User talk:GreekParadise

Obama relatives

Are Sarah onyango obama and Madelyn Lee Payne notable for anything other than being relatives of Barack Obama? If not, they should be merged into Barack Obama. Jfire (talk) 04:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know, that's their only relevance. They are the living grandparents of Barack Obama. (But I can't edit him because he's locked.) However, the details of Sarah Obama's life are interesting, as is the fact that she lives in a remote Kenyan village and that Obama has visited her. User:GreekParadise

Ah, I see, it's semi-protected. I will tag them as candidates for a merge, and then when your 4 days are up you can merge them there. I agree that that's interesting, it's just that per our notability guideline, unless they're notable on their own account, they should be covered in the Barack Obama article rather than in standalone articles. Anyway, welcome to Wikipedia, hope you like it here! :-) Jfire (talk) 04:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

re: Population of Gravina Island

Go ahead and add the other reasons if you like. However, the section as it stands is way too long and will be edited down by others I'm sure. (I am not doing it myself at this time in order to see what others view as relevant). --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:42, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

BTW the way someone rewrote it to say it got the nickname because of the population eliminated the POV problem. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I see no need to add the airport and make it longer. I was just letting you know that if you wanted to add it, I had no problem with it. If you feel the POV problem is eliminated by the other edit, then great, we've reached a compromise.

BTW, given that Palin is probably more famous for her positions on the "Bridge to Nowhere" than any single other thing she did as Alaska Governor, I do not think the section is too long.

Bridges to Nowhere

Just as an FYI, you don't need to add a link to Knik Arm Bridge and Gravina Island Bridge in the text. They are already linked via the "See also" at the beginning of the section. Also, "Don Young Way" is/was the official name the route to Knik Arm Bridge, the funding itself was for the bridge portion and both Knick Arm Bridge and Gravina Island Bridge were collectively known as the "Bridges to Nowhere". --Bobblehead ^(rants) 17:45, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

OK. I think that "Bridge to Nowhere" is more often used as a singular to refer to the Gravina Island Bridge than to refer to both bridges (though I have seen it both ways singular and plural). As it's a nickname, there's no "right" answer here so I'll leave it alone, unless you can think of a more elegant solution.GreekParadise (talk) 17:52, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Umm.. Please do not provide misleading edit summaries as you did here. "Tightening" generally means that you are removing extraneous words from the section, while in the edit] you made appears to be primarily a revert back to the version that existed prior to ThaddeusB's edit to the section. Not saying that I agree or disagree with your edit, but you need to make sure that your edit summaries actually match what you are doing, or else editors will begin to distrust your edits. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 22:30, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

If you look at the history, Bobblehead, you'll see I said I reverted when I did in my edit summary. That was the big change and was done after getting consensus on the talk page and leaving it open for an hour and a half with no one disagreeing but the other editor. Then I tightened it, dropped 12 words. My tightening was just a tightening of my prior revert. When I did the tightening, I got an edit conflict. And, like most of the time, when I get an edit conflict, I assumed no one had changed my section (as is usually the case and you have to move fast in this article when you have edit conflicts or you can't get anything done!) and so I just copied my tightened version that I had just made below over the entire "Bridge to Nowhere" section not realizing it had been changed before.

But regardless, I am going to restore some of the changes - hopefully in a way that is more agreeable to you this time. Can you try actually working with what I write this time instead of just reverting? --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Thaddeus, I can't work from your version. You have deleted so many references that I can't tell what's what anymore from your version. I don't know why you want to delete reputable sources. If you would work from my version and not delete my references, we could arrive at a compromise. But as far as sources are concerned, I do think it's important that a reader get as many different and varied sources as possible. Did you think any of my sources were repetitive? You didn't say. You just willy-nilly reverted to your version even though you knew mine had consensus. I don't want to get in edit war with you. But you never say what you're doing. How about this? I left your version alone and no one liked it. Please work from my version and don't delete sources. If you want to tighten -- without leaving out any information -- I have no problem with that.

