User talk:Grundle2600/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

ITN for Mycocepurus smithii

On 19 April, 2009, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article Mycocepurus smithii, which you created. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the In the news candidates page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 14:12, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

$100 million cut thingy

I think the original piece was published before the cabinet meeting, and then updated after it. That would explain the title change. As a side note, please consider proposing these additions on the talk page before putting them in. It really does seem a bit newsy and should probably be deleted until there has been time for a perspective to form, and additional reporting. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:12, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining the title change. No matter what I say on the article's talk page, there are certain people who will always censor what I add to the article. Grundle2600 (talk) 17:18, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the statement from the article for the time being. It needs to be discussed in talk first. Please see this thread. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Please do not use article talk pages, edit summaries, etc. for personal attacks / accusations of bad faith[1][2]. Further, reversions based on claims of "censorship" are contentious and on the face of them not valid. As you know the Obama-related articles are on community probation, so if your proposed edits are disputed please follow the WP:BRD process and discuss anything you disagree with in a collegial way on the talk page. Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 17:50, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Again, please refrain from using Obama-related talk pages as a platform for accusing other editors ("you people") of censorship.[3] The talk page is for gathering consensus and discussing proposed changes to the article, not for making accusations. Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 21:07, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

please stop - you have been cautioned a number of times by several editors to stop making accusations against others, yet you have chosen to continue. This kind of comment[4][5] in inappropriate for article talk pages per WP:TALK, WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, and the terms of article probation. I have closed the two discussions in which you have attempted but failed to gain consensus for adding content to an article about Barack Obama. When consensus does not go your way, please accept that. You are not welcome to make accusations against other editors. Wikidemon (talk) 03:34, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

All I did was add very well sourced info to the article, and then when people kept erasing it, I asked questions about why. They have not answered my questions. They gave excuses, but not answers. I have every right to discuss this on the talk page. You are guilty of censorship, and of abusing your power as an administrator. Grundle2600 (talk) 03:45, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

You have gone about this in completely the wrong way. Article talk pages are places to discuss how to improve the article. If you wish to propose a change to the article, suggest it on the talk page and then present arguments in its favor. If a consensus agrees with your change, it will be implemented; however, if you fail to win consensus you must let it go, not suddenly start posting messages about how you are being censored. That is just sour grapes. You have been warned about this sort of approach many, many times. If you continue to do things like this, you will find yourself blocked and unable to do anything at all. Bear in mind that anything related to Obama on Wikipedia is currently on a topic probation, and there is also a pending ArbCom case that discusses just this sort of behavior. You would do well to back off. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:49, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Grundle, keep your focus on article content and citations rather than other editors. Other editors may not abide by this guideline, but you still have to. And I reiterate my suggestion to spend as little time on political articles as possible. You're outnumbered and generally speaking the majority rules. Next time you find content you want to include, you might try going directly to Wikidemon and asking him how it can be included appropriately. You're also always welcome to ask me my opinion and I'll try to give it to you straight. Sorry to see you frustrated. Right or wrong, you're not going to win every content "battle" here and especially for political articles your viewpoints are in the minority so you'll have to be willing to do your best knowing much of the content you think is notable and well sourced may not be added. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:50, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Grundle2600 (talk) 03:53, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Surely you know that you should be backing off. I cannot imagine how these two edits[6][7] are anything other than a deliberate attempt to provoke trouble. The first looks like a weird retaliatory warning message, and the second re-proposes some clearly inappropriate content by repeating verbatim a proposal you have made several times and has been rejected each time. Under the circumstances, I strongly suggest you take a short break from editing Obama-related articles until and unless you are ready to approach the issue in a simple, straightforward, non-accusatory way. Wikidemon (talk) 04:26, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

The first of those is a joke, and I'm sure he understands why I did it. The second is because you told me to talk about it on the talk page, but then when I did, you closed it before anyone answered my question. Grundle2600 (talk) 04:32, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Scjessey's and your subsequent responses show it is a retaliatory notice. Whether you consider it a joke or not is besides the point. Since you have not stopped, I have posted a notice of this matter to WP:AN/I, and may continue to close and/or remove inappropriate material from the talk page pending a resolution to this. Wikidemon (talk) 17:55, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Newspaper Crisis

It seems to be a general/generic/neologism term, there already is an article on the future of newspapers and it has a section called industry in crisis, consider merging (saw on patrol). ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 01:25, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. I did not know that other article already existed. Grundle2600 (talk) 01:26, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

