StayinAnon

Ford/Corker lead

Fine with me. Don't be surprised if another editor reverts--I did check both article talk pages. Your claim of npov isn't valid in my opinion, since even the polls don't mention the other candidates. Why should they?

I looked at expanding the 21ST CENTURY WATERFRONT contribution a day or two ago but found that the project was started in 1985, thereabouts so I dropped my edit. Good luck with the project!--Scribner 06:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

3RR warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. - John Broughton | Talk 16:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I've posted further comments at Talk:Jim Webb. The purpose of the 3RR rule is to prevent one editor (that would be you) from continuing to insist on having his/her way even though he/she isn't getting support from other editors. So even if you're absolutely sure you're right, please follow wikipedia policies or be prepared to accept the consequences. John Broughton | Talk 16:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Re your posting on my talk page, you only really "mess up" if you ignore the 3RR warning and keep editing. So - welcome to wikipedia; I hope you stay around for awhile and help out.

I don't really think that adding Gail Parker to the top of the Jim Webb article is appropriate either. And some editors - I'm not one - would argue that doing so is yet another attempt to change the heading to suit what you want, and therefore would count (with your other edits) toward the 3RR limit.

What I do suggest is that you post a comment at Talk:Jim Webb about what you want to do (maybe start a new section?), and see what others say about it. Again, if you can't convince others, then you probably should turn your efforts to something where other editors do appreciate what you are doing.

Finally, please follow Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages. Thanks. John Broughton | Talk 17:46, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Littlefield

I'm not sure he won the Republican primary. He won several of the elections up to the final run-off against Ann Coulter (not that Ann Coulter), but I was unaware of any Republican primary. He was a supporter of Phil Bredesen. He was endorsed by some big unions (a typical Democratic happening). The Chatanooga Times Free Press stated that "The other five candidates, including Ms. Coulter and Mr. Littlefield, have voted only in Democratic Party primaries." (February 2, 2005) But perhaps it is better that no party is listed as he does not self-identify as either. Peace be upon you. --198.185.18.207 18:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Oops

Apparently, I was tricked by a vandal edit by User:212.183.134.66; he/she added a changed vote and signed it as you. I added the strikethrough because I thought you had actually changed your vote so I was trying to make that clear. My mistake; I'll be more careful next time. -Big Smooth 16:08, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

An administrator has to close the debate. Sometimes there is a backlog, but it should happen shortly. -Big Smooth 17:32, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Corker

I don't really know what your position is with the Corker campaign, but I was curious if you had access to or knowledge of the alleged Corker internal polls that show him tied with Ford? I'm not asking this because I want to put it in an article (actually another user already did put it in one without a reference), but rather out of a morbid political curiosity (and I don't work for Ford). I bet you're busy today with the election, so perhaps you won't be checking Wikipedia. In any event, thanks, and I would wish you good luck today, but you're working for the wrong candidate ;) (frankly, if recent polls are any indication, you don't need luck, anyway) · j e r s y k o talk · 15:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Pelosi

Sorry, I have to take that section out of the article again. Your intentions are undoubtedly good but these sections lead to nothing but trouble for editors and article. Also, if its not something she actually did it probably belongs on another page. Jasper23 05:34, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Media bias in the United States

If Fox News is to be included in a list of channels that have been frequently accused of having a liberal bias, this absolutely needs to have some kind of citation to a reliable source. I suspect someone added Fox to the list as a joke, so I'll probably simply delete it after a few days if nobody can provide a reference. BTW, please sign your posts. Thanks!-Hal Raglan 13:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your support with my RfA. My nomination succeeded. I will treat my adminship with the utmost respect. If you ever see me not doing so, please feel free to call me out on it. A good whack to the back of the head should clear it up. =) -- Gogo Dodo 06:54, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

My RfA

I would like to take the time to thank you for voting in my unsuccessful RFA. Your comments and votes were of great help and will be used to guide my actions in the future. Have a nice day!-- Chris is me 13:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Keith Ellison in the 83rd Minnesota Legislative Session

