User talk:Fat&Happy/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Statistics

Do you know whether anyone on Wikipedia has ever published semi-regular statistics on total number of users, total number of new pages, page edits, admin requests, admin actions? The sort of thing I'm after is evidence that someone is publishing a 'dashboard' of figures about what's actually going on at Wikipedia?

I ask you because I am about to propose that this should be done on an at least monthly basis as an underpinning guide to any discussion about problems and successes at Wikipedia. I have looked and not found anything like it, and before I barge into an admin forum to propose it, and get myself shitcanned, I thought I'd ask whether I'm trying to re-invent the wheel. Regards — Peter S Strempel | Talk 22:00, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not much help. I haven't run across anything that comprehensive, but I've also discovered recently that there seem to be quite a few tools I've never discovered. If you're hesitant about the reaction you'd get at one of the notice boards, maybe you could try asking a friendly admin on their talk page. This is not to criticize any others, but I've found User:HJ Mitchell to be helpful in the past; he has been quite busy recently, but also has several friendly talk page stalkers who might be able to assist you. Also, although I haven't gotten beyond the first screen, you might explore http://toolserver.org/, where most of the Wiki tools seem to be housed and documented. Fat&Happy (talk) 22:37, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

TPM

Sorry for stepping on your toes. Glad you caught it.   Will Beback  talk  01:46, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

No problem. My changes were mostly wikignome cosmetics anyway, and you can probably tell from my edit summary that I'd guessed it was accidental. Fat&Happy (talk) 01:54, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Back and to the left

I'm sorry, I just realized that you asked me on my talk page a few days ago for input about the train wreck at Talk:John F. Kennedy assassination. Is this an ongoing issue where you'd still like some input? At a glance, it doesn't look like the IP is going to tire out, so I've generally tried to deal with those situations with a few clear reminders about the talk page guidelines, and, if that fails to do the trick, removing posts that are clearly off-point and have nothing to do with directly improving article content. I would say I've had mixed success with that approach. Anyhow, I'm happy to take a look if you think it would help. Happy editing. MastCell ^Talk 17:09, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, at this point I think it's ongoing. I haven't personally participated, but try to keep abreast of the situation when it continues to pop up on my watch list. I suppose there may be some part of the discussion which relates to article improvement, but if so it's well hidden within the volumes of argument about details of the event itself. The IP, as you suggest, doesn't seem to be winding down at all, but others continue to "feed the troll" by engaging in the continuing argument. The situation is exacerbated by the fact that, as one user recently pointed out, even if the discussion was a proper discussion of the article, it's the wrong article. There's a separate one on related conspiracy theories. It just seems that a little adult supervision of some type may be called for by now. Fat&Happy (talk) 17:34, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Dispute deleted by original poster in gesture of collegiality
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Incivility You have made some recent comments (appearing here [1] & here [2]) on the Saint Anselm College Talk Page. Only after the threat of being reported did you attempt to tone down your rhetoric by claiming a different definition to what was clearly meant as a mean spirited remark. Even after attempting to clarify that remark, you then dug your hole of incivility deeper, claiming that I lacked "real world experience". You claimed all this after never meeting me in person. Who gives you the right to label me after never meeting me? I never labeled you! Finally, your badgering questions about my computer's "tilde key" was the final straw of incivility. It is by choice that I do not sign posts, as they are automatically filled in after I click submit when signed into my username - this is evident as you clearly know which user you have been talking to throughout this "process". I respectfully want you to know that there is more to a human being (even when lacking a Wikipedia page of their own) in the flesh than words, lines and "tilde keys". So, please ensure you're familiar with our standards of civility and decency before continuing to make comments to and about other editors. I hope this entire encounter is a teaching moment for you and that no "bad blood" remains between us. As much as you may not believe it, I really do. Next time there is an editing conflict I would appreciate mutual respect. Thank you. PS: As a token of good measure, I will sign this and will try to get in the habit of doing so. --Ericci8996 (talk) 22:32, 11 April 2011 (UTC) Ignoring unfounded allegations. Fat&Happy (talk) 22:51, 11 April 2011 (UTC) After taking a quick glance over your talk page, it seems many people take odds at your incivility and bias... To an outside observer it seems that by turning a blind eye to any criticism is detrimental to the working environment here on Wikipedia. Please consider taking suggestions from other users in the future. --Ericci8996 (talk) 23:11, 11 April 2011 (UTC) Ignoring unsokicited advice. If you feel you have an actionable complaint, feel free to make it through the proper channels. Beyond that, I will appreciate your confining discussions to matters relevant to improving Wikipedia articles rather than your impressions. Fat&Happy (talk) 23:34, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

April 2011

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to use disruptive, inappropriate or hard-to-read formatting, as you did at Elvis Presley, you may be blocked from editing. There is a Wikipedia Manual of Style, edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason. You need to (a) stop fabricating baseless "rules" for the English language, (b) stop edit warring over well-established and proper style, and (c) start respecting the quality of our Featured Articles, which your feeble (though arrogant) command of English is far too poor to improve on. DocKino (talk) 08:01, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Hyphenation

