Ganzeville

Congrats on 1000

Congrats on 1000 edits! Sorry it took me so long to reply... I'm not as active on WP as I used to be... –- kungming·2 18:20, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

3RR assistance

I saw your edit summary here. I also found it a pain in the...well, you know. Then I found this tool: 3RR tool. It's fairly easy to use. You still have to clean it up, and remove links to diffs that shouldn't be included in a 3RR report. When you run the tool, just cut and paste the code that's provided. I used to only do 3RR when it reached like 10RR, because the form was so difficult to use. I hope this helps for future needs. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 09:03, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Bush Doctrine

I made the addition because of the incredibly significant amount of press being generated on this issue and because, at the very least, there needed to be an revertable edit that wasn't "unsourced" and inflammatory. Any other day or in a perfect world, though, it would be a ho-hum deal for another article to cover. --Rahga (talk) 19:59, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

This was a good edit - the stuff you took out indeed is not germane to the article topic. GRBerry 16:22, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Bush Doctrine disputes

In the face of rampant deletions from the article, it is difficult not seeing Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias. Therefore I must repeatedly call on understanding that I also eat, sleep and want to contribute to the quality of the article, as do you. I know there is opinions on deletionism and inclusionism with regards to articles, but it's difficult to keep contributing when the editing work is being turned into a veritable swiss cheese. I must speak out against the deletions of passages, although I recognize that passages and paragraphs, structure can always be improved. Removing widely held views and comments related to the Bush Doctrine are not improving its quality, I think. As you can gather, I am rather inclusionist - but I do also see the importance of a central point of information regarding the topic. The structure and evolving into separate articles, is of course a natural Wikipedia process when articles become VERY large. But we are not there yet, and in contributing further content to this article, I am also developing the structure further. ;-) Scierguy (talk) 19:09, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing that I have personally removed from the article that I did not provide a detailed explanation or query on the talk page or within the edit summaries. I'm always open to discussing any of my specific edits, but will not respond to the general complaint above except to ask you to read WP:OWN and WP:AGF. I obviously understand that all WP articles are works in progress, but that fact does not give any of us free reign to insert something with the note that it'll be made policy compliant later. --guyzero | talk 19:31, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

As you can clearly witness with my contributions, I AM continuously improving the quality of the sections - and have perhaps contributed to 80% of the Bush Doctrine article - half of the introduction, structure and quotes for the overview, and the whole criticism-section. I am also expanding the development section to reflect the HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT and formation of what is publicly known as the Bush Doctrine - i.e the collection of principles, practical strategic decisions and ideology of the doctrine. Lets improve the sections together, you can surely be helpful in adding references and improving passages. As far as articles goes, there is not exactly a lack of references on the Bush Doctrine... Scierguy (talk) 19:39, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I have repeated my frustrations over the editing process of the Bush Doctrine article. To explain these frustrations, I have a need to say what I am frustrated over. That is also why I appeal to you guys in not hindering the improvement of the article. I hope you can recognize that my interest lies solely in improving the Bush Doctrine article. I am recognizing important contributions that you are doing, and voicing my concern or frustrations on the editing process. Of course I would like there to be more opinions, so that we can show stronger consensus, and not just a small group of editors. I have nothing against you personally, and recognize your editor importance - by asking politely for consensus (we have settled on such consensus through my initiatives). Sometimes it takes time to answer on a editorial concern - we are humans, not 24h machines, doing the editing. Please disregard any of my frustrations with the editing process as being offensive. Also remember that writing on an electronic media makes it difficult to show the "good tone" that could otherwise be expressed through facial mimic and tone of voice - other human input to communication. I have become frustrated in the editing process, and I think I have been clear about that. Therefore I ask for understanding my situation as well, and the concern I have for the article and the readers of Wikipedia. I hope my motives are clear in this - and it is not something personal against you, but a problem I have been facing ever since I started expanding the article some days ago. There were numerous edit wars at the time, now thankfully reduced, and the editing process of this article has been difficult lately. Therefore it has been a concern of mine and I notified the respective Wikiprojects of the article as well as calling attention to the possible systemic bias of the editing process. There was admittedly a reason for protecting the article. I have personally found the protection much more preferrable than the complete chaos before its introduction. Gracefully yours, Scierguy (talk) 22:05, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment

Hello. Thanks for your comment on the Bumvertising article. The article is a very shaky inclusion at best. It is seemingly promotional. Although the sandwich board man phenomenon goes back to Dickens' time. Bests. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 01:24, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Heads Up

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Barack Obama. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution.

This is just a heads up, nothing more. Brothejr (talk) 02:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. For context, this is what I was reverting: [1] cheers, --guyzero | talk 02:20, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

ACORN

Not a big deal, but I was wondering how you suggest I go about confirming that "Democrats champion ACORN"? Adding a cautionary "some" just in case some Democrat might be opposed to a community organization that registers mostly Democrats seems like a stretch. This seems like overdefensiveness on a NPOV issue. (Wallamoose (talk) 21:35, 10 October 2008 (UTC))

Yes, I understand where you are coming from. NPOV is a policy though, and generalizations (even if they may logically be correct) do violate it. It is best for us to be as accurate as possible. (As an aside, I doubt that ALL or even MOST democrats "champion" ACORN. Democrats and Democrat elected officials is a pretty diverse range of folks in different areas, many of which ACORN doesn't operate, etc. etc. etc.) --guyzero | talk 21:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I respect your opinion. But I would be SHOCKED to find a Democratic official at any level that is a critic of ACORN. ACORN is like manna from heaven for Democrats.  :) (Wallamoose (talk) 22:11, 10 October 2008 (UTC))

Ah! But not being a critic of is not the same thing as "champion for" -- there are a million, uh, acorns(!) between those two opposing branches. =) --guyzero | talk 22:15, 10 October 2008 (UTC) thanks! I'll be here all week

If you'd like to help keep an eye on the ACORN article against a couple problem editors who have dropped in, that would be great. You've done good work there already (and I'm flattered by the barnstar). There are two editor who have been topic banned from Obama articles (which probably means they are in violation in the ACORN edits) who are tag-teaming to revert the simplifications and pro-encyclopedic changes I've made (with kind cooperation from other editors like you). These two have in the past been found to be probably sock-puppets (and definitely meat-puppets), and article disruption almost inevitably comes wherever they go. Thanks. LotLE×talk 17:41, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'll keep an eye out. --guyzero | talk 18:41, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:26, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Well deserved! --guyzero | talk 18:41, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Dolphin Square

Thank you.  :) --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 09:52, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Glad to contribute, and nice to meet'cha! :-) My first 3O so feedback about my responses is much appreciated. I think I went a bit overboard on AGF in my last reply as there appears to be a COI issue here as well, but I wanted to make one more attempt at a respectful appeal of understanding while stating my second warning about unacceptable CIV vios. kind regards, --guyzero | talk 18:32, 13 October 2008 (UTC)