User talk:William Saturn/2008

This is a waste.--

TX 04:10, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

President Eisenhower was truly Jewish. This is not vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tgannon (talk • contribs)

Sorry for the confusion.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tgannon (talk • contribs)

Please see the new additions to

Alright.--

TX 00:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Southern Texas, I have to disagree. Edits like these 2 minutes after editing Presidency of Dwight D. Eisenhower shows s/he's obviously not here to be productive. Also, the source cited doesn't even exist and has no connection to the article whatsoever. I don't believe this is biting newcomers at all. This is just a standard block of a typical vandal. Spellcast (talk) 04:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I just realised this was the ref he tried adding (before, it said no site was found because I didn't remove the apostrophe). But it's hard to see how someone can be taking this seriously when they make an edit like this 2 minutes earlier. If I knew the ref actually existed, I wouldn't of made the block indefinite. I've unblocked him and hopefully he knows better. Spellcast (talk) 04:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Some of my family is muslim and I have to say maybe your I support the mission box is offensive.Ismailmk (talk) 17:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I think your comment is offensive.--

TX 22:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

That is very immature Ismailmk (talk) 21:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

At Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Gwen Gale, you made a reference to Majorly's RfA. Could you elaborate why this request reminds you of Majorly's RfA? Nishkid64 (talk) 03:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Explained.--

TX 04:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I have replied to your comments. Nishkid64 (talk) 04:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I have a list of candidates that are ready for you to "color" on your map (did you realize that there isn't even a color for John McCain, nor his name on the legend?) but I need to know if there is a special way to send "attachments" on Wikipedia (for my sources). I have a wordy explanation of my thoughts so far, if you would please visit my talk page. Thanks much.Suttonplacesouth (talk) 09:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Grrrr! I have worked hours on this list but when I put it up it all "smashes" together as straight text. I have tried it in rows and columns, as a table, and as Excel, and it doesn't appear in a readable format. I have no idea how to make it transfer. I will continue to try to figure out how to do this.Suttonplacesouth (talk) 00:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Hooray! I have finally figured out where all the signs and symbols go and my initial test was a success. I know now how I will be spending Sunday! Expect the list late Sunday or early Monday, as soon as I have re-cut and pasted! No football so lots of time! Suttonplacesouth (talk) 07:50, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

STX, as a fellow dedicated editor I am asking you to watchlist and help me out with some of the discussions going on at Talk:Ronald Reagan. There's an issue of Reagan's nicknames - "The Great Communicator" and "the teflon president" - being mentioned but more specifically the style/tone/prose. That one was over, but has since been re-ignited because there was a blog source and what I feel is some POV writing "in disguise". You can see it in the second paragraph at Ronald Reagan#Popularity. Then there's the Cold War issue, which has gotten kinda rough. Any help is apprecited. Thanks, Happyme22 (talk) 05:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

PS - I think you know but I promoted the

		Thanks for participating in my RfA!
		Although it failed 43/27/0, I'm happy because the outcome has been very helpful in many meaningful ways. Moreover your input alerted me to your understandable concerns about POV pushing and edit-warring at Abraham Lincoln. I will take heed and address them. All the best, Gwen Gale (talk) 05:03, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I wish to thank you for being supportive of my effort to regain my adminship. Though it was not successful, your support was still very much appreciated. Let me know if there is anything I can do for you. Thank you!--MONGO 06:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I was curious to see how the map would look with accurate numbers. I also expect lots of changes after Feb. 5

Fred Thompson has withdrawn, but he still carries three states until there is a newer poll to move those states into another candidate's column.

Since this is "straw polls for the Republican Party" would it be possible for you to pull up (or recreate without too much work) the original map? The one with the actual Republican Party straw poll results?

I thought that it might be instructive if we could compare the list of a year ago with the list today? We could show how close the numbers stayed in a year (or didn't). [Those yellow (Ron Paul) states are pure fantasy, and can't be compared to anything since they are not legitimate.]

I thought was John J. Bulten's page but I read it was your page. Do you know who wrote the first three paragraphs? There are some substantial errors about the Republican Party and I'm surprised that someone who feels comfortable enough to write the text doesn't know very much about how the Party actually operates.

Cheers!