I think it would make sense to hyphenate "natural-born citizen". Of course Natural Born Citizen Clause should stay unhyphenated as it appears in the Constitution but for the text in a piped link I think we should adhere to the MoS. I don't think we want to subject ourselves to the wording, punctuation, and typography of the Constitution. –CWenger (^ • @) 19:15, 16 April 2011 (UTC) P.S. Should we also capitalize "Citizen" as it is in the Constitution? –CWenger (^ • @) 19:16, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I sort of see your point (BTW, the two changes weren't related except by location); I've seen it both ways in media, and the MoS isn't exactly clear-cut. Actually, my natural tendency would be to hyphenate (though of course, as the editor above points out, I'm completely ignorant of English), but given the ambiguity in published usage and the MoS, I chose to go with the original and be consistent with the usage in the linked article (not only its title). I almost enclosed the phrase in quotes too, but decided against it. Fat&Happy (talk) 19:56, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I think MOS:HYPHEN is pretty clear about this, it is analogous to the "hard-boiled egg" example in my opinion. Do you mind if I add the hyphen back? I agree the quotes are unnecessary. –CWenger (^ • @) 20:18, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Nah, go ahead. It's not worth opening a discussion on the article talk page unless someone objects. (Just please don't, like many editors, do a full undo/revert of the accompanying redirect fix.) Fat&Happy (talk) 20:34, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Done and nope, would not do that. Hate when it happens to me. Thanks. –CWenger (^ • @) 20:37, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Randomness

Why is there no mention of Republican Congressman RON PAUL on this page as the founder of the Modern Day Tea Party???? Please edit to add the following:

Republican Congressman Ron Paul is considered to be the "intellectual grandfather" of the Tea Party movement[1][2], as the first modern-day Tea Party was thrown by his grassroots supporters in December 2007 to raise money for his 2008 political campaign. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Msticalprincess (talk • contribs) 23:45, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Natural Born Citizen Clause

Likewise, you just improperly edited significant sections of Natural Born Citizen Clause. Specifically the Chester Arthur section that had been substantially similar since 2009 and recent updates to the Barak Obama section by dismissing them as "unrelated synthesis". Both clauses are referenced/footnoted, and are not at all synthesis -- they are relavent commentary. Why do you feel changing them is justified? --Sensical (talk) 21:26, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Responded the other place you posted about this, at the article talk page. Fat&Happy (talk) 22:44, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Taqiyya II

• Hey,thanks. I actually took it off my watch list, for lack of real interest in the subject as well, but I'll give it a look. Thanks again for the heads-up. It really is an argument between to diametrically opposed and very biased sides. Those who want to say it encompasses all of Islamic thought, and those who wish to claim it does not exist at all. As is with most things, the truth is somewhere else. Usually in the middle. The Scythian 03:00, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
  • I get the impression that the practice of dissimulation to save one's life is probably allowed by all sects of Islam, but possibly under different names. Then again, as much as Christianity venerates martyrs, I've never heard about condemnation of those who, like Peter, wavered when they saw a sword blade. But because the practice has an official name in Islam, anti-Islamic propagandists find it a convenient example of Muslim "deceit".

That is pretty much how I understand it, and you raise a good point with Peter. In the case of Sunni Islam, it is such a vast and diverse branch of a religion, akin to Protestant Christianity, which at it's loosest can include everything from Lutherans to Mormons. Sunni views can vary greatly from school to school, and from one preaching Imam to another. There is no hierarchy to enforce a strict adherence to. It is only in the case of the Shia(namely, and not limited to the "twelvers"), which throughout most of Islam's history were a persecuted minority group, that such a concept effectively became "canon law." I feel for the sake of this article, which specifically is dealing with Taqiyia, that it should focus on what it specifically is. After all, one need only do a quick Youtube search to find Sunni preachers ranting about the Shia, and their dreaded tactic of "Taqiya," to undermine and ruin the true Muslims, i.e themselves. It is actually quite amusing to watch.

At any rate, is there a Sunni concept that some have used, and might be viewed similarity? Sure, why not. It is just not universal, not called by the same name, not derived from the same sources, and lacks the direct universal scholarly backing by a strict clergy that codifies it through the ranks of it's followers. That of course is my personal opinion, but probably more accurate than many of extreme views held by certain editors on both sides of the isle. The Scythian 04:38, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not that much of an original thinker. I just remembered noticing Denial of Peter in the Taqiyya#See also, and thought it was a good cross-reference. Fat&Happy (talk) 04:52, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

• P.S...I never did, in all my years on Wikipedia(2003), figure how one should respond on a talk page. If you leave me a message on my talk page, do I respond directly on my talk page, or drop you on line on yours? Any thoughts? I'm so confused... The Scythian 03:00, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
  • From what I can tell, it varies all over the board. Generally I prefer to keep both sides of the discussion in one place, and since my preferences are set to automatically check the box adding all pages I edit to my watch list, it's easy to see if someone responds on their own page; if someone leaves a message here, I'll reply here, but if I'm unsure what they're expecting I'll leave a {{Tb}} template on their page (e.g.you). But I've seen other cases where two people carry on an extended conversation alternating between pages. I've also noticed some editors have a note at the top of their talk page explaining their preferred way to do it. In other words, like most things Wikipedia, it's a free-form free-for-all. Fat&Happy (talk) 03:39, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll utilize that template. It actually solves a lot of the problem. I always thought it made more sense just to keep the entire discussion on one talk page, simply because it makes it more "readable," especially years later. The Scythian 04:38, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. (BTW, that was a quick – and no-nonsense – response in the article itself.) Fat&Happy (talk) 04:52, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Caption revert

Regarding your reversion of the picture caption - will you tell me what your views are on changing it? I read your ES, but it seems the reference in the article the caption [3] does not support the notion these billboards are part of an advertising campaign by WND. That is why I do not think it should say "advertising campaign", as I remarked in my ES. The "advertising" campaign characterization is at present unsupported. According to a header presently on the talk page a solution is to tag or remove the uncited material, so I will tag it. In meantime, I hope you can explain why "consensus" material overrides WP:VERIFY?

