User talk:Fat&Happy/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

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)

Recent edits

Hello, I was wondering if you could explain why you reverted my edits and if there was a legitimate reason. --White Trillium (talk) 23:13, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I assume you're referring to removal of the tags you placed on the Barack Obama and Timothy Geithner articles? They're both for similar reasons, as implied by the closeness of the edit summaries. In the Obams article, placing a {{cleanup}} tag on an article that has recently passed another of several feature article reviews is not particularly helpful, much less so when no comments are left on the article talk page discussing what, in your view, needs to be changed to meet Wikipedia standards. Doing so on a protected article approaches being disruptive.

The principle behind the Geithner tag removal is similar, though the situation is not quite as clear-cut since it's neither a good or featured article. But saying the article is "unclear" is itself unclear. Again, specific examples on the Talk page, or even targeted in-line {{vague}} or {{clarify}} tags at points you consider unclear, would be helpful. A nebulous {{unclear}} tag for an entire article of this size is not. Fat&Happy (talk) 00:21, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps the terminologies will be applied better in real life, the articles both need to be cleaned up of propaganda and bias, yet someone in real life that's Fat&Happy doesn't seem to mind. --White Trillium (talk) 00:27, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

In that case, the appropriate template would be {{POV}} for the entire article, or {{POV-section}} if only a specific section is problematic. In either case, though, the suggestions I made above still apply – and in fact are included in the documentation of the template. If you place this template on an article without opening (or adding to) a discussion of what, exactly, you consider to be POV, it can be summarily removed by any editor. As long as good faith discussions of disputed points are continuing, many experienced editors will leave the template alone and usually revert premature attempts to delete it.

Since an overriding principle of Wikipedia is collaborative and cooperative discussion and development of consensus, you might find it more productive to raise your issues on the article talk page in an attempt to resolve differences before slapping a POV tag on the article. You might also consider whether insulting other editors is the best way to convert them to your viewpoint. Fat&Happy (talk) 00:57, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

People can oppose for whatever frivolous reason that they wish. No, I do not feel that these questions should be removed. A candidate has no obligation to answer any such questions. Perhaps the solution might be to provide candidates with advice to refrain from answering such questions if they are uncomfortable doing so, rather than disallowing and removing the question. Actually, the issue at The furvor over which he has argued this point made people question his ability to weigh age related opposes. --White Trillium (talk) 02:22, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

It's late; I'll re-visit this message tomorrow to see if it makes any sense then. Somehow, I sort of doubt it though. I wonder if it was a mispost from another topic? Fat&Happy (talk) 05:14, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry it was a mispost, I still stand by my decision of putting a tag on the geithner article. Thanks! --White Trillium (talk) 04:07, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Re: SCOTUS terms

See response on my page. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:11, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Ben Nelson

Ouch. Glad you caught some of my errors in Ben Nelson, especially the embarrassing Medicare/Medicaid mixup. It was getting late, and my brain was clearly not at its best...

--Ammodramus (talk) 11:54, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Indonesian

I'm sorry, I must have missed something. I've not been following the related article/talk page edits for a week or two. Does the article claim Obama speaks other languages? What line/refs are you referencing? Abrazame (talk) 01:44, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

In the second paragraph of the "Family and personal life", there's an offhand comment wedged in the middle, "Obama speaks Indonesian at the conversational level, which he learned during his four childhood years in Jakarta." That seems to be what the new(?) poster was referring to in his opening sentence. The refs for the sentence appear to be a blog entry and an article from an Indonesian newspaper, in untranslated Indonesian. The poster's ref, to CBS News, could be taken to mean "except Indonesian, of course", and Obama may have learned from the "professor" experience to be over-modest, but it seems like a fair question of article content. Fat&Happy (talk) 02:07, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