Presidential polls as of January 27, 2008

Many front-runners will change after Super Tuesday, February 5, 2008

[*]next to caucus date = final; however, those states holding presidential primaries will not distribute all delegates until after both caucus and presidential primary

[**]indicates that there has been a reduction in delegates due to unresolved issues between the state party and the RNC

There will be lots of changes in the next few days, weeks, and months! Super! Suttonplacesouth (talk) 12:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd love to, but I think that that might be perceived as wheel warring after the idea was rejected twice at

Thank you.--

TX 03:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, I think semi-protection is the best we can hope for; that way, only established users can edit, and we can at least let them know on their talk pages that he's not actually out. I've also added a sentence to the template about how it's been announced that he's dropping out; hopefully that will convince some of these people that we're not actually out of date.

talk) 04:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to be so useless, but that's not what full prot is for - there's no edit-warring with multiple parties on both sides, there's no ongoing BLP vios or anything of the nature. By the way, it's still quite up in the air - the AP reported ten minutes ago that Rudy had dropped out, then retracted it quickly. east.718 at 04:00, January 30, 2008

I'll watch the articles for a little while tonight. If you remind people not to add the material, and they add it over and over, they may be blocked. — Carl (

I never removed Giuliani. Zachorious (talk) 04:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Congrats on the GA on the

Thank you very much.--

TX 04:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Woodrow Wilson And Segregation

"Wilson was a strong proponent of Segregation, and held controversial views on blacks" - This information is easily verifiable see: [2]

Ethical Sidenote: Your edits in this matter may constitute editorial bias. As a member of the wikiproject against censorship, You should know better. --BETA 04:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Categorizing a figure on the basis of today's norms without regard to the popular views of the time is a fallacy.--

TX 20:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

You can't dictate encyclopedic content based on how people might interpret facts. His administration did engage in practices of segregation, an his views were controversial. If readers decide to love or hate him based on these facts, we can't help that. BETA 04:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

That isn't the issue. Also, you need to understand what

TX 04:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the misuse of rollback in content disputes...

Southern Texas,

Wikipedia:Rollback policy

says: "Rollback should only be used to revert vandalism and should never be used to revert good faith edits or in content disputes. By requesting the permission, you agree to only use the tool for the accepted purpose; any misconduct with rollback will lead to its revocation."

This edit regarding Woodrow Wilson and Segregation looks like a clear content dispute, not obvious vandalism. Reversions of any good faith edits, including content disputes and so on, and anything other than obvious vandalism, must be done manually and with an appropriate edit summary. I'm not going to remove your access to rollback, but I am warning you to be more careful that you only use rollback for obvious vandalism otherwise you will lose it. Thanks, Sarah 17:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Response to allegations of sockpuppetry

At first, I couldn't find a way to disprove your allegations, but I was flipping through my preferences, and I found something that let me see the server time for edits, to the second.

server times for one of my edits, and for one of Krimson's:

2008-02-05T05:35:24 krimson's edit to Woodrow Wilson 2008-02-05T05:35:32 My edit to book of genesis

If we were sockpuppets, I would have to log off immediately, log back on as beta, jump to book of genesis, click the edit this page button, find my place in the article, delete theoretical, add storied, then write "maybe this will work better", and save the page, all in only 8 seconds. That's highly unlikely.

I appreciate the vote of confidence. BETA 04:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

This is why I shouldn't get involved in junk.--

TX 04:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator elections

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by February 14! Kirill 17:01, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Old Standards

I invite you to put the proposal forward on the presidential template for full comment. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 04:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for barnstar

Was meaning to thank you for the barnstar for "putting up with all the garbage that goes along with political articles and for being able to keep cool for 3 years without running away like many of us have considered" ... then soon after that I got upset over stuff and had to take a few days off before starting up again. So it happens to all of us! Wasted Time R (talk) 18:16, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be

three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. --Vera from upstairs (talk) 04:50, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, you've been reported.--

TX 04:51, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Please see here. Reply on my talk page so that I can be sure you understand the terms. Thank you. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 05:42, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree, it is a content dispute. However, if the other user feels the images shouldn't be present then she has a right to her opinion and should be able to express that. My advice is to settle this on the talk page; if a clear majority wants the images, then they should stay per consensus. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 05:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Block ordeal