Hi the Keith Ellison sub-page you marked for deletion before I had the chance to even put in the introduction paragraph was moved from the main Rep. Keith Ellison page as it was deemed too long for that page but was seen as having valuable information. Keith Ellison is the first elected Muslim to the United States Congress and as there are many controversies surrounding his identity it was agreed that placing information about his political career might allow people to judge him for what he stands for and not just for what he is. You have marked it as a Puff piece, Wikipedia defines a Puff piece as "an idiom for a journalistic form of puffery; an article or story of exaggerating praise that often ignores or downplays opposing viewpoints or evidence to the contrary." I find it difficult to believe you read the page I just created seconds before - but if you have please return there and list why you think its "exaggerated praise" its quotes by Ellison from the Minnesota House of Representatives official record. I think that with the 8 million wikipedia articles on cartoons like the Simpsons and South Park, a page about an active politician with a swarm of controversy around him doesn't seem like too much to ask. I don't think you had any ill intent I just can't believe you could read it that fast, I haven't even been able to put in a segment to render the sourced material into footnotes yet. I'm going to remove the header you added, feel free to come back and lists why you think its puff if you have a list of reasons you didn't want to put on the then blank discussion page. Seriously I made this page on 09:16, 16 December 2006 and you called for it to be deleted eight minutes later on 09:24, 16 December 2006.Wowaconia 09:59, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Wowaconia has some good points, but I remain unconvinced. I've posted a note on his talk page about this. On the larger subject, however - my general inclination when I see a page with a lot of valid cites is to go elsewhere. In my younger days, I was more of a delitionist, but there is so much really bad cruft out there, and so many more important articles needing improvement, that I've realized that getting into a fight about a marginal matter isn't a particularly good use of my time. It IS worth time getting into a fight over lack of reliable sources, however, since the approach is straightforward: (1) template on article, posting to talk page, maybe note to author/main editor; prod if nothing happens in a week; AfD if prod gets removed. One of two things will happen by the end of the process - either the article will have reliable sources (good) or it will be gone (also good). By contrast, an AfD when there ARE reliable sources is more than likely to end up with a Keep, since WP:N and its offspring (all pretty much disputed) are just too subjective (or have low thresholds) to convince a lot of people that such an article should go.

I'm getting involved with this article only because I think the current approach sets a very bad precedent - I don't believe that ANY legislator - with the possible exception of a U.S. Senator (and that's a six-year term) - deserves a separate article covering one term in office. A separate article is way too much text (this is an encyclopedia, not a biographical service), which is a violation of WP:NPOV (undue weight). So I've started a discussion with Wowconia; we'll see if we can get anywhere. If not, I may do an AfD and see what happens there. John Broughton | Talk 16:47, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

At this point, I'm probably going to drop the matter. It's really not that important, bad precedent or not, given all the other things that I'm working on within wikipedia. As I more or less said above, and have said explicitly to other editors (and it's true in real life as well) - there are an infinite number of things that a person can try to change; it's really best to pick one's fights, rather than jump into the first problem that presents itself. That's particularly true in Wikipedia, where so often other editors will (sooner or later) work on what concerned you. So, definitely, if you see something needing fixing that you can fix (by an edit), do so, but it's wisdom to also decide not to battle over something if you get a strong (negative) reaction from someone else who really cares, and no backing for (the majority of) other editors. John Broughton | Talk 03:58, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Editor's index to Wikipedia

On another matter, I've been working on a what I call an editor's index to Wikipedia, and I'm looking for some feedback. Thoughts? John Broughton | Talk 16:51, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

My RfA

Thanks for your support in my recent RfA. I'll try to refrain from abusing the new buttons. ^_- Shimeru 15:30, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Stop 'N' Swop

1. There was too a consensus - I believe 70% of the "voters" suggested a merge on the AfD. There was no consensus to delete - very different from no consensus, default to keep.
2. Even people who objected to its deletion or merge to articles such as Banjo-Kazooie or Banjo-Tooie agreed that it should be at Banjo-Kazooie (series). - A Link to the Past (talk) 16:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Power level (Dragon Ball) (second nomination)

I can understand you disagreeing with the deletion of the article. Are you a fan of Dragon Ball perhaps? That would explain it. In addition, you appear to be a relatively new contributor, so I'll give a bit more of an explanation with regards to the deletion process.

Things are deleted according to the deletion policy, or more specifically, for not meeting things like WP:ATT or WP:BIO (even though people are currently arguing over WP:ATT, it's important to note that individual sections of the page have existed for a long time and are official policy). WP:ATA explains some arguments that should be avoided in deletion discussions.

If you take a look at the deletion nomination again, you'll see that the deletion opinions refer to the fact that the article is unverified or does not assert its importance, whereas the keep reasons are "this is important" or "it exists". Such keep votes are invalid in determining what to do. The overall opinion is clear there.

Also, it's important to note that deletion discussions run for 5 days unless consensus is unclear. This ran for 1 hour short of 5 days, and the consensus was clear.

I hope this explains things a bit better for you. --Deskana (talk) 15:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Thank you for your Support on my recent nomination for adminship, which passed with a final tally of 89/1/1. If there's anything I can help with, then you know where to find me. Cheers. - Michael Billington (talk) 07:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)