User talk:Capitalismojo

AfD Nomination

Bebe Bryans, a page you created, has been nominated for deletion. Mrh30 (talk) 12:51, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Laona

I answered your question in long form on my talkpage. That's why it took so long to get an answer. Royalbroil 19:16, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

20 years in state govt.?

What agency? --Orange Mike | Talk 15:00, 24 October 2008 (UTC) (DCF; on break)

I started in DILHR and ended at DOA. No longer a state employee.Capitalismojo (talk) 18:11, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Coords

Hi. When you're adding coordinates to an article, note whether your source is using decimal degrees or degrees, minutes, & seconds, and format accordingly. For instance, according to the GNIS, Laona Junction is at

Latitude(DEC) 	Longitude(DEC) 	Latitude(DMS) 	Longitude(DMS) 
45.6560737 	-88.6940028 	453922N 	0884138W  

The latter pair needs to be split: {{coord|45|39|22|N|088|41|38|W |[etc.]}}, but the former pair could be used as-is: {{coord|45.6560737|-88.6940028 |[etc.]}}.
—WWoods (talk) 21:33, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Many thanks for your comments. I find the Wisconsin towns to be very interesting-unique history, etc. The same can be said of the unincorporated communities in Wisconsin.RFD (talk) 21:53, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks-

Many thanks for your comments-I hope you are feeling better.I know what it is like not feeling very well.Also I help out with the Padus, Wisconsin article.RFD (talk) 21:55, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Michael Kelly

Regarding Michael Kelley - many neoconservatives still think of themselves as liberals. Originally, the term neoconservative was used to describe liberals who moved to the right, politically. Then during the Reagan years a large number of former liberals took to the concept, beginning with Irving Kristol and Norman Podhoretz, the founders of the modern ideology of neoconservatism. While Michael Kelley calls himself a liberal and vigorously defends that position, he is indeed much more aligned politically with Iraq policies of the neo-neocons, I suppose they should be called. There's a great article about neocons here on Wikipedia which discusses the origins. Age Happens (talk) 04:29, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Some of them are renegade social democrats, many formerly members of the old Social Democrats USA; and there is a controversial theory that some of their ideological underpinning derives from the fact that their movement is led by a cadre of ex-Trotskyites. We've got at least one local guy who I think of as a neo-con, takes a reactionary stance on school-related matters in particular; but he still shows up at the annual Socialist Party of Milwaukee picnic and expects to be welcomed. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:33, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

It's not like the old days, with the Red Falcons and so on; but there is still a S.P. branch in Milwaukee, and the annual picnic draws a lot of progressives who no longer affiliate with the S.P. I remember my daughter (now thirteen; then five years old or so) singing Union Maid along with the rest of the crowd one year, to everybody's bemusement. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

And this past Saturday's annual picnic was again fun, although the average age of those attending (about 30-35 in total) was well over 50, I fear. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:38, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Business Plot

Is currently under major revision by one person. You might wish to approise yourself of these revisions. Collect (talk) 00:11, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

One user I reported to Jclemens for 4RR -- I wonder if he realized it? Collect (talk) 00:29, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

You might also look at Daily Mail which is beset also by SPA type accounts. Or might not. Collect (talk) 00:29, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I have addressed your concerns on the link issue on the talk page. Wikipedia has no requirement that everything has to be linked. As you also know not everything from the committes report is in the PDF source. Are you seriously suggesting that the quote is made up?

I don't know what reference your making to the word "alleged" in my edit of the article.annoynmous 02:26, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Well if you bothered to go to the talk page, but neverthless here they are:

^ Investigation of Nazi Propaganda Activities and Investigation of Certain Other Propaganda Activities: Public Hearings Before the Special Committee on Un-American Activities, House of Representatives, Seventy-third Congress, Second Session, at Washington, D.C. p.8-114 D.C. 6 II Schmidt, p. 245 "HUAC's final report to Congress: "There is no question that these attempts [the plot] were discussed, were planned, and might have been placed in execution when and if the financial backers deemed it expedient." The committee had verified "all the pertinent statements made by General Butler, with the exception of the direct statement suggesting the creation of the organization."" ^ Investigation of Nazi Propaganda Activities and Investigation of Certain Other Propaganda Activities: Public Hearings Before the Special Committee on Un-American Activities, House of Representatives, Seventy-third Congress, Second Session, at Washington, D.C. p. 111 D.C. 6 II.