Sorry, but your last edit to the article was basically just a revert to your previous version, barring two new images. I'm sorry, but I don't see any compromise here. And I know that the other user isn't willing to cooperate, but in that case go to the article's talk page and bring it up; see what other editors think. See you in a day, Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 20:34, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

To the reviewing administrator: On a side note I find it very difficult to edit Master of Puppets' talk page, which I was about to address until I was blocked. In my browser the right margins are cut off and the "edit" button is hidden. Please talk to that editor about my concern.--

You can also use the 'edit' button on the top of the page and then just scroll down. Useight (talk) 23:03, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't help anything since I still can't read what is written on the right edge.--

TX 23:04, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I have looked through it some, and the problem appears to be that you were simply reverting each other without much discussion. Having engaged in a little discussion some months back is not enough. That said, it was a less than optimal decision not to block

WP:TEMPLAR on your page, and didn't bother to use an edit summary (rather popups) in reversion. There's little more I detest than edit warring without discussion when it comes against people who have engaged in discussion. I would endorse an unblock here only given a promise to change your habits when it comes to edit warring, which do seem to be a problem I've also encountered at the 2008 presidential templates. Neverthless, you have engaged in some discussion, and the change you made was indeed a form of compromise (which should have been hashed out on the talk page before you made the change), not necessarily a straight out reversion. The Evil Spartan (talk) 02:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Do you realize that you aren't blocked? east.718 at 21:28, February 17, 2008

I am auto-blocked still.--

TX 21:28, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Not anymore, I just found it and killed it. :-D east.718 at 21:29, February 17, 2008

Thank you.--

It's obvious that this was all a misunderstanding, would you like your rollback rights back? east.718 at 21:35, February 17, 2008

Yes please.--

TX 21:36, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Done. east.718 at 21:37, February 17, 2008

You added a few

The article needs to be renominated before I can approve it. Renominate it and I will approve it.User:calbear22 (talk) 01:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The February 2008

talk) 16:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Done.--

TX 04:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I closed the conversation, such as it is, after three weeks. Cheers, -- Yellowdesk (talk) 20:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I undid your restoration of the comments made in the GWB talk page. I do not believe someone stating "I never liked Bush, but I love him now" and "Honestly, I never liked the guy. In fact, I despised him. But I have totally changed my opinion after he recognized Kosovo. Now, I love the guy. He is a true visionary and it took me so long to realize it." has anything to do with the content of the page. Remember, talk pages are not for discussion of the subject of the article.--Finalnight (talk) 05:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I did a partial restoration of the discussion in question, specifically only the parts of the discussion that actually related to the contents of the page, not the editor's opinions of the subject.--Finalnight (talk) 05:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I was actually placing a message on the associated talk page when you were placing one my talk page. Still, when I first removed the image, I put my reason in the edit summary. When Harry Barrow put the image back onto the page, he did so without giving reason in his edit summary. Of course, for someone who uploaded the now-deleted derogatory Image:Barack Hussein Obama.jpg, his (or her) intentions can be guessed at. →Wordbuilder (talk) 22:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

How is the name of the fellow "derogatory"? Harry Barrow (talk) 23:37, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I apologize, Harry Barrow. I may be thinking of another image. →Wordbuilder (talk) 01:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

May I draw your attention to [3] Harry Barrow (talk) 23:37, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Were you unaware that non-free images cannot be used on talk pages? I would not have reverted had I felt your edits this evening had all been in good faith. But, some have been questionable. →Wordbuilder (talk) 01:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

3RR is not set in stone; edit warring is edit warring. You did break 3RR, and then broke the 1RR restriction I put on you both by undoing Vera from upstair's edits while claiming she had been undoing yours. Also, that's a strange reaction to have as the result of a block; I hope you reconsider, as a tendency to edit war will only create more problems. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 02:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Just a small clarification; yes, I accept that your last revert was an attempt at compromise, but you were still largely just undoing her edit. Discussion was the crucial element, not the compromise of just one editor. Hopefully, this doesn't repeat itself, and we can all go on to be happy editors... sound good? Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 02:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you were just having a particularly bad day or what, but your edits to

