm going to leave this one for other editors to correct. --Loonymonkey (talk) 00:02, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

That's not what you did when you continued to revert. --William S. Saturn (talk) 00:16, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

There isn't much more to discuss here.. I've already seen your propensity for making the same circular argument over and over again on the Public Image article. I don't really any desire to repeat what I've already said quite clearly. --Loonymonkey (talk) 00:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Please show me what you said about countering the inclusion. --William S. Saturn (talk) 00:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Barbara Boxer Page

The discussion you were previously involved in on the Barbara Boxer page (with respect to the Alford accusations) continued in your absence and an attempt at an egalitarian solution was made. Perhaps enough people believe that the Alford allegations - and the controversy surrounding Alford himself - are notable enough to warrant brief mention, and that the "recentism" charge could be debated. Your revert was made summarily and without further contribution to the discussion page. Can we please continue discussing it on the talk page and try to reach a consensus? Best regards, and keep up the hard work. PunkRockRamone (talk) 16:48, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Is there any reason why the Senate majority party shading on the Barbara Boxer page from 2001-2003 has to be red? The Republicans had a majority from January 20, 2001 to June 6, 2001. The Democrats held a majority from January 3 - 20, 2001 and again from June 6, 2001 to January 3, 2003. I received a scary message from you saying that my "disruptive editing" could get me barred from editing the Barbara Boxer page. Strange because at the top of this page it says that you are on a hiatus. Excuse me, but I'm not pushing a point of view here. And thanks to your decision to reverse my changes, I'm considering joining the Wikimedia Board of Trustees. Thanks. Ashprez82 (talk) 08:25, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

You are invited and welcome to join us!

Greetings! Please come and join us for the Wikipedia:The Great Wikipedia Dramaout Grundle2600 (talk) 19:22, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Also protected

Thanks for your report at AIV. I've also protected the page concerned for a few days.--VirtualSteve ^{need admin support?} 01:30, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. There seems to be some IP hopping going on, so I was going to request that as a next step if needed. Thanks for your attention to the matter. --Loonymonkey (talk) 01:33, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Always a pleasure. Keep well.--VirtualSteve ^{need admin support?} 01:42, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Please, do not put in false information to Barack Obama article

He was a part time faculty member, not a professor. A professor is stretching the truth. If he put professor in his resume and applied for a job, he could be fired.

Being a part time faculty member is no shame. Henry Kissinger was just that.

Please, do not re-insert wrong information. Gaydenver (talk) 13:33, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Please see the talk page for long-ago reached consensus on this issue and discuss before changing again. --Loonymonkey (talk) 19:37, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Sotero

Where is the source that Sotero was non-practicing Muslim? Doesn't going to mosque to prayer constitute practicing? Bachcell (talk) 21:49, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

The best place to discuss edits is on the talk page of the article in question. It's better to have more editors involved in the discussion. --Loonymonkey (talk) 22:28, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

hmm?

I'm curious about that warning, how did I vandalize the page by reverting your edit which restored the vandalism?--SKATER ^Speak. 17:53, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh wait, I see what happened there. I hate it when pages are so heavily vandalized that the vandal hunters trip over one another. --SKATER ^Speak. 17:55, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yeah I see what happened now. I reverted vandalism, but it reverted to a previous vandalized state. You reverted my edit back to the more recent vandalized state. I've rolled it back to correct. Sorry for the misunderstanding. --Loonymonkey (talk) 17:57, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Taxpayer March on Washington

Look at the talk page. Nowhere does it say in the given source that they are ALL conservative sources. Case in point: Daily Mail. Stop edit warring with me until you can show a quote from the source that backs claim. Until then I will revert because you are the one insisting we change something without discussing it and giving no evidence other than your opinion and interpretation. --Triadian (talk) 23:47, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Promising to edit war will only get you blocked. --Loonymonkey (talk) 23:49, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Where did I say that? I'm just warning you the same. --Triadian (talk) 23:59, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Um, see directly above. "Until then I will revert....." You have already been warned and then subsequently violated WP:3RR. I don't have time to file a report right now, but I have a feeling another editor will. --Loonymonkey (talk) 00:02, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Loonymonkey, the other estimates were not bloggers. They were the official estimates given by the organizations organizing the event. Morphh ^(talk) 17:55, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Nonetheless, they are from an unreliable (and self-serving) source. To state it without caveats give undue weight to something that is factually incorrect. --Loonymonkey (talk) 17:58, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