Both these sources comply with wikipedia reliable sources guidelines. Not to mention Arthur Schlesinger who is a reputable historian stated:

As for McCormack's House committee, it declared itself "able to verify all the pertinent statements made by General Butler" except for MacGuire's direct proposal to him, and it considered this more or less confirmed by MacGuire's European reports."

The Committe's final report has not yet been added to the PDF files. There is no requirement on wikipedia that you have to able to read every source. So unless you have reason to believe that this uote is false than there is no reason to use the word "alleged" when the committe found that that evidence for the existence of a plot was sound. annoynmous 02:38, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

That's not the entire report. There are pages missing and the final conclusion has yet to be scanned. annoynmous 02:58, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

This is not the complete report. The exact same pages are missing from the PDF File as they are from the wikisource page. I have given two reliable sources that show that the quote represented the committes findings. annoynmous 03:11, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

(out) Said editor is now topic banned for a year. And has a 3RR block as well. And is now under 1RR. Trifecta. So much for that. Collect (talk) 18:07, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Ruth Conniff

Take a look at what I've done. I'm still not sure she'd pass a notability review, despite my Wisconsinite pride. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:33, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Re "Advice/Questions"

I templated Gussert for autobio and COI; note that he hasn't edited since November 2007. As to the merge proposal: give it a bit more time before doing anything; there is no deadline to be met here. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:22, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

HUAC

I thank you for your kind words. Depsite our differences I've always found your comments to be thoughful and reasonable.

I assure you my edits to the HUAC article were just an attempt to improve it's accuracy. I ackowledge that the MD committe was a precursor to HUAC. I was just making the point that the MD committe mainly investigated fascist activity and that HUAC was not officially formed until 1938. I'm not saying that the MD committe didn't have porblems of it's own, just that it was a seperate investigation from HUAC that had an entirely differenct focus.

I likewise look forward to debating you again on the Business plot talk page, just not right now. I'm still a little burned out on that subject and would like to wait a week or two before I come back to it.annoynmous 09:57, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

business plot

Thanks for the link. NB that Ted Frank has a Wikipedia link, and that you may (or may not) wish to cite the American article to balance the discussion of Buchanan in the main text of the Wikipedia article. THF (talk) 13:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC):

• Frank, Ted (2009). "The Truth Is Out There". American Magazine. {{cite journal}}: Text "]" ignored (help) A Recent Article Reviewing the Business Plot

Creat page

I notice you were trying to nominate Creat page for deletion but you didn't do it properly. The article seems to meet speedy deletion criterion A7, so I've just tagged it as that. If the speedy is declined, I'll help you list it at AFD. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 03:54, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

• No matter, it was just deleted. I'm surprised Creat page has been created so many times anyway, given the typo. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 04:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Easy-Way Store

I have no independent knowledge regarding the significance of Easy-Way Store -- I've never been to Memphis, much less bought groceries there.

I found an unsourced and unlinked reference to the store and its founder in another article, searched Google for information about the man and the business, and created the article about the business on the fly while trimming the unsourced trivia out of the other article. I guess I should have flagged the page as "under construction" when I created it, but since it was flagged as "patrolled," I did not anticipate that a new-page patroller would come by to tag it for deletion before I had a chance to finish working on it.

It appears to me that the business is notable based on its longevity as a business, the existence of multiple independent articles about it, and indications that it is considered to be a "local institution". The fact that there are many other grocery stores in the Memphis metro area (most of them operated corporate chains that are the subject of separate articles) does not prevent this small chain from being notable. As a privately held business, it is unlikely to be the subject of the same types of coverage as publicly held businesses receive.

I've now finished the article with material I found in various online sources. There were other ghits to articles that are no longer online, and I imagine that Wikipedians in the Memphis area could add more sourced content. Please let me know if you still have concerns about the article. --Orlady (talk) 17:22, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

H.C. Prange

No problem. I never know if people like my rewording of their work or not... --Sift&Winnow 20:07, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Toyota MP-1

Hello Capitalismojo, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I declined the speedy deletion of Toyota MP-1 - a page you tagged - because: Article has content. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. SoWhy 20:13, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Business Plot again

One person apparently does not understand "alleged" (sigh). Collect (talk) 02:59, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