You are presenting it in a very disruptive manner that is in no way constructive. We are not here to discuss the merits of the Iraq war. If you have a problem with content discuss the problem with the content, don't troll the talk page.--

TX 05:12, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Please see my points on the talk page. I'm trying to discuss the one-sidedness of the section.

talk) 05:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

re:Wikiproject membership

Hi, Southern Texas, and thanks for welcoming me in to the WikiProject! I would like to point out that I haven't frequently edited in a while, so I'm concerned that I might not be able to "jump" into the project. Do you think that this is going to be an issue?--Dem393 (talk) 23:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Electoral histories

Hey there STX, I've got a question for you regarding electoral history sections on the articles of US politicians (such as George H. W. Bush#Electoral history and George W. Bush#Electoral history). How do you feel about them? One user, User:Darth Kalwejt, continues to add them to almost every politican's page. I am largely opposed to them in their current form(s) (both the extended and collapsable) because they are lists with no encyclopedic prose; they contain usually ten citations, none ever in full, complete citation format; they draw out the page anywhere from 2 to 10 KB (depending on how many elections the individual participated in), which, as you probably know, is a huge number for many already long articles; it throws off the formatting/style of the page; the styles are not consistent from page to page; and I'm not sure if they even interest people. I contacted the user who keeps putting them in about four days ago, and then yesterday, but have not received a reply (see here). Anyway, I'm just out getting opinions and judging how fellow editors feel about them before proceeding. Thanks, Happyme22 (talk) 01:05, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Well I'm ready to take some form of action to get rid of them. How would you suggest proceeding? Happyme22 (talk) 20:34, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Chris Dodd

Sure thing; I've got it watchlisted. Happyme22 (talk) 05:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXV (March 2008)

The

talk) 02:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:Governor_Connally.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered,

talk 01:33, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

You might be interested...

...in some of

these debates regarding Obama and the Rev. Wright controversy, particularly the merges. Thanks, Happyme22 (talk) 01:48, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

PS - If you have anymore trouble with the Dodd presidential camp article, let me know and I'll watchlist it again. --Hap

Endorsements

Hi there. Is there anywhere that people agreed to use collapsible tables for these things? I can see for pages like

Dennis Kucinich's campaign

, even before I viewed it, a prose list was being used. Please direct me somewhere that these have been discussed - personally I find having to open a concealed list, particularly one spreading to more than one column - to be needless extra work - however if this has been discussed someplace before please show me where.

I have no hard feelings if these go back, it's just simpler if the lists are uncollapsed. Bobo. 09:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

That's fair enough. If you feel they should go back in, put them back in, I'll try as hard as possible to keep myself from reverting them. Thank you. Bobo. 21:36, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Robert Barr presidential campaign, 2008

On Robert Barr presidential campaign, 2008, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page .

--BorgQueen (talk) 06:38, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Barr logo.jpg)

You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media

).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "

criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 10:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Not sure if you're aware of this, but it was CoolKid1993 (talk · contribs) that changed the logo.[4] This seems to be a pet project of CoolKid1993's -- converting bitmap logos to SVG. Not everyone has been supportive of his efforts.[5] Indeed, CoolKid1993's SVG version of the Barr Campaign's logo is not an exact copy, so I'm not sure what benefit it has over the JPG image you uploaded originally. That said, I do like CoolKid1993's version, but I don't think this asthetic issue is relevant for the article. -Noca2plus (talk) 16:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the help

Thanks! --213.40.96.218 (talk) 04:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up

I'll put the article back on my watchlist. -- Kendrick7^talk 17:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

edits to Template:United States presidential election, 2008

It is actually in your editorial interest to mention your desired improvements (and the good reasons for them) on the (article or template) talk page; the edits tend to last longer that way, and you learn why some less-than obvious conventions may exist in the process. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 04:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

---

All the subarticles under the Republican and Democratic Parties made it bigger, actually. Could you put them back into a line like before? It's also easier to read and there wouldn't be a reason for all the parties to be underlined. (Convention should be left under them). Thanks Therequiembellishere (talk) 20:03, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

