Ncmvocalist (talk | contribs) |
74.94.99.17 (talk) No edit summary |
||
Line 228: | Line 228: | ||
Starting discussions on the article talk page on something you've reverted as unencyclopedic asap (rather than waiting on someone else to question the revert) is very ideal - if they haven't responded and re-revert, they're clearly edit-warring. They and you should avoid reverting after that generally, unless it falls under BLP policy. Civil discussion is also ideal. If all that fails, then pursuing [[WP:DR]] is the way to go, or to get the attention of uninvolved admins to look into it. [[User:Ncmvocalist|Ncmvocalist]] ([[User talk:Ncmvocalist|talk]]) 18:38, 27 July 2008 (UTC) |
Starting discussions on the article talk page on something you've reverted as unencyclopedic asap (rather than waiting on someone else to question the revert) is very ideal - if they haven't responded and re-revert, they're clearly edit-warring. They and you should avoid reverting after that generally, unless it falls under BLP policy. Civil discussion is also ideal. If all that fails, then pursuing [[WP:DR]] is the way to go, or to get the attention of uninvolved admins to look into it. [[User:Ncmvocalist|Ncmvocalist]] ([[User talk:Ncmvocalist|talk]]) 18:38, 27 July 2008 (UTC) |
||
== Arbitration Committee report == |
|||
You have been named as a party in a report seeking a hearing by the Arbitration Committee concerning events at [[Talk:Barack Obama]] and [[WP:ANI]]. I have posted the report at the Talk Page for [[WP:RFAR]] since the main page is semi-protected. Feel free to add your statement, and please transfer the report to the main RFAR page if you see fit to do so. Thanks. [[Special:Contributions/74.94.99.17|74.94.99.17]] ([[User talk:74.94.99.17|talk]]) 18:55, 27 July 2008 (UTC) |
Revision as of 18:55, 27 July 2008
Archives
I confess that I tire of foolishness quickly (even my own). At this rate, I'm going to need hourly archives..
01 ǁ
02 ǁ
03 ǁ
04 ǁ
05 ǁ
06 ǁ
07 ǁ
08 ǁ
09 ǁ
10 ǁ
11 ǁ
12 ǁ
13 ǁ
14 ǁ
15 ǁ
16 ǁ
17 ǁ
18 ǁ
19 ǁ
20 ǁ
21 ǁ
22 ǁ
23 ǁ
24 ǁ
25 ǁ
26 ǁ
27 ǁ
28 ǁ
29 ǁ
30 ǁ
Sandbox
New Stuff
See AN/I where I mention you
I've made a complaint about Kossack4Truth's recent edit of your comment at the Talk:Barack Obama page to complain about K4T. Here's the link: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Kossack4Truth disruption on the Barack Obama talk page. -- Noroton (talk) 04:32, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you! Your report on ANI is very reasoned and calm, and I appreciate that you are working toward a good article and willing to consider compromises. I apologize for initially making the overly hot-headed comment... the process has been frustrating for many editors, as I am sure you are aware. LotLE×talk 04:44, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your comment, which I first saw a minute ago. I guess this note is pretty ironic, then. I took another look at your comments about WorkerBee74 on that page (based on Kossak4Truth's unblock request messages) and looked further and found quite a few comments worth apologizing for. I posted them under Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#LotLE's recent behavior. I was asked what should be done about it, and I've just replied I'm not sure but perhaps a civility restriction of some kind, otherwise a topic ban, but I'm totally flexible about what should be done. Please comment there. Noroton (talk) 00:10, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
- No, it's not true that other editors had a worse record for incivility than you. Your comments, when they were uncivil, were the most uncivil, although sometimes some other comments were just as bad. Other people commented more, including me, and if you piled up all the uncivil comments of just about anyone active on that page, the pile would be higher than yours, but that's only because you didn't comment much in those controversies. When you do make uncivil comments, they may be fewer, but they're bigger deposits into the bank. My own comments were not nearly as bad as yours, they were in response to some pretty outrageous statements and when I looked back on them and found some were impolite -- which is even less of a problem than incivility -- I went back and apologized.