Again regarding the billboard pic, there is also new information that a book with the same title as the billboard is about to be published by WND. What is wrong with including that?

To sum up, I am wondering where is it written in stone that a consensus is necessary to change something that is factually incorrect or unsupported (i.e. the advertising campaign) or that consensus is needed to update with new facts (i.e. the forthcoming book)?" --Regards KeptSouth (talk) 20:23, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm having trouble following your logic. The cited source clearly refers to a campaign of placing billboards. Billboards are commonly considered forms of advertisements, so it's editorial prerogative, not some sort of original research or synthesis, to refer to a billboard campaign as the shorter and more common "ad campaign".

On the other hand, the book with the same title did not exist at the time the photograph was taken or the cited article was written, but because it shares a title with the slogan on the billboard, you feel it needs to be mentioned in an already somewhat lengthy caption. That is pure synthesis, and even if a reliable source ties them together (since both are admittedly WND-related) I don't see the gain in including that trivial fact.

Practically every paragraph in this article is the product of lengthy discussions on the talk page. This is especially true, for whatever reason, of the image captions (even that unwieldy link in the billboard caption, which I personally don't see the need for). As explained above, I do not see your changes as removing content that is either factually incorrect or unsupported. And a quick review of other tweaks to the caption confirm the potentially negative effects of allowing changes to consensus-determined content of this highly contentious article without discussion. On the article's talk page. As I requested in my edit summary. Fat&Happy (talk) 21:14, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

My questions are rather clear and I restated them in the hope of avoiding a response such as "I'm having trouble following your logic." On the other hand, your response seems to contain some logical leaps. The source does not say it is an "advertising campaign". Not all campaigns are advertising and since the signs are placed by an online magazine, when the term "advertising" is added to "campaign" the clear implication is that the ads are placed to increase sales of the publication or hits on the site. There may be other reasons - such as to support a certain political point of view - we just don't know the reasoning - it may not be simply to advertise the publication. The source that is given absolutely does not say it was an "advertising campaign". It is therefore original research to say this. It is not "synthesis" to update and remark that the sign is to be the cover of a new book, it is simply straight out factual and reported by RSs. KeptSouth (talk) 21:42, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Talk page remarks

I would have opened a discussion on the conspiracy article's talk page first, but frankly, I don't know if it would have sparked additional comments from you such as: "everybody seems hot to continue this asinine and inappropriate discussion here" and your use of screaming capitals and sarcasm in the same post. I know the standard response argument is defense of BLP, but I am also an avid defender of BLP but I do not think that is a reason to jettison WP:CIVIL. I will look forward to your response on the caption issue that I raised above.-KeptSouth (talk) 20:46, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Sarcasm? Frequently (though not as often as many of our "reliable sources"). But I hardly think one word capitalized and bolded for emphasis constitutes screaming, and I can think of no kinder description than "asinine" for the contention that a woman would be able give birth in Kenya in 1961, show up at a hospital in Hawaii three days later (with the baby in her arms?), and have a birth certificate issued and filed for the baby, signed by a doctor as attesting he attended the delivery in that hospital. Of course, the whole issue could have been avoided if other editors had not ignored (and deleted) the earlier {{Notaforum}} warning placed by another editor, in favor of continuing to dignify an inappropriate initial comment with serious discussion. Fat&Happy (talk) 21:42, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

No one deleted the not a forum warning. I remarked I did not feel it was justified and that I felt there was more to be discussed and added a cite, hoping there could be more discussion of this issue. The section was closed without addressing my comments, and I am not complaining that. What I am saying is that your comment "asinine" and the capitalization were unjustified abandonment of WP:CIVIL. It is beginning to seem that you believe there is only one correct viewpoint: yours.--RegardsKeptSouth (talk) 22:01, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll go with "unnecessary", but not "unjustified", and see "uncivil" as marginal at best. (It makes no real difference, but for the record the tag was deleted here.) Fat&Happy (talk) 01:13, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Fat&Happy. You have new messages at Scythian77's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Gloria Estefan

Not a problem. Thanks for your message. Cresix (talk) 01:31, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Template:Flagicon

Can you point me to where it was decided to deprecate this template? I saw you removed it from an article for that reason. Thanks. –CWenger (^ • @) 23:25, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:MOSFLAG Fat&Happy (talk) 23:36, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I was not aware of that. –CWenger (^ • @) 23:38, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I think it was one of those things I stumbled across one day, not necessarily that I was interested in looking for it. Or more likely a case like you now, but the editor had the good grace to include the MoS link in the edit summary. What I hate is when that happens, and I remember it later, but can't remember where it was... Fat&Happy (talk) 23:44, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Taqqiya

Hey! Sorry to bother you, but I am still dealing with this guy over at "Taqqiya" who is doing original research, interpreting religious text and drawing his own conclusions, adding rather obscure or seriously biased sources, and editing with what I can only assume is some biased agenda to promote his own views. Any chance I could bother you for your input on the matter, as it would be greatly appreciated. The Scythian 17:39, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