It's obvious that nothing will change collects mind. No matter what edits or suggestions I make he will come out against them. You have always struck me as reasonable and fair despite our disagreements. I have made a compromise edit that trys to include everyones concerns. I hope we can engage in a constructive debate on the talk page and not get bogged down in another senseless revert war. annoynmous 04:34, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for dropping in. The idea is to talk on the article talk page before making what you know are non-consensus edits. I again ask you (Annoynmous) to self-revert so that we can have a reasoned discussion. Thanks! Collect (talk) 11:27, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

when we last were discussing this, the editor removed only "Wall St Putsch"... now all 3 alternative subject titles have been removed... (also known as the Wall Street Putsch, the Plot Against FDR, the White House Putsch) ... do you deny that there was plot to overthrow FDR? all of these titles have been used at one time or another. how can we get this rectified?68.101.217.238 (talk) 21:43, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

here's a 2007 BBC report titled "the White House Coup" ... not credible? http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/document/document_20070723.shtml

there was much discussion about the removal of "Wall St Putsch" several months ago (and the other names were left intact) ... the consensus among editors was to leave these in. where did all those comments go? 68.101.217.238 (talk) 18:38, 27 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.101.217.238 (talk) 16:11, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Wal-Mart (disambiguation) at DR

Just letting you know that the discussion for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wal-Mart (disambiguation) (3rd nomination) has been listed for deletion review at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 July 15. You may be interested in commenting.Tatterfly (talk) 18:32, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Wyn Consulting

Hi Capitalismojo - I added a note for your on my talk page. Please respond with your thoughts on my talk page. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Selwyndvr (talk • contribs) 20:33, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

ASTM boilerplate

Hi capitalismojo, while I understand that you didn't know what the ASTM is, I don't think that is a good enough reason for you to add a boilerplate to every ASTM article about who the ASTM is. The beauty of Wikipedia is that we add internal links to an article so that those who are more interested in that term or idea can follow the link to learn more. Moreover, its hard to keep redundant info upto date when it is posted on multiple articles. As such, I definitely think these boilerplates should be removed. Wizard191 (talk) 01:15, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Secondary sources for Ted Frank

Thanks for your edits. NB that http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202432164378 is a secondary source for the existence of CCAF. Separately, for some reason, there is not an external link to tedfrank.com. THF (talk) 20:18, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

FYI: http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2009/0921/outfront-tort-consumers-lawyer-tries-to-block-settlements.html THF (talk) 18:59, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

La Fitts

Hi! Answered your question on the article's talk page. But I'm not like "Hoo! She's as important as Gandhi, Einstein and Gumby combined." Not my heart's blood in it ... Greetings! --Kavaiyan <°)))o>< 13:03, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Blackwater

Please do not change the name of the section. What I'll say is that I'm trying to assume good faith, but that your edits at least could strongly appear as ones trying to frame a valid critique of Blackwater, made by many sources, including Jeremy Scahill, widely regarded as an expert on the subject (as described here by constitutional law professor Glen Greenwald [1]) as somehow a wild-eyed "conspiracy theory." You're not employing an appropriately neutral tone. I attempted to rephrase most of the sentences in this section earlier, and don't believe the section still qualifies as violating any "copyright laws," but if you have specific complaints on this subject, please share them with me or with others on the Talk page. Adlerschloß (talk) 21:49, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I replied on the talk page, but will also record here that the key problem I was attempting to solve was a major copyright violation, also the term "conspiracy theory" was used in the news accounts referenced in the section. It was not my term. I am glad we were able to resolve this amiably and reasonably. Capitalismojo (talk) 04:00, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Twisted Complex: Non-Notable?

Capitalismojo, while it is true that TC: BOTFH is only being self-published, the fact of the matter is that it has a small cult following on Facebook, one which is growing a little at a time. Within the coming year, this book is expected to boom in popularity. The Wiki page is weak simply because I have very little time per day/week to work on it. Within a month, it will be a notable page with decent amount of traffic as popularity builds. If does not live up to basic standards, please tell me how it can. This book means the world to the author and it's fans, and it deserves a page of it's own. Apollo-kun (talk) 16:58, 25 August 2009 (UTC)apollo-kun

See reply at Talk:Ojibwe

CJLippert (talk) 20:07, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Repeat AfD

Please see this--Fiskeharrison (talk) 18:28, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Invitation to join WikiProject United States

Hello, Capitalismojo! WikiProject United States, an outreach effort supporting development of United States related articles in Wikipedia, has recently been restarted after a long period of inactivity. As a user who has shown an interest in United States related topics we wanted to invite you to join us in developing content relating to the United States. If you are interested please add your Username and area of interest to the members page here. Thank you!!!

