User talk:Loonymonkey

NOTE:

I'm taking a sort-of break for a while. I will be checking in occasionally and patrolling for vandalism on the pages I watch, but I don't have the time to keep up with some of the 10,000+ words per day discussions that are raging. Leave me a note if there's something in particular that you feel I should pay attention to.

The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		I'm awarding you this RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar for your great contributions to protecting and reverting attacks of vandalism on Wikipedia. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 20:28, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barack Obama

For your information my addition to Barack Obama was neutral and well sourced. For the future please discuss on Wikipedia:WikiProject Political parties which I head. --Megapen (talk) 21:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it was neither neutral nor well-sourced and ignored all discussion and consensus for that article. Plus, as I pointed out, it was very poorly written (you could at least have spelled his name right if you're trying to attack him!) Further, the proper place to discuss changes to an article is on the article's talk page. --Loonymonkey (talk) 21:44, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While the contribution did not coincide with consensus, it was not vandalism. As a side note, 2+2=4 whether or not people consent to it. Scientists once consented that the Earth was flat, but it was not true. An encyclopedia is not supposed to reflect consensus, it is supposed to reflect fact. Obama has had an inconvenient relationship, of sorts, with Bill Ayers, and it has certainly been a dubious criticism worth adding (when compared to other politicians' articles). Interestingly, this is not the first time that I have noticed a constructive (although imperfect) contribution being regarded as vandalism simply because it does not appeal to the internet masses.Gefreiter (talk) 20:33, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really sure what you're talking about. Looking through the history, I haven't reverted any of your edits as vandalism. Perhaps you have me confused with someone else? --Loonymonkey (talk) 20:44, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on Weathermen, Ayers, Dohrm, Obama, and "terrorism"

Please note that I have created an RfC to discuss the matter of whether, how, and where we should use and cover the designation "terrorist" describe the Weathermen and their former leaders. It is located here: Talk:Weatherman (organization)/Terrorism RfC. The intent is to decide as a content matter (and not as a behavioral issue regarding the editors involved) how to deal with this question. I am notifying you because you appear to have participated in or commented about this issue before. Feel free to participate. Thank you. Wikidemon (talk) 20:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm new at this so maybe I'm not totally up to speed on the process, but Clarence Thomas shouldn't include statements about allegations made by Angela Wright and Sukari Hardnett if they aren't sourced and substantiated. Thanks! (Wallamoose (talk) 02:26, 14 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]

strange form of vandalism

I noticed that a user named Emeraldcityserendipity had been to a page, David Brickner , and wikified the birth date. I looked at his contributions and saw that he had been to the page of someone I know, Carolyn Merchant, I clicked and saw that he had done the same thing there. Lightbot had undone it. I went to the talk page for Emeraldcityserendipity and saw that you and others had warned him against doing so. I'm not sure what the appropriate response it. It's vandalism, but of an unusual type.Elan26 (talk) 13:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)Elan26[reply]

The New York Times

Since you are one of the article's primary contributors, if you've got time could you help out by adding references to the article where needed? It is sorely in need of more references before a good article nomination is possible :) Thanks in advance! Gary King (talk) 19:06, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give it a try (and I've tracked down a number or the refs previously). The problem is that at the moment, I'm pretty pressed for time, so my editing seems to come in twenty minute bursts when I have a few moments free. Thus, I tend to spend my time checking my watchlist for vandalism or blatant POV. Are there specific areas that you feel need the most work? Let me know, thanks! --Loonymonkey (talk) 19:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Specific areas is references, since I didn't add most of the content; whatever you've added, please reference if you can :) Gary King (talk) 19:12, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't added any unreferenced content, but maybe you could tag something that you feel is an unreferenced claim and we'll track it down. Be sure to read the entire paragraph and all of the refs in the paragraph in their entirety first, before taggin. Often verification can be found buried in the ref a couple of sentences later (it's poor style to put a ref after every sentence, of course). --Loonymonkey (talk) 19:18, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done Gary King (talk) 19:27, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If some text is cited previously in the paragraph then move the reference to the end; only everything before the reference should be covered by it, not any content after it. Gary King (talk) 19:46, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Biden income edits

See Talk:Joe Biden#Income and contributions to charity for where discussion should go, not your user page as Wallamoose did. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:48, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please take another look at Weatherman/Terrorism RfC

This is a message sent to a number of editors, and following WP:CANVASS requirements: Please take another look at Talk:Weatherman (organization)/Terrorism RfC and consider new information added near the top of the article and several new proposals at the bottom. If you haven't looked at the RfC in some time, you may find reason in the new information and new proposals to rethink the matter. -- Noroton (talk) 02:31, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Assertion completely unsupported by sources