The source is from the LA Times, and you can't exclude a minority viewpoint because it's supposedly self serving. Almost all viewpoints are self serving in some way. It does not give undue weight as it states what most media reported. It attributes that minority viewpoint. You can not say what is "factually incorrect" - that is not your or my place as an editor and against NPOV. Morphh ^(talk) 18:03, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

No, again, you're confusing the source. The LAT did not say that, they said that someone else said it (and point out that it's likely incorrect). To give both figures without a caveat (as if they have equal validity) gives undue weight to the one that comes from an unreliable source. And yes, self-serving sources are not reliable. See WP:RS for further explanation of this. --Loonymonkey (talk) 18:18, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

You're confusing the term source. What is defined as a source in Wikipedia is the publisher of the content. In this case, the LA Times reported the news - they are the source for substantiating verifiability. The LA Times is not self-serving and this is not a fringe theory. What the LA Times reported was "The two groups that sponsored the event offered more modest but widely varying numbers. Pete Sepp, a National Taxpayers Union spokesman, said the group estimated the crowd at 75,000 in the morning and from 200,000 and 300,000 as the day went on. FreedomWorks spokesman Adam Brandon put his "conservative" estimate at 600,000 to 800,000 after comparing photographs of Saturday's protest with previous events." We can not label an organization unreliable for their own point of view - it makes no sense. The source is reliable and the content verifiable for that point of view. I don't see where they point out that it's likely incorrect. They present different opinions and let the reader decide, which is exactly what we're suppose to do. Morphh ^(talk) 18:44, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

No, you're confused on source. The LAT is the source for the fact that Freedomworks made the claim but not the source for the claim itself. The source for the claim (the actual figure) is a non-RS and self-serving source (and I use the term "self-serving" because that means something very specific in the WP:RS language of wikipedia). The LAT's reliability and verifiability is not conferred on the subject of their article or the claims made by them (in this case Freedomworks). By way of analogy, if the LAT reported that "John Doe claims the earth is flat" we would not say "according to the LA Times, the Earth is flat." --Loonymonkey (talk) 19:23, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

The analogy doesn't make any sense as we have not claimed the LA Times arrived at those figures. The correct thing to say using your analogy would be "John Does says the Earth is flat." and source the LA Times. I guess we could go back and forth but this is a secondary source reporting on a primary source (see WP:SECONDARY). This is exactly the type of sourcing we're to use to verify a statement. You're digging to far into it if you're suggesting that the primary source within a secondary source must also be defined as a reliable source. That is not what our policies state. In any case, NTU is a reliable primary source for NTU's opinion, which is verifiable from a third party secondary source and attributed to the organization. Morphh ^(talk) 20:14, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

That's my point exactly. The language as it was written did not present this as NTU's opinion, but presented it as a legitimate fact, on equal footing with what the reliable sources were saying. --Loonymonkey (talk) 20:27, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Which edit are you talking about... it's gone through several revisions. If you speaking of the one that just stated the estimates without attribution, than I agree with you. I did that in an attempt to minimize the content as much as possible but still present the view, but in doing so, it may have given it more credibility than it deserved. I'm completely fine with the statement as currently written. Morphh ^(talk) 20:37, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Family of Barack Obama

I have checked Wikipedia's policy of vandalism and there is nothing that states properly describing a photograph is vandalism. Please clarify how describing a photograph of the White House Easter Egg roll is vandalism, and if so, why the warning did not follow the progressive warning system set forth by Wikipedia standards. All I see is one "last warning" comment under the threat of blocking for something that is within Wikipedia guidelines. USN1977 (talk) 20:16, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I really have to apologize for that one. It appeared to be obvious vandalism, but on closer examination it clearly wasn't. I've left a longer explanation on your user talk. My bad. --Loonymonkey (talk) 21:25, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Your revert of my recent edit to the Presidency of Barack Obama article

