User talk:Grundle2600

Archives

/Archive 1

Redirect of Carmen L Robinson

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Carmen L Robinson, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Carmen L Robinson is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Carmen L Robinson, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 02:20, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

This bot is awfully slow - that article was deleted days ago! Grundle2600 (talk) 17:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Not really, this talk page was re-created, and re-deleted at 03:51 Jan 6. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:38, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh. OK. Thanks for the explanation. Grundle2600 (talk) 11:32, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

It's about noon here in Pittsburgh, and I still don't see any new sources to add to the article. Perhaps over the weekend there will be something. Grundle2600 (talk) 16:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

It's about 3:30 P.M. the next day, and still nothing. Oh well. Grundle2600 (talk) 20:38, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Now there's new info - she has announced her campaign and has already had a fundraiser. Grundle2600 (talk) 17:14, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I've got the page watchlisted. No way would it survive a deletion discussion right now. The time to start considering moving this is when you start to see coverage from papers that don't normally cover Philidelphia politics, such as most out-of-area and particularly out-of-state/region media. Note that some out-of state/region media does cover Philidelphia politics. "Expected" coverage such as this or coverage from local media may or may not meet WP:Notability requirements. The more "routine," "pro-forma," or "press release-ish" the coverage is the less likely it will "count" for notability purposes. I expect within 1-2 weeks of the race getting underway in earnest we'll know if this person can meet notability. Unless she winds up leading in the polls though, it will be either a "no" or "close." davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 21:52, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you that the article is not good enough yet, and with everything else that you said. Except for one thing - it's Pittsburgh, not Philadelphia. Grundle2600 (talk) 15:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Oops, I knew that. Sorry. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 02:22, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

That's OK. I thought it was kind of funny! Grundle2600 (talk) 13:37, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Re your edit on Polar bear

This edit is rather problematic. First of all you should know by now that blogs are not reliable sources. Second your text isn't even supported by that blog posting. Please reread it - and then please take a look at the graph (linked in the article) - now please tell me how you come to the extraordinary conclusion that "the amount of global sea ice was the biggest it's ever been since records started being kept in 1979". Please be more careful with your edits. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:20, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

OK. I'll read it again. Grundle2600 (talk) 17:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Repost of The Compact

A tag has been placed on The Compact requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia, because it appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion. If you can indicate how it is different from the previously posted material, place the template {{hangon}} underneath the other template on the article and put a note on the page's discussion page saying why this article should stay. Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. If you believe the original discussion was unjustified, please contact the administrator who deleted the page or use deletion review instead of continuing to recreate the page. Thank you. -- IRP ☎ 23:21, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I left a response on the article's talk page. Grundle2600 (talk) 15:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Robert Byrd

As an attributed quote from G. B. Shaw says: One of the saddest things on Earth is that you have to make many things, to be noted worthy but make just one mistake to be noted useless. Cassandro (talk) 22:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Ha ha ha! Grundle2600 (talk) 22:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

It goes without saying that you're entitled to retain any bad opinion against anybody you like. It doesn't go without saying, though should be unsurprising and is a fact, that I find the KKK abhorrent and am disheartened that a U.S. senator would have participated in such an organization. Insofar as your jokey comment on the talk page of the Senator's biography is concerned, I wonder if it would change your perception of Byrd's interior state of being with regard to the election of the first African-American president to know that Byrd not only came out in support of Barack Obama for president, Byrd did so a week after the people of his state voted overwhelmingly to support Hillary Clinton, about 67% to 25% if I recall.

I'm sure someone predisposed to mistrust Byrd might say the Senator could have sought to sway voter opinion by declaring his preference before his state's primary, but ponder how easy and reasonable it would have been if Byrd would have come out in support of the candidate chosen so overwhelmingly by his constituency. This is what many pundits and citizens alike were suggesting should happen (at the time they feared Clinton would win an electoral college decision but narrowly lose the popular vote) and averred would be more faithfully democratic (small "D"), is it not, that the superdelegates should cast their own votes the same way the majority of their constituency has? Yet Byrd stood up against not only the presumed sentiments of racists but the certified political will of the citizens of his state and the philosophy if not the ultimate intent of the pundits, to declare his support for Obama.

Irrelevant to the point at hand but germane to the issue of West Virginia voters, in the general election they supported John McCain over Obama, but not by such a wide margin as in other states such as Utah, Wyoming, Oklahoma, Idaho, Kansas and much of the deep south for example, voting 397k for McCain and 304k for Obama. (I am from a state that voted for Obama, as did I.)

