User talk:Fat&Happy

OK. A talk page...Fat&Happy (talk) 16:20, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

October 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to the page Talk:List of Native American leaders has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. ~ Arjun 20:00, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

My apologizes, no warning needed. sorry, ~ Arjun 20:01, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

thanks!

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		your fixing the vandalism on Elisabeth Hasselbeck did not go unnoticed keeping the integrity of articles especially those of Living persons is very important and thought it was barnstar worthy andyzweb (talk) 04:45, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Health care reform

The source I used only had the assertion that the Senate had not met on Christmas Eve since 1963, not the other information.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 23:36, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, looking at what's left there. I just wanted to make sure. I'm sorry you didn't feel the other information was worth including, but then we still don't know for sure.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 16:34, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, right. I went to what I thought was the other article but didn't see the information. I just used the source that came up. At home, I don't go to most web sites, and with good reason. I just spent a week dealing with a spyware scam from a site I trusted.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 17:25, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I made the update, but I used some different sources since they were very specific. There was something unique about 1895.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 15:22, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Whittemore daughter

Hello, Fat&Happy, I was wondering if you could help me understand the rationale for removing the name of the Whittemore's daughter from the WPI page and Harvey Whittemore. There is extensive coverage of her situation in the national media, including two articles in the New York Times and one in the Wall Street Journal (including her picture in both papers), as well as in patient-interest publications such as ProHealth. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 18:57, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I've been thinking about creating a biography, but I admit she is in a grey area. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 20:31, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Whittemore Peterson Institute article

• Please see Request for discussion on triggering Edit War Process. Feel free to contribute to this discussion if you wish. I apologise for contacting all contributors, but I have been asked to be impartial by another editor working on this page. -- TerryE (talk) 01:12, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

January 24, 2010 edits

thank you and i understand well can sure how to put citations because there alot i want to add to Coyote Springs, Nevada page becuase there not really alot on there if i post here what i want to add can u put on page thanks. (Youtubek (talk) 04:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Youtubek (talk • contribs)

oops

• I'm not an admin, but that edit summary was a bit over the line... and unnecessary. • Ling.Nut 05:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

		The Citation Barnstar
		Honestly I think these things are silly and have never before in four years of editing taken it upon myself to give one, but for silently slipping into a "situation" and ending it with a couple of good refs — not to mention silently slipping away without calling attention to yourself — is a very good contribution indeed. I don't know if anybody else there noticed it yet, but yours was probably the most productive participation of the half-dozen editors there, including myself. Bravo. And it's not like I haven't noticed your good work elsewhere. You're an asset to the encyclopedia. Stay happy and get a little exercise, Abrazame (talk) 07:11, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Salsa Beat Machine (Salsa article)

Hi Fat&Happy,

I've noticed you have just removed the link to the Salsa Beat Machine from the Salsa (dance) article, classifying it as 'spam' in the comment, and I wonder why you did this?

I can say this resource is very relevant for Salsa dancers, this is what I have heard from many of the users, and I know that a great part of them have discovered it thank to Wikipedia. I'm not sure if you have done this yet, but I invite you personally to go and check it yourself... You will see that it's not SPAM. Please let me know

Thanks, --Urishaked (talk) 07:48, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, it seems to meet the definition of spam, namely "external links [in] an article or user page for the purpose of promoting a website or a product", though I concede the classification of donation-ware as a "product" could be argued. It's not something I'm prepared to edit-war over though; it just got caught in the web created when another link was posted containing more obvious spam and I reviewed the existing links so as not to be discriminatory. Fat&Happy (talk) 08:13, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Fat&Happy, Thank you for you quick reply. I understand your argument about not being discriminatory. However, I think that the Salsa Beat Machine does provide a great value for dancers, and Wikipedia readers, especially people who are beginners in this area, can benefit a lot from having this link to the online software. I have seen this happening all throughout the six months the link was there... Therefore I ask, if that would be possible, that the link be put back. --Urishaked (talk) 22:29, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I still consider it spam and won't re-post it again myself, but as I implied above, I don't view it as a critical issue that I'd start a revert war over if another editor chose to insert it again. Fat&Happy (talk) 22:34, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thank you --Urishaked (talk) 00:32, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Alison Sweeney