You were right to keep the comment, because it's not just some troll comment. But the editor is incorrect. Or at least doesn't understand the term of able to speak at a "conversational level". There are seven levels of language proficiency, Obama is at least able to be classified at a Level 2 proficiency and can speak and understand conversational Indonesian, just based on the several occasions noted in the two links given(1,2). I was going to respond on the page, but decided to wait to see if anyone else had any objections, because I am pretty sure the user is a doppelganger of a previous editor. DD2K (talk) 02:32, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I defer to your greater experience in detecting reincarnated editors (though I have developed skepticism about these articles, as implied above). The seven levels article is a bit backwards for this discussion; I think in order to say someone "speaks Klingon at the conversational level", I'd be looking for somewhere between high-three and low-four on that scale, but that's obviously personal opinion. Even though I realized belatedly that the "blog" is from academia, I'd still prefer a slightly more definitive citation, but then it is, as noted, only a small throwaway line and probably not worth too much effort. Fat&Happy (talk) 03:00, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, it's too small of an issue to spend too much time on and I can't really disagree, since Obama definitely said that he does not speak any other language fluently. Although it does seem he absolutely can converse more than just a hallo, danke and bitte manner. DD2K (talk) 03:42, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Maybe even up to the level of Ich bin ein Berliner? :)

Not necessarily (yet) in this particular case, but I've gotten the definite impression that certain editors have a strategy of attacking like a swarm of gnats, tiring out constructive editors by forcing them to continually swipe at inconsequential little things. Fat&Happy (talk) 04:08, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for helping me find that! I certainly concur with the last comment, which is why I batted this one away. I completely missed the sentence in our article, searching for "language", and thought the editor was simply posting a pointy non sequitur, which would not belong there. To the statement, it seems obvious that a child spending 4 years in a country and immersed in the local culture will learn what for a child is conversational Indonesian. Fluency is relative (think of our fellow citizens); the POTUS is expected to hold far more complex conversations in any region than the average person, much less child, living there; so I guess I'm agnostic on the statement. I would support our sentence's removal or its retention, as it's hard to argue against the fact that this is a skill he picked up and hard to argue with his own characterization that he no longer feels proficient enough to claim it now, despite these latter-day exchanges. What I would not support is a flat-out statement that he speaks no other language, as in addition to this modest display of Indonesian I've heard he is capable of at least a labored Spanish; if not enough to state he converses fluently in those languages, it's also too much to state he does not speak any. Indeed, any intelligent president is going to pick up a good number of greetings in foreign languages on the job, the question in this instance I think is what his real-life experiences allowed him to bring to the office.

I got a laugh out of the one source noting that his ability to engage in basa-basi exchanges of pleasantries shows he is, if not bilingual, at least bi-courteous. Abrazame (talk) 23:23, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Obama's birth certificate

Happy, I think you may be confused as to what I'm saying. I am saying, Barack Obama has his original birth certificate(this has been verified by all the sources mentioned)-people have seen it and everything-, but the picture is of the a slightly different version of his birth certificate. Do you get what I'm saying? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ink Falls (talk • contribs) 01:11, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

List of events named massacres

Hi, I have put a RfC here [[2]] re List of events named massacres - Massacre of the Innocents. Regards, Springnuts (talk) 12:42, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Another though...

Any time that undo button gets too slow for you, I'm happy to grant you rollback (I'm an admin now so you don't even have to apply!). Just ask here or on my talk page. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:04, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Ha ha. Thanks.

Congratulations on the Admin status. I had stumbled across the RfA somehow, and read part of it (whatever was there at the time, about a week or so ago) and was hoping you'd make it.

I'll definitely keep that option in mind. But I do have another, somewhat related question for Your Adminship. Is there any eas(y/ier) way for the common folks to call attention to vandals/spammers/disruptive edit-warrers/etc. without sending warning messages 1, 2 & 3 and then filling out a form proving the messages were sent and giving specific instances of vandalism? Like if anon IP 123.45.67.89 has in the last fivre days made 20 posts, 19 of which are vandalism, obvious to the most casual observer, just a "hey, somebody, go look at this chap's edit history" type of thing? I'm seriously bad with administrivia (like I actually had a couple of managers who would fill out my project status reports from a conversation, just to get them done), but even if I wasn't, all those steps would be a bit frustrating. (Much more so than waiting for undo to work...). </rambling rant>

Anyway, thanks again and congrats again. Fat&Happy (talk) 03:58, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:AIV is the place for the irritating vandals- revert them, warn them and if they keep at if after a final warning (you can use {{subst:uw-biog4im}} for particularly bad BLP vandalism). You might want to install Twinkle which can issue warnings without you having t type them out and semi-automatically report them if they keep at it- useful tool and it has lots of extra buttons now I'm an admin!