The fact that the times is conservative or is accused of being conservative is completely unsourced and unsupported. Accusing a single reporter in a staff of several hundred is not a sufficient source as to the whole newspaper. I checked the archives and there was no consensus to the exact wording rather the contrary others have also pointed out that it's a misrepresentation and cannot stand. Sources cannot be used for statement they do not support. Please do not (re)introduce a version that is completely unsupported by the sources. Hobartimus (talk) 05:08, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly you haven't actually read the sources that you were attempting to delete. Start by reading the two articles from the Nation. While I don't entirely agree with it, the entire controversy involving the run-up to the Iraq war is that they helped "sell" the war to the public for the Bush administration. Trying to claim that those articles are just about Judith Miller, and not about the newspaper that ran this series by her (and others) is just absurd. Miller didn't publish this stuff herself on some blog, the Times published it on their front page for months. You don't seem to be clamoring to remove references to Jayson Blair because he's "a single reporter in a staff of several hundred." Your only reason for wanting to remove this material seems to be that it doesn't fit your personal POV that the Times is always liberal and couldn't possibly be considered conservative by anyone anywhere. Unfortunately, you're wrong, as the sources clearly indicate (remember, we're merely sourcing opinion here, not objective fact). Please don't try to unilaterally edit-war. You have yet to even discuss this on talk. --Loonymonkey (talk) 19:24, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I checked quite a few sources and never found one single accusation that the times itself would be conservative, you have yet to produce a single source of that accusation. A single sentence that spells it out that describes the Times as conservative is nowhere to be found. Yet the sentence and the references were merged as if the "conservative bias" allegation had equal weight in the sources. Now you claim that the times ran a series of articles some years ago based on available information at the time that later turned out to be misleading. Others accused at most these series of articles and singled out journalists like Miller from an organization of several hunderd. That's extremely far from what I'd like to see to support the serious charge that the Times itself is a conservative newspaper. Hobartimus (talk) 20:30, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, it's clear by your words that you haven't actually read the articles in their entirety, rather just skimmed them for the exact phrase "conservative bias." And you seem to be confusing the idea of being a "conservative newspaper" with exhibiting a "conservative bias" as it relates to specific issues. A newspaper that features Paul Krugman could never genuinely be considered to be a "conservative newspaper" any more than a newspaper that features William Safire could be considered to be a "liberal paper" (and guess which newspaper he was the lead editorialist for). But neither claim has been made in the article, rather the claim is whether they have ever exhibited bias and those on both sides of the debate have said so (as the references indicate). --Loonymonkey (talk) 20:51, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"with exhibiting a "conservative bias" as it relates to specific issues." exactly my point the article should say exactly that what is supported by the sources, "was accused of exhibiting conservative bias in the coverage of some issues" you can top it of with "such as the Iraq war" as preference. And the references should not be merged to a massive 8-pile but each reference placed to the statement it supports. It's all I propose really. Hobartimus (talk) 21:13, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Raila Odinga

Why are you giving me a warning when R.Schuster is the one vandelizing this post? He has repeatedly deleted the informaiton without discussion and you are ignoring this fact. You are being unreasonable. Where where you when he originally deleted the post without taking it up for discussion? The post has 3 reliable sources. One being CBS.--Xinunus (talk) 20:59, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removing poorly sourced material is not vandalism,. As been explained repeatedly, you need much better sources for this claim. No, CBS isn't the source, somebody's YouTube video credited "to CBS2" is the source. Of the other two one is a blog and the other an opinion piece. Find a reliable source and we'll discuss it. Further, the photo you keep attempting to add is a Photoshop fake, a clear violation of WP:BLP (and pretty much every other principal of Wikipedia). --Loonymonkey (talk) 21:11, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

Hi Loony. I saw that you added a 3rr report for Xinunus. I already added one above for him. Might be best to incorporate. Cheers. --Patrick (talk) 22:18, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. You were just a little bit quicker! --Loonymonkey (talk) 22:20, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who knows maybe it will result in a double the amount of time blocked. --Patrick (talk) 22:27, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Loonymonkey. I removed the second 3RR report, just to keep the queue tidy, since the first report has now been acted on. Hope this is OK with you! If you have further comments to make, you might add them to the first report. EdJohnston (talk) 01:46, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's fine. I struck my report instead of removing it just in case there where any problems with the other report. Looks like everything got taken care of. Thanks! --Loonymonkey (talk) 01:54, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gephart & Pelosi

Hiya Loo. But Gephart's resignation wasn't immediate, he stayed on until the expiration of the 107th US Congress. That's how it's shown on his & Pelosie articles Infoboxes. GoodDay (talk) 00:03, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's not correct. Pelosi was elected in 2002. If his infobox says otherwise, it should be corrected. --Loonymonkey (talk) 00:07, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Pelosi was elected, but; she didn't assume the position until the start of the 108th Congress (when Gephart's tenure expired). GoodDay (talk) 00:13, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the US Congress Directory site. It says Pelosi was House Minority Leader for the 108th & 109th Congresses. GoodDay (talk) 00:17, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're correct. It's a confusing point because Gephardt resigned and Pelosi was elected in 2002 (so most news accounts from then say "Pelosi replaces Gephardt") but she didn't officially ascend until the vote for Majority leader in January. --Loonymonkey (talk) 00:25, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS- you mean Minority Leader, of course. GoodDay (talk) 00:37, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's the reason for the confusion. It's a weird arcane ritual where they vote for Majority leader (the Dems voted for Pelosi and the Repubs for Hastert even though the outcome is foregone based on who controls the House.) That's how she officially became Minority leader. --Loonymonkey (talk) 01:17, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ya got that wrong, the Majority Leader in the House (like the Senate) is the Leader of the majority party (which in the House of the 108th & 109th Congresses, were the Republicans). The Minority Leader in the House (like the Senate), is the Leader of the minority party (which in the House of the 108th & 109th Congresses, were the Democrats). GoodDay (talk) 14:40, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In Jan 2007, at the start of the 110th Congress, Pelosi was the Dems candidate for Speaker & Haster was the Reps candidate for Speaker. Not surprisingly, Pelosi got elected (as the Dems had the majority in the House). GoodDay (talk) 17:36, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]