---

• I'll say again, two months later:
  It is in your editorial interest to talk about your intended changes on this template. Otherwise, lack of consensus or agreement by other editors tend to result in editing of your carefully constructed work. It's not going to fly to have some candidates requiring extra effort to see in order to navigate to. A drop down template is OK, but two levels of effort has had zero justification.
  -- Yellowdesk (talk) 01:01, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with Yellowdesk here. BOLD only goes so far and we were talking about several changes that now cannot be made due to your edits. Therequiembellishere (talk) 01:03, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Dodd december debate.jpg

Thanks for uploading

this list, click on this link

, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 18:09, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Blocked

Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 16:09, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): You have been unblocked by the blocking admin. Request handled by:  Sandstein  18:58, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I support the unblocking and have contacted the block admin. This is starting to get ridiculous. -- Kendrick7^talk 16:39, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the support. What is the root of all these strange happenings on this article?--

talk) 16:41, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't have the slightest idea. I've requested page protection and I'm going to start handing out vandal warning templates ({{

uw-vand1}}, etc., if it continues. -- Kendrick7^talk

Fair enough. I have unblocked the editor. I see it to be my own error. My apologies.

Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 17:21, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Considering leaving wikipedia

Because of today's events I am seriously considering leaving wikipedia. I used to enjoy reading articles and editing anonymously. After I created an account I now see the utter disregard of editors and of making an encyclopedia, I see administrators helping with page blanking of articles considered GA after blocking me for making one revert of the page blanking. I see editors who have no business editing pages ruining articles. I enjoy editing wikinews because the people there are nicer and are more committed to bringing information to people.--

talk) 17:26, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I made an error William and I do apologise. Wikipedia isn't a bad place. Unfortunately it falls victim to human error. You will find this where ever you go in life. There's no escaping it. I do apologise on behalf of Wikipedia for your troubles but please reconsider leaving.

Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 17:34, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I laughed it off and decided to stay.--

talk) 00:15, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

6/17 DYK

On Chuck Baldwin presidential campaign, 2008, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page .

--Bedford ^Pray 00:47, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Your query of

Christopher Dodd presidential campaign, 2008

If I recall, I passed that article quite a while ago. If you feel that it no longer meets the

GA criteria, then by all means you may delist the article yourself. Happyme22 (talk) 02:10, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Dodd november debate.jpg)

You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media

).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "

criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:16, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Dodd december debate.jpg)

You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media

).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "

criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:16, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Warning

Christopher Dodd presidential campaign, 2008. Your edits appeared to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. -- Kendrick7^talk 19:01, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Oops, I think I got you and the other "W" account mixed up. -- Kendrick7^talk 06:22, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Tommy Thompson presidential campaign, 2008

DYK

Hi. I've reviewed your DYK submission for the article

Tommy Thompson presidential campaign, 2008, and unfortunately found a problem with it. Please feel free to comment on the DYK submissions page. Cheers, Olaf Davis | Talk 21:58, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

User is currently blocked, but I'll try to clean this up. -- Kendrick7^talk 22:21, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Unblock (second chance)

This request for unblocking has been declined due to your history of

Wikipedia community

. To be unblocked you need to demonstrate that you are willing and able to contribute positively to Wikipedia. You can do this by:

• Familiarizing yourself with
  our basic rules
  .
• Pick any pre-existing article you wish to improve.
  • If you have trouble choosing an article to improve, see this index of articles needing improvement for ideas.
• Click edit this page on that article and scroll down past the message informing you of your block.
• Copy the source of that article and paste it to the bottom of your talk page under a new top-level heading (like this: = [[Article title]] =) and save the page before you improve it.
• Propose some significant and well researched improvements to your article by editing your personal copy of the article. Please note that we are not looking for basic typo corrections, or small unreferenced additions; your edits should be substantial, and reflect relevant policies.
• When you are done with your work, re-request unblocking and an
  administrator
  will review your proposed edits.
  • If we (including the original blocking admin) are convinced that your proposed edits will improve Wikipedia as an encyclopedia, you will be unblocked.

If you need help while working with your proposed edits, you may add "{{

helpme

|your question here}}" to your talk page. Thank you.

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): Per second chance. Request handled by: Tiptoety talk 18:32, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I have asked the blocking admin to comment.  Sandstein  08:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Tom Vilsack presidential campaign, 2008 DYK

On Tom Vilsack presidential campaign, 2008, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page .