- Unfortunately, though I'm sure you imagine it the case that your comments were less uncivil, that is certainly not my perception, and I am quite certain it is not the perception of any other editors who read them. It's easy to imagine that your posts were "in response to some pretty outrageous statements", but your own are just responses... it doesn't look that way from the outside.
- I don't have nearly the problem you do with self-restraint, although I would say that many months ago I came close. I think I've mentioned your behavior three times on AN/I, each time including diffs and restraining my language, which is what I think you're alluding to as "gentle" and "escalating conflict while pretending not to". I wouldn't characterize my reports that way at all. I was clearly pointing out your behavior and also trying to do it in a way that didn't add another layer of drama on it, the way WorkerBee74 has been doing at AN/I. When I thought you were turning away from uncivil behavior I didn't escalate it by mentioning the last attack. If you think I'm making the Talk:Obama page more uncivil, please feel free to report me to admins -- maybe you'll find some horrible comment of mine I've forgotten about. I do think I was pretty snide in some of my first comments responding to you on Talk:Obama (around the time of my posts about the "fat farm" for articles like Harry S. Truman that I suggested could go in it). Please accept this late apology for that. If you find anything else, you could also tell me on my talk page -- I've responded constructively when other editors have done that. I told you why I reported your comments; I didn't like doing it; when you apologized I put your comment on the AN/I page. Don't call my trying to be fair to you, even after you've insulted me (something far worse than sarcasm), as somehow phony. I'm trying to be fair even when I think I'm being treated unfairly. As far as I'm concerned, you're forgiven for any comments you made about me and the slate is wiped clean. I can work with you, agree and civilly disagree with you without any rancor. And if you disagree with anything I've said in this post, feel free to tell me, although I don't think it's worth arguing about. I've said repeatedly that I don't know what sanctions administrators need to impose on editors, and when MastCell pressed me, I gave some ideas on what to do with you, but I said I'd be satisfied with what more experienced editors had to say, and I will. There was nothing phony about that, either. If you're civil, you and I shouldn't have any big problems with each other. I notice that when we stick to specifics we seem to be able to come to agreement. Noroton (talk) 14:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
- Responding to your last comment: Feel free to disabuse me of any misperceptions on my part, but that is the way I see it. I'm not trying to provoke -- I'm responding exactly to what you wrote and stating my disagreements with it where I think they're important. First you said (provocatively?) I was "escalating conflict while pretending not to", which sounded to me as if I were being called a phony, so I gave you a plain-spoken reply, which you tell me is "trying to provoke things", although it included an apology, an offer to listen to complaints and an observation/suggestion about how we best work together. Noroton (talk) 18:25, 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 weigh in again. (I'm notifying those who commented.) — Justmeherenow ( ) 06:30, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Re
I didn't restore your edits, which inexplicably removed the key phrase "although not accused of any wrongdoing." It's moot though; I'm in the process of retiring my account, so please allow my User_talk page to remain deleted from this point forward. Shem(talk) 06:54, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Ejscript
After helping with this software-related AfD, would you be able to check out Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/InterModule? Thanks in advance :). Ironholds 10:27, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
- I voted and agree with you. I wonder if this not borders on WP:CANVASSing though. I guess it's fine, you're neutral in your presentation, reserving any arguments for the relevant page; and I've shown an interest in the subject area. Maybe I'm a little walking-on-eggshells because of some of gross canvassing on another `ongoing AfD I've voted in. LotLE×talk 17:58, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Project Vote
Nice work. :o) --Clubjuggle T/C 03:59, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
- Yes. This ingenious tactic outmaneuvered me, weakening the argument for my specific edit. It's difficult for me to argue against your collapsing ARCON into Project Vote on the main page when I've been arguing that they are closely related.Bdell555 (talk) 23:44, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
- Is this some sort of weird criticism that I created an article on a notable organization once I noticed it was missing?! How conniving of me to create an article for Project Vote. LotLE×talk 00:09, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Neutral headers, please
Would you please look at Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#New topics and headings on talk pages, where it says "Keep headings neutral: A heading should indicate what the topic is, but not communicate a specific view about it."? Could you please change "Guilt by association" to something neutral sounding? Thanks, Noroton (talk) 05:37, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
- Like what? The header exactly describes the topic discussed under it. 06:40, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
- Well, this was my attempt at it. [1] The header was itself an assertion that that's what was going on (that including this info is implying "guilt by association") and that is very much in dispute. I don't think it's important enough to argue over, so if you have a better neutral idea, feel free to change it again. Noroton (talk) 16:08, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Please restore my comments