OK. I just did a redirect. Grundle2600 (talk) 01:27, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

No problem, usually for subjects I consider prominent enough such that it should already have an article, I search for one by typing variations of it and/or looking through related articles. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 01:33, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Presidency of B. Obama

Hi Grundle, I'm coming here after this report at AN/I by User:Wikidemon, and am posting this as an admin who has spent a bit of time keeping an eye on the various Barack Obama articles. I am concerned by some of your comments at Talk:Presidency of Barack Obama and your general editing behavior at that article. As you should know, the article in question is under article probation, and it's particularly within that context that I view some of your edits as problematic. I'm also going to state right at the outset that I'm not interested in debating the content which you and others are debating over on the talk page, and indeed I have no position on that at this time. This is about editing behavior.

The article probation page specifically notes that editors can be sanctioned for assumptions of bad faith, and there does seem to be an issue with that when it comes to some of your recent edits. (For example, [8], [9], and [10]). Some of these edits also shade into personal attacks. In disputes, it never does any good to say, as you do, "you people are censoring the article, and that's all there is to it" or "you people are hypocrites, and censorship lovers." Repeated accusations of this type can be grounds for sanctions, and they need to stop now.

Additionally this edit suggests that you may (I stress that word) be actively pushing a certain political agenda with your edits. It's completely fine for folks with strong political views to edit these articles (indeed most editors who are interested in pages like Presidency of Barack Obama have strong political views), but it's problematic when the editing becomes more about making a political point than improving the encyclopedia. I'm concerned that you may have crossed the line somewhat in this respect, if even unconsciously. All I ask is that you try to be aware of this (it's something that can at times be an issue for all of us, no matter how much we might try to stick to a neutral point of view).

I have no wish to block you or temporarily topic ban you from Obama articles, but consider this post fair warning that that could happen if your recent behavior continues.

Finally I'd also like to add a piece of advice. I think you're running into trouble here because you are trying to make changes and then becoming extremely frustrated when others disagree with you. Consensus is obviously a very difficult way to operate, particularly on highly disputed articles, but of course it is the way we operate here. I think you need to show a little more patience as you propose changes to the article, and also recognize that many (if not most) of the changes you propose will not be accepted. That's sort of par for the course on Wikipedia (it's happened to me plenty of times). If many are objecting to your approach to a content issue, consider the possibility that they are not simply trying to "censor" you, but that there might really be an issue with the content you are trying to add (maybe you are right and your fellow editors on the other side of the fence are wrong, but accusing them of "censorship" is not going to help matters in the slightest) . In my experience at least, most of the time in disputes like these everyone involved thinks they are doing the right thing for the encyclopedia - i.e. they are in fact editing in good faith. It's usually easier to achieve agreement on thorny issues when we approach disputes with that fact in mind, and as such I highly recommend putting yourself in that mindset.

I hope this advice is somewhat helpful, and just know that I won't bother you about this again so long as your editing behavior improves as discussed above. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:02, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I am well aware of my own political opinions, as well as those of the people who keep erasing my well sourced additions to articles. I never erase other people's well sourced additions, but they often erase mine. Even when all I'm adding is a quote or some numbers from Associated Press, they still erase it. You say it's not censorship, but I think it is.

When a politician says he stands a certain way on an issue, but he votes the opposite way, I think the article should reflect both of those things. But the Obama supporters don't want that. They only want the article to include whichever one of the two makes Obama look better, and to ignore the one that makes him look worse. I want the article to include both what he said, and how he voted. I want the article to be balanced - they don't.

Grundle2600 (talk) 21:35, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

You're not heeding my point, and you really need to do that. "I want the article to be balanced - they don't" is not acceptable language to use when discussing this article. That's not remotely up for debate, and if these kind of comments continue on the article talk page I will not hesitate to block you for disruption (though as I said, and I really mean this, I do not want to do that). You can think what you will about the motivations of other editors, but keep that to yourself and don't spill it out on talk pages in the form of accusations of bad faith.