In light of these facts, let alone the fact that article talk pages are not intended for comic comments that have nothing whatsoever to do with the article, I wonder if it would be in your heart, your conscience, or your sense of responsibility to the Wiki project to remove your comment from the Byrd talk page. From the most objective vantage point I can attain, it seems you're correct about the choices he made six decades ago and incorrect about the man's experience of Obama's inauguration; the man's character seems to have traveled in an arc worthy of the subject of a novel or film. On a personal note, I'd say it strikes me as being in bad taste to say such a thing as you did about a nonagenarian experiencing a brush with ill health. But at the end of the day, as Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a blog, and article talk pages are intended to shape better articles and not chat rooms in which to libel living persons, your comment doesn't belong there and verges on vandalism. Respectfully, Abrazame (talk) 14:52, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

But there's no physical explanation for why he collapsed. Grundle2600 (talk) 23:10, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Political positions of Barack Obama

I've reverted your last. Obama wanting pork removed from the stimulus bill does not make him "against" contraceptives, obviously. Also, it is not a political position, so this is the wrong place to bring it up. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:15, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Grsz¹¹--Review 04:40, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Just because some people find a verified fact to be offensive doesn't mean it's vandalism or that it's not true or that it shouldn't be included in an article. Grundle2600 (talk) 15:04, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Some recent edits

Grundle, I'm concerned with some of your recent edits. This wasn't constructive at all. Grsz¹¹_Review 04:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Then how else do you explain why he eats 12,000 calories a day? Grundle2600 (talk) 13:17, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Seriously? Maybe it's to counter the thousands he burns training. Grsz¹¹_Review 18:52, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

10 million dollar Bank of America Super Bowl party

Zapped from bail out page, I put it in Bank_of_America_controversies, with a mention of the pricetag in Bank of America.--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I think it should be in the bailout article - people want to know how the bailout money is being spent. Grundle2600 (talk) 13:18, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Titanoboa cerrejonensis

A tag has been placed on Titanoboa cerrejonensis requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the article or have a copy emailed to you. HamatoKameko (talk) 17:15, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Titanoboa

A tag has been placed on Titanoboa requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the article or have a copy emailed to you. HamatoKameko (talk) 17:15, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

It's certainly OK to create these, but please don't do so as a single sentence with an external link. Thanks.  :) --PMDrive1061 (talk) 17:20, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

PS: Diggin' your username. Still one of my favorite video games...and I just played it a couple of nights ago! Level 3, full difficulty. Ah, memories.

I'm glad you like my username - thanks. I am adding to the article. I just wanted to start it first. I don't do all my edits at once. Grundle2600 (talk) 17:24, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

ITN for Titanoboa

On 4 February, 2009, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article Titanoboa, which you created. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the In the news candidates page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 22:39, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Grundle2600 (talk) 22:42, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Wow! Splette :) ^{How's my driving?} 22:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah! I'm really happy about this! Grundle2600 (talk) 22:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Me, too. Even though I am just a contributer. Browsing through your talk page it seems 75% of your newly created articles get speedely deleted but this time you got lucky and famous :) Splette :) ^{How's my driving?} 22:53, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, my user page has a long list of articles that I started that are still there. Grundle2600 (talk) 22:58, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw those, too. I got like 4 articles or so... Splette :) ^{How's my driving?} 23:01, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Yay! Man, that new version of the article looks great. You have my word: Next time I see one of your smallish stubs, I'll leave it alone. Promise. Way to go!! --PMDrive1061 (talk) 00:38, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! Grundle2600 (talk) 00:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations on making the main page! I'm sorry I tagged your initial Titanoboa articles for speedy deletion, but please understand I and other new page patrollers go through scores of new pages at a time, half of them being junk, and one sentence with an external link comes across a bit more like spam than anything. In future, I suggest you use {{hangon}} or {{underconstruction}} for pages you're working on, so that people like myself will know you're still working on what will become a legitimate article, and that one sentence isn't all there's going to be. :) -HamatoKameko (talk) 11:50, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. And yes, I will use the under contruction tag in the future. Thanks for telling me about it. Grundle2600 (talk) 14:01, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Guess what

Click here. --BorgQueen (talk) 12:46, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Wow! Thanks! Grundle2600 (talk) 18:10, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

FYI

I created Presidency of Barack Obama. I, like Twanda Carlisle, am from Pittsburgh. I have edited Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 before, to remove your soapboxing. Grsz¹¹_Review 00:09, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh. OK. Then I was partly wrong. However, I still maintain that the way the bailout money is being spent is extremely relevant to the article on the bailout - for you to say it's not relevant is totally wrong. Hmm. So, you created that other article? Well, then, I was really, really wrong about that one. I'm sorry. Grundle2600 (talk) 00:39, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

February 2009

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Loonymonkey (talk) 02:01, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

In other words, you don't want people to know how the bailout money is being spent, so you are threatening to ban me for putting it in the article, even though I cited reliable sources from the national news media. You think people should just believe whatever the government says about the bailout, regardless of what is happening in the real world. You are afraid of people finding out the truth, so you want to ban me. Grundle2600 (talk) 13:57, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

No, we don't want you disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Obviously by the words above you have a an agenda to push, and I advise you back off and take a break. Grsz¹¹_Review 23:20, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not making a point - I'm adding verifiable facts to the article. Grundle2600 (talk) 00:23, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Just because they're verifiable does not make them acceptable. See WP:NPOV, as previously stated. Grsz¹¹_Review 00:36, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

The government gave $350 billion to the banks. The politicians and banks are not willing to tell reporters how the banks are spending that money. How is that "not relevant" to the article? How is that "trivia"? Grundle2600 (talk) 00:40, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

General edit advise

Dear Grundle, please keep in mind that we don't write a daily newspaper (or similar) here and certainly WP is not an opinion site even so opinions can be included if from high quality sources, notable, suitable and improving the article. Personal point of views from you or me don't belong here as well as unreliable opinions especially if they're most likely doomed to be short living.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:18, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Those things aren't opinions - they are facts. Grundle2600 (talk) 00:23, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Then you should read WP:POINT and stop harassing editors and stop disrupting WP. I'm done here, sorry... --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 02:20, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

TARP

Hi. I just wanted to let you know I read your comments on the TARP talk page. Keep in mind that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place to publish journalism. I'm as for transparency on how the TARP funds are being spent as anyone, but an encyclopedic article isn't the right place for a list of headlines on scandalous ways money has been used. It's great material for a news blog, newspaper, or magazine, but it just isn't right for an encyclopedia. Perhaps you could integrate some of the material, but I don't think most of it belongs in the article. Dgf32 (talk) 00:49, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The fact that politicians and banks aren't willing to tell reporters how the money is being spent is extremely signigicant. Grundle2600 (talk) 10:07, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Dear Grundle, for your convenience, you'll find my replies to you here on your talk page. Thanks! Dgf32 (talk) 17:41, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

"Also, you have never edited this article before you erased my stuff. Why are you all of a sudden starting to edit it now? The other editors here - the ones who regularly edit the article - didn't seem to have any problem with what I added. Only you did."

This is really inappropriate. There is no ownership of articles on Wikipedia, and any editor, evan an anonymous IP editor, may edit any article for any reason. Just because I had not edited this article before, does not mean that I can not or should not do so. Dgf32 (talk) 17:41, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

"Yes, wikipedia is encyclpedic, and once those other sources have stopped reporting on this, wikipedia will likely be the biggest source of information that people turn to to find this information."

Wikipedia is not a place to publish your journalism. I've reviewed your other contributions and your talk page, and it appears that many editors have questioned why you continue to use Wikipedia as a forum to publish your journalism. You should review What Wikipedia Is Not, in particular the section on why Wikipedia is not used to publish journalism. Dgf32 (talk) 17:41, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Both of us have the right to edit wikipedia. I was never questioning that. I was just wondering if you are a sockpuppet for another editor, or if you have more than one account - if you say no, I'll believe you. But you didn't say no when I asked you - that's interesting. Grundle2600 (talk) 22:01, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm not a sockpuppet, and furthermore, I have no idea why you think I might be a sockpuppet. You should have a look at my contributions and made a judgement for yourself. I highly doubt that I would have spent two years and made 3,754 edits to create a sockpuppet account just to remove questionable edits. Dgf32 (talk) 23:37, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that editors are stalking you, but nevertheless, you've conducted yourself very poorly. I sympathize with you, and I understand that you feel persecuted. However, editors probably object to your contributions for the same reason I did, namely that you are incorporating journalistic material into Wikipedia, and it's simply not the proper place to publish it. I have no animosity or dislike towards you, but when experienced editors see material that's clearly misplaced, they tend to remove it. The other day I wanted to look up something about the T.A.R.P., and I went to the Wikipedia article and found a lot of misplaced newspaper headlines in the top of the article. They were clearly out of place, so I removed them. I hope you come to some sort of resolution with your sockpuppet fears. If you're too stressed out or feel like you're taking on the world, just take a few days off from editing. And I really cant' emphasize enough, you seem like you're interested in journalism. You should start a blog. I think you'd be good at it. Just keep in mind Wikipedia isn't a soapbox, news stand, blog, newspaper, or anything else. It's just an encyclopedia. Dgf32 (talk) 23:51, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Wow! I was mean to you, and you responded by being kind to me. Thanks. That's very humbling. What I said before was very, totally, completely wrong, and I apologize, and I admit that I feel very bad and guilty about what I said. Thanks for your advice. I changed my entries in the article so it no longer looks like a bunch of newspaper headlines. The info should be in the article, just not in the format that I had originally put it there. Grundle2600 (talk) 23:57, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

ITN for 2009 satellite collision

On 12 February, 2009, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article 2009 satellite collision, which you created. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the In the news candidates page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 15:11, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Grundle2600 (talk) 15:12, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

This is your second ITN in about a week. Congratulations! Splette :) ^{How's my driving?} 16:41, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I wonder what interesting scienctific event will happen next week, and if I will be the one to start the article. Grundle2600 (talk) 17:49, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

NPOV?

I'm curious what your warning was for. Grsz¹¹ 14:17, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I assume it was from edits days ago. In that case, it's not really appropriate to "warn" somebody days after the fact. Grsz¹¹ 14:20, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it was from days ago. I did it now because I just now reinstated the material. Grundle2600 (talk) 14:53, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

NPOV

Wikipedia NPOV policy states, "Neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles, and of all article editors." This