I have challenged this revert at Talk:Presidency of Barack Obama#Guantánamo Bay detention camp subsection. Please unrevert or discuss there. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 05:05, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I discussed it there before I made the revert. No need to bring it to my talk page. --Loonymonkey (talk) 19:09, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

linking Time-Lapse video to Taxpayer March on Washington article

dear loony, now that we know that NBC Nightly News has negated your assertion that the time-lapse video "contains no information whatsoever" by airing footage of the March (showing Pennsylvania Avenue full of people from 14th St to the Capitol) from the same traffic camera on their show that evening (9-12-2009), would you please have the intellectual honesty and moral courage to go to the Talk page and reverse yourself? the NBC News segment is RS and verifiable, so both your objections have been answered. if you're not able to do this, could you at least explain to me why NBC News would show traffic-cam footage that contained no information whatsoever during their evening news broadcast? links to the NBC Nightly News segment and the time-lapse video are on the Talk page. thanks. Kenatipo (talk) 05:58, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure which specific article you're referring to, but the best place to discuss changes is on the talk page there so multiple editors can become involved. Also, it would help your case if you dropped the combative and insulting tone. --Loonymonkey (talk) 15:05, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

the article is called Taxpayer March on Washington. your reason is the one given for the block. and, i don't feel like taking on editors three or four at a time. Kenatipo (talk) 17:24, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll go back and look at what you're talking about, but if you're trying to get consensus to put something in the article, discussing it with several editors on the talk page there is the only way to do it. If you just want to argue with me personally, I have no interest in that. I don't use wikipedia for political debates. --Loonymonkey (talk) 21:32, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

How can I go back to the article talk page when the article owner, APK, has determined that this issue is already "resolved", citing a reason given by you? Kenatipo (talk) 06:36, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Anita Dunn

Loony, I don't agree with all (most though) of your edits on the Anita Dunn article, but I agree with your approach. Consider me supportive of your desire to open the article up to a wider editing audience. I also like editors that have basic grammar skills. HyperCapitalist (talk) 01:38, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks and likewise. Yeah, the article is currently deadlocked (basically it's 3 against 2 and the 3 are more willing to edit-war). I don't edit war, but I also don't like to see a BLP get attacked. I am opening a case on the BLP noticeboard and am going to wait for some input from non-involved editors. I also invited the admin that protected the article to weigh in. I have a feeling the larger community will look at the situation in a different light.

Thanks for your efforts. --Loonymonkey (talk) 01:49, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm trying to build consensus about the changes that need to be made: Talk:Anita_Dunn#Building_Consensus_-_Mao_.26_Mother_Theresa. I'd like us to focus on the current state, and discuss what changes need to be made from there. We'll never fully agree, but we can find a middle ground. Jwesley78 (talk) 14:07, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Just a heads up on the Mao worshipping Dunn.Jimintheatl (talk) 14:06, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

350.org

Hi there,

I was trying to delete the part of the article that is in dispute, which I now understand is how things are done until you reach consensus at the talk page. But it appears that an edit conflict came up between us. I was trying to do the right thing here, as advised by admins.

I would appreciate it if you would post on the noticeboard on the Talk page that I was trying to do the deletion suggested.

Also, the admin that blocked my last two accounts did so because of my username. He is now fine with this one.

Thanks, --MoonHoaxBat (talk) 02:47, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

According to the logs, you were blocked for harassment, edit-warring, etc., not just your user name. Blocked users are not allowed to edit articles under another account. Sorry. --Loonymonkey (talk) 02:51, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

So, to clarify, if Jehochman unblocks me for the things other than username, I can post under this one?--MoonHoaxBat (talk) 03:09, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

My intention was to allow the user to pick a new account if things were explained. That's happened. The user is okay to edit, as long as they don't cause new trouble. Jehochman ^Talk 16:39, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Election map

Hi. Please refer to my comments on the talk page for the 2008 Election article regarding the map that you have removed. Hopefully I have explained why it passes muster. Thanks. Talk:United_States_presidential_election,_2008#Map --Jtshelton (talk) 16:26, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

The so-called employee free choice act

Hey, if you want to assert that a cite does not say what it clearly does say, how about actually coming to the discussion page to discuss it, rather than treating edit summaries like a discussion space? Why the hell am I the one being accused of edit warring, when I'm the only one actually willing to talk on the discussion page?Heqwm2 (talk) 03:32, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it's your incivility and your history of attacking other editors that drives people away from discussion with you and gets you blocked repeatedly. Just a guess. --Loonymonkey (talk) 16:58, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Anita Dunn

If we could agree that something minimal should be said about the "Mao" incident, would you consider writing the paragraph (or sentence) which would be proposed for inclusion? If it's both neutral and accurate, I would give it my full support. Jwesley₇₈ 19:24, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

As I've said many, many times the speech is non-notable to her biography and Beck didn't make it notable. I would go along with putting a sentence in the "Fox News" paragraph about Beck devoting extensive time to criticizing her on his show, but repeating his editorializing or filling it out with all those ridiculous quotes and counter-quotes. --Loonymonkey (talk) 16:32, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Our Hungarian IP POV-pusher