--Congratulations! PeterSymonds (talk) 10:55, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

re:wikipedia

I wasn't questioning your ability to use Wikipedia, nor your knowledge of it. However, what you did was far more than what you brought up and the way I've seen Wikipedia going, as of late, we discuss major changes befroe implementing them to avoid edit wars and arguments. Therequiembellishere (talk) 15:24, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Re: Request

 Done Sorry for the inconvenience. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 00:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Reverts to

Chuck Baldwin presidential campaign, 2008

Please be careful In your edit summary reverting me, you claimed "all the information is cited. please be more careful." This is clearly not true, as the article contains several direct quotations and statistics which are neither common knowledge nor attributed. You also re-linked a number of dates in spite of

WP:MOSDATE. I get the impression that you didn't even look at what I did. I have consequently reverted your reversion and ask that you take your own advice by carefully considering whether or not you should revert an edit correcting attribution, capitalization, formatting, and a host of issues with such a blithe and inaccurate edit summary. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:02, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Citations Please see

Wikipedia:CITE#When_quoting_someone. If you quote someone, you have to cite that reference at the quotation. You can't just put a citation in the article somewhere arbitrarily; it has to be associated with the claims that are made in the text. Readers should not be required to check every source for each claim, just the source(s) that make that claim. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:48, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Attribution versus citation Yes, the quotes are attributed to Baldwin, but I still don't have a verifiable source for them. If I inserted a controversial passage such as the following:

Baldwin says that all women are "baby machines who shouldn't be taught to read."

that would be attribution, but I would need to use a <ref> tag to cite how I got that quote. Readers shouldn't have to pour through every citation to find out that Baldwin was quoted by a disreputable source or out-of-context; that citation should be right there with the quote itself (especially considering the controversial nature of something like my bombastic example.) You can't simply attribute a quote and then add a pile of references and claim that the article's citations are okay; this is why the <ref> tags exist in the first place. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:23, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay We need to back up a little bit and be very clear at this point, because we might be miscommunicating. You wrote:

"I don't remember adding that quote. The reference is found at the end of the paragraph. Its not necessary to add a footnote at the end of every sentence. Thats not in MOS."

If "that quote" refers to the quote I made up above this post, you are correct - you did not write it. That quote was purely hypothetical and made up by me.

You write that "reference[s] [are] found at the end of the paragraph[s]." Sometimes that might be true, but sometimes not. The following is a direct excerpt from that article:

"Baldwin announced that he would use the Internet as Ron Paul "to circumvent the media," which he deemed responsible for holding back the possible prospects of third party candidates.[citation needed] He stated back in 2004 as vice-presidential nominee that "the American people haven't rejected our message; they haven't heard our message."[11] Following the nomination, Baldwin set up a campaign website and opened accounts on MySpace and Facebook. A MySpace account was also created that included former supporters of the former Arkansas governor and Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee.[12]"

As you can see, there are two references in this passage, neither of which supports the quotation about "circumvent[ing] the media." That quotation needs a citation and that citation is not offered in this article anywhere. It is possible that one of the sources used in the article has that quotation, but I don't know since there isn't a citation for that particular quote. I suppose you should err on the side of over-attribution rather than under-attribution, as the former is easily fixed. Does that make sense? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:44, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure Look, the fact that you wrote this shows that something is still not being communicated here: "I don't see why a cite needs to be listed at the end of every sentence but I did it anyways to put an end to this frivolous edit war. I don't think you should be so inclined to tag up an article without any regard, its not very helpful." You do not have to have a citation at the end of every sentence. You do have to have one for every quotation. You have to have a citation for claims like "Chuck Baldwin is endorsed by Party X." You cannot have

original research and this is not frivolous; it's an essential part of Wikipedia. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Why?

Please stop it Take a look at the revert you're making. Why are you - e.g. - taking out the Constitution Party category? Why are you re-linking dates in opposition to

WP:MOSDATES? Are you just blind reverting for fun or something? Do you have some purpose in this? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:02, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for catching my clumsy self-revert to

2216firestar 17:13, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		For your prolific and outstanding contributions to U.S. election campaign articles, I award you this Barnstar. JayJasper (talk) 17:10, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

This is an current talk page .

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:William_Saturn/2008&oldid=1192892403"