I am assuming good faith, but I do not understand your position. I would request that you restore my comments as there is no reason to remove them. If it were your talk page that would be ok, but it is a public page and you cannot remove them without my consent. John Smith's (talk) 06:31, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
- I did not remove them, but simply moved your comment to the section with your own comments. While it is not uncommon, it's just disruptive to add gigantic commentary and retort to each editors opinion in an AfD. I stated my reason for my vote completely and concisely. Feel free to explain your vote in your vote, but let the others be. LotLE×talk 06:37, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, I'm happy with you moving them this one time. But this should be a discussion not a "vote and disappear" routine. It's not possible to have a discussion if comments and replies were not made to each other. In the future please do not shift comments around without asking. If you ask first editors will consider it, whereas if you decide they should be somewhere else they're liable to react more negatively. John Smith's (talk) 07:05, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
- I do not believe your comment was in any meaningful way a "discussion" of my stated opinion. It was just a mechanical retort that amounted to "But I really want the page deleted". As I said on your talk page, your "shepherding" is disruptive... just let everyone (including you) state their opinions/arguments, and let the closing admin decide how to handle it. LotLE×talk 07:14, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Ex-ACORN Workers
I've reinstated the paragraph about the "Ex-ACORN workers". According to the source, they were, in fact, ACORN workers at the time the false voter registrations were submitted. They were "ex-ACORN workers" at the time of the news story, obviously because ACORN had fired them by then. If you have concerns about that we can discuss further on the talk page. Thanks for your help in cleaning that article up, it desperately needs it. --Clubjuggle T/C 11:40, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Rezko again on Obama
A suggestion to keep everybody calm and sane here....regarding this edit,[2] although it was a weird edit to make I don't see anything to be gained about accusing the editor of bad faith. Whether warranted or not the accusation raises tensions, and we're perfectly capable of dealing with this right now without it. If people persist, that might be different. But I would save the harsh reactions for when they're both warranted and needed - not slips like this that could turn out to be nothing. If you could tone down / refactor your statement it would show that you're going out of your way to be courteous, which will go a long way to keeping out of trouble if things do get contentious again. Wikidemo (talk) 06:39, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Rv on Cultural image
Your rv on the Obama page appears to have been based on a misunderstanding. There was no soapboxing involved. I was including relevant details pertaining to Obama's religion and church attendance. Trilemma (talk) 22:19, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
- Whatever your intention, the more concise version, as trimmed by Wikidemo, is much better. Actually, I think we could lose a few more words still. We are very sensitive to space in this article. LotLE×talk 22:50, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
As requested, my argument for ACORN sentence, organized
This is a form message I'm cross posting on various user talk pages: As requested, I wrote up my argument in one spot, consolidating what I'd said before and adding just a bit. Please take a look at it at User:Noroton/The case for including ACORN and comment at Talk:Barack Obama#Case for ACORN proposed language, restated. Thanks, Noroton (talk) 03:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for your comment on the talk page for "The case..." I will add something there. Actually, I expect to add a lot in that "Early life" article. That's an interesting period of Obama's life. Ryan Lizza's article in the New Yorker has a lot of interesting insights into how Obama succeeded in Chicago that tell you something about Obama's personality and talents. Those are the kinds of things that can't be adequately covered in the main article anyway. Lizza also had a good piece last year in The New Republic. I read a copy of that article on an Obama website last night. In one of those articles, it talks about how Obama got elected president of the Harvard Law Review, showing a real talent for politicking. The way he succeeded with Project Vote was pretty entrepreneurial -- he recruited fundraisers, raised a mint (apparently more than any other Project Vote operation) and operated independently of both the Daley machine and the black establishment -- then succeeded beyond anyone's expectations. That, plus the publicity from his first book, laid the foundation for his first run for office. The New York Times and Washington Post have also done interesting pieces on that period. Noroton (talk) 15:09, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- I'd love to see some of that stuff. I haven't read the articles you mention, but they sound very germane to the Early Life article. We obviously can't be as "writerly" as the New Yorker and the like, but the facts would still be interesting in encyclopedic dryness. I'll start watching that child, and see where it goes. I really do think that once something is there it: (a) puts worthwhile material in a relevant article; (b) makes it jibe to summarize the new stuff in the main bio. Thanks for your good work on this. LotLE×talk 18:06, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
PV is not a branch of the Spanish Inquisition
I read that while drinking some Diet Coke, and now I'm mopping it from my keyboard. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:39, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
- I was considering the Free Masons, but then I thought that a certain editor might adopt the claim as actually true :-). LotLE×talk 17:51, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
just to show my fairness
A little nugget for you that apparently no one else has found or has appeared on any Talk pages. It doesn't apply to Project Vote but it does to Barack Obama:
- "... Project Vote, Obama’s employer in 1992.