He's trying too hard to come across as a non-native English speaker. There's a large body of ex-pat Americans who live there - and (if you read the Hungarian blogs), they're largely virulently anti-Obama. Sigh. --4wajzkd02 (talk) 00:34, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

POV-pushing

I see that you are editing dozens of articles to remove the word "liberal" to describe liberal organizations, including organizations that self-describe as liberal. I view this as POV-pushing in bad faith, because you are not doing this with any organizations on the political right. Please undo your edits, which are disruptive. THF (talk) 01:35, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Please learn a little more about these categories before attacking other editors (and really, you might want to learn about the basic rules of Wikipedia too, which include assume good faith). The category is used ONLY for organizations that self-identify as such, otherwise it is arbitrary (and arbitrary categories get deleted). Some time ago it was proposed for deletion along with several other categories (such as Liberal Politicians and Liberal Magazines which were all deleted). The result was that it was kept because many organizations self-identify as liberal (or are focused on studying or advancing large "L" Liberalism). However, this is a very narrow criteria. Inclusion in the category cannot be simply based on the opinion of an editor (or the opinion of a third-party). Categories, because they are not referenced must be absolutely objective. One editor who did not know this added this category to dozens of articles inappropriately. I reverted this. If, as you claim, one of these organizations actually does self-identify as a "liberal organization" then please let me know which one and I will self revert. --Loonymonkey (talk) 15:29, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of your good faith, your edits have the effect of POV-pushing. You're not doing any research before removing the text, and are simply indiscriminately deleting accurate information -- and only doing so for left-wing organizations. Moreover, it is quite clear from Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_January_22#Category:American_progressive_organizations that there is not a consensus in support of your position, so the effect of your edits is disruption. Please stop doing it, and revert your previous edits. I've checked two of your edits, and both were incorrect; I shouldn't have to continue checking when you clearly haven't done the research. THF (talk) 16:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

You can hurl insults and continue to assume bad faith, or you can point to a specific edit. What organization that self-identifies as liberal did I remove the category from? --Loonymonkey (talk) 16:52, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

You removed "liberal" from People for the American Way twice, including once after I informed you that it self-identified. And you removed "progressive" from the self-identified Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. In short, you've made three edits to pages that I follow, and all three were factually incorrect. And you don't address any of the other arguments I make about your edits. I'm not assuming bad faith: you've stated your good faith reasons for doing so. But I've now explained why these edits are disruptive. Please stop, and go back to the edits you've already done, and double-check for self-identification. You have no good-faith reason for not doing that, given the evidence for the inaccuracies in your process. THF (talk) 16:56, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Don't just tell me it's in the bible, quote me chapter and verse. Link to PFAW self-identifying as liberal, please? Also, a link to Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) self-identifying as liberal as you added that category back in an edit. Thanks. --Loonymonkey (talk) 17:08, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

You make it very hard to believe that you're acting in good faith when you rewrite the ProgressNow article to remove all references to "liberal," but keep the phrase "conservative Independence Institute." I see POV-pushing when that happens. If you're so concerned about adjectives, why not edit the articles about AEI or Heritage or Americans for Tax Reform? THF (talk) 23:56, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

So you were wrong when you said that you had evidence they self-identified as liberal? I think you owe me an apology then, not only for your edit warring but for the tone of your comments. As for those other articles, I don't edit them. I can't edit every article on Wikipedia, nor can anyone. People edit the articles they're interested in. --Loonymonkey (talk) 03:48, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

You edited ProgressNow in a decidedly POV-pushing fashion, which you apparently have no interest in defending, so, yes, you have successfully rebutted my assumption of good faith by proving your own bad faith. THF (talk) 03:52, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Physician heal thyself. You're edit warring to push POV. These categories are only for organizations that self-identify. If you can't show any evidence of such, it doesn't belong. I don't know how much more simply I can explain it to you. --Loonymonkey (talk) 03:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

These categories are only for organizations that self-identify. Absolutely false. Consensus is otherwise. Your edits are disruptive and POV-pushing. THF (talk) 03:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

You need to do your research. That's absolutely true and the only reason these categories still exist. Otherwise, they would fail WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE. Also, it's interesting how you changed your argument from claiming they do self-identify (above) to claiming that they don't need to (incorrect). --Loonymonkey (talk) 04:02, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