Let's do this Thaddeus. Why don't we start with references. You tell me the ones you want to delete and why. Once we get over that, we can move on to content.GreekParadise (talk) 02:11, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I completely removed any source; I simply changed it so there was only one source per line, as is standard practice. Normally two sources are only used if for some reason one doesn't encompass all the material in the line. If you really want, I can put them back I guess, but I imagine someone will remove the extras sooner or later. P.S. I didn't remove any of the details except the bridge linkages the second time I edited it down in an effort not to piss you off again. :) --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Bridge linkages? What do you mean? Here's the thing: when I added the content and sources -- two days ago or three? -- to the original article, (now in the governorship entry, I think), I was very careful to make sure that everything I said could be backed up in a source. If you remove some, I'm not confident it's all in there. If you want to re-read the sources and re-read the content and assure me that a source is purely duplicative, I have no problem with deleting a source.GreekParadise (talk) 03:13, 10 September 2008 (UTC) As you can imagine, I'm working on it as we speak, trying to combine both our versions, keep it relatively short, remove Minnesota line, etc. I do think it's important that Palin be in the first sentence of the piece as it's her bio and otherwise, if it takes until the second paragraph, people will think "why am I reading this now?"GreekParadise (talk) 03:13, 10 September 2008 (UTC) Last thing. Here's how I know you removed four out of fifteen sources. I simply checked the footnotes. But I'm putting them back.  :-)GreekParadise (talk) 03:15, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

• By bridge linkage I meant the "bridge was to connect point A to point B" which is not relevant to Sarah Palin's bio.
• Is there record of her supporting the bridge before running for governor? If not its not appropriate to say "she initially backed them" (which is true of course) and then talk about happened in 2005, because that implies her support was in 2005, when it was actually in 2006 when she ran for Gov.
• I did make sure the info in the sentence (as I wrote it) was covered by the reference I left behind. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
• BTW, the current version isn't exactly "my version" as others have edited it in the interim. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:31, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

• I think A to B is important because it gives people an idea of where the bridge is and it shows an alternative route to Wasilla, Palin's home town.
• I don't know about 2005 but I can fix it by saying suported it in her run for governor. If you find 2005, let me know.
• Glad you checked references. That worried most as it had been through substantial changes.
• Almost done. I'll post here first, for your review.
• I'm aware that this time, Funwhatever edited it in the interim.GreekParadise (talk) 03:37, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

New Proposed Version Note that new version mentions name Knik Arm but explains Don Young's Way and source of name, explains the difference in the two bridges (which makes it longer, sorry), deals with the 2005 problem, cuts "offical press release" (who cares how she "said" it), leaves Palin in first line, leaves chronological order (except for Palin in first line), and leaves important content and explains why it's important.

Ta da!

What do you think? (For ease of reading references and bold, etc. removed.

"Bridges to Nowhere"

See also: Gravina Island Bridge and Knik Arm Bridge

Two proposed Alaska bridges, both supported by Palin in her run for governor, have been derided as a symbol of pork barrel spending: 1) a bridge connecting Ketchikan to Gravina Island (population 50); and 2) a bridge connecting Anchorage, Alaska to Matanuska-Susitna Valley, where Wasilla is located. (The nickname "Bridge(s) to Nowhere" has been used for either the first or both bridges. The second bridge, Knik Arm Bridge, has been named by Congress as "Don Young's Way," after Alaska Congressman Don Young.)[1][2] In 1995, Congress earmarked $454.4 million to build the two bridges but reversed itself under strong criticism. Congress then gave the $454.4 million to Alaska for general transportation instead.[3][2][4] The next year, Palin ran for Governor on a "build-the-bridge" platform, attacking "spinmeisters" for insulting local residents by using the term "Bridge to Nowhere."[5][6][7] In October 2006, she said build "sooner rather than later. The window is now - while our congressional delegation is in a strong position to assist."[8]

In September 2007, one month after John McCain blamed the Minneapolis bridge collapse on Congress' "Bridge to Nowhere" earmark, Palin (now Governor) canceled the Gravina Bridge, saying: "it’s clear that Congress has little interest in spending any more money on a bridge between Ketchikan and Gravina Island."[9][6] Palin did, however, continue construction of a $25 million access road on Gravina Island, a road which would have linked to the bridge but now goes only to an empty beach. State officials said if the $25 million had not been spent, it would otherwise have been returned to the federal government.[6] Alaska has not returned any of the $454.4 million in the original earmark to the federal government."[10] To this day, Palin continues to support funding the second bridge, Don Young's Way[4].