No bother; but I'm not sure how much help I can be. It's not really a subject I know much about at all, which is why I wanted more eyes on it in the first place. I posted a couple of comments (which were basically ignored), and I agree with the contention that Middle East Quarterly fails any kind of reliable source test. Problem is, that's pretty much an "I know it when I see it" evaluation. Personal opinion – articles on religion should require works by scholars of religion (which I see as somewhat broader than "religious scholars") for sources, not "believers", translators, linguists, polemicists, or research librarians. (There's a similar sourcing issue on a smaller scale developing over at Gospel, for example.) At some point, this article is going to need an RfC or something over at the religion project (and maybe an RSN on the sourcing). At the moment, my contribution would only be another voice in the "yes, it is" – "no, it's not" back-and-forth. But I'm still watching, and will participate if I see a place where I can. I don't want to suggest an illegal canvass or anything like that, but do you know any editors you've worked with elsewhere who are knowledgeable on the subject and could take a look, maybe to comment on the facts of Islamic beliefs, not necessarily the current sourcing dispute? Fat&Happy (talk) 18:14, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Maryland

Hey. My edit summary got cut off so I'll just drop the explanation here. The inclusion of Maryland is supported by the US Census Bureau's definition of the South, so the information is quite clearly reliable. If it's not in the sources you're looking at, I would simply attribute that to the obvious fact that definitions of the South vary from source to source. It seems more unreasonable to exclude Maryland when talking about the "upper south", for example, when the Census Bureau defines it as being the northernmost "Southern" state. I explained about the removal of those sources from the image caption in the edit summary; they were used to source a long and detailed caption that has since been simplified to the point of not needing them. Regards, Swarm ^X 19:42, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

The Census Bureau definition supports the Census Bureau definition, which is mentioned. The Census Bureau does not define "Southeastern United States" or "'The Upper South"; using their definition of "The South" – identified as one of many – to override the definitions of these specific sub-regions cited to reliable sources is synthesis and original research.

Even the previous statement about the states with poverty rates not exceeding the national average was a bit problematic (probably itself OR and Synth), but at least it was consistent in counting only the "solid" states, not the "striped" ("sometimes") ones. What is the reasoning behind adding Maryland, but not Delaware or Missouri?

Your change to the "Modern definitions" caption was an improvement in the wording, but given the complexity (and, to an extent, contentiousness) of the issue, still reflected in even the improved caption, I see no reason to remove the citations. (I don't like either caption of the other map, but that's not the current issue.) Fat&Happy (talk) 20:29, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Maryland is included in the South in some definitions. It's common sense that, if it's in the South, it's in the Eastern part of the region and the Northern part of the region, as I'm sure you'll agree. That's all "Upper South" and "Southeast" mean. The connection is made with common sense, something we're 110% free to use on Wikipedia. If something is known to be factually true, we don't refrain from including it because of those policies you cited. We're not a bureaucracy and we're free to ignore rules if they're impeding us.

Why Maryland, but not Delaware or Missouri? I don't know, but it's not really relevant other than the fact that it should be rectified. If I recall, the editor made the "Upper South", "Southeast" and "poverty rate" claims. The poverty rate claim can be removed, but there was no reason to unilaterally revert the other two good faith aspects of their addition.

Not all sources agree but it's an extremely minor issue in the grand scheme of things; I wouldn't say there's any contention regarding this matter out there. Regardless, I don't feel strongly about the captions one way or another. Just for the sake of curiosity though, which other map's caption don't you like?

Anyway, just some minor points I wanted to clear up. While I don't feel strongly about the inclusion of the content, my problem was mainly that you were reverting things that weren't wrong. Swarm ^X 03:25, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Newt Gingrich question

Hi there, I noticed you have been watching the Newt Gingrich page for awhile, and I appreciate the work you have done keeping it in good order. I'm Joe DeSantis, the Communications Director for Gingrich Communications, and earlier today I posted on the Talk page at Talk:Political positions of Newt Gingrich asking for review of a false claim that was recently added.

An editor has quoted Newsmax to the effect that Gingrich supports a federal mandate to purchase health insurance at the top the Health Care. This is incorrect. First, the quote provided (“I agree that all of us have a responsibility to pay - help pay for health care") does not mean Gingrich is for a federal mandate to purchase health insurance. Furthermore, Newt Gingrich has clearly stated in this video and statement posted on his campaign website that he is opposed to a federal mandate to purchase health insurance. If you would review this and correct this detail, I would be very appreciative. Thanks --Joedesantis (talk) 20:04, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I looked at the article and the Newsmax article cited; I agree that some improper interpretation is reflected there. OTOH, also reviewing the Wapo and Politico articles previously added by the same editor to support the comments on Ryan's Medicare plan (as well as the comments you point out on Newt.org), I'm not sure I could put together a substitute summary that is fair, accurate, and not unduly complicated. The distinction Gingrich is drawing seems to be one that will appeal to 10th Amendment purists, but fall flat with ideological libertarians, and even clarifying what I see as the differences between him and the PPACA provisions would still be original research. The best I could do would be something that sounds like doublespeak, along the lines of:

In a May 15, 2011, interview on Meet the Press, Gingrich repeated his long-held belief that "all of us have a responsibility to pay – help pay for health care", and suggested this could be implemented by either a mandate to obtain health insurance or a requirement to post a bond ensuring coverage. Later, on his web site, he expanded on his comments by saying he believes the federal mandate contained in the PPACA is unconstitutional and that he believes individual states should be able to decide the best way to implement healthcare programs for their citizens.

which would be at the end of the section, not the beginning as the current content is. Somehow, I can't shake the feeling that another editor could come with something better. Fat&Happy (talk) 21:50, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

This language you proposed is fair, certainly a better starting place for future edits than what is there now. If you could make that edit it would be great. --Joedesantis (talk) 22:40, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

careful

I think it is bad practice to do things like this: [4], [5]. You must explain why you are doing so in the edit summary or on the Talk page where there is ongoing discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.59.169.46 (talk) 18:40, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories

Good work reverting that vandal! 24.177.120.138 (talk) 03:57, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Ponzi

You must be kidding right. This guy robbed elderly people of millions of dollars and was convicted and you want to remove him from the list? That is just plain silly but I object. The referances from the SEC website are hardly unacceptable, and furthermore the SEC has also posted the issue, in consolodated form: http://www.sec.gov/litigation/litreleases/2009/lr20946.htm. So why is it that you sir feel that this is no longer worthy? --WPPilot 05:05, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Did you read the policy on use of primary sources – specifically court records – I cited at WP:BLPPRIMARY? It is rather clear cut. Fat&Happy (talk) 05:13, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

http://www.sec.gov/litigation/litreleases/2009/lr20946.htm - is not a court record as far as I can tell. Perhaps you see it in another way?--WPPilot 05:28, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes I did check and the SEC is NOT a court. The judge has ruled and I would like you to repost the data please. Thank you--WPPilot 05:33, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Nor was it cited as a source in the article. In any case, I believe it would still be considered a primary source. You might want to open a request for comment on that point at WP:Requests for comment/Biographies. Or, if the case is as important and heinous as you seem to think, it should really be a lot less effort to simply find a reliable secondary source to use. That's what the editors who added the vast majority of other examples on the page did. Fat&Happy (talk) 05:43, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

You are incorrect, it was in fact cited in the source for the artical. I have recovered the text for you to review but in no way is it a Court document and it clearly is reliable. *On March 13, 2009 the SEC charged Brian Jared Smart of Lehi, Utah with the security fraud from the creation of a Ponzi Scheme that targeted the elderly. The complaint claims that Smart stole OVER $2 million from his victims. SEC Complaint. Civil Action No. 2:09-cv-00224-DAK filed March 11, 2009]

As you see from the code, the SEC link was a part of the artical. Please restore this to that page, Thank you --WPPilot 11:58, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Also removing the story on the actual day that the judge finds him guilty is somewhat disrespectful to the US Federal court system as well as the Judge himself. --WPPilot 12:00, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok perhaps we repost the story, using this link rather then the complaint: http://www.sec.gov/litigation/litreleases/2009/lr20946.htm I will do that now and this shoud resolve this issue ok.— Preceding unsigned comment added by WPPilot (talk • contribs) 12:13, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

As you may have realized in the middle of the above postings, the only citations from the removed content were official court documents, no matter the site from which they were retrieved. As I stated earlier, the SEC press release is still a primary source, and you still have not provided any secondary sources which would indicate this case is in any way noteworthy. So no, not ok. Fat&Happy (talk) 19:59, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Secondary sources have been noted. Removing the story on the actual day that the judge finds him guilty is somewhat disrespectful to the US Federal court system as well as the Judge himself. The case has been posteed on Wikifor years, and on the day the guy is convicted in the courts you are kind enough to remove it. That is rather suspect, if you ask me. --WPPilot 15:57, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations on finally figuring out the correct way to add content here. Fat&Happy (talk) 19:13, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanx for your formatting help

Thanx for your formatting help on Talk:Mitt_Romney#Add_section_of_his_position_regarding_Global_warming.2FClimate_change.. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 22:51, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

That was helpful, thank you. 99.181.139.6 (talk) 06:36, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Mitt Romney

Your actions are continually in violation of more than one WPDia policy here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mitt_Romney 184.17.120.133 (talk) 23:49, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Italian American collage

Thanks for the Frances Cabrini addition. I would like to add one more woman. I believe Geraldine Ferraro would be a good choice. Can you help with this? Thanks. I'm glad there are people like you out there. User:Philantonia (talk) 18:56, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your works on the Notables. Could we make it an even dozen and add 3 more. I was thinking: Frank Capra, Rosa Ponselle and Joe Paterno. There is a good full-face image of Ponselle in her entry. The images of Capra and Paterno would have to be cropped. I appreciate your expertise and help in this area. philantonia Philantonia (talk) 14:43, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Just wanted to let you know, I got a bit busy, but I'll try to get to this tomorrow afternoon. I haven't paid much attention lately, but I know at one time there were complaints on the article talk page about the collage being too large / having too many pictures, so for any that do need cropping, I'll probably just upload them and let you add them to the article. ... Just paused to glance at the three articles you named;

1. I notice that two of them are black & white. With so many other B&W images already, the box is getting a bit drab. Aren't there a few Italian Americans around with usable color photos?
2. Do you mean the 1918 Rosa Ponselle photo? It's nice, but again awfully dark. Maybe it could be brightened a bit, if it doesn't ruin the artistry...
3. Unless I missed something, the photo in the Frank Capra infobox looks almost impossible to crop to the right proportions and still look half decent with all the equipment around his head. Strongly suggest another choice.
4. I can try the Joe Paterno one; I wonder, though, about how the player over his right shoulder will appear after cropping. May be a reminder of John Ashcroft and his Spirit of Justice problem...