They do self-identify. It's on every page of their website. No one applies WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE to descriptions of conservative organizations, so I'm simply seeking neutral consistency. If you're concerned about SUBJECTIVE rather than POV-pushing, prove it. I'm still waiting for a shred of a good-faith justification for your POV-pushing on ProgressNow. THF (talk) 04:05, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

You're arguing in circles here. Let's go back to step two, above. Quote it and link it where they self-identify as liberal and you'll get no argument from me on the category. Well? --Loonymonkey (talk) 04:12, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Inter alia, the PFAW press release in http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2007/08/top_liberal_foe_of_conservativ.html : “I am looking forward to helping People For strengthen its role as the most effective, multi-issue, multi-dimensional progressive organization in the nation.” This isn't controversial with anyone except you. THF (talk) 04:20, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Did you even read it? It says progressive, not liberal. There is a separate category for organizations that self-identify as progressive. I'll take your failure to find a single example as your admission that there aren't any such examples in existence. For that matter, can you provide an example of self-identification for any of the other articles you've been adding this category to? No? Do you see a problem with this behavior?--Loonymonkey (talk) 04:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

This is now my fourth request for you to justify your one-sided edit on ProgressNow. Since you're just blindly reverting all of my edits (even though I've been picking and choosing through your edits and actually bothering to do research, unlike you), I've raised the issue at WP:NPOVN rather than take your bait to get into an edit-war. We'll see how good-faith you are about it when you revert your disruptive edits to PFAW. THF (talk) 04:20, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

If you have an example of ProgressNow self-identifying as liberal, please show me and I will agree that the category is appropriate. But until then, and until you can follow the basic process of editing civilly, there isn't anything to discuss. --Loonymonkey (talk) 04:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

This is now a fifth request: why did you keep the adjective "conservative" in the very same article? THF (talk) 04:49, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Guess what, I don't edit every paragraph of every article. See WP:OTHERCRAP, or edit it yourself if it bothers you. Back to the subject, I'm wondering when you'll admit that you were less than truthful in your claim that PFAW self-identifies as "Liberal." --Loonymonkey (talk) 04:51, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Nina Totenberg

Thanks for contributing there but I suspect your edit will be quickly reverted by Drrll. As you can see from the talk page there, he doesn't take no for an answer too well. Gamaliel (talk) 04:21, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Why the sudden interest in the Totenberg article? The edit you reverted was made 4 days ago, was not referenced on a noticeboard, and you have no history of involvement in the article or its Talk page.--Drrll (talk) 09:27, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Editors are free to edit whatever article they wish. Interrogating editors about their motives like this is inappropriate. Gamaliel (talk) 14:55, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

My interest is in BLP violations. Did you believe you have more of a right to contribute to the article than others? --Loonymonkey (talk) 15:45, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't believe you have any less of a right to contribute to the article. I was curious what prompted you to jump in at this time to an article you haven't contributed to in the past and one that didn't have any current noticeboard entries.--Drrll (talk) 17:20, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I think a valid concern is that your interest in BLP violations seems to be restricted to removing criticism of liberal icons, even when that criticism is well-sourced and meets BLP. A more consistent approach to BLP would go a long way in demonstrating good faith; otherwise you look like a single-purpose account. Can I humbly suggest you take a look at John Yoo? He's a former colleague of mine, so I can't fix the problems in that article, but it certainly doesn't meet BLP standards. THF (talk) 16:16, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Again, I implore you to read WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. You seem to have this mistaken idea that if I edit one article I have an obligation to edit other articles "for balance." Wikipedia is a big place, I'm not everywhere. I've never edited (or even read) the John Yoo article, but I imagine you're correct as biographies of polarizing figures (particularly anything to do with politics of the last ten years) are constantly under attack and suffer from WP:BLP and WP:COATRACK problems. Contrary to your accusation, my approach to BLP is very consistent. I've made the same arguments on Glenn Beck and Michelle Bachmann. I invite you to provide a diff where I have contradicted these standards or to apologize for for your regular assumption of bad faith and your false accusation. As in the past, I'm not going to hold my breath. --Loonymonkey (talk) 16:31, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm politely indicating to you what a perception is of your editing strategy, and how one can counteract that perception. Feel free to ignore it, but then don't be surprised when others question your good faith. Have a good day. THF (talk) 17:01, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, so you come to LM's page and make accusations about bias and ulterior motives ("politely", of course!), then ask for assistance at a totally unrelated article? You sure know how to win friends and influence people. Gamaliel (talk) 17:37, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I made no accusations about good faith or bad faith. I pointed out that, factually, his editing history is indistinguishable from that of a SPA. The article isn't totally unrelated: it's another legal figure with BLP problems. Whether Loonymonkey decides to deal with those BLP issues will speak for itself and his preferences, and others might reasonably draw inferences about his motives. I've never seen "WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS" used successfully as a defense to WP:SPA problems, but Loonymonkey is welcome to ignore my advice, though I'd personally suggest using less snark. I'm disengaging, and you can have the WP:LASTWORD. THF (talk) 19:46, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Your very first sentence is in fact an accusation, whether or not you choose to admit that or to hide behind a facade of politeness. Gamaliel (talk) 20:04, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Either you're engaging in your usual hyperbole, or you clearly don't understand what a WP:SPA is. I suspect the latter, given your disregard for much more basic Wikipedia prinicipals (WP:3RR, WP:NPA, WP:AGF, etc.). Hopefully one day you'll find your way towards discussion of articles and consensus building and move away from this personal vendetta you seem to be on. Even in article space, you seem completely incapable of framing an argument that isn't about the person you're arguing with which, for a lawyer, is really pretty sad. --Loonymonkey (talk) 15:59, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