Thanks for all your help on Elisabeth Hasselbeck, in particular the non-notable minors issue. If you have a moment, could you have a look at Alison Sweeney. I could keep reverting the additions, but it would be great if I could avoid violating 3RR. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 15:01, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Given the fact that this editor refuses to communicate, I believe some additional action may be necessary very soon. Thanks for all your help. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 19:09, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

please follow the rules

The Obama article is under article probation which means you must discuss changes on the talk page first. Small is not referenced and vague. Years ago, someone researched at found the number to be 12. This seems accurate as the current number is 10 in Chicago, 4 in Madison. Please don't add small again without discussion. JB50000 (talk) 04:25, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I follow Wikipedia's rules. Not yours.

I will pay attention if an administrator interprets something. Not if you do.

When an editor consistently demonstrates an inability to understand simple concepts like "consensus"; when an editor repeatedly claims that statements with clearly cited references are not referenced; when an editor claims to be interested in promoting an article to good article status, but quibbles that each individual adjective in the article must be specifically referenced; then it is extremely difficult to assume good faith without simultaneously assuming complete idiocy. In either case, I would probably pay scant attention to the comments and interpretations of such an editor. If such an editor were to exist, that is. Fat&Happy (talk) 05:49, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Civil Rights Act of 1957

Hi-I can't go into it further right now; have to go. Please check JFK's and LBJ's voting on this Act. I checked Schlesinger's RFK book and cited it. This for the JFK article. Thanks Kierzek (talk) 02:43, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I had to chuckle a bit when I saw your request. I just finished spending an hour or so trying to check this after mentally questioning the edit you recently reverted. Information on the internet is sparse, to say the least. The JFK library itself has nine pages of his votes in the Senate, broken down by issue; he is shown as voting for the jury trial amendment, and against a resolution which, if passed, would have allowed the bill to proceed to the full Senate without passing through Judiciary. Neither of these votes would be viewed as friendly to the Act or its goals. But they omitted any listing of his vote on the bill itself.

The only other relevant hits searching their site were to a speech he gave in March 1960, supporting the 1960 Civil Rights Act and mentioning the good achieved by the 1957 Act. The speech was a non-searchable image file, but scanning it I didn't see a mention of his vote at the time.

Also on the Library's site, they have the text of a paper apparently presented at some forum held there. I didn't pay lot's of attention, since it was primarily about LBJ, not JFK; it may have mentioned his vote, but specifically it went into great detail about how he (LBJ) used the political acumen he's famous for to amass the 66 votes (then) needed to end Thurmond's filibuster. Putting in that much effort as Majority Leader to get the bill passed, I think it's a fairly safe assumption he himself would have voted for it.

IIRC,that same paper claimed the bill as received from the Administration was a self-contradicting, un-passable hodge-podge which LBJ modified into something that actually had a chance of being (and, of course, was) enacted.

Another article on the web from Human Rights – it may have been one of the refs listed for a JFK "no" vote – took the view that in rewriting the bill LBJ watered it down so much to gain support from Southern Democrats, the end result was effectively useless.

Don't know if this is any help. If I find anything else, I'll update.

(BTW, when I saw you comment I was mulling removal or revision of the "which effectively rendered the Act toothless because convictions for violations could not be obtained" clause in the same sentence. It seems to have some truth to it, but is not supported by sources. Thoughts?) Fat&Happy (talk) 03:35, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

It needs to be checked. Kierzek (talk) 14:46, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, now the chuckling gets really intense... On a whim, I decided to check my copy of Encyclopædia Britannica – which I keep mostly for sentimental value, its dedication being "to the heads of the two English-speaking peoples John Fitzgerald Kennedy President of the United States of America and Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second" – and was somewhat surprised to find this:

"In the Senate during this period, Kennedy took an increasingly liberal and internationalist position. While continuing to back expanded social welfare programs, he spoke up more strongly in favour of civil rights and individual liberty. In 1957 he supported a civil rights bill that would authorize the federal government to enforce the racial desegregation of all-white schools."

Knowing the bill had passed but did not address school segregation, I was confused by the wording until I found this article http://www.slate.com/id/2242351/pagenum/all/ explaining that was part of the bill deleted in LBJ's compromise.

At this point, I'm wondering if JFK even voted on the final bill at all. That would be one explanation for the absence of a mention on the JFK Library site, as well as in this article http://www.congresslink.org/print_basics_histmats_civilrights64text.htm, which says he "had an opportunity to vote" on the Act while again specifically mentioning the votes on jury trial and commitment to Judiciary. Also, one article (the first one, not the Wikipedia clone) at http://www.answers.com/topic/civil-rights-act-of-1957 says the Act passed 60–15. It's hard to believe someone with JFK's political instincts would vote with the 15 minority on this issue; not as hard to see him being one of 25 with other pressing business preventing him from voting once LBJ had secured passage.

You might want to also check two other sites:

• http://sc94.ameslab.gov/TOUR/jfk.html says he "backed the compromise bill", bit even with the .gov HLQ I can't speak to reliability.
• http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/article/0,28804,1635958_1635999_1634940,00.html speaks of his "coolness" to the bill, and the resultant coolness of some black leaders to his campaign.

Fat&Happy (talk) 05:34, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the input and research, thus far. I started a section on the talk page. Basically all Schlesinger states is that JFK voted with LBJ on it. I also found the info on this subject lacking. I found the websites the other editor cited for his entry to be POV driven, not NPOV. Kierzek (talk) 14:17, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I have not reached a final conclusion yet, but will have time Monday night to look into it further after going to the main branch of the library. I am starting to think that JFK did support the bill initially but the vote as to the final version is vague. Kierzek (talk) 02:25, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

After reading sections from three bios by historians: Dallek, Schlesinger, Jr. and O'Brien, I have written a section that explains the Act; votes in the Senate on sections of the bill by JFK and cleared up JFK's final vote which was FOR the compromised bill (with cites). I tried to make it short and compact but it was not easy. See what you think. Kierzek (talk) 04:14, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Too late :-)...

I liked your revision a lot. I did make a few copy-edits which I think help the flow a bit, but you'll see from the edit summary I view them as negotiable. There were a couple of typos, and once I got started I just sort of kept going – I had saved it before I saw your comments here and on the article's Talk.

There was one place I almost left a {{vague}} tag, but that wasn't precisely accurate and I decided to just ask instead. WTH does "in criminal concept" mean? I have a vague (no pun intended) idea based on what I recall of the amendment, but that sentence leaves me scratching my head, so I didn't want to attempt any edit.

Just curious; did the sources you used specifically say he voted for the final bill,or just that he supported it? (Excessive semantic parsing?) Fat&Happy (talk) 04:53, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Your edits helped. "Criminal concept" (should have been: "contempt") has a higher standard of proof and the consequences are greater (jail time). LBJ per O'Brien was also for having a jury right for charges of "criminal contempt". As to the lesser "civil contempt" no jury was requried by the Act; a judge could decide alone. As for voting for the final bill: Schlesinger states: "supported"; Dallek states: "...a majority of colleagues...agreed" (with JFK's yes vote). O'Brien states: "voted for". BTW, I have read quite a bit as to Jack and Bobby Kennedy from different historians and believe O'Brien's book to be the best on JFK and Schlesinger's book the best on RFK. Lastly, the article on the "Civil Rights Act of 1957" itself could use work, I think. Kierzek (talk) 05:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

ETA: Is that supposed to be "in cases of criminal contempt"? Fat&Happy (talk) 04:56, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes. I am tired, sorry. Good point. Kierzek (talk) 05:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Fixed my typo. Kierzek (talk) 05:24, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Request for Feedback

Hello. I see that you have frequently edited the Barack Obama article and I want to invite your feedback on this draft article on the international media reaction to Barack Obama's 2008 election. Please note that images are available to improve the article's look and will be added once the page is published. Please leave comments on the draft's discussion page. Thank you! --Amandaroyal (talk) 20:15, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Put in family article

Then put the Dog in the family article. Please, you are going against consensus by putting your edit in there. JB50000 (talk) 04:13, 21 February 2010 (UTC) You are mentioned on the Obama general sanctions board but I asked that you receive counseling, not block, because I am a nice person. JB50000 (talk) 04:21, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Copyvio in American Mafia

Hi, the contributor of that material, User:"Primitive Revolutionaries of China is an apparent new sockpuppet of Bobmack89x who has a history of copyvios. That aside, purely on the copyright merits, Bob added

...The notion that Scarpa strong-armed a Klan member into giving up information about one of the most notorious crimes of the civil rights era had been talked about in mob circles for years.

while MSNBC said

...The notion that Scarpa strong-armed a Klan member into giving up information about one of the most notorious crimes of the civil rights era has been talked about in mob circles for years.

I don't think that's fair use, even with the true source cited. Best, CliffC (talk) 04:40, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

obamabreak

I have written to an uninvolved editor. I will lay off Obama related pages for 36 hours and probably longer. Longer if you agree to do the same, maybe for half a week. This would be a show of cooperation. 05:49, 21 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by JB50000 (talk • contribs)

nom nom nom

⊂ Andyzweb ⊃ (Talk) haz givn u Cheezburgr! Cheezburgrs promot WikiLovez and hoapfuly thiz one haz made yore day bettr. Spreadd teh WikiLovez by givin sumone else Cheezburgr, whethr it be sumeone youz hav had disagreementz with in teh past or a gud frend. Hapy munchins!

Spredd teh goudnesz of Cheezburgerz to all lolcat buddiez by addin {{subst:Cheezburgr}} to their talk paj with friendly messuj to all.

Thanks for your edits and contributions! ⊂ Andyzweb ⊃ (Talk) 15:40, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

LOL, that did make my day!!! Thx. Fat&Happy (talk) 15:55, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

List of African-American firsts

Hey, you inadvertently are reverting the List of African-American firsts page into a vandalized version, which also distorts the page. DD2K (talk) 18:02, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Yep, that did it. Thanks. DD2K (talk) 18:15, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Heather Locklear

Hi. Sorry, but I was just in the process of restoring your BLP naming edits to the article, but you beat me to it. There's a regular vandal on the article page and it means that we have to keep reverting the page on a regular basis. 80.47.171.163 (talk) 22:00, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Seems to have been a case of unfortunate bad timing on my part. Second time in recent days (see the DD2K mini-thread immediately above). At least this time I was a bit more selective in my restoration. Fat&Happy (talk) 22:14, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Kudos

You do nice work at List of African-American firsts. -- Tenebrae (talk) 01:26, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Thx. But it's certainly minor compared to you and a few others... Fat&Happy (talk) 02:44, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

RFK

Hey, check out my draft edit as to what was discussed on the talk page. See what you think. Further, I think a good portion of the RFK discussion page could use archiving. Kierzek (talk) 02:29, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I saw the post on the RFK page and thought it was good. (Which is no guarantee that I won't re-read it a week from now and apply a ce. :-) But nothing stands out now.) The one change I'm thinking about is to the pre-existing text – I'd prefer "first-hand" to "inside", since I doubt that even RFK had much insider access to either faction at age 22. But that's a nitpick I'm just mulling. Fat&Happy (talk) 03:55, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

"First hand" is better. I changed it. Kierzek (talk) 15:22, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

FYI- There is actually a separate article on the subject you might want to check out and then cast your vote as it has been up for deletion. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Kennedy in Palestine (1948) Kierzek (talk) 01:50, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. I noticed the AfD the other day (while starting the recent battle on the RFK main page) and looked over the article and comments (re-reviewed tonight). The problem is, I agree in principle with the comment "anything about RFK is notable", but don't see enough potential content for a full article there. What, he spent a couple of weeks there and wrote four op-ed columns? OK, I just penned the entire article. Anything else – and I'd actually like to see it saved somewhere – belongs in either Wikisource or Wikiquote. But I don't know all the wikilegalisms well enough to present a good case, especially with the zealots in the debate, and I've already cultivated enough problems with discussions on our current president, let alone the shouldabeen. I'll pass for now (but as always, subject to change if my mood shifts). Fat&Happy (talk) 04:28, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, its moot for now. The article survived deletion; no consensus reached. Kierzek (talk) 00:41, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction

Thanks for the correction here. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:24, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Obama religion

Hey, I was rolling back to do the same thing as you were doing, but I just used the rollback feature when comparing history. So it wound up just changing 'Christian' back to 'Christianity' and added a space. Frankly, either previous term(Christian, Christianity) seems appropriate and have thought about changing it to 'Christian' myself numerous times. In any case, I'm sure you probably knew I wasn't reverting you, but thought I would drop a note to make sure. DD2K (talk) 23:26, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Not a problem. Normally I would have just used the reversion feature myself, but a) popups doesn't allow customizing the edit summary, and b) I personally prefer the adjective rather than noun construct for the Religion field (Catholic, not Catholicism, etc.), so figured I'd just leave it (not worth getting into a two-week debate with certain editors if I just changed it myself arbitrarily - is that passive-aggressive conduct?)... I hadn't even noticed your change until I read this message. Fat&Happy (talk) 23:49, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

