User talk:Loonymonkey
At the moment I have far less time available for Wikipedia.
In the immediate future, I will only be here for an hour or less per day and not even every day. Leave me a note if there's something I should pay attention to in particular.
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)
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)
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)
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)
- 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)
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)
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)
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 andPieces 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
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
TharsHammar Bits andPieces 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)
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)
- 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)
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)
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)
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)
- 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)
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)
- Where did I say that? I'm just warning you the same. --Triadian (talk) 23:59, 18 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)
- 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)
- 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)
Your illogica at Anita Dunn
Your arguments have made absolutely no sense, and you haven't even attempted to really back them up, you didn't even know that the quote you kept erasing was in the source and you contradicted yourself about using "inflammatory language, and not paraphrasing" then suddenly another another user, who had earlier stated he didn't even want any of issue in the article, shows up follows your exact line. So, you both really just want to censor it, or ideally have it not in the article at all. As it is, it' both not comprehensive enough, and misleading because you don't see the rest of it that was objectionable, you think it is just the one phrase "favorite political philosophers" because that's what she then only attempts to refute. My suggestion to you would be to follow your own logic, and not censor and mislead through some strong inclination to do so here. Why are you obsessed with using her full rebuttal, and erasing her quote on the subject in the speech. Also I'm not edit warring, I just added that she spoke about Mao taking over China.