As I say, any time you want rollback, just ask. I can easily give it to you and then take it away if you decide you don't want it. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:52, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

New Haven, Connecticut talk page

Hi, I'm from Wikipedia:WikiProject Connecticut. Just as an FYI, we've seen this guy a lot before... though his IP has now changed Talk:Stamford,_Connecticut. Markvs88 (talk) 12:35, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, wrong title! Markvs88 (talk) 14:44, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Ha ha. No problem. Pretty much the same diatribe–revert sequence occurred in both articles. Fat&Happy (talk) 14:50, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		For your tireless efforts to remove vandalism on the Rima Fakih page Eggishorn (talk) 20:41, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Just FYI

You are receiving this message because of your involvement at the Richard Goldstone article. Please don't consider it an assumption of bad faith

As a result of an arbitration case, the Arbitration Committee has acknowledged long-term and persistent problems in the editing of articles related to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, broadly understood. As a result, the Committee has enacted broad editing restrictions, described here and below.

• Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process.
• The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.
• Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.
• Discretionary sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently WP:AE), or the Committee.

These editing restrictions may be applied to any editor for cause, provided the editor has been previously informed of the case. This message is to so inform you. This message does not necessarily mean that your current editing has been deemed a problem; this is a template message crafted to make it easier to notify any user who has edited the topic of the existence of these sanctions.

Generally, the next step, if an administrator feels your conduct on pages in this topic area is disruptive, would be a warning, to be followed by the imposition of sanctions (although in cases of serious disruption, the warning may be omitted). Hopefully no such action will be necessary.

This notice is only effective if given by an administrator and logged here.

• In relation to the above, you are informed that the Richard Goldstone article is under a blanket 1RR restriction and violations of this restriction will result in escalating blocks and/or topic/page bans. Thank you for your cooperation. Just so you know. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:37, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Richard Goldstone

Thanks for your many wikignomish edits to Richard Goldstone - they've significantly improved the article.

Regarding the disputed material, you might be interested to know that Jimbo Wales himself has now weighed in; he agrees that the material should not be in the article.[3] -- ChrisO (talk) 08:40, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

The tag

Hi. i saw you undid all the tag on Miss Universe 2010 .. then you need to undo all the rest in that case. Because all the contestants has that tag on their article as they will represent their nations in Miss Universe 2010. We need to be consistent.--ÅlandÖland (talk) 23:37, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I dont see the point either in removing those Miss Universe 2010 contestants,, as all the girls who has that tag has been confirmed. At it is praxis to have those tags placed in the articles once confirmed.--ÅlandÖland (talk) 23:45, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

They have been confirmed as currently eligible. It is still possible to be disqualified between now and August, or otherwise become unable to participate. They are not delegates until the pageant actually begins, or minimally until they are listed as such by the Miss Universe pageant itself, either on their site, which still carries the names and pictures of the 2009 delegates, or in a press release. Fat&Happy (talk) 00:03, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

OK:)--ÅlandÖland (talk) 00:26, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Star of David

Please tell me why you removed the snapshot I created. According to you, I uploaded the photo without any explanation about its fair use, but then, what did I write in its page?Brazilian Man (talk) 03:07, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Please re-read what I wrote. You used the {{Non-free film screenshot}} template; part of the fair use description in that template is "for critical commentary and discussion of the film and its contents", which the Star of David article is not. Fat&Happy (talk) 03:21, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Lech Kaczyński crash time

Hi, please apply common sense. The current time of the crash is not "sourced" either and if you search a little you will find the information that I found and everyone else finds. If the wrong information is not sourced why should the new be? Richiez (talk) 22:41, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Let's see, then... According to you, "common sense" would dictate that I, and every other reader of the article, should have to "search a little" to find information you claim to have already located? And this would be because you're too lazy to type it in, I guess? Sorry, doesn't work that way. Fat&Happy (talk) 00:25, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