BLP concerns at Nina Totenberg

I respect your concerns for BLP at Nina Totenberg. While we don't want the section to look like "piling on", I think it is only appropriate that we mention she's been attacked by conservative commentators. We might be able to make the section shorter by being less specific about their attacks. I did that with the whole second amendment thing. My interest right now is to try to get the prose to be as clear as possible that it is conservatives who are attacking her. How does that strike you? ScienceApologist (talk) 03:03, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

SPI case

I am informing you that I have filed a WP:SPI case which indirectly involves you here. DD2K (talk) 22:15, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I've been away for a few weeks (see note at top of page), but I'm not really sure what you're talking about. My name isn't mentioned anywhere in there (and I'm obviously not a sock of anyone). Perhaps you have me confused with someone else? --Loonymonkey (talk) 09:51, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of New Party (United States)

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is New Party (United States). We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Party (United States). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do wite withh this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:09, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Democratic Party

To Loonymonkey Regarding Democrat vs Democratic we will have to agree to disagree, I do not consider Democrat an epithet, I consider it a noun, Democratic is a verb, regardless in response to your earlier post many of my edits I have used the term Democratic. Wiki pages are supposed to be edited neutrally not based upon our political views, I will use proper grammar regarding the term. However regardless of how I write the term as this is a wiki you are free to change the term to your hearts desire. Wmcewenjr

It's not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of fact. The name of the party is the Democratic Party, not the "Democrat Party." (Also, "democratic" is an adjective, not a verb). Thank you for making the effort to spell it correctly the first time so that others don't have to waste time correcting it. --Loonymonkey (talk) 00:05, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

seeking consensus

Please see the discussion in Talk:The New York Times and the Holocaust#Seeking Consensus. Cimicifugia (talk) 13:54, 29 May 2010 (UTC)cimicifugia

Holocaust denial

You may be interested to learn you've been accused of this. I've raised the matter here [4].Bali ultimate (talk) 13:58, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh boy, that's a rich one. That's what I get for taking a month off..the nuts never don't rest. I'm going to just cite Godwin's Law and claim victory. --Loonymonkey (talk) 23:26, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Nancy Pelosi

Thanks, I missed that one. Politics2012 is keeping me buzy. GoodDay (talk) 16:28, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

No prob. Also see my last edit. I'm going to leave a note on the talk page. It's arcane parliamentary stuff, but technically nobody "runs for" Minority Leader, that's just what the leader of the minority party is commonly known as. --Loonymonkey (talk) 16:40, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. GoodDay (talk) 16:44, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Fourteenth Amendment Article

Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

Hi, I saw you UNDID all my work.

lol.

Yes, it's shocking information, the things courts and governments declare.

There's no escaping it, Amendment XIV is all about state's Rights.  That's what the American Civil War was about.

Anyway, you justified your UNDO on the basis of WP:OR and WP:RS.

This is a primary source:

"[9, 10] The privileges and immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects very few rights because it neither incorporates any of the Bill of Rights nor protects all rights of individual citizens.  See Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S.(16 Wall.) 36, 21 L.Ed. 394 (1873).  Instead, this provision protects only those rights peculiar to being a citizen of the federal government; it does not protect those rights which relate to state citizenship." -- JONES V. TEMMER 829 F. SUPP. 1226 (D.COLO. 1993)

What is required to make that NOT WP:RS?