Additionally, you're missing a fundamental point about how Wikipedia works when you refer to "people who keep erasing my well sourced additions to articles" and point out that "I never erase other people's well sourced additions..." The mere fact that something is "well-sourced" does not, of course, mean we include it in the article (as another admin told you on the article talk page, "verifiability in reliable sources is a necessary but not sufficient criteria for adding something to Wikipedia"). We could literally write millions of words about the Presidency of Barack Obama, all of it sourced to the nines. But of course we don't because it's an encyclopedia article of necessarily limited length. Not everything we could include will be included. We use policies like WP:NPOV (WP:UNDUE is particularly important in this context), WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:BLP to determine what goes in and what stays out, and we hash out disagreements over these policies using consensus as I said above. It is not enough, and never will be, to simply say "I sourced this and therefore it should be in the article" if other editors are raising any number of legitimate concerns about the content in question. This is core Wikipedia stuff that all editors need to adhere to on any article, not just controversial ones.

Again I'm not taking a side one way or another in the specific content dispute, but I do know that multiple editors have objected to some of the content you would like to add and that they have been offering legitimate, policy based reasons (such as WP:WEIGHT) for doing so (that doesn't mean they're right - it just means you don't have consensus for your edits). At that point you need to continue discussing the issues with them, calmly and respectfully, and without making accusations of bad faith or ascribing motivations to your fellow editors. This is not optional, it's required, and if you can't hold to those standards then you might end up not being able to edit these articles because of a topic ban. If the editing environment there is getting too stressful, try taking a break for a week or two and then come back willing to re-engage in a civil and good faith manner. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:07, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. Grundle2600 (talk) 22:29, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

• Is this a joke], Grundle. You should know better by now, and given the warnings above, this kind of activity cannot continue. Grsz¹¹ 19:02, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

• • No, it's not a joke. That section of the article was 100% pro-Obama. So I added info from The New York Times and CBS News that was anti-Obama to bring balance to the article. Grundle2600 (talk) 20:24, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Grundle, just because some text does not call Obama anything bad doesn't mean it's pro-Obama. You should maybe give up on the idea that if something doesn't agree with you that therefore it is irredeemably biased, and if you think that inserting a note on Obama's plane (I assume that's Air Force One, which contrary to your phrasing is not the president's private property) is in any way "encyclopedic" then you've come to the wrong place. Why must you see party politics everywhere? Why should there be pros and cons to every topic? Or have conservatives now adopted some sort of ueber-postmodernism where they don't believe in "truth" at all anymore? Drmies (talk) 03:20, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
      • Just to be fair here Dr., the content added br Grendel (sic) didn't call Obama anything bad. It just pointed out that flying around in airforce one on Earth Day uses an awful lot of fuel, and that Obama keeps the heat on high, and the he eats really good tasting meat from happy cows. Whether this content belong in that article is another issue. But is there something inherently non-notable about this information? Is there something inherently more notable about a speech or a policy issue that the president has than hi actual practices as a leader? Or is it a judgement call? ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:11, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
        • No, it didn't state that explicitly, but the implications were clear. And you know I love your facetiousness--that Obama likes steak is, of course, at least as important as his foreign policy choices. In fact, I wish those issues had received more attention in the elections: if I had known what McCain ate for breakfast, for instance, I would have been better able to make up my mind. Let's say, for instance, that Obama hates the taste and smell of bacon--you and I both know that such a frame of mind would render him unfit for the American presidency. Drmies (talk) 23:24, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
          • Well if you want to add content on his foreign policy or domestic economic policy, I encourage you to do so. I haven't had any luck trying to get those subjects covered in any meaningful way. Just yesterday his auto policies were removed in their entirety from that same article on his presidency. And FYI I'm pretty sure Bush's drinking habits from his 20s and rumors about his Air Guard service and that he sometimes mispronounces words is well covered. So I don't think it's outrageous to suggest an article on the personal life and decisions president makes would be inappropriate. And by the way, let's not forget that the Obama articles here are so full of puffery it's like walking into an incense and soap store, so let's not pretend there is a choice between solid well sourced NPOV content and this information. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:42, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Drmies I am a libertarian, not a conservative. As it says on my userpage, I am pro-choice, and I favor legalizing drugs and gay marriage. I also favor universal health care, which probably makes me a "bad" libertarian. Grundle2600 (talk) 13:50, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Hey, good for you. I feel the same way. But I'm also anti-gun! And anti-gum, but that's a different matter. But since you represent a "third way," then, I think you should know as well as anyone that splitting everything that could be called objective into pros and cons from political perspectives does not help meaningful discussion. Take care, Drmies (talk) 23:24, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
  • ChildofMidnight Thanks! Grundle2600 (talk) 23:59, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: Repeated un-deletion of Carmen L. Robinson