In her nomination acceptance speech and on the campaign trail, Palin has often said: "I told the Congress 'thanks, but no thanks,' for that Bridge to Nowhere."[11][12] McCain-Palin television advertisements also claim Palin "stopped the Bridge to Nowhere", for which they've been widely criticized.[13] Newsweek deemed Palin's position "an astonishing pivot.... Now she talks as if she always opposed the funding."[14]. The Wall Street Journal has said while Palin "did take part in stopping the project after it became a national scandal, she did not return the federal money. She just allocated it elsewhere."[15]

I started to cut Minnesota but then realized that was necessary to put McCain's 2007 condemnation in context as he had condemned bridge before.

I tried to cut and I did cut a good bit, but in order to accommodate your concerns, it ended up being 386 words, 16 words longer than my original. The version there now is 321 words.GreekParadise (talk) 03:56, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I thought I'd wait a bit before adding it to the main page to get your comments/critique.GreekParadise (talk) 03:59, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Let me know if you're actually working on it now. If you are, I'll wait. If you're not, I'll just stick it on the main page.GreekParadise (talk) 04:17, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Okie. Been a half hour since I put this here. Also warned Thad on his talk page. If Thaddeus has no comments at this time, I'll stick it in the main.GreekParadise (talk) 04:30, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Just responded on the talk page to you. Theosis4u (talk) 17:19, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Just read your one reply. Sorry I disagree with you and believe your pushing a POV. I work at home and watch news on three tv's in my office from 8am to 2am for the most part [closed capture is awesome]. This issue has been dropped by mainstream media because of the quote I mention. They know that it shoots down the argument/POV your putting forward. If you would research updated and current articles within the last two days you would see it bears this out. In the end, I don't make edits to the pages - I just offer what I come across on the talk page and let the group decide. If you want to debate this more, feel free to drop on my talk page. I'm new and the debate will not clutter up much there. Regards. Theosis4u (talk) 01:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Typo redirect Don Youngs Way

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Don Youngs Way, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Don Youngs Way is a redirect page resulting from an implausible typo (CSD R3).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Don Youngs Way, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 07:20, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

"You're getting sleeeeepy"

Don't ruin your health. Sleep deprevation is a "bridge to nowhere". Its a long distance race, not a sprint. I appreciate your clarity and efforts. Both side have taken CHANGE as their mantra. As we can all see, change is hot and heavy on most articles/discussions re: the 4 candidates. A quick thought...isn't it safe to assume that major decision makers (on both sides of the aisle) are wikiEditors, making sure their side is fairly represented, downplaying any potential controversies, making sure that the candidates/Major staff have input at Sarah Palin, Barack Obama, etc. This is a battle for the highest office in the land, perhaps the World. The powers that be know the power and extent of a site like Wikipedia that will be googled by millions in the next few months. Later...........--Buster7 (talk) 14:38, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Did you read talk?

Did you read the talk page? If you want I can copy the things for you here. Hobartimus (talk) 18:08, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I read talk and I said I'd fix the Ketchikan campaign coordinator in the ref. Did you say anything else?GreekParadise (talk) 18:09, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Can you link me the consensus on anything else I changed? (the excessive mentioning and plugging of multiple newspapers, I added a link to Ketchikan International Airport, these were really minor changes you could've let them) Hobartimus (talk) 18:17, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I also removed "and blamed Congress for her decision." it doesnt even make sense in English, blamed Congress for her decision? Hobartimus (talk) 18:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. I have no problem with the airport or the consolidation of the newspapers. You took out so much that I wanted to put it back to make sure nothing was missing. The consensus was that the failure to return funding was relevant(in the very section we're in on the talk page) as was the continued support of Knik Arm.GreekParadise (talk) 18:22, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

As for Congress, I originally had her full quote but was told it was too long and needed to be cut down. Here's the quote. I think it's fair to say she blamed Congress for her decision. What would you say?

September 21, 2007, Juneau, Alaska - Governor Sarah Palin today directed the Department of Transportation and Public Facilities to look for the most fiscally responsible alternative for access to the Ketchikan airport and Gravina Island instead of proceeding any further with the proposed $398 million bridge.

“Ketchikan desires a better way to reach the airport, but the $398 million bridge is not the answer,” said Governor Palin. “Despite the work of our congressional delegation, we are about $329 million short of full funding for the bridge project, and it’s clear that Congress has little interest in spending any more money on a bridge between Ketchikan and Gravina Island,”

GreekParadise (talk) 18:25, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't know the problem is the "blamed for her" phrase. Blamed them for not giving more money would be more sensible, but I think this exact qoute should be given in the subarticle if it's in this form it can be misinterpreted. Hobartimus (talk) 18:50, 11 September 2008 (UTC)