In These Times is partisan, but I'll admit it says directly that Project Vote was Obama's employer.Bdell555 (talk) 22:36, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Mediation
I'd like to invite you to join Scjessey, Noroton and I in binding mediation of content disputes in the Barack Obama biography. WorkerBee74 (talk) 16:26, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Obama visiting combat zone
Obama visiting the combat zone (place where people get killed I'm here now) is notable. Especially places like Afghanistan!--Ron John (talk) 18:16, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
- Wikinews is an excellent place to work on user-editable descriptions of current events. I believe that with the unified login system, you should be able to access it using the same user account that you've established on WP. LotLE×talk 18:18, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Tweakage
I find it hard to follow the text when reading "though" the expanded citation style, so it is more of a personal preference. Being a web developer, I love to remove extraneous whitespace whenever I can. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:47, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
- Being a Python programmer, I want spacing to represent semantics. Actually, that's equally true when I write ECMAScript, or HTML, or C, or Haskell, or anything else. Still, maybe you could skip making those changes just for their own sake... since other editors (like me) find the one more readable. I guess it's kinda like Brit/USAian spellings: both are fine if the article does it, but don't try to change what's there. LotLE×talk 00:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Obama edits, pics
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Lulu: please enter this on Barack Obama's page: Obama is 50% white from his mother’s side, 43.75% Arabic, and 6.25% black on his father's side.
Curious how Arab isn't even mentioned on his Wiki page.
Revision as of 06:53, 23 July 2008 (edit) (undo) Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters (Talk | contribs) (who tried to create illusion of Jackson not supporting Obama's candidacy?!) [3]
You did: [4]
Regards, --Floridianed (talk) 08:42, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- The second diff you gave is 404. Maybe something copied wrong. In any case, I'll accept your word that I messed up in a previous edit.... I'm "someone" too :-). LotLE×talk 16:16, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Advice from Curious bystander
Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters, please stop edit-warring on the Barack Obama article. Take it to the Talk page and reach consensus before making these edits. I have been watching this page for weeks and WB74, while troublesome, is not entirely to blame for the acrimony there. You haven't been entirely civil yourself. Curious bystander (talk) 23:49, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
- Perhaps you're not aware of the new discussion there - Talk:Barack_Obama#Reversion. I think it's safe to say there's no consensus as yet for making the change or exactly what the final version should look like so please consider self-reverting or at least not revert warring further to make this change. We're expecting the same out of others on disputed changes they are making. Let's see if we can do this collaboratively. Also, I don't think it's fair to dismiss the "new editor" as having an "Interesting" edit history, as you do in this edit summary.[5] I'm not sure whether you're referring to User:Die4Dixie (who proclaims a religious bent, and opposition to Obama) or User:Curious bystander (a seemingly experienced editor with a new account as of July 10 who has been working on articles about gay subjects, one of the listed examples for creating a legitimate WP:SOCK account). The edits you revert are Die4Dixie's, which are discussed in the new thread. In case you're not aware, Die4Dixie and I are trying our hardest to let old disputes die and edit constructively. If there's any hope for stability on the page, with or without administrative intervention, we do have to get along. If there is article probation it will almost certainly come with a prohibition against revert wars on the main page or casting aspersions on other editors in edit summaries. Wikidemo (talk) 01:44, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
- I was referring to the reversion by Curious bystander. However, it's not really about the edit history, but rather about WP:BLP. As I have discussed in the talk page thread you mention, the claim that previously occurred in the article seems to have been demonstrated to be either outright false, or at the least WP:SYNTH. LotLE×talk 01:51, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
- There's no BLP issue - that's a red herring. And even if you personally feel there is you're on thin ice if you want to use that claim as a basis for edit warring. I'm pretty sure that if you and the other people on both sides persist we're headed for some combination of acrimony, blocks, AN/I reports, and article protection. It's not worth it over this kind of thing when we're supposed to discuss first on the talk page.Wikidemo (talk) 01:54, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
- I was referring to the reversion by Curious bystander. However, it's not really about the edit history, but rather about WP:BLP. As I have discussed in the talk page thread you mention, the claim that previously occurred in the article seems to have been demonstrated to be either outright false, or at the least WP:SYNTH. LotLE×talk 01:51, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