FYI, you may want to reread the AFD result:

"The result was delete. Delete, but permit recreation AFTER the primary in May clarification: should she win or otherwise become notable DGG (talk) 22:31, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

clarification--can be userified, but not kept after that unless there's additional good material.DGG (talk) 17:28, 16 March 2009 (UTC)"

which you can find here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carmen L. Robinson. --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 22:01, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I already have it saved in my userspace. But I think it's well sourced enough to stay anyway. And people might want to read about her before they vote in the primary. Grundle2600 (talk) 22:05, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I have it stored at User:Grundle2600/Carmen. If it does get recreated in the mainspace, I hope my edit history from that will be preserved. Grundle2600 (talk) 00:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Last Warning

This is not an acceptable edit on a controversial page (or actually on any page), and it goes specifically against the point I made above that material does not go into an article simply because it is "sourced." You added material into a heavily disputed articles - material which you had to know would be controversial - and did so without any discussion on the talk page (unless I missed something). In addition the material as added is a clear violation of WP:OR/WP:SYNTH (if you don't understand why please ask).

I'm a fairly nice fellow, indeed a bit of a softie, but this needs to stop now. You need to discuss all substantive additions to that article on talk, and that discussion needs to be civil and in good faith as I pointed out in a previous section of your talk page. I'll consider any failure to follow that procedure to be evidence of disrupting the encyclopedia, and per the article probation for various Obama articles you will be sanctioned the next time I see this happening.

The way you are going about things on Presidency of Barack Obama is obviously not working. Time to change course. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:34, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

1) I'm going by the wikipedia:Be bold policy. What is wrong with me doing that?

2) Please cite the wikipedia rule that says I have to ask for permission on the talk page before adding something to an article.

3) Everything in the environment section of that article portrays Obama in a positive way. I cited The New York Times and CBS News articles that show him in a negative way, to bring balance to the article.

4) Why is it only OK for that section of the article to report on Obama's good side, and not OK for it to repret on his bad side?

Grundle2600 (talk) 20:21, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

1. WP:BOLD is not a policy, but just a guideline.
2. There's no specific policy, but this could be considered to fall under the "disruptive edits" mentioned in the Obama-related article probation, given that these additions are obviously highly-contentious and one-sided in nature.
3. The article carefully adheres to a neutral point of view. It is not deliberately slanted in a positive or negative way. To "bring balance" is not a good enough reason for adding anything without prior discussion.
4. That is just a false dichotomy. The article is neutral, and you wish to add something to make it less neutral.

-- Scjessey (talk) 21:04, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

(responding solely to Grundle, ec with Scjessey) "...but 'Be not too bold.'" (per WP:BOLD). Boldness largely goes out the window when we are talking about a controversial article, part of a series of articles that are so problematic that they are on probation. There is no general Wikipedia rule that you have to ask for permission on the talk page before adding something to an article. But you are working on an article that is on article probation which gives administrators broad remit to deal with editing problems. That it what I am doing. I am asking, indeed telling, you to discuss major changes before making them. I would say the same thing to any other editor editing as you are currently (i.e. adding in controversial, off-policy material without talking about it, and after having previously bandied about a number of bad faith accusations on the talk page and been explicitly warned for that).

Wikipedia articles are not about "half-positive, half-negative." We don't look at articles and say, "we need more negative stuff in there" and then add it. The base policy is WP:NPOV, and a neutral point of view is obviously context specific (the NPOV on Charles Manson is that he is/was a murderous cult leader, the NPOV on Albert Einstein is that he was an important and brilliant scientist). Figuring out the balance on the Obama articles (or any other article about persons/ideas about which people have strong views) is tricky, but we cannot edit based on "too positive" or "too negative" and just try to counterbalance with the opposite. That's not good encyclopedia writing.

