User talk:Utahredrock

Original Wiki-welcome

ɵWelcome!

Hello, Utahredrock, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  Alai 06:51, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Comment on God Committee

Jim -- I figured out how to do this! Anyway -- you're right, the God Squad is a colloquial name for the 7- member committee that reviews possible ESA exemptions. I saw the name in 'Environmental Law and Policy' by Salzman and Thompson -- an excellent book by the way. I have also seen the God Squad refered to in law journals, so this colloquialism seems to be at least somewhat widespread. (do a google search of 'God Squad' and 'endangered species act' if you're not convinced) I'm certainly open to debate as to how prominent of a place the name should have in the article -- it might be a good idea to begin a whole new article and look at cases where the Committee has ruled for exemptions -- this will get into spotted owl territory and get quite controversial.

Anway -- what do you say that we continue this on the discussion page of the article? -- that way we may get more folks involved. Just a thought, I'm a newcomer here.

Matt

My original name

Utahmountainman was my original name on Wikipedia, though I also made earlier contributions under no name.--Utahredrock 04:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

On Moves

Hi there, and (once again!) welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed your request for a move to Confederacy of Fools and did so, as this clearly seemed purely like as technical issue, and nothing controversial. Note that you can perform such moves yourself, just click on the "move" tab that should appear when you're logged in, and at the article in question. I've also added a 'cleanup' tag to the article; I hope you don't take this amiss, as it seems to me to be a very nice article -- I've been here for months and haven't written that much new text at a gulp. :) Rather, I just think it suffers a possible 'tone' worry, as it indeed seems somewhat to take the attitude of a review of the book. That's probably straying into original research and point of view warning bell territory. Ideally such an article would confine itself to the purely factual and indisputable (and undisputed), and those opinions on the book that can be attributed to "notable" critics and commentators. I'm sure this can be done without any major overhaul of content, though. Perhaps I can help out if there are any policy or technical issues you'd like input on. Alai 07:01, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

• Note This is in reference to one of my first articles in relation to the Enron scandal and Kurt Eichenwald's book Conspiracy of Fools.--Utahredrock 04:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Katrina

In reply to [1]. The FEMA disaster declaration information for Alabama (for example) is here. In addition to a "major disaster" declaration, there is now an "emergency" declaration [2], which gives FEMA broader authority and releases more federal funding. Similar declarations were made for all four states most affected (FL, AB, MS, LA).

As for your question about the "size at landfall" of Katrina, a few sources showed a radius of 200 miles from the eye for the hurricane-force winds, meaning an area of some 120,000 miles was potentially enclosed by the hurricane. Fortunately landfall quickly weakens a tropical cyclone. --Dhartung | Talk 08:02, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Comment regarding "commercial" links

Please do not add commercial links (or links to your own private websites) to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or a mere collection of external links. You are, however, encouraged to add content instead of links to the encyclopedia as we drive for print or DVD publication; see the welcome page to learn more. Thanks. Vsmith 14:07, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

• Note This user was referring to links I added to my very non-commercial online magazine on the Colorado Plateau. Utahredrock the magazine can be viewed at http://www.utahredrock.com it has not been maintained as I would like but links to important information on the Colorado Plateau region including both news stories and other more permanent web resources. While it is non-commercial at this stage of it's [barely] existence, it could be fairly classified as my private web site and as such I don't dispute the suggestion.--Utahredrock 17:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Utahredrock.com still exists, but the online magazine of the Colorado Plateau is long gone.--Utahredrock (talk) 19:01, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Gabrielle Giffords related discussions

The following arose from the discussion regarding the request to delete the Gabrielle Giffords page I created, and defended. --Utahredrock 01:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Please don't do this. The article was going to be kept anyway. She was or is a state senator and meets WP:BIO. Removing the nom was unnecessary and uncool. JChap (talk • contribs) 23:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Please do not remove warnings from your talk page or replace them with offensive content. Removing or maliciously altering warnings from your talk page will not remove them from the page history. If you continue to remove or vandalize warnings from your talk page, you will lose your privilege of editing your talk page. Thanks. --Wine Guy Talk 06:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Ouch

Just saw the vandal label. Definitely don't want that.

Are you an administrator? If the Giffords article will be kept, when will the nomination for deletion be removed?--Utahredrock 15:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• I'm not an admin, but I sometimes play one on TV. I read your argument at the AfD. It is a hotly debated issue around here and I encourage you to go to Wikipedia talk:Candidates and elections and make your views known. Also, if you wish to retract a statement you made, you normally should strike it out by bracketting it with <s> and </s> rather than just deleting it. Best, JChap (talk • contribs) 23:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• Reply I took this advice, however, my comments were deemed unnecessary for that page so I moved them to this page. --Utahredrock 18:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Initial review of wiki-vandalism

The vandalism page states:

Vandalism is any addition, deletion, or change to content made in a deliberate attempt to reduce the quality of the encyclopedia. The most common type of vandalism is the replacement of existing text with obscenities, page blanking, or the insertion of bad jokes or other nonsense. Fortunately, this kind of vandalism is usually easy to spot.

Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Apparent bad-faith edits that do not make their bad-faith nature inarguably explicit are not considered vandalism at Wikipedia. For example, adding an opinion once is not vandalism — it's just not helpful, and should be removed or restated. Utahredrock 02:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Restoring links and 3RR

Look mate, I really don't have anything against you or your candidate. But you're going about things the wrong way. Your second modification to the Articles for deletion nomination, while it didn't eliminate the nom, was still immature and reflected poorly on you and your position. Also, you restored the links that I had deleted without providing an edit summary or discussing why they should be included on the talk page, as I had invited you to do. Links to blogs generally fall pretty far outside WP:EL, but if you want to make a case for their inclusion on the talk page, I encourage you to do so. You should also read the page on the three revert rule, which your last change violated. I hope you enjoy your time editing at WP, but you really need to calm down, use edit summaries, and don't climb the Washington Monument dressed as the Green Hornet. JChap (talk • contribs) 15:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The controversial Giffords links

Sure I am a novice, but immature and uncool? OK, maybe that too.

I like the Green Hornet on the Washington Monument image.

My intention is to provide additional sources of information on Giffords. Adding the entry on Giffords was/is merely an attempt to provide a source of information on this candidate. If I had time and knowledge of other candidates I'd be writing mini-bios on people from all sides of the political spectrum including links to sites that discuss and or endorse those candidates as that is important additional info.

Cheers.--Utahredrock 15:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• Note that the descriptions of your actions does not refer to the links, but rather to your vandalism of the AfD page. JChap (talk • contribs) 12:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• The big lie (RE the charge of vandalism) When something is said often and loudly enough that people start to think it must be true. For God's sake, it was a mistake . . . a mistake . . . . just a flippin mistake. --Utahredrock 16:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

re: How was that vandalism?

The vandalism which I reverted (see here) regarded you editing signed comments by other users, which is covered in WP:VANDAL, an official policy on the English Wikipedia (which BTW I strongly suggest you read). Another bit of suggested reading would be Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, in particular How to discuss an AfD/Wikietiquette; following these guidelines will help in getting your point across to other users. Alternativly, not following these guidelines a.) is rude b.) will annoy other editors c.) may cause the admin who closes the discussion to discount or ignore your comments.

Regarding your question as to how long the discussion will continue, AfD discussions typically go on for about five days. Unless an admin decides that there is an obvious consensus, or a clear policy issue, the discussion will likely be closed on Thursday.

I hope you will have a look at the policies and guidelines which I have suggested (as well as others) so that you'll be able to contribute more constructivly to the encyclopedia. --Wine Guy Talk 23:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• Reply Thanks for the feedback. I want it to be clear that when I added the brackets I did so in a way that was meant to not edit what anyone had contributed, but to clarify that Giffords is simply not a current senator--and I signed them so it would be clear that I'd added a comment to someone elses comment. This was done with no intent of vandalism though it is clear that it was done improperly. Regards, --Utahredrock 02:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I have responded on my talk page. --Wine Guy Talk 10:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Wine guy's comments were not vandalism

I am re-adding Wine Guy's comments, which were not a personal attack. Don't you find it a little odd that you scream "censorship" when someone deletes links to blogs from an article per established policy, yet you serially remove other people's comments from discussions when you don't like them? I have restored Wine Guy's mild remonstrance to you here:

When you participate in a discussion and wish to clarify something, you are welcome to add your own, new comment in reply to what someone else has said. You are not welcome to change the wording of other user's comments, that is vandalism. Since you apparently have not read it yet, below is the section of WP:VANDAL to which I am refering; it is under the heading Types of vandalism-

- - :::Changing people's comments - ::::Editing signed comments by another user to substantially change their meaning (e.g. turning someone's vote around), except when removing a personal attack (which is somewhat controversial in and of itself). Signifying that a comment is unsigned is an exception. e.g. (unsigned comment from user) - - ::While you did not change my vote, you did add a word to comment which changed the meaning. Please be aware that Wikipedia editors tend to be very protective of their own comments in discussions; some get upset if someone else does something as simple as correct a spelling error in a talk comment. Because of this, the following template exists- - - :::I noticed that you edited someone else's comment at [[at [[{{{1}}}]]]] for clarity, spelling or grammar. As a rule, refrain from editing others' comments without their permission. Though it may appear helpful to correct typing errors, grammar, etc., please do not go out of your way to bring talk pages to publishing standards, since it is not terribly productive and will tend to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. For more details, see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Thanks, - - ::Please note, this is an example of sentiment regarding etiquette; your edits crossed the line into vandalism. That is not my opinion, that is a fact based on policy. On another issue of policy, user's are generally prohibited from removing vandalism warnings from their own talk pages, as you have done here. Since you had already been warned about vandalism, you could be blocked, but I assume good faith and understand that perhaps you were not aware of this policy. Now, you are aware. So, I will replace the warning originally placed by User:JChap2007 [3], and add a formal warning not to remove it. Once again, I hope you will look through the WP policies and guidelines so that you don't have difficulties in the future. --Wine Guy Talk 06:20, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

If you think that quoting policy is a personal attack, you need to develop a thicker skin. You also deleted the warning template picture. That's sort of a futile attempt at ... something. You were still warned about vandalism and the history of the page will reflect that. To sum up, don't delete content, you've made some mistakes, learn from them and move on. JChap (talk • contribs) 12:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• Reply Quoting from policy is indeed quite constructive. I Have no problem with that, or any of this really. I got what I did was wrong. I repeat, I got it--I just think you guys are going a little overboard here. I insist that though it was misguided it wasn't meant to be vandalism and that I am not a vandal. --Utahredrock 19:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism or not? Civil or not?

Civil behavior in life and on Wikipedia are critical. Engaging in name calling is uncivil.

One final quote drawn from the vandal policy--again: Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. --Utahredrock 01:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Your addition to Wikipedia talk:Candidates and elections

I've moved your new section to the bottom of the talk/discussion page. It's the wikipedia norm that new sections to talk/discussion pages be at the bottom, not the top.

May I suggest that it might be desirable for you to remove the entire posting? The talk/discussion page of an article/policy is intended to be about ways to improve that article/policy, including resolving disputed points. What you posted was a long version of your first sentence: It is critical we have more articles on politicians running for office. I agree, and I doubt anyone else disagrees, so ... the posting really isn't about improving the policy, yes? Or maybe you were being very subtle about the point you were making? Did you mean to say, for example, that stubs about relatively nonnotable candidates should be kept, as a sort of exception to wikipedia policy? If indeed you were arguing in support of certain wording in the policy as it now reads, or for certain changes in the wording, I recommend that you be more direct (by replacing much or most of what you wrote with something else). John Broughton 17:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. If there is something you think I might be able to help with, please give me a holler via my talk/discussion page. John Broughton 22:48, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Reply: No problem. It's been removed, reprinting here . . .

An Inclusionist's Manifesto

It is critical we have more articles on politicians running for office, be it a municipal race, a national legislature, or an executive position. One of the great strengths of Wikipedia is the fact that it contains current and up to date information as well as obscure information that is hard to find in other places. But the key is: information. I’ve been updating myself on some Wiki-controversies. In the world of Wikia I am a devout inclusionist!

In the case of candidates it is important to note that elections are the lifeblood of the political process of a republic or democracy. One political challenger pointed out the obvious and painful truth of how the decks are stacked against challengers in democracies. Wiki doesn’t need to be an additional barrier for entry to aspiring politicians when it can be a source of information on such people.

In a democracy citizens need as many sources of information as possible on their candidates. It's a crime how much politicians have to spend to get their messages out. Candidates from all parties and levels of government are important to our political process. Suppressing information about them makes no sense. Wikipedia exists not to promote a candidate or cause but to serve as a source of information.

One of the worst Supreme Court decisions of the past fifty years was 1976’s Buckley case which limits the amount people can give to candidates. The net effect is that wealthy people can self-fund their elections leaving the average challenger begging for contributions maxed out at $4,200 per person per candidate in U.S. federal elections (primary plus general).

People need to write more articles on candidates to provide a good source of free information.

PS—Don’t knock Homestead City! I spent a few weeks there as a volunteer in the Hurricane Andrew cleanup. Those people are plenty important! (See: Wikipedia talk:Candidates and elections for the Homestead City reference.)

; )

--Utahredrock 04:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Gabrielle Giffords Survives

My Giffords entry survived the request for deletion made by the high school student from Australia.

Also, I survived the mini-mini-controversy (see above) as well.

I learned to NEVER alter in any way (even correcting spelling!) someone else's comments.

I'd never really engaged on discussion pages before this and got a bit of a baptism.

That addition of the word former was especially pernicious! (Trying in my very dry way to be humorous.) Learned something. --Utahredrock 05:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Apparently, somewhere along the way you learned how to create and edit what is IMO a pretty good article! This woman is very notable. She was already arguably notable IMO as a former state representative and then became unquestionably notable when she became a major-party nominee for Congress. (If you care to, you can check out my comments at the candidates and elections discussion, which probably don't exactly mirror yours but would come closer to being "inclusionist" than "deletionist" IMO, which I feel is pretty consistent with my overall view of Wikipedia, which, after all, is not paper. (Note: No trees were destroyed in the creation of this comment :) Rlquall 14:22, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

PS

As of last night 90 of the 131 articles that were nominated for deletion last Saturday, July 15, were closed. Of those ninety, 77% were deleted, only 23% survived. Of the 41 that were still open last night I am guessing a much high percentage will survive since they were harder to resolve. Won't be going back to check that theory out though! This Wiki-editing can become an obsession. --Utahredrock 16:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

• Another note: It appears, based on today's new articles, that over 2,000 articles per day are created. --Utahredrock 22:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

• • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Newpages

Another thought on that vandal thing . . . I was very thin-skinned with regard to being called a vandal. It would have been much better for me if I'd been engaged, even with the same verbiage as above, without the vandal warning which came across as agressively accusatory. It was a name I didn't feel was warranted and because of the graphic and the warning it made it harder for me to see the perspective of the gentleman who put it there.

I'd suggest that people talk to other's on their talk pages first, before slapping warnings on. I saw where Wiki policy recommends the use of that graphic, but the use of the warning made me see red. I don't think many of us like being labeled. Clearly true vandals are a problem. Neophytes engaging for the first time in discussions making mistakes . . . . ?

In retrospect it seems blindingly obvious that you shouldn't edit people's comments on a talk or discussion page. Yet I was so used to editing things on Wikipedia and so inexperienced with Wiki discussions/talk that I acted rashly. --Utahredrock 07:12, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Giffords: A new controversy

What's with your obsession of reverting this page? The infobox does nothing more than provide a brief biographical summary, so that readers do not have to search the whole page. It does NOT assert that she is already in Congress, at least not the box that I had displayed. It says that she will not take office until 2006. Instead of trying to scare me by tagging me, you should stop removing important information.VitaleBaby 06:08, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

I appreciate you engaging in conversation rather than ignoring my commments. It may seem funny but I was wondering the same thing, what is your obsession with adding the info box? The box specifically calls her a "Member of the U.S. House of Representatives"

This is not true. Giffords is a Congresswoman-elect or a U.S. Representative-elect. We need to wait until she is sworn in before we call her a member. That's just a fact.--Utahredrock 06:13, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Further note

I noticed you just deleted all of my comments to your user page again as well as re-adding the incorrect info box to Giffords page. Not sure what to say at this point.--Utahredrock 06:15, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Response

You act life I don't read my talk page. I check it frequently, and I delete every irrelevant comment. I'm free to change that as I wish.

The infobox is there to be orderly. The problem with the Congressman infobox is there is no way to remove the phrase "member of" from coming up in the "district" line. In contrast, the senator's box's don't include such garbage, and it's been very easy to place senator-elect within those. I'm going to put the box back, I feel it needs to be there, and, if it makes you feel better, I'll place the words representative-elect specifically in it. However, I feel that stating 'term begins 2007' was already quite sufficient.VitaleBaby 06:19, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Compromise Box

I changed the infobox to a different one and clearly marked within it are the words representative-elect. Now is everybody happy? I get order, you get what you see as correctness (even though everything was clear before). (note added by user:VitaleBaby)

Works for me

This works for me. I removed the month and day of her birthday. There are many of us who on Wikipedia who feel it is inappropriate for privacy reasons to provide exact birthdates for living people. Thanks for engaging in discussion on this. It does get frustrating when users simply delete comments without replying, and of course edit wars are silly as well. I'd go so far as saying we were both a little obsessed about this . . . . though in truth I can only speak for myself. --Utahredrock 06:36, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

One More Thing

I'm glad the compromise worked, but the birthday really needs to go back. You see, she's an elected official, not a private citizen, so it's not really a privacy issue here. Once she official enters Congress, they're going to place up a biography page with her birthdate, place of birth, education, etc. anyway. So I feel it's better for this to be on wikipedia, instead of forcing someone to scower the web for it.VitaleBaby 18:54, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

• • • No, it doesn't. It may or may not be listed in the future. In an electronic age, personal information of this sort is considered private by some people for basic security reasons. If she has Congress list it like most members, then that is her choice. There is no good reason for people to be scouring the web for it, it just doesn't belong on Wikipedia for a living person, unless they explicitly agree to it.

Even if the information is available elsewhere, that is no justifcation for putting it here. That's the "everyone else is doing it" approach. --Utahredrock 21:08, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Religion and Politicians

Regarding your most recent edit, on her own website it states that she's a member of "Congregation Chaverim", a Jewish synagogue. I've also found this congress.org website, this Washington Post website, and this Jewish periodical website all referring to her religion. Should I cite these sources in the article? I just thought it would be a bit messy for a template like that. johnpseudo 22:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Oops, nevermind. The new "Congressman" infobox doesn't have a religion box. johnpseudo 22:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

As per the discussion on some of the other template pages, it is a piece of information kept by the Records office of the congress. Stating a person's beliefs does not make anyone or any article a part of the Nazi legacy. Also, I feel that to remove it would only cater to WP:POINT. Stealthound 23:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

My thoughts

Not that my thoughts matter one way of the other here, however, I strongly think people's religion is a private matter whether or not they are in public life. If they choose to discuss it, that's their business, but it is nobody else's business unless someone is a religious figure or chooses to make it other people's business (beyond mere disclosure). This is especially true of those in public life. The founders of this nation wisely chose to separate church and state creating what many now would term as a secular government. The intermingling of religion and politics has a long, sad, sordid history.--Utahredrock 06:50, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

for-profit college cat

Since you're also into the for-profit college articles, I thought you'd also be interested in using the cat I created (I learned how to make it after I had already created the list): place [[Category: For-profit colleges and universities]] at the bottom (I already did it for the Argosy University article). All the best. --Bobak 22:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks for the tip. Did you see my Pinaleno Mountains article? Wrote it from scratch.

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Giffords horse2.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Giffords horse2.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful.

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 "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 01:35, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Image issues

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Giffords_of_az.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 7 days after this notification, per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rettetast 10:55, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:Discov docked.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Discov docked.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 05:05, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:Karen n.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Karen n.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 05:05, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:Mark at work.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Mark at work.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 05:06, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:242193main kibo-m.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:242193main kibo-m.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 06:06, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:245913main image Garan.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:245913main image Garan.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 06:08, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:124 crew.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:124 crew.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 06:09, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:Iss black and.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Iss black and.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 06:10, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Discov june 13.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Discov june 13.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from 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) 06:11, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:Discov june 11.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Discov june 11.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 06:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

image uploads

Hi there, thank you for uploading images to wikipedia. For future reference. Please add where you got the image from (usually a weblink is the easiest). Also, when possible, please upload new NASA images directly to Wikimedia Commons, so that all projects can use them (as a matter of fact a couple of your images were already present there and tag them as NASA images instead of the more generic "US Government". I have now moved them all to commons and added sources as well. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 13:44, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that and thanks for the input. I was frankly confused on the process.--Utahredrock (talk) 20:52, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Relatives of Barack Obama

Speedy deletion of Lolo Soetoro

A tag has been placed on Lolo Soetoro, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Loonymonkey (talk) 17:36, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

• Note: So far, Lolo has survived--as all important articles should.--Utahredrock (talk) 19:06, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
• Note: Somehow still there despite strong deletionist trends on Obama-family articles.--Utahredrock (talk) 20:19, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

More Lolo

Of course I agree that everyone deserves to get the facts, but the facts are well handled in Barack Obama and Ann Dunham in my opinion, and I don't see anything in Lolo's separate article that is new or not already covered, and a fair amount missing or incorrect. I think people looking for information on Obama's religion will be looking at his own article, and having a separate article that seems dedicated to mentioning Lolo's Muslim background doesn't seem to be doing what you say you wanted to do. I don't at all suggest that information about Lolo be left out of the encyclopedia, but I think a separate article that has nothing additional is problematic. As for the missing and incorrect information . . . Tvoz

there's nothing about their daughter, for example,

I wasn't sure whether or not to add information on her since she's living person--Utahredrock (talk) 03:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you can say that Ann Dunham and Lolo had a daughter, her name, date of birth, and a wikilink to her article all are fine.Tvoz/talk 03:41, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

unclear info about when Dunham and Soetoro met,

It states "He met Obama's mother, Ann Dunham, when they were both students at the University of Hawaii.[1]" It does not have the year, that would be good to add.--Utahredrock (talk) 03:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

No, that's the point - we don't have any more info than that they met while in college. We certainly don't know that they met as early as 1963. Tvoz/talk 03:41, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

when he was an Indonesian oil engineer,

Are you saying it doesn't have the years? It does state that is what he did.--Utahredrock (talk) 03:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

you say they met at college, then suddenly he's an oil engineer in Indonesia. No mention of when they moved there.Tvoz/talk 03:41, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

unsourced comment about Soetoro's influence on Obama,

Which comment? The whole thing is well sourced.--Utahredrock (talk) 03:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

You said that he was a big influence - where does that come from? Do you have a source for it? Tvoz/talk 03:41, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

error about Obama's Hawaii school, etc.

Thanks for fixing that--Utahredrock (talk) 03:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

No problem Tvoz/talk 03:41, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Was there a rush to add this article that prevented more research?

I certainly agree more research is needed. Unfortunately there didn't seem to be much left out there at least on the Internet.--Utahredrock (talk) 03:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that's the point - not much is known, and what is known is amply covered in Barack Obama, Ann Dunham, etc. I'm not trying to get on your case, and I appreciate that sometimes we set up stubs for other people to fill out, but it seems to me that that this one didn't even use the information right here on Wikipedia, so I have to wonder what the rush was. Tvoz/talk 00:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

There was no "rush" there was and perhaps still is just a huge gap of information on this man who played a key role in Obama's life. I encourage you to fill in those blanks if you're more knowledgable and have better and more sources. I notice somebody removed a critical quote that she light on the fact that neither Soetoro, nor Obama's mother were muslim extremists. It is unfortunate how little detail is available on this man who has become central to the absurd argument that Obama is muslim and worse.--Utahredrock (talk) 03:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Why do you assume he played a "key role"? As far as I can tell, Obama only lived with him for four years from ages 6-10. I removed the quote because it is not the way we write articles - it was hanging there without any context. And it was about how Ann felt, not information about Lolo. Right, the rumor is wrong. But this article stub, unfortunately, really does nothing to refute it. I don't know that any more information is going to become available - and the piece as it is fails to meet notability standards in my opinion. I don't care to do much work on it because I don't think it should be there at all. But perhaps you want to. I'll take your word for it that your intentions are good, but I don't find this article worth saving. Tvoz/talk 03:41, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion continued on the Lolo talk page and on Tvoz's talk page as well.--Utahredrock (talk) 19:10, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

[outdent] Utah, I still don't think that Lolo has independent notability, and I think he can amply be covered in Ann Dunham - in fact I think that all of what we have in Lolo Soetoro is found in Ann's article or can be easily added without causing an undue weight problem in Ann's piece. Since notability can't be inherited - that is, just because someone has a connection to a notable person doesn't automatically make him notable too - and because we have yet to find anything at all that is about Lolo independent of Ann and Barack, I see no reason for Lolo's separate article. My concern about coatracking, as I have said, is that it appears to me that contrary to your stated intention in creating this article - to debunk the lies about Obama's religion - this article only serves to fuel those rumors with its sourcing (read some of the source articles) and the text having phrases like "Obama is a Muslim", even though it is preceded by "incorrect rumor" (maybe to increase Google hits on the phrase?). You saw the completely unacceptable, lying source that I removed whose title was something like "Barack Obama was a Muslim until age 31" - that is the kind of specious editing we have seen and can expect in this article, which is why I am watching it and removing that kind of garbage. But it would be better if we didn't have this article at all, as it adds nothing to our knowledge and is an attractive target for anti-Obama attacks. I am not here as pro-Obama or anti-Obama - I am here to defend the neutrality and integrity of Wikipedia and not allow it to be taken over by the right-wing or left-wing blog readers who frequently get their marching orders to "Add blah blah to Wikipedia", as if that will somehow validate their lies. To the best of my ability, not on my watch - and there are many other editors here who similarly watch and stop this garbage, but one of the ways we do it is to not encourage unneeded outposts for it. I think that Lolo Soetoro is one of them - even if you didn't intend it as such, and when an AfD is posted I will support it, if nothing has changed. Meanwhile, I'll be watching it and trying to keep it in check. Obama's campaign has taken a different approach to the problem - they've created a website that posts the smears and then debunks them - that's fine, and good luck to them, but it's not what we do on Wikipedia, so your idea of having Lolo's article serve that purpose is, I think, mistaken, even if well-intentioned. Tvoz/talk 21:14, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't follow all of that convoluted reasoning. Still, thanks for your outstanding contributions to the Lolo Soetoro article. Excellent work.--Utahredrock (talk) 21:38, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Nothing convoluted about it. Lolo has no independent notability and we have no information about him that does not involve Ann and/or Barack and is not easily covered in their articles. Tvoz/talk 22:00, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

• We disagree. Oh well, there are worse things! Cheers,--Utahredrock (talk) 22:01, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Please note: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Can a proposal be made by an opponent to gauge the sense of the community?. — Justmeherenow (   ) 18:42, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Previous deletion of Abongo (Roy) Obama

This may be what you are looking for, sixth one down. Regards. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Deletionists and canvassing

Please make sure you're not violating WP:CANVASS. I assume you'll be contacting people on both sides (say, others on the Barack Obama talk page), assuming there is a "both sides" to this (I don't know anything about it). Read WP:CANVASS carefully, please. Later I'll take a look at the AfD. Thanks for telling me about it. Noroton (talk) 18:06, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I added this to Noroton's talk page, but will expand on it here too. I didn't know of this CANVASS policy, which makes sense. I do feel the parties who are pro-deletion regarding Abongo Obama need a counterweight beyond my own dilligent arguments in favor of keeping the article. The primary argument for deletion seems to be that being the brother (half-brother) of a politician does not make one noteable. I agree with that, but in Abongo's case the story goes deeper.

Due to widespread mis-information on Barack Obama's religious affiliation, key players in that aspect of Obama's life are indeed highly noteable. This whole noteability thing has always seemed like some what of a red herring (narrative) to me. Under the best of circumstances it is a very subjective call whether someone is noteable enough or note for wikipedia inclusion.--Utahredrock (talk) 18:34, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

See http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/red-herring.html for another definition of red herring.--Utahredrock (talk) 18:37, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

One of Tvoz's posts that made me question if she was assuming good faith

Noroton's caution about canvassing is completely correct, Utharedrock. As for your not being aware of the policy, I would have thought you read my post on Abongo's talk page which specifically pointed out how you were inappropriately canvassing on that talk page for the same thing, which was before you canvassed Noroton. Nor have you posted neutral comments on other users' pages as far as I have seen which might satisfy the requirement that these be "friendly reminders". As for the AfD itself - you are entitled to express your opinion, of course, which you have done repeatedly. But I believe you are way out of line with how you re-formatted the AfD - you ought to familiarize yourself with basic policies before jumping in with both feet: AfD's do not have sections the way you added them - this kind of commentary would go on the Talk page or elsewhere - the project page is for other people to weigh in on whether they think an article should be kept, deleted, merged, etc. Replies can be posted, but what you did is way out of process. Jameson was right in his attempt to get it back on track - I think in fact all of the stuff you added from "Who is Malik" on down belongs at best on the Talk page and not on the project page at all. The only reason I didn;t change it myself was because I have commented there. Tvoz/talk 19:23, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I replied to this on Tvoz's talk page.--Utahredrock (talk) 19:40, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Where I replied as well. I'd also suggest another look at WP:NOTABILITY because you seem not to understand that Barack's inclusion of his half-brother in his memoir doesn't automatically mean the guy is notable by Wikipedia standards. There is no independent notability demonstrated, as has been said over and over again, and yet you just posted another comment that said that if Barack thinks he's notable, he's notable. It's just not the way it works here. Tvoz/talk 19:54, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

[out] Are you going to claim again that you didn't know about the policy against canvassing when you made these edits a few hours ago? Tvoz/talk 07:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Didn't have clue. You're far more the wiki-veteran than I am ever likely to be. I am still a little confused actually (nothing new). It seems like a common practice to ask for input. When I read the policy it looks like you can ask, but should be neutral in the ask. Will read again.--Utahredrock (talk) 19:49, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

More thoughts and a prediction on the Abongo deletion debate

Whether or not the deletionists, including Tvoz, win another round RE Abongo/Roy Obama is not all important. The issue will rise again because of his clear and obvious notability. At some point, the deletionists will almost certainly lose their battle.--Utahredrock (talk) 22:09, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

A stunning action

The article on Abongo Obama was deleted . . . again.

Here is the discussion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Abongo_Obama

I would love to know if it's been deleted more than twice.

I am not of the consipracy minded sort normally, but this deletion certainly feels suspicious to me. I believe it was good people who were misguided. Oh well!--Utahredrock (talk) 04:41, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Here is a page with a link to the previous deletion discussion that I know of:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_February_24 --Utahredrock (talk) 04:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

A "new" article for Malik Obama----

is sure to be nominated for deletion; so I've actually done so myself here even though I believe it now passes muster due to Maliks multiple press mentions (which had not yet been catalogued when contributors had so very recently weighed in on its "Obongo" iteration. Please be patient with this proposal while those interested weight in again. (I'm notifying those who commented.) — Justmeherenow (   ) 06:18, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

• Good luck. The deletionists have worn me out for now. Cheers,--Utahredrock (talk) 16:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

  Stop with the personal attacks. I'm no "deletionist." Neither is Tvoz. Check my AfD contribs before you start calling people names. S. Dean Jameson 16:18, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Stop what? Did you not support the deletion? How is it a "personal attack" to call those who supported deletion, deletionists? I recognize that suppressionist sounds more offensive, but how can you argue against deletionist? Until you change your position, the term seems to fit quite well and it is not meant as a personal attack. Please calm down and stay on topic. With regards, --Utahredrock (talk) 19:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I gave in to temptation and voted to keep the new article, but I don't support the merge. Cheers,--Utahredrock (talk) 18:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC)