User talk:Jojhutton/archive1

Yes I do enjoy editing and adding to wikipedia, thank you. I try to contribute as often and as correctly as possible, although I don't contribute as much as others. Thank you for your helpful hints, I am still learning the etiquette of wikipedia and I do try. As for the edit I mad about Herbert Hoover, I am aware that citations are helpful toward the validity of wikipedia articles, but pieces of information that are a matter of public knowledge need no citation. This may not be a wikipedia policy, but it is a standard writing practice. You may not agree, but that is what I have been taught. If I said that a dog has four legs, would I need a citation to verify it, or is it a matter of public knowledge? Must a writer cite every single snippet of information? If I said that the President of the United States was George W. Bush, must I find an article to support it? But if I said that George W. Bush was a member of the NRA, then I better find documents to support my findings, then cite them. Again thank you for your concern.

I did not tag the item in the article, which if you check the "history" of the article you will see who did. But, the item should have a citation, as this may be common knowledge to you, but it was not to that editor (or myself as well). To put it more bluntly, if someone asks for a citation, you need one, as that means it has been challenged. Happy editing. Aboutmovies (talk) 23:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC) I am sorry about the misunderstanding on the citation issue. Again I am still learning the bits and pieces of wikipedia and don't understand every little detail available. I usually learn by looking at how others have done things when they edit, so thank you again for the links above. I have reviewed them and will return to them on a need to know basis. This whole process of adding symbols in certain order to create the needed result is so confusing but the links above will help. I agree that what is common knowledge to one person may not ne common knowledge to another, but I wasn't talking about common knowledge, I was speaking of public knowledge, and public knowledge is not up for debate, therefore is not usually challengable by normal standards. If a third party citation is used for every bit of information in writing, then the research would overwelm the writer and the reader to the point of exhaustion. That is why public knowledge citations are not common in normal writing, but perhaps wikipedia is its own master on this topic. Wikipedia is its own beast. First, see the verifiability policy for part of the reason why we try to have a citation for everything. The distinction between public and common knowledge is not really important. It is public knowledge that David Hill adopted some children in 1850, I know I read it in the state archives in the public records. But until right now as I type that, I am probably the only living person in the entire world who knew that. So, despite it being public knowledge, I would certainly have to have a citation in order to back up what I am saying. Which leads us to Criticism of Wikipedia, which if you read you may come to better understand why some of the rules exist. I'm not saying you are making anything up, but by requiring citations for things that no everyone knows and agrees to (i.e. the Holocaust is public knowledge, but not everyone agrees it happened) we help avoid the problems of made-up stuff that occasionally makes it into Wikipedia. Aboutmovies (talk) 11:49, 4 September 2008 (UTC) So if Wikipedia is its own beast, would that make you and your cronies, the beast masters? Then deciding what is right and wrong for the rest of us who casually contribute to the glory of wikipedia. Long live the beast.Jojhutton (talk) 14:56, 7 September 2008 (UTC)jojhutton I had already taken care of part of it early today. In the future, I'd suggest not using the move function until you have a better feeling of Wikipedia functions. You can always just cut and paste text to start an article. Aboutmovies (talk) 01:04, 9 September 2008 (UTC) I was thinking about cut and paste, but thought this would be easier. Thank You.Jojhutton (talk) 01:08, 9 September 2008 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jojhutton"

Warning

Stop reverting my edits in Harry S. Truman, he is People of the First Indochina War and American people of the Vietnam War. It look to me that you didn't read the article at all. You think my edits are wrong but you did the same thing. 96.229.193.68 (talk) 03:22, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your edit once not twice. Every time you make the change, another LOGGED IN editor reverts your edits because the phrase that you use was not the common wording for Southeast Asia during Trumans Presidency. Please feel free to discuss on the articles discussion page if you feel your edit was still correct. --Jojhutton (talk) 03:36, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism removal

No, there is no real hot key for filling in the edit summary, though there are some "automated" tools you can access via your "my preferences" option in the top right of the screen. Usually, people just use the "undo" option and note "rvv" which is short for revert vandalism. Just be careful you are removing pure vandalism (kids inserting the word poop and the such) and not reverting attempts to add content, change the wording or other attempts at improving the encyclopedia whether or not you agree they are actually improving the article per WP:AGF. In those cases, revert but give a detailed explanation. Happy editing. Aboutmovies (talk) 06:19, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I use Twinkle, which is one of the tools that Aboutmovies mentioned. DCEdwards ¹⁹⁶⁶ 16:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

Sorry for that, I may have reverted right after you reverted without me seeing your revert. Techman224 (talk) 23:49, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Huggle

Huggle is an anti-vandalism tool used to revert vandalism and put in the warning templates automatically. It's also used to set other templates, requests for protection, and more. Information on Huggle can be read here. However, there's a problem with it and I don't recommend using it now until it's fixed. Besides, you need the rollback right to use it. Techman224 (talk) 00:46, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback granted

You have been granted rollback permissions on the basis of your vandalism fighting efforts. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
Rollback can be used to revert vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
Rollback may be removed at any time.

If you no longer want rollback, then contact any admin and they can remove it. Also, for some information on how to use rollback, you can view this page. I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, just leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Happy editing! Wronkiew (talk) 15:23, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nixon

For what it's worth, I think it would be better not to use the word "controversial" in the lead. It would be OK to use the term in the substantive part of the article, provided it is cited to one or more sources - it must not sound like the opinion of the article that the pardon was controversial. As to "likely impeachment and conviction", that is POV as it stands. The simplest way round that would be to replace "likely" with the more neutral "possible". Hope this helps. Brianboulton (talk) 11:49, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid I don't accept the third party opinion. I can muster as much historical evidence as you want me to to show that his impeachment and conviction were likely, not just possible, in the opinion of every historian of the subject. It is not POV - it is the historical consensus. Cripipper (talk) 16:54, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it. I can summon up many citations to show that historians believe the impeachment and conviction were likely, not just possible. You are trying to use your own personal bias about the thing to override the historical consensus. Cripipper (talk) 17:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are entirely missing the point. Nixon resigned because his impeachment and conviction were likely. Not possible. Likely. His impeachment and conviction had been a possibility for a long time, ever since the House Judiciary Committee started their investigation. That is why the word likely is important, because it is the causal factor in why he resigned.Cripipper (talk) 18:09, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also suggest you wander over to Watergate and start editing it down to a discussion of the possibility of impeachment to see how far it gets you. Cripipper (talk)

I am sorry if you have taken offense at use of the phrase 'watered down'. I used it since possible is inherently a weaker adjective than likely, thus the switch from the latter to the former is, to my mind, watering it down. However, no offence was intended. Cripipper (talk) 20:25, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nixon, part II

It's okay and thanks for doing what you are doing with the article. I've done quite a bit of work on it myself before you stepped in (I got Mrs. Pat Nixon's to FA status) btu it still needed (and needs) major work. I'd like to step in and help you in a little bit, but I'm a little tied up at the moment...

That said, here is the sentence you inserted on the divorce cases: "He would not handle divorce cases because he was very embarrassed by some womens' admissions of sexual misconduct." First off, the subject of divorce cases and Nixons' unwillingness to handle them is probably appropriate. The parts that strike me as inappropriate are "very embarrassed" and "by some womens'". 'Some' is a weasel word in this case. And why would he be embarrassed at the admission of sexual misconduct? Maybe disgusted or offended due to his strong Quaker faith, but since the sexual misconduct was not something that he took part in, I don't see the embarassment factor. Happyme22 (talk) 22:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True, it is telling. Perhaps we could incoporate both of our ideas into it? Happyme22 (talk) 01:42, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jojhutton, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Aboutmovies (talk) 18:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks: Third Opinion Help on Kluger Agency

I just wanted to say thank you for your help with the dispute on the Kluger Agency article. It's greatly appreciated: I understand how frustrating, disruptive and unproductive these can be.

Thanks to you the dispute now seems to be coming to a satisfactory close for both editors, and I felt this was a suitable time to show my gratitude.

Thanks again, fakelvis (talk) 10:16, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

POV

"(Please cite and not POV)" LOL

Have you even read an history book ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.234.248.31 (talk) 20:39, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Milhist

Hi! I see you're a member of the American Civil War task force but not of the Military history wikiproject itself. Would you like to sign up? You can do so here. Thanks in advance, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 11:14, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks ...

... for your comments at Talk:Abraham Lincoln assassination. I agree with you 100%. I think it's probably best if I simply stay away from Mkpumphrey if possible. I reverted one of his edits as non-notable, but I have promised him not to interfere if other editors do not object and he re-adds the information. For some reason that bewilders me, he has decided to personalize the matter. I'm staying away from anything related to that particular issue and (I hope) away from any of his other edits. Thanks again. Ward3001 (talk) 23:13, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to thank you as well. What you wrote at Talk:Abraham Lincoln assassination is much appreciated. After reading what you wrote, I removed my last write-up in that Discussion section. I am now surprised that I let Ward3001 get to me. In an odd way, I think I may have been a little more than impressed at how many other contributors this person has managed to ( ... forget it ... ). Anyway, I do agree that you are 100% correct. Best Wishes! Mkpumphrey (talk) 00:57, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to both of you as well. If you would like, I can look at the dispute and perhaps make some suggestions.--Jojhutton (talk) 00:59, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mac Reverts

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although MacBook is a product designed by a company based in the United States, it is a computer sold worldwide. This qualifies its article to be written in an international form of English, rather than the one you prefer. Please remember, this is the Wikipedia for all English speaking countries, not just the American Wikipedia. Darkshark0159 (talk) 14:27, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In a recent edit to the page MacBook, you changed one or more words from one international variety of English to another. Because Wikipedia has readers from all over the world, our policy is to respect national varieties of English in Wikipedia articles.

For subjects exclusively related to Britain (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. For something related to other English-speaking countries, such as Canada, Australia, or New Zealand, use the appropriate variety of English used there. If it is an international topic, use the same form of English the original author used.

In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to the other, even if you don't normally use the version the article is written in. Respect other people's versions of English. They in turn should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Wikipedia:Manual of Style. If you have any queries about all this, you can ask me on my talk page or you can visit the help desk. Thank you. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 16:06, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changing the spelling back to the original American version for an American Company that sells most of its products in the US and Canada is very proper and there is no need to tag my talk page as if I was not following wikipedia policy. I will not let zealous editors change articles needlessly, without comment. It is every editors duty to revert improper edits. But we must be careful not to be too zealous in how we deal with our fellow editors--Jojhutton (talk) 19:00, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I never endorsed or changed to one style over another. I alerted everyone involved of Wikipedia guidelines and wasn't paying attention to who was right or wrong since that would be taking a point of view, something I didn't take. I don't think a friendly notice, like the one I gave to everyone involved was over the top. As long as it's settled then I don't wish to hear anything else about it. Cheers. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 19:51, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personal Attacks

I'm sorry. I didn't realise that quoting your user page was considered a personal attack. Darkshark0159 (talk) 02:40, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting my page in a way so that you say I worship presidents. As if I cannot comment on the discussion.--Jojhutton (talk) 02:54, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Macbook

The issue seemed to be resolved after Jason A. Quest referenced WP:POINT, yet you and Darkshark continued to battle each other. Can we please get back to spreading human knowledge and stop fighting? Please? --Terrillja (talk) 03:52, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stop warning

Your warnings are going to be ignored. Just leave the IPs for the administrators to block. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 01:57, 21 October 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Hello, Jojhutton. You have new messages at Jéské Couriano's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thank you...

... for reverting the vandalism of my User page. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 02:04, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your very welcome.--Jojhutton (talk) 02:07, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work on the reverts

Just wanted to let you know that I appreciate your efforts to rid the Wiki of bad edits. Leaving a constructive (template) message when you revert someone never hurts. Wronkiew (talk) 03:47, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You, nice to feel appreciated.--Jojhutton (talk) 04:04, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thanks, Jojhutton, for reverting vandalism to my talk page. Cheers, JNW (talk) 15:27, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Motivations

Joj, I'm confused. In this edit, are you saying that I'm a troll or something like that? Look, maybe Arcayne, with whom I've never had any discussions before this JWB business, might be misinterpreting me. But I can't believe that you think that I'm purposely being difficult.

As Arcayne has been getting less patient, I've always felt confident that eventually we'd all calm down and work this out; the only thing necessary is good faith and time (there's no reason it all has to be settled now, IMHO. I've changed my mind in the past on issues that I had a chance to reconsider). But now I just don't know.

I'm not going to contribute any more to the discussion at this time. Everything I say seems to piss someone off. I'll continue to monitor the discussion, because I'm genuinely interested in (yet unconcerned with) the topic. Contrary to what has been said, I don't care what the final edit ends up being, I just wanted to have an honest, fair, and reasonably calm discussion. Unschool (talk) 00:26, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for clarifying that. I realized that the comment was directed at him but I thought it was about me. I'm still going to stay off the page for now; nothing good can come of me trying to discuss it with someone who is either angry at me or doubts my good faith or just is disinterested in alternate points of view. Thanks again. Unschool (talk) 00:35, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Krzyzowiec&diff=248116337&oldid=248116301

Very fast reaction, lol.

--Krzyzowiec (talk) 05:29, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We are discussing a proposed edit on the following page: Talk:Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now. Please contribute in a constructive manner. Thank you, and don't forget to sign your messages on the Talk page with four tildes. ~~~~ Marx0728 (talk) 00:56, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Jenny Agutter

My apologies for the hiatus the other day. You're right, I should have known better than to get mixed up in all that business. TheRetroGuy (talk) 18:53, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is Wikipedia, not Obamapedia

I see your message that you left me. This is Wikipedia, not Obamapedia. We do not know that campaign supporters are manipulating Wikipedia to help Obama but we do know that people are removing neutral material that even has a hint of negativity AND removing comments on the discussion page.

I have no desire to BLP Obama. However, we do need a neutral encyclopedia.

The material that BBBH added was in the sub-article and has been impecabbly referenced. The material is not libelous. It is factual. Campaign strategy is not illegal. Politicians do it all the time. It is notable that Obama used a new strategy, that is, throwing others off the ballot.

If you believe the above fact belongs, you should insert it back in.

Note that I am not opposed to Obama. I am opposed to cover up. I am opposed to saying Obama is a Muslim. I am looking for balance and the fact that BBBH inserted is fair and neutral. We have the beginning of a consensus. You, me, BBBH. BBBH is a little crude and unrefined but his idea was sound. Midemer (talk) 03:04, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

troubling

i find it very troubling that people would remove article talk page comments, remove an edit, and ban an editor (midimer). if this is not censorship, it has the exact effect that censorship would create. wikipedia is no body's campaign website, obama nor mccain. BBBH (talk) 14:13, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. This is no time to be creating an atmosphere of censorship. I had been silently monitoring the techniques of a few editors on the Obama talk page for a while. The pattern is always the same.

1. They wait until someone makes an edit or a comment that contradicts their ideas.

2. They revert the edit, or in the case of comments, begin a campaign of alternative comments to give the impression of consensus.

3. They then wait for the next comment and begin throwing out wikipedia policy after policy, which they have already prepared in advance.

4. They attack the editor, calling him a troll or disruptive and sometimes they are uncivil.

5. If the editor doesn't go away, they usually find a way to get the editor blocked. This is usually highly effective on new users, but I have seen them do it to more experianced users as well.

The trick is to not fall into their trap. You can say your piece, but the problem is that they only deal with one editor at a time, so they can basically pick away at that editor and then deal with the next one when he comes along. This is a highly effective strategy that is working for them. I suggest that we continue to make suggestions and wait until a new consensus is reached. The problem with these editors is that they are unwilling to compromise at all, even on the obvious points. My argument is that the Obama article is sugar-coated and not NPOV, especially if alternative arguments are not included in the article.--Jojhutton (talk) 14:34, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

agree

i agree with you about tactics. this is why you or others must cite the other users which become too discouraged to edit. remember me, because i am getting too discouraged to edit. i brought up a legitimate idea. we need an objective piece for every politician. i don't give republicans a free ride, just that i have energy to do only 1 at a time. but these people (who may not be supporters, but act just as a partisan supporter/manipulator would do) chase people away from wp (like they will to me). this shows that they are disruptive. disruption is a reason for banning. good luck BBBH (talk) 14:44, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

another excuse that you forgot is to call people socks. i am from the midwest, from the show me state.BBBH (talk) 14:44, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors. Thank you..

There are numerous examples on this talk page and others of 'bad faith' accusations. Please remember to assume good faith. --neon white talk 16:44, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DTTR

Please don't template the regulars, especially when it is based on a misunderstanding of what is and is not canvassing. I form part of a recent article patrol, and I was notifying other members of the group of partisan editing at Project Vote. This is an essential and necessary part of Wikipedia. That particular article doesn't get much activity, despite its association with Barack Obama, but when it does, it is always partisan screed that needs attention. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:11, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, but . . .

I am always happy to receive a barnstar, but I am puzzled. Why did you think I deserved it? With no message, I am left baffled. Unschool (talk) 16:59, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, Joj, I somehow missed your reply to my above question. First of all, once again, I am honored that you saw fit to give me a barnstar. (I hope you haven't changed your mind. :-) ) Anyway, what I was saying about the message is found in the template code that you insert when you provide a barnstar. For example, if you were pasting the code below onto a user's page to give them a barnstar:

{{subst:The Original Barnstar|message ~~~~}}

you notice the word "message" is in the coding. What pretty much everyone does is replace that word "message" with whatever text they want—usually providing an explanation for why they are awarding that barnstar—and the barnstar textbox automatically expands to accomodate the message, regardless of size. For some examples, if you are interested, you can look at this page and see the specific reasons that an editor was given a particular barnstar. Given the Barnstar you chose for me, I was guessing that it was for this set of questions that I posed during our JWB discussion, but since you left no message, I was unsure, and that was why I asked.

I haven't seen you since I came back from my week away earlier this month, but I saw that you and Arcayne appeared to have mended fences. I'm glad to see that. While heated arguments may not be favored on Wikipedia by the powers that be, the fact is that, people like you and Arcayne and sometimes (though increasingly, less so) myself who grow aggitated in the midst of discussions do add something important here as well: Passion. And while no one wants to admit it, this project will be the better for it if editors really, truly care about the exact contents of its articles. I'm happy to have made your acquaintence, and look forward to working with you again. Unschool (talk) 05:30, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Citation Barnstar - Thanks

Thanks for the Citation Barnstar. I believe I've reviewed all of the Richard Nixon references for consistency of formatting and completeness. I've added some references to the NASA section, but a few more are needed. — ERcheck (talk) 23:44, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

JWB article discussion

Please stop attacking me. In fact, avoid posting any comments about, to or in the general area of my comments. Be assured I am most certainly ignoring most of yours. If you make another uncivil comment towards me, you will be blocked. I've apologized for not initially giving you more faith, but the bad faith you have earned since then is going to cause more problems than it solves. Knock it off. Consider this your only warning to stop commenting about the editor and focus on the article content, - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:21, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The attacking is in your mind. You need to relax and stop creating a disturbance.--Jojhutton (talk) 02:24, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your words in the AN/I. You are very gracious, and now I feel a little bad for having assumed the worst of some of your edits. Again, thanks. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:35, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its usually the rule rather the exception, to have editors argue over one detail after another. Just because we disagree on the Booth article, doesn't mean that I don't agree with a lot of what you do. Don't worry and just remember that everyone is not out to get you. If the anon is bugging you, just ignore him. I had no idea that it was as bad as it is, but I still don't think that the anon is 100% wrong. So have a good day and enjoy wikipedia.--Jojhutton (talk) 22:05, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Grossmont Union High School District

I am concerned by Jojhutton's repeated deletions of my contributions to this article. Contrary to his opinion, I believe that the text I added is written in a neutral point of view and without bias. I have provided thorough and adequate references to my contributions. Furthermore, I find that all of the added information is highly relevant and provides a more detailed and critical analysis of the subject with regard to its recent history and other important and related current events. Rather than simply delete the text, which I see as unsatisfactory and unhelpful, I propose that he or another user take the time to edit it so as to render it more neutral and less biased. The Grossmont Unified High School District (GUHSD) has been the subject of controversies and scandals, which were not sufficiently addressed in the article prior to my contributions. Moreover, GUHSD has, without question, entered the realm of politics in recent years. Not to provide a discussion of its politicization would be detrimental to its understanding. User:Oleander arms —Preceding undated comment was added at 02:12, 12 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]

My response is on Talk:Grossmont Union High School District.--Jojhutton (talk) 02:42, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute Resolution Process

Hello, Jojhutton. I've noticed that you have taken a step in the Dispute Resolution Process by posting in WQA. Please note that it is recommended that you advise the other party of your complaint filing so that they are aware of it, and so that they have a chance to respond.

If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. -t BMW c- 12:40, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

JWB escape theories

Well, Joj, I hate to have to tell you this, but when I got back I read some comments that User:JGHowes had posted over at Talk:John Wilkes Booth, and I'm convinced. I hate to leave you high and dry, but my practice is to listen to all sides until I think I know what is right, and now I'm convinced. However, the fact that I'm now on User:Arcayne's side of this particular argument now does not mean that I think that his bullying attitude toward you should be excused. I suspect that his problem is that, when he is so utterly convinced that he's correct, that he just thinks that everyone else should be able to see what he believes is so obvious. _{(And, truth be told, I think you can also have this tendency at times, though it does not bring out rudeness in you, as it does in Arcayne.)} I was particularly upset that he indicated that his problem with you was not just in what you wanted to do, but why you wanted to do it. I still don't get his point on that.

Anyway, you are a great editor, with a great Wikifuture in front of you. I think it's obvious, given our demonstrated interests, that we'll run into each other from time to time. I look forward to it. Unschool (talk) 01:06, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is ANI discussion resolved?

Hi. I've been learning that the wiki process is results oriented. Thus, I'm wondering if the result of the BRD process at the infobox guideline is satisfactory for you, perhaps resolving the thread on ANI? The main reason why I am asking is that I'd like to see it, the ANI thread, marked resolved; iff OK with you (perhaps with a reply to Bugs post). Guidelines are an evolving thing, and I don't think anyone has edited against consensus discussions on the whole (as relevant discussions have occurred across different pages), only just the few of us trying to figure out what the consensuses actually are, needed to be or needs to be.... Modocc (talk) 05:45, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I saw no problem with the rewrite.--Jojhutton (talk) 15:39, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Is_this_block_warning_warranted.3F

As a courtesy, I wanted to let you know I have minorly criticised you in my post in this section.

It could be that my criticism is misplaced. If so, please let me know and when I'm next online, I'll happily amend and apologise. --Dweller (talk) 13:13, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I decided that criticising others in my post was unconstructive, so I removed the comment. --Dweller (talk) 15:43, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Reasonable voices always welcomed. :-) --Dweller (talk) 19:10, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nixon

Hi, you've nominated Nixon article for GA, the legacy section is small and this may very well get pointed-out in the review. thought i'd give you a heads-up, Tom B (talk) 14:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]