DCO

I saw you reverting DCO a couple of times for the insertion of an external link. Now that edit was clearly inappropriate, but may I ask you that when you encounter such an editor, that you try to contact the editor on the talkpage (in this case the IP seems pretty static), or leave warnings. I have now blocked the editor for 31 hours and left a {{uw-spam4im}} as well, but that should of course have happened earlier. Thanks! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:38, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Barack Obama

Do you think it is suitable to place the Barrack Obama under the category People of Kenyan descent? I mean, he is of Kenyan descent and he is a very powerful person. Thanks. Neptunekh2 (talk) 04:32, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

No. Not because it's inappropriate, but because it's redundant, He's already in Category:American people of Kenyan descent, which "rolls up" to Category:People of Kenyan descent. WP standard approach is to use the lowest level applicable category only, not all categories in a hierarchy. Hence the edit summary "subordinate category already listed". Fat&Happy (talk) 05:18, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Alec Baldwin

I appreciate the trim of my contribution to the piece (on Palin, SNL). You streamlined it well. I also appreciate the implied affirmation of the contribution's merit (at least I regard it as an affirmation). Thanks! --James R. Mireles ^{T C} —Preceding undated comment added 03:29, 12 April 2010 (UTC).

No problem. Glad you didn't mind. I would have liked to leave in more of the HuffPost quotes, but out of context they seem to lose something.

Yeah, you regard it correctly. I'm pretty quick to pull the revert/undo trigger, instead of making a rewrite effort, when I consider a post to have no redeeming social value. If nothing else, it adds a bit of NPOV to the section, which otherwise makes him sound like a raving liberal terrorist assassin. Fat&Happy (talk) 04:03, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. As a mostly conservative Republican I was impressed by his sportsmanship. And I think it does add NPOV. User:Wildhartlivie, however, continues to delete it. "Undue weight to add this much content for one television appearance, it's a comedy show for heaven's sake, it means nothing." 02:12 13 April 2010 (UTC)

FYI, I started a discussion on this the Alec Baldwin article talk page. I quoted your remark above that you felt my contribution and your edit of it improved the article's neutrality. I hope you don't mind. User:Wildhartlivie has already responded. If you're Ok with it I hope you'll weigh in. Regards, MirelesJ (talk) 13:06, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

---

Thanks for the heads up on canvassing. I just found about that from another user and I was not familiar with the issue. I hope my notices will be regarded as friendly notices, i.e. "Neutrally worded notifications sent to a few editors..." What I sent was this:

"When you have time would you take a look at the Alec Baldwin talk page and review a dispute I am having on a contribution? You have contributed to the page in the past two years and I would like you to look over the contribution and give your thoughts on it. Regards, <signature>"

My message was neutrally worded I feel and I mentioned on the talk page that I sent it out and to whom I sent it, so it was publicly announced and publicly done.MirelesJ (talk) 17:55, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Your Reverts

Would you mind sharing with me your reasons for reverting my contribs? Thanks!Victor9876 (talk) 19:50, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Because they are completely nonconstructive; they add no value to the articles, and actually verge on vandalism. Fat&Happy (talk) 19:53, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Make your case before an AN/I - you don't know what you're talking about!!!Victor9876 (talk) 20:00, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

That's not a Swastica. It's a Star of David from their religious affiliations.Victor9876 (talk) 20:12, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

O.K. Fats - we'll go to the appropriate board with this.Victor9876 (talk) 02:26, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Whatever. You have been provided, both in edit summaries and on talk pages of two editors, clear explanations of why the material you have added has been reverted. What's been missing, a basic requirement for "discussion", is any equally clear explanation as to what benefit you claim these additions bring to the articles in question. Fat&Happy (talk) 02:58, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Here [].Victor9876 (talk) 04:03, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Copy of discussion at Wikipedia talk Manual of Style (icons)