- It's frustrating to see a few new SPA editors push for restoration of a weeks-old version that has accuracy and WP:WEIGHT problems that had been fixed for a while. The motive for trying to fix the older bad language is primarily your own excellent summary of the length spent on various persons in the bio. LotLE×talk 01:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
- Well, yes, thanks. I do see you're concerned that this may be an incarnation of WB74. Given the state of WP:SOCK policy I think it would be considered legitimate for an IP user or even a registered user to create a new account to edit gay articles. I don't agree with that carve-out from SOCK but it's a sensitive issue and some powerful admins have a long history of operating multiple accounts that date back years. So unless you show some actual bad activities - trying to double-vote, both participating in the same time to avoid 3RR or an inflated sense of consensus or opposition, etc - people might forgive it. It could be someone else too, not WB74. I'd suggest you quietly collect diffs and evidence, and if it ever gets to the point where it's a big problem that's upset other people, and you think you can justify a checkuser, file a report then. But when an account is so new checkusers are often inconclusive. And I think the admins are avoiding the page because they think it's toxic - you saw how little interest there was in finding the sockpuppets even when it was pretty obvious. BTW, I think D4D is capable of being productive and certainly friendly if we give him a chance and he gives us a chance. For the life of me I can't understand why WB74 continues to be uncivil though. It's completely gratuitous and it undermines what he's trying to do. You might consider that your own tendency to bristle, even if justified, weakens the effectiveness of your arguments (or accusations, when you're ready to make them formally). Sorry if this is a little too personal but I don't want to see your thoughtful efforts on the article content get lost in all that fuss. Wikidemo (talk) 02:42, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
- I just pointed this out at the accused editor's page. There is no evidence at all for such accusation and I find it quite troubling. If there is real suspicion, I'm (one of) the first to notice, but keep it for myself till there is (if at all) any real indication of gaming the system. Till then I keep my potential doubt (which in this case I don't have) for myself and wish, others would do so too, keeping up the standards they would like to be treated themselves. Point made; Point taken? "Cheers", --Floridianed (talk) 05:24, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
- There is clear evidence. Suspicion is healthy and normal. Making accusations without solid foundation is not. That's the line. At this point it's worth watching, but premature to draw conclusions or start any process. Also it's sometimes unwise to discuss things in detail onwiki. If it is a sockpuppet that will be clear later. If not, no harm no foul. Wikidemo (talk) 15:57, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
- I just pointed this out at the accused editor's page. There is no evidence at all for such accusation and I find it quite troubling. If there is real suspicion, I'm (one of) the first to notice, but keep it for myself till there is (if at all) any real indication of gaming the system. Till then I keep my potential doubt (which in this case I don't have) for myself and wish, others would do so too, keeping up the standards they would like to be treated themselves. Point made; Point taken? "Cheers", --Floridianed (talk) 05:24, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
- Well, yes, thanks. I do see you're concerned that this may be an incarnation of WB74. Given the state of WP:SOCK policy I think it would be considered legitimate for an IP user or even a registered user to create a new account to edit gay articles. I don't agree with that carve-out from SOCK but it's a sensitive issue and some powerful admins have a long history of operating multiple accounts that date back years. So unless you show some actual bad activities - trying to double-vote, both participating in the same time to avoid 3RR or an inflated sense of consensus or opposition, etc - people might forgive it. It could be someone else too, not WB74. I'd suggest you quietly collect diffs and evidence, and if it ever gets to the point where it's a big problem that's upset other people, and you think you can justify a checkuser, file a report then. But when an account is so new checkusers are often inconclusive. And I think the admins are avoiding the page because they think it's toxic - you saw how little interest there was in finding the sockpuppets even when it was pretty obvious. BTW, I think D4D is capable of being productive and certainly friendly if we give him a chance and he gives us a chance. For the life of me I can't understand why WB74 continues to be uncivil though. It's completely gratuitous and it undermines what he's trying to do. You might consider that your own tendency to bristle, even if justified, weakens the effectiveness of your arguments (or accusations, when you're ready to make them formally). Sorry if this is a little too personal but I don't want to see your thoughtful efforts on the article content get lost in all that fuss. Wikidemo (talk) 02:42, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Churchill
It is documented that Churchill claimed to be Muscogee Creek. The posting of the Creek Tribal document is relevant.