The other source cited is U.S.C., Title 42, § 1982:

42 U.S.C. § 1982 : US Code - Section 1982, currently makes a lawful distinction between federal citizens of the United States and white Citizens (non-Fourteenth Amendment Citizens outside the jurisdiction of Congress; SEE: Washington, Franklin, Jefferson): "All citizens of the United States shall have the same right, in every State and Territory, as is enjoyed by white citizens thereof to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property."

CLICK HERE TO VERIFY.

What is required to make that NOT WP:RS?

In 1968, the Utah Supreme Court in Dyett v. Turner, 20 Utah 2d 403, 439 P.2d 266., discussed issues and contentions surrounding the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment. The court declared:

"In regard to the Fourteenth Amendment, which the present Supreme Court of the United States has by decision chosen as the basis for invading the rights and of the sovereign states, it is appropriate to look at the means and methods by which that amendment was foisted upon the Nation in times of emotional stress. We have no desire at this time to have the Fourteenth Amendment declared unconstitutional. In fact, we are not asked to do that. We merely want to show what type of a horse that Court has to ride in order to justify its usurpation of the prerogatives of the states."

CLICK HERE TO VERIFY.

What is required to make that NOT WP:RS?

I'll post this on the discussion page, too.

Thanks. -- Exxess (talk) 00:16, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't doubt that those particular examples are authentic. But pulling quotes and examples from the records actual case law in order to state a (very controversial) opinion as fact is the very definition of WP:OR. No need to reply here, we can discuss there so other editors can weigh in. --Loonymonkey (talk) 16:08, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Loonymonkey. You have new messages at Talk:List of defense of marriage amendments to U.S. state constitutions by type.
Message added 10:17, 18 January 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Non-English references

Hi, you state in an edit summary reverting me on Theodore N. Kaufman that only English-language references are allowed on en.wikipedia. Where is this stated? I believe you will find the MOS says something very different. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:30, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Democrat Party

I am not engaged in an edit war, in Democrat party (phrase), I am following wikipedia guidelines. I object to the accusation.129.133.127.244 (talk) 00:37, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Please read WP:3RR. By definition, you ARE involved in an edit war (and against consensus, without discussion, which is even more egregious). --Loonymonkey (talk) 01:11, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I am not in an edit war, nor am I violating the three revert rule. You should not make reckless allegations.129.133.127.244 (talk) 02:48, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

You need to step back and have a different admin review this article. Rjensen has been using the article to prove his opinion in a controversy, not reporting the existence of a controversy. If you cannot see that, then ask someone else.129.133.127.244 (talk) 02:54, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

A different admin speaking here: you are simply wrong. This article is solidly researched and well-sourced, and your changes are in violation of consensus, and un-discussed on the talk page. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:23, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Sheila Jackson Lee

I would encourage you to attempt to actually discuss the matter instead of attempting to intimidate users with whom you have disagreements. Trilemma (talk) 15:32, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I have discussed it with you. I would encourage you to actually listen to what I and other editors are telling you instead of shouting WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and repeatedly reverting. This edit that you keep trying to make is completely defamatory, violates WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, WP:RS and the general tone of wikipedia. At some point you're going to have accept the fact that all of the other editors telling you this might be right and you might be wrong. Until then, if you continue to unilaterally edit-war, you're likely to get blocked. That's simply a fact, not intimidation. If you really feel you're right and everyone else is wrong, take it up at one of the noticeboards. But be aware that you're unlikely to receive a different response. --Loonymonkey (talk) 19:43, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Handover at The Times

Hello. I see you reverted my addition of the handover, per NOTNEWS. I'm well aware of what news is, and the fact that wikipedia isn't in the habit of breaking it. But the fact that Abramson will be the first woman top editor in the history of The Times is notable, and certainly deserves mention, possibly in the lede.[5] I've left a message for another newspaper veteran to solicit his opinion. Regards, MarmadukePercy (talk) 21:40, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I have addressed this on the talk page. Regards, MarmadukePercy (talk) 00:22, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Sheila Jackson Lee