The Use of "The Star of David" as an identifier of a persons religious affiliation Resolved I have inserted the "Star of David" on the pages of Jewish "Chairman of the Federal Reserve" articles. An edit war (actually more of a reverting process has taken place and there has been negative and false reasons for the reversions and accusations of vandalism on my part by Fat&Happy. Another editor GBfan [[1]] reverted the contributions with what was thought to be a constructive suggestion, then claimed that he didn't mean that because he considers it an Icon, and my intentions are to use it as a symbol, which has far more implications than the term Iconic in terms of cultural and national identity. Of the fourteen Chairmen of the Federal Reserve in the US since its present form since The Banking Act of 1935, ten have been identified as being Jewish, that would be approximately 72% of the Chairmen have been Jewish, where the Jewish population is less than 2% of the US population. The disparity in cultural identity shows a correlation that I intend to use in an article and it would benefit the reader to be able to identify the symbol as a reference rather than looking for the members religious or national reference where there may not be one. There are a few who have no affiliation. Thanks in advance for any constructive suggestions as to how the symbol Star of David, can be used without it being considered as just an image as the other editors have stated.Victor9876 (talk) 03:59, 14 April 2010 (UTC) This is wrong on so many levels. I concur with the reverters. Using icons to convey unimportant information in a biography is unhelpful and borderline trolling. Rettetast (talk) 10:29, 14 April 2010 (UTC) Totally agree with Rettetast. Unless someone's religion is relevant to their notability, why include it? Adding an icon for this purpose is daft. Sounds like the article that Victor9876 is working on might run into some OR issues. --hippo43 (talk) 11:06, 14 April 2010 (UTC) Totally agree with both above. Should never be done Gnevin (talk) 14:37, 14 April 2010 (UTC) Far too reminiscent of the Nazis' use of the yellow star. Yuck. Terminate with extreme prejudice. --John (talk) 14:46, 14 April 2010 (UTC) Usage is so bad I've added it as an example in the MOS Gnevin (talk) 14:50, 14 April 2010 (UTC) The above has been withdrawn due, in part, to a lack of discussion and comments by contributors that are making accusations of "borderline trolling", which is false and "trolling" in itself. I accept the limitations of my efforts and withdraw the request for further comments to prevent any further comments that may become inciteful, as John's ignorant use of invoking the Nazi term due his own limited view of intent.Victor9876 (talk) 14:59, 14 April 2010 (UTC) I thought I struck the discussion as reported on others talk pages. If I didn't save it properly, I will now. Regards!Victor9876 (talk) 15:54, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

why are you deleting my topic

who are you to judge what topic is right or wrong ,let others decide and reach a consensus.dont cut free speech tyrant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manchurian candidate (talk • contribs) 09:38, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Please do not ignore the rules clearly posted at the top of the Talk page:

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Bobby Jindal article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Or, as another editor put it on a different article, "remove the section. It is not discussing how to make the article better. it is discussing a hypothetical situation not an appropriate use of the talk page".

Fat&Happy (talk) 16:25, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

A thought...

Have you ever considered requesting rollback? You crop up on my watchlist quite frequently and you're usually reverting crap. Rollback can be granted on request by any admin or application at WP:RFPERM. I'm not an admin or I'd grant it myself, but after a quick look, I can't see any reason it wouldn't be granted. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:18, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for what I'll take as a vote of confidence. I've seen a brief description of rollback, but haven't looked into it in detail. I managed to mess up a few things using Popups and HotCat – I'm not sure I trust myself with a more powerful tool just yet. Also, although I always (of course, ;) ) consider my undos or reverts justified, I still don't have enough of the Universal Code of Wikipedia Justice memorized to feel justified in asking. But again, thanks for the thought, and I will keep it in mind for future use. Fat&Happy (talk) 01:00, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. Just a thought ;). I've had it for a while and I use it quite frequently- if you see someone blatantly screwing up an article, you can just use rollback and it'll revert the most recent edits of that person on that article. It's quicker than the undo button and it gets all their edits rather than just the most recent (though there are other ways to do that). Anyway, as long as you're happy! :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:12, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Opinion needed

As a frequent editor of American politics, I would appreciate if you put your two cents into the debate over the conservative support for President Obama in Talk:Public image of Barack Obama. Thanks.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 22:45, 24 April 2010 (UTC)