Secondly- The cause of the split in AIM is well documented and it did occur as a result of the support by Means, Churchill, and Morris of the CIA backed Contra Miskito group. Why do you keep hiding this. Churchill admits this when he is asked at lectures? --Ogitchidaag 00:36, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
- (Hope you don't mind to help him out by correcting his mistake but if you do just erase it and please accept my apology.) --Floridianed (talk) 01:04, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
- (No appologize needed. I like to help out as I am apreaciated when someone does it on my page. Glad you're ok with it.) --Floridianed (talk) 01:41, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Being notified
I noticed you mentioned on Wikidemo's talk page that you hadn't been notified about that complaint by K4T at AN3. You should have been. I've been in that situation before and it made me mad. I actually brought it up at AN/I about a year ago and the response from at least a couple of admins was that they couldn't be bothered, which still rankles me. If I ever see a complaint filed against you, anywhere, and don't see that you've been notified, I'll do it myself. You'd think it would be pretty elementary fairness.
You were obviously right that two Obama/Petreus pics was one too many. You made a good case for not having Pfleger's name in the article, too, although I'm not sure it makes much difference. It seems to me it would be a good idea, if his name is removed, to link a few words that replace his name to his article, so readers could easily learn more about him. Noroton (talk) 20:23, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
- You have a good idea that I hadn't thought of. With WB74 "reverting on sight" my changes, I'll wait a while. But if we had the condensed description say something like "...after a a visiting orator mocked Clinton..." that would both avoid the false specificity and let readers get to Pfleger's article without undue work. LotLE×talk 20:48, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Respond
I responded to your recent comments/concerns on my talk page there. I appreciate your civil and courteous responses to my concerns.Die4Dixie (talk) 01:06, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Re: what to do
Sorry for the delay in replying. I wouldn't worry too much - if there's any cause for concern, or someone wants to see how you respond to concerns (however meritless they are), you'll almost certainly be notified on your talk page here. And you're probably right - sometimes things run smoother, for everyone's benefit, you only read it after the thread has closed. K4T meanwhile is under a topic ban.
I'm not sure I can give any advice that's unique to those situations - it's more general, but certainly something to keep in mind even in those situations. It obviously won't always work so smoothly, but it's an ideal (and isn't entirely impossible). :)
Starting discussions on the article talk page on something you've reverted as unencyclopedic asap (rather than waiting on someone else to question the revert) is very ideal - if they haven't responded and re-revert, they're clearly edit-warring. They and you should avoid reverting after that generally, unless it falls under BLP policy. Civil discussion is also ideal. If all that fails, then pursuing WP:DR is the way to go, or to get the attention of uninvolved admins to look into it. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:38, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Arbitration Committee report
You have been named as a party in a report seeking a hearing by the Arbitration Committee concerning events at Talk:Barack Obama and WP:ANI. I have posted the report at the Talk Page for WP:RFAR since the main page is semi-protected. Feel free to add your statement, and please transfer the report to the main RFAR page if you see fit to do so. Thanks. 74.94.99.17 (talk) 18:55, 27 July 2008 (UTC)