So your logic is better wrong and your version than correct. I am removing the incorrect information, its not subject of this article anyway. Richiez (talk) 13:48, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Inadvertent click

Just to let you know, I accidentally reverted one of your edits at George W. Bush as vandalism using Twinkle by accidentally clicking when I was just trying to move my mouse. I've self-reverted. I did manually revert part of your edit to restore one instance of "outright". As I explained in my edit summary, the adjective is not pointless as it clarifies that a true majority is meant and not a plurality; it is not uncommon for people use "majority" when they should use "plurality", so the clarifying does serve a purpose to the reader. -Rrius (talk) 07:05, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Please restore the Material

on the Obama talk page that you deleted or I will report you for uncivil behavior.96.237.120.38 (talk) 18:19, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

It's an inappropriate use of the talk page. The one recent section with a marginal relationship to page content (on fringe theory designation) remains. Wikipedia is not the place to argue the merits of the theories themselves, which is what the other sections were doing. Fat&Happy (talk) 18:24, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

A Complaint against you has been filed here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Deletion_of_talk_page_material_by_Fat_.26_Happy96.237.120.38 (talk) 18:41, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Please define "reliable source"

What is a reliable source in the Eyes of Wikipedia?

Is it reality? Is it a documentation?

No it is wikiality!

http://img80.imageshack.us/img80/8710/donttrytoconfusemewithtsi0.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.238.137.32 (talk) 15:34, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard Fat&Happy (talk) 15:41, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer permission

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:57, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

• I've just put Pixie Lott on pending changes protection, so I expect you'll be needing this. :) You know where I am if you need anything! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:58, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

u scare me >.>

u follow me wherever i edit hehe lol do i have to re-write everything i wrote for Falcon? no, i'll just copy my message:

I am not committing vandalism

First of all, what exactly is vandalism? You link your message with my action as "vandalize" . Read the page <== to LEARN what vandalism is. Secondly, why did :::you revert my beneficial edits to American_and_British_English_spelling_differences? What is your motivation. Please explain your reasoning for my vandalism. I understand your :::politeness, but your convincement in me being a vandal is not supported by your vague "explanation". You must prove yourself right before proving me wrong. Lastly, the Wikipedia :::article on "Vandalism" does not state anything about adding/replacing Latin letters (eg. ae) with typographic ligatures (æ). Read the section 6, and section :::7. Thank you. ALSO, click the picture for your BIG mistake, aka "vandalism" (Sarcastic, i am not a snitch like you): :::http://i50.tinypic.com/2vt8obt.png

It is important to consider typographic ligatures throughout Wikipedia, as it is part of our history on the Languages of Latin, Old English, and many other languages that USED to, :::and STILL use ligatures.

"Æ/æ", "Œ/œ", and the ampersand, "&" are very common ligatures, all derived from Latin (used in Old English).

They are from the forms of "ae", "oe", and "et" (Latin for "and"). "Et" can be easily noticed as a ligature with the Trebuchet MS font, shown here: "&".

序名三　「Jyonasan」 ^Talk 19:39, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

First of all, please remain civil. I'm much more likely to be friendly if you are. Secondly, I warned you for vandalism because you made or appeared to be making mass changes to articles with 'ae' in the title. I informed you that their was no consensus to do so in an edit summary, but you continued to do so despite being reverted. Your opinion on typographic ligatures is probably correct, but mass changes without discussing it isn't the way to go. If I hadn't reverted your edits, someone else would have for the same reason. I'm not convinced that you are a vandal, merely that you were making mass changes without discussion and thus had the potential of being one. I stand by my warnings. If you want to change the page titles, start a discussion on one of the talk pages. Falcon8765 (talk) 21:31, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Additionally, if you wanted to include the ligature version along with the standard title it would be useful, but replacing all AEs with Æ isn't. Falcon8765 (talk) 21:39, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Original message located in his Talk page :D

I understand, i have learned my lesson!

序名三　「Jyonasan」 ^Talk 07:38, 30 June 2010 (UTC)