Let me know what you think. Fat&Happy (talk) 04:18, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

MLK and communism

I have posted an inquiry on MLK's talk page about the communism sermon issue and you are welcome to write your thoughts and comments on it, and why it should not be added to the article. IMO it is appropriate to use MLK's own book about his own opinion on communism. Wikipedia's policy says "Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care ..." (WP:PSTS) and I believe in this case it is with care and proper, because no one can speak more clearly and authentically about MLK's political thoughts than himself. But without consensus I will not revert it back for the time being, hopefully with more opinions posted in the talk page we all can reach a resolution on the matter. Regards! Wandering Courier (talk) 18:17, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your kind input. I appreciate the kind words as well. I absolutely agreed with the changes you made actually. That I reverted your changes was only so I can revert the changes before you. I have restated all that you have added. As for Āryāvarta I will find a suitable source to cite it. Again thank you for your explanation and feel free to change anything around that you feel strong about granted you have citation. Pleaes let me konw if you have any other concerns and I welcome any criticism. I thank you and wish you a great day my good friend! 03:51, 4 July 2011 (UTC) Dr. Persi (talk) 03:51, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Bachmann Talk Discussion Resurection

Give me a minute and you will see why, thanks. Dpky (talk) 22:42, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Bachmann

Could you explain a) why you don't think it's supported by the cited source, when even the headline contains this information? b) why you think one sentence is undue? We devote about the same amount of space to Marcus's PhD, and that isn't even sourced to a news article - why do you believe it's undue to include information sourced to a news article that's negative, but okay to include information sourced to a personal webpage that's positive? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:12, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For your fine contributions to articles related to biographies of the US presidents and other notable Americans, such as MLK, and RFK, I award you this Barnstar. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 14:29, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008

Democracy can be measured in many ways. One way is the ratio of voters to the adult population. Remember, Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that everyone can edit. How democratic! If one person has concluded that they own a page then Wikipedia becomes autocratic.

Id447 (talk) 22:48, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

VAP

Perhaps you are unfamiliar with VAP, Voting Age Population, a common statistic used to determine voter participation? Here some links that you might want to dispute Methodology & Sources, National Voter Turnout in Federal Elections: 1960–2008, Elections: Voting-Age Population and Voter Participation, Voter Turnout, National Voter Turnout in Federal Elections: 1960-1996. I suggest that if editors wish to delete edits in the future you might first start a dialogue. Just because an editor is unfamiliar with VAP doesn't mean that it is original research. By starting a dialogue you might find out something new.

Id447 (talk) 02:22, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

You are obviously aware the Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008 article has a talk page, since you have already posted there. Three editors, of whom I am the least experienced, have told you your edits violate rules on original research. I see no reason to encourage divide and conquer tactics by engaging in separate sidebars on the issue. Please rejoin the main discussion, but omitting personal attacks from your posts. Fat&Happy (talk) 02:47, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

guessed wrong LOL

It wasn't the 1st time I've been wrong; it won't be the last time either ;-) (in ref to Newt Gingrich semicolon. Thanks for fixing!) rewinn (talk) 04:57, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, yeah. I remember one of my earliest edit "fixes". I think it was Robert F. Kennedy (you know, real low profile), and it was loaded with em-dashes – some spaced, some not. So I boldly decided to make them consistently spaced; then later I saw the MoS write-up on them and had to go back and reverse out every one... But given your edit summary, I just couldn't resist mine. Fat&Happy (talk) 05:08, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Lower crime rates in Atlanta?

I wonder if quoting a source from November 2010 is really reliable. The CIty of Atlanta was overcounting the city's population by almost one-fifth. With the updated figures from the census, Atlanta's crime rate is probably back where it always was.Keizers (talk) 18:38, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Then – probably – someone should make corrections from updated sources rather than vandalizing the article. Fat&Happy (talk) 18:51, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

"Sidewalk counseling"

I assume you'll want to review and possibly dispute the material I've added and/or the source I used in the Michele Bachmann article. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:14, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Mais oui. Generally, when making something "accurate" in WP, it's also preferred that the phrasing be kept NPOV. Had you kept something akin to your original edit, toned down the "controversial" parts a bit, and added the reference, I wouldn't have objected too much; but the source used, combined with the unsupported implication that those are the actions she engaged in pushes it over the line. Fat&Happy (talk) 19:33, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Let's move this discussion to the talk page, then. I reverted your reversion. Your edit summary indicating "partisan opinion piece is not acceptable RS for BLP" does not reflect actual BLP policy. Perhaps a preferable source could be found.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:49, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

2008 Election

Touché. Nice summary. I'll leave it alone. Jd2718 (talk) 04:09, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I actually think it might have some merit as an addition – look at JFK, 50 years earlier being first born in the century, or Bill Clinton, first baby-boomer. But we can easily get carried away with that kind of trivia. First born in the second quarter (1926+)? In the 1930s? It's nice to see the "milestone" recognized by outside sources. Fat&Happy (talk) 04:16, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

July 2011

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Before saving your changes to an article, please provide an edit summary, which you forgot to do before saving your recent edit to Michele Bachmann. Doing so helps everyone understand the intention of your edit (and prevents legitimate edits from being mistaken for vandalism). It is also helpful to users reading the edit history of the page. Thank you. Cognate247 (talk) 17:20, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Pam and Obama "bastard" issue

Do you think there is anyway to point out her views on this matter are, for lack of a better word, unique, without violating NPOV? Just like with her "Obama is Malcom X's love child" theory, it seems compleatly pulled from thin air with no precedent or support. I think that is worth noting at least. I don't want to start an edit war over the issue though, and I otherwise have no issue with the section. Ace-o-aces (talk) 22:13, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm probably one of the worst people you could choose to ask about this issue. My primary objection to the section is the same as my primary objection to most of the article – random quotes or topics from her blog (essentially a primary source), with no commentary or reportage by secondary sources to say that the postings are noteworthy, or why. Unfortunately, most RS news media have enough other things to worry about without assigning a pool to 24/7/365 duty rebutting blogosphere inanities. My advice is also a bit hampered by my preference in non-pop-culture reliable sources – NYT, WaPo, LAT and the major networks, with an occasional HuffPost, but nothing lower on the journalistic food chain.