If you can not discuss a page without bringing your political biases into it, then you should avoid the page. I suggest you change your editing and discussion habits or else I will have to seek action against you. Trilemma (talk) 02:55, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Physician heal thyself. I would suggest you try assuming good faith and avoiding personal attacks. This isn't the first time that this has been mentioned to you. --Loonymonkey (talk) 15:10, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Bachmann migraines

There are currently 500+ news articles regarding Bachmann's migraines. [6] I think it's definitely became an issue already, and an issue of personal health seems like something that should belong in a person's article. I tried to write it briefly and NPOV (simply stating the claims, and mentioning that Bachmann has denied it), but if you believe the language was too POV, could you please revise it instead of deleting the whole thing (including parts that were there before my edit)? Seleucus (talk) 15:31, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

(I prefer to discuss this at the article so other editors can weigh in) The story does seem to be picking up steam today and possibly becoming a campaign issue (possibly) but it's still not much of a biographical issue. I would say wait a day or two and see what happens. There's no rush, and we're not news. --Loonymonkey (talk) 17:28, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Removed 2 categories

Hi. I see that you removed two categories here. This magazine is generally considered to be pretty political, using book reviews basically as a launching point for long essays, often about politics, although sometimes about literature and culture. Do you still think the categories should be removed? Please let me know at my talk page or the article's talk page. If I don't hear from you, I'll assume that you didn't realize the magazine is a political magazine and put the cats back in. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:17, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. OK, I see why it is better to leave out the "liberal" one, but don't we need to recognize that it is a "political" magazine? I would guess that more than half the content expressly concerns political topics.... How familiar are you with it? If not very, check out their website and see what you think. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:02, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Request For Arbitration

This is to notify you that a request for arbitration has been made regarding Barbara Boxer. Please see the Case File if you wish to leave a comment. --BETA 14:02, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Paul Krugman

"Krugman is not notable for being criticized, he's notable for being an economist, NYT columnist and Nobel prize winner." Three points. (1) Wikipedia bios are not limited to talking about what makes someone notable. (2) To imagine that he hasn't been provoking controversy -- hence criticism -- from almost the beginning of what he called his "second career" (journalism) is to leave out pretty much half his adult life -- and much of the "noting" that contributes to his notability. (3) He would have met Wikipedia standards for notability as a journalist and academic even if he'd never been an NYT columnist and a Nobel Prize winner.

Look: I'm a huge fan of the guy. Just read what I wrote in the recent discussion. Also look at my history of contributions to the article (many of them quite substantive in the middle of talk page riots by people who never really contributed much to the article itself).

In this case, some people with an ax or two to grind (specifically Vision Thing and Freeloader) were trying to use one opinion piece (disguised as a "profile" of Krugman) in the estimable Economist to make it seem as sensible centrists only saw Krugman dressing up leftist political biases as intellectually respectable economics. As I point out in the discussion of how to use that source (um, did you read that discussion?), the Economist piece they want to cite as if it were the last word on criticism of Krugman is riddled with errors, and shouldn't be considered a reliable source of anything except substantiation that The Economist has criticized him. I was simply trying to let them have their way about the fact that he's been criticized, and only wanted to point out that, if you include mention of that criticism in the lead, one should also mention that he's been criticized from other points on the political spectrum (even if mainly from the right, a distinction just smudged by a change in the lead by someone with very little editing history.) This undeniable fact about a certain degree of heterogeneity in Krugman's political views (and in political perceptions of him) just doesn't fit with a certain perception of Krugman as typifying the Left in America. I happen to find most of these criticisms unfounded, no matter where they emanate from in the spectrum. But going into why I think so definitely crossed into WP:SYNTH. Yakushima (talk) 15:55, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

obamacare

i agree that the article should not keep using the term "obamacare". However, we need to get real and acknowledge the term. I say use it once as a paraenthesis.

We cannot be partisan and choose what we like and use it. For example, we often refer to the "expiring Bush tax cuts" but that is very bias. First of all, there was a formal name to the law and it is not "bush tax cuts" any more than it is "obamacare". Second, it was extended by obama so it is now the obama tax cuts. I am surprised that he doesn't take credit for this since he has a reputation of raising taxes, not cutting them. Midemer (talk) 01:33, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

If one were to only get their information from right-wing blogs, one might believe that Obama has a reputation for "raising taxes" (when, in fact, he hasn't ever raised taxes). One might also believe certain other myths about "Obamacare," 1099 forms, etc. that have nothing to do with a biography. But we rely on reliable sources here.--Loonymonkey (talk) 01:39, 26 February 2012 (UTC)