--Kumioko (talk) 03:11, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your contribution to the Blackwater Worldwide page.Tommyboy1215 (talk) 00:46, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Thomas L. Rhodes

Please see my talk page or the article's discussion page.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:43, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I believe that you should restore the banner. The problem is that copyright violations appear in the history of the page and so require administrative action.

After my revision, no problems should have remained---it was unnecessary but perhaps better to begin a new article.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:35, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Your input is needed on the SOPA initiative

Hi Capitalismojo,

You are receiving this message either because you expressed an opinion about the proposed SOPA blackout before full blackout and soft blackout were adequately differentiated, or because you expressed general support without specifying a preference. Please ensure that your voice is heard by clarifying your position accordingly.

Thank you.

Message delivered as per request on ANI. -- The Helpful Bot 16:25, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

The Heartland Institute

Two lines in the 'see also' section are not undue empaphasis. Please be reasonable. Bearian (talk) 16:37, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

See also's are to be avoided. They should be included in the body of the article when possible.Capitalismojo (talk) 19:26, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Don't forget a redirect!

If you're creating an article (Identical or extremely similar to) one that already exists, create a redirect from the other (less-common) title. I would say just move it, but you've already created the article. anyway, thanks for editing wikipedia! Ncboy2010 (talk) 19:23, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

No problem. =] I forget stuff too sometimes. Ncboy2010 (talk) 19:25, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually you did it wrong. To rename a page you have to move it, copy and pasting the content to a new title and redirecting the old one is bad, it means the history required for copyright reasons is in the wrong place. I have removed the redirect from National Republican Trust Political Action Group, and redirected National Republican Trust to it, if you want to change the title please do it properly--Jac16888 ^Talk 01:32, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

American Liberty League

The existing article concerning the American Liberty League is incorrect as it describes the American Liberty League as a defunct organisation. This is not the case. The American Liberty League is very much an active political group, with offices in Washington DC, at 1101 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, a facebook page, a twitter presence, business cards, a mailing list and all. In addition to that, I am not very happy with the description of my late grandfather, Gerald MacGuire, as some kind of seedy plotter and fascist. He was a decorated veteran of the Boxer Rebellion and was gravely wounded in combat, during World War I; but as he's been dead for seventy five years I guess he could hardly worry about a little libel. In any case I attempted to correct the page with correct and updated information and I did this as a representative of the American Liberty League. Mr Eleuthere Paul DuPont, our Chairman is willing that a new page be created for our organisation, though we regard the League of the 1930's and our modern League to be one and the same. Either that or we would be satisfied to have the current page removed in its entirety in order that any possible confusion be avoided.

Best wishes,

David MacGuire PDMacGuire (talk) 09:28, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Dead link in article 'Steve Kagen'

Hi. The article 'Steve Kagen' has a dead link that could not be repaired automatically. Can you help fix it?

Dead: http://www.shawanoleader.com/articles/2007/01/28/news/news2.txt

• You added this in April 2009.
• The bot tested this link on 4 April, 6 April, 9 April and today, but it never worked.
• The bot checked The Wayback Machine and WebCite but couldn't find a suitable replacement.

This link is marked with {{Dead link}} in the article. Please take a look at that article and fix what you can. Thank you!

PS- you can opt-out of these notifications by adding {{Bots |deny=BlevintronBot}} to your user page or user talk page. BlevintronBot (talk) 17:22, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Leah Vukmir

Although since Americans have figured out what the ALEC does, many of its members have started downplaying their participation in it, Vukmir's website still brags about it! --Orange Mike | Talk 15:50, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

ALEC

Tommy Thompson and all the other members I attached the category to are identified in the master American Legislative Exchange Council article--Thompson in the History paragraph. That paragraph, in turn, is sourced by the organization's main website [2] where Thompson's name appears in the second paragraph. Trackinfo (talk) 17:02, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting whatever errors are out there. But I don't follow your logic. How could alec.org not be a reliable source about the names of members, the leaders of its own organization? Certainly if an article were to say someone is employed by a particular institution, the BEST logical source would be to quote that organization's staff directory rather than from an outsider like what we would consider a normal RS--the press--to be. I use staff directories to verify employment in many articles. Beyond the current people on that list, yes, we will need to go to outside sources. I welcome your help to find such sources and add to the list. Trackinfo (talk) 23:39, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Editing problem with autoblock

Let me see about softening the block ... Daniel Case (talk) 17:39, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Tommy Thompson

Your new edits look solid and NPOV to me. Thanx. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:43, 10 October 2012 (UTC)