This particular case, though, does seem to have some coverage that could be used. I found a few possibles by Googling pamela geller obama illegitimate. Maybe you could but something together from something there, like these:

• http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/05/05/pam-geller-obama-illegitimate-because-parents-had-sham-marriage/
• http://mediamatters.org/blog/201105050022
• http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2011/05/05/muslim-basher-pamela-geller-pushes-another-obama-fairy-tale-proudly/

Fat&Happy (talk) 23:19, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I found those same sources myself when I was adding the passage, but since they're just blogs themselves I figured it was just refrencing opinion with more opinion. I'm just gonna leave it be for now. Ace-o-aces (talk) 15:18, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. I just selected those specific ones because they seemed to be more nearly acceptable (I've seen the last two used frequently) than "Jane Smith's blogspot". Fat&Happy (talk) 16:43, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Category:American Jews/Bob Dylan

Hi. Can you please explain to me the reasoning behind this edit? I know that "self-identification" is a prerequisite to placement in Categories for religion. But Bob Dylan already can be found in such Categories as:

Category:Jewish American composers and songwriters,

Category:Jewish singers,

Category:Jewish American musicians,

Category:Jewish American writers,

Category:Jewish peace activists.

In light of the inclusion in those Categories why the non-inclusion in Category:American Jews? Thanks. Bus stop (talk) 21:10, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Because American Jews is already "included" by being a parent category for three of the categories you list (one of which, by the way, I just noticed is also a parent of another. Thanks...) Fat&Happy (talk) 21:18, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Don't remove one of my posts again

It's a talk page. I'll write what I want related to the article. Don't ever remove one of my posts again. It wasn't vandalism, a personal attack,etc. and was related to the article. You are out of line. The others there were ignoring it, that's what you should have done. You have reverted me three times, maybe I should report you. PumpkinSky talk 00:59, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Notice from User:TheGoofyGolfer

Hello, Fat&Happy. You have new messages at Talk:Wells Fargo.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Please note this is a response posted on 07/25/2011. — Preceding unsigned comment added by )TheGoofyGolfer (talk • contribs) 19:26, 25 July 2011 (UTC

." at the end of a quote ending in a period

Isn't that correct? You wouldn't write "Did Kendrick7 just ask 'Isn't that correct'?" right? -- Kendrick7^talk 22:24, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

No, you wouldn't. See WP:LQ. Fat&Happy (talk) 22:30, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Frank Sinatra

Hello, Fat&Happy... Sinatra's 1962 thirty concert tour to benefit UNICEF children's hospitals is well-documented, as was a very famous live album, Sinatra and Sextet, Live in Paris recorded durng that tour but not released until many years later, possibly as late as 1994. Please check it out and I hope you will be so kind as to formulate an acceptable mention of the tour and the album. If you look up the Wiki entry of the Paris album, you will not see a reference to UNICEF, but it does state that Sinatra paid the expenses himself. It was done as a publicity stunt to try to re-capture a favorable image after JFK turned away from him. It has been said that Sinatra, who had been an avid Democrat, further retaliated by building an airstrip at his Coachella Valley home to accommodate Republican politicians. Thank you, and hopefully you will save me the time of playing edit undo with you. Jazz N Media Jazz N Media (talk) 22:16, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Avoiding "playing edit undo" is simple: supply a reliable source supporting the addition you want to make to the article. For something that's well-documented, it should take no time at all. Fat&Happy (talk) 22:40, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Gratuitous advice

Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made: you may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you.--John (talk) 01:54, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Need not confirm

Hi F&H again.

Just realized I have sign my section with Classicfilmbuff (talk) 00:01, 15 August 2011 (UTC). So, I get it all now. No need to confirm reciept. --Classicfilmbuff Classicfilmbuff (talk) 00:01, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Rick Perry article

Good work cleaning up the article in many important details. There is so much to do...where to start...grab something and fix it; which you have done. Cheers, Veriss (talk) 06:41, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I ran across this article a few days ago, but to be honest I was a bit too lazy to distill its content into something usable in the college transcript section of the article. Based on you recent comments on that topic on the talk page, though, I thought you might find it interesting.

Potter, Claire (August 8, 2011). "Do Bad Grades Mean The Governor Is Dumb? Or; Why Am I Defending Rick Perry?". The Chronicle of Higher Education.

Fat&Happy (talk) 05:03, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

As a moderate, I like the article as a refreshing breath of commonsense coming from the left but as a blog entry it will not pass muster for inclusion in the main article. It could perhaps be useful on the talk page to stimulate more research into the situation though. The article needs perspective, he graduated public High School in a senior class of 13 or so with a student enrollment of 150ish. The AP courses we take for granted and push our sons and nieces into these days where most likely not available at that school. I graduated in a class of 33 but it was a private school so nearly every course was Advanced Placement. The resources available to a student body of 2,000 vs. a public school student body of 150 is like night and day. Cheers, Veriss (talk) 05:49, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I somewhat disagree on whether it is usable in the article. This is not the self-published source type of blog. She is an academic writing in a scholarly publication; the publication is devoted to education, the subject of the discussion and her comments. It makes no assertions about Perry (unlike the Cherkis blog on The Huntington Post). Seems perfectly within the rules to me; depending, of course, on what it is used for (and more so on the prominence, if any, eventually given to the transcript). Fat&Happy (talk) 06:05, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Request for page numbers