Just as if not more important, your recent additions violate WP:OR. You really need to understand that otherwise you will keep repeating this problem. You added three sentences based on three sources, and none of them even criticized Obama. The "shows him in a negative way" aspect is completely your interpretation, and is based on sticking these facts in the section on the environment such that they portray Obama in a hypocritical way (i.e., as a fuel wasting, beef eating guy who keeps the thermostat too high). You don't get this from secondary sources, it's a synthesis of various sources and is in the end utterly your own view. Furthermore, the New York Times article only makes a throw-away reference to the fact that Obama keeps the thermostat high - it doesn't say that anyone criticized him for that and in fact has nothing to do with the environment. The CBS piece points out that the press always finds out how much a president flies around on Earth Day and gives a guess for Obama, but again there is no direct criticism or anything about his environmental policies. Most bizarrely, the piece about the beef does not even mention Obama, and you don't even demonstrate that he loves that type of beef. Even if he did, you don't show that anyone has complained about it, and if even if that had happened, it's unlikely it would be notable.

Regardless, you know very well that the article is contentious from the talk pages. And, I must ask, why bother trying to add things like this in without discussing? As you can see you will generally be reverted, understandably since you did not discuss it first and since the additions clearly violate our content policies, so in the end you don't accomplish anything. On controversial articles, you need to convince others of your views in order for your edits to stick.

If you feel the environmental section is unbalanced, find notable criticisms in notable secondary sources and argue for their inclusion on the article talk page. That's an acceptable way to proceed, though it's not at all a guarantee that you'll get your way. What's unacceptable is throwing in any old piece of negative information you can find just because it is negative and you think the article needs more negative stuff, and to not to discuss this with others prior to doing this, and to accuse others of censorship when they revert your edits (as you did previously - but thank you for not doing that this time around). --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:08, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm making this comment to let you know that I read what you wrote. Grundle2600 (talk) 21:19, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, please just try to work on the article as described above and I won't have to bother you any more. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Examples of people who were fed with the money that was raised

- :Why the hell would you make such a stupid comment? What do you mean Examples of people who were fed with the money that was raised? This was only for the Ethiopian people. And they didn't even raise that much money anyways. 76.112.25.158 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:47, 23 April 2009 (UTC).

We Are The World raised millions of dollars, and I don't see any evidence that any of it was used to actually feed people. Grundle2600 (talk) 21:49, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Your other dumb comment

The article blames Ethiopia's famine on "drought." That is wrong. Ethiopia's famine is caused by communism, not drought. Israel always has drought, but it never has famine. Communist North Korea always has famine, and capitalist South Korea never does. Communist China had famine, and after the communism went away, the famine went away. Same thing with the Soviet Union. And all of these communist dictators blamed the famine on "bad weather."

China never stopped being communist, dumbass. 76.112.25.158 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:52, 23 April 2009 (UTC).

You are mistaken. In the late 1970s, China switched from collective farming, to private, for-profit farming. Food production skyrocketed, and their famine disappeared. China is becoming more and more capitalist. They sell lots of stuff to countries all over the world. They have many big, private corporations. Grundle2600 (talk) 21:58, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

April 2009

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Lawrence Summers. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Since Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by some search engines, including Google. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you.[11].--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 22:59, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia

Hey Grundle. I just wanted to comment that, as Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, the most reliably sourced and notable content is what we're after. A lot of garbage slips through I know, but I encourage you to be especially careful to try to use the best sources and the most encyclopedic and neutral wording wherever possible. Some of your viewpoints are clearly in the minority here, so you're going to be scrutinized. Sources or tidbits that are especially partisan should be avoided, even though I see a lot of them from a particular point of view. :) Anyway, I don't think you deserve many of these warnings and attacks from some of Wikipedia's worst POV pushers and partisans, but I do think you need to be on top form as far as using really well sourced material.

A friend of mine was just talking about the firefighter case after they heard it discussed on NPR. I'll have to take a look at the new article you wrote to see if the article relates to the same story. Take care. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:32, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I always try to cite mainstream sources when I can.

As a nerd who always worked hard at school, I feel a certain personal interest in this firefighter case. He studied very hard, and did very well on the test, but now they're saying that because he's the "wrong" race, he can't have the job, because they want to give it to someone of the "right" race who failed the test. That's an insult to nerds of all races everywhere!

Grundle2600 (talk) 23:48, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I can relate to your viewpoints. Just remember that we're here to build an encyclopedia and we have to always focus on the content rather than other editors and to make sure we're being neutral, accurate and using the best sources. Others will get away with behavior that is clearly inappropriate, but that doesn't make it okay. And you still have to be in top form, even when you get frustrated. :) There are people here who are going to be waiting for you to trip, and even helping to trip you if they can. Thanks again for your good contributions. I thought the Earth Day material was interesting and well worth considering, I'm not sure where to include it in the encyclopedia though. It seems a bit specific and pointy for that particular article. Cheers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:53, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again. The thing about Earth Day is that it helped to raise awareness to solve the problems. I think they made the mistake of not having enough confidence of people's ability to solve problems. I love science and technology, and we can, and are, using them to make the world a better place. Grundle2600 (talk) 23:57, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, your point about the movement away from personal responsibility for the environment and problem solving is interesting. But Grundle my final comment in this thread is that Wikipedia is not a good place to have political discussions. Your focus really has to be on article content and citations, especially when it comes to politics. Discussion back and forth with other editors on political issues isn't going to serve you well. Sorry about all the preachiness. I will try not to make any more suggestions or comments in that regard. Take care. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:30, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Grundle2600/My own personal article about Barack Obama

If I may ask, what purpose does this serve? Tarc (talk) 14:07, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

This is for me to write about the stuff that I wanted to put in the Obama articles, but a consensus of editors decided should not be included. This article allows me to still write about it without violating any of the rules. Grundle2600 (talk) 14:10, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Basically it's a place for him to put all the garbage he's been trying to push on the actual articles for months. Grsz¹¹ 16:06, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

It's not garbage. It's great stuff! Grundle2600 (talk) 16:25, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec)I know. What I was getting at is more to the why than the what. If an article is deleted, it is usually not allowed to be retained in userspace. Exceptions can be given an admin in cases where it is is possible for the article to someday be sufficiently expanded, of course. I would think that the same policy should apply to these individual snippets that have been soundly rejected in a swath of articles already. May be something for MfD. Tarc (talk) 16:36, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I am only including content that I wrote myself, and I am citing legitimate sources. Can you cite to any wikipedia rule that says I am not allowed to do that? Grundle2600 (talk) 16:39, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Grundle2600 is doing work in a "sandbox," and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. In fact we often encourage editors to work out content in their userspace before bringing it up for discussion/addition into articles. Now it might well be the case that the content Grundle is adding is not appropriate for mainspace, or perhaps some of it is and some of it isn't. That's the kind of thing that would need to be discussed on the article talk pages. So long as Grundle does that I see no problem with the user page linked above.

Tarc and Grsz11, your behavior here is, to put it mildly, less than edifying. You should know better than to pester a user about their userspace activities so long as they are not openly defaming editors or living people (the material on the user page is critical of Obama, but its not a BLP violation that I can see). I've already warned Grundle about problems with earlier editing and so long as that does not continue there's no reason to keep leaving pestering notes on this user talk page, as that can quickly shade into harassment.

I must say though Grundle, just glancing at your new user page, the material you included on support for "Homo sapiens" marriage doesn't really reflect that well on you. If you want editors to take your content suggestions seriously, pointing out that Obama supports marriage because he is in fact married, but then morphing that into a low-level gay joke by using the Latin term for the human species is not going to get you very far. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:25, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. As for the latin term, I was trying to make fun of the the political debate over homosexual marriage.(For the record, I think homosexual marriage should be legal.) Grundle2600 (talk) 17:37, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I get the joke I suppose, but when you mix it in with content you have previously tried to add to the mainspace it might lead some to think you are not being serious about the edits you are proposing. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:41, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I don't care what he puts in his userspace and never said I did. I'd rather him add it there than try to put in the articlespace. Grsz¹¹ 17:42, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

OK. I removed that part. Grundle2600 (talk) 17:51, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Thin ice

As in that's what you are on. If you can work on the Obama pages constructively, great, please do so. If all you have to offer is edits like this then I'll conclude that your activities on those articles are geared solely toward disruption and take action accordingly. Had I caught that edit at the time it happened I would have blocked you outright, but it was a few ago now so a block serves no purpose since you are not actively doing anything disruptive. So, in case this was somehow unclear, you can add the addition of jokey categories to mainspace articles to your list of things that you should not be doing here. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:42, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Letting you know I read it! Grundle2600 (talk) 14:55, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:People who look like Barack Obama

I have nominated Category:People who look like Barack Obama (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. — Σxplicit 04:44, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Gerardo Puisseaux

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Gerardo Puisseaux, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

Non-notable person, fails WP:BIO. Lacks substantial coverage from independent reliable sources.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. — Σxplicit 04:48, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't contest this one. But it was neat while it lasted! Grundle2600 (talk) 14:52, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10