Hi Fat&Happy, Some notes regarding your recent requests for changes made to my Garbo entry. PLEASE email me letting me know if your have received this memo by posting a confirmation on my talk page. I don't know if this is the right way to communicate with you. You have requested that I add pp. numbers to many assertions. I will do so with several of them when they refer to hard facts. However, as a researching scholar, I must disagree with you on most of them. In a scholarly study (don't mean to be condescending but don't know if you're a scholar), you research your subject extensively. When writing up the study, you site hard claims. But a scholar must examine many facts and then combine and condense them into assertions in a way that readers can comprehend. Scholars must put two and two together. They must also read from multiple sources and then write about patterns they see. For example, when I say something like "shunning the publicity she loathed," there is simply no way to give a page number. This fact is detailed throughout the entirety of three biographies. There ARE no specific p. numbers. The same is true with the following examples: "Stiller took her under his wing, training her as a film actress and managing all aspects of her nascent career"; "Still, she often floundered about what to do and how to spend her days, always struggling with her life-long melancholy and anxiety, and her many eccentricities"; This is discussed by these sources in at least 75-100 pp. The same is true with the following: "Her recent biographers and others speculate that she was bisexual, or lesbian, and that she had intimate relationships with women as well as with men"; "They remained friends—with ups and downs—for almost thirty years. "; per this one, I added these numbers myself. Garbo met Acosta in 1931 and wrote 97 letters, for example, between 1950-1959. There IS no page number. ""Garbo-watching" became a sport for photographers, the media, admirers, and others who were obsessed with her"; this was discussed by two biographers in approximately two-hundred pages. Etc., etc., etc. I hope you understand the point I am making here. As I say, I will certainly provide pp. numbers from sources for hard claims when they are warranted, but I cannot do so with the majority of your requests. I hope you will trust my decisions and delete the “page number needed” in the text.

On another note: sorry you got bored changing the citation templates. I'm not sure whether or not you received my message to you in which I said I'd be gone for four days and would make all the corrections when I returned. Sorry you went through the hassle.

Finally, I want to thank you for all the work you've done on the Garbo page. Except for your requests for pp. numbers, everything else has contributed much to the caliber of this entry. All best, Classicfilmbuff. And PLEASE don't forget to confirm your receipt of this memo. Classicfilmbuff (talk) 23:59, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi CFB, and welcome back.

Addressing your second paragraph first, please let me clear up a misunderstanding of my shorthand style. The edit summary did not mean "I am getting bored with making these corrections", but rather "I'm a bit bored, with nothing to do for a little while, so I'll finish off the templates so you don't have to when you get back". (My comments are always so clear to me when I write them...)

I understand the point you are making about references, but I think you need to realize Wikipedia is not the same type of scholarly setting you may be used to. With all due respect, nobody here on the internet is any more familiar with your academic background than you are with mine. Bluntly – and with no personal slight intended – there is no reason for anyone to trust your one-paragraph interpretation of 200 pages. That is probably one of the reasons WP has strict rules on verifiability. Possibly as a bit of a compromise on this issue, you could consider using some reasonably sized ranges (5–10 pages) where a topic is covered in some detail, or occasional use of a few et seq.s here and there?

On other things, the "stalked off" last interview comment had the "citation needed" tag for at least a year, so neither of us is directly involved. It seems like a mini-version of an argument currently taking place at Talk:Jane Fonda; one can find references to the event all over the internet, but the supposed original source is not readily available. This case is not as contentious as the Fonda one, and does not refer to a living person, so standards may not be quite as strict, but if you feel it should go I have no objection.

I notice you changed the year on some of the Paris citations originally added by other editors. Have you verified that the page numbers for the cites are the same in both versions? If so (or even if not), it might be neater to change all the references to the 2002 version, with page changes as necessary, and just keep one listing in the bibliography section. (The same would be true if you have the more recent edition of Bainbridge and can verify/update reference 44.) Fat&Happy (talk) 01:44, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi F&F--I will do my best to find 10-20 pp numbers for some of them but there will still be others which will be impossible. I'll start first with the requests you made for which I can give pp and then do my best with the others. Then we'll just have to see if other readers ask for pp.

other questions/comments: 1)Yes, I was going through the process of making date changes but then realized previous writer/s were, of course, woking with another version (duh) so I plan to change them back today. I think we'll have to go with that option because I'm back to my semester and won't have time to compare editions. Might be able to do that over winter break. But a more important problem is that the 2002 version is not a second ed. If I don't include the 1994 version in the bib readers will think it was published first in 2002. Most won't read the bib, no? 3) explain what you mean by et seq.s here and there" and where I might add them. Never used them before. Finally, the Bainbridge source was a previous writer's.

Greetings, Anne Classicfilmbuff (talk) 19:35, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Based on what I can glean from Worldcat, the two Paris printings should probably match up, since they're shown as having the same number of total pages; the same is not true of Bainbridge (why I sneakily added the total pages to those four listings in the bibliography). The historical publishing trail would probably be sufficiently preserved by indicating the later version actually used in the "year=" parameter and filling the first publication year in using the "origyear=", but that's just me being OCD or something – the current dual listings aren't that bad.

I've seen a few places (I currently have no idea where) that use et. seq as an indicator for a loosely defined range; I guess, e.g., if a discussion started on page 40, then meandered a bit and was picked up again on 43, 44 and 47, instead of using "pp. 40, 43–44, 47" the ref was just shown as "pp. 40 et seq." Not exactly rigorous, but useful in certain cases.

(BTW, no big deal, but I have to wonder where you get 1994 from for Paris; Amazon, Google and Worldcat all show 1995.) Fat&Happy (talk) 20:50, 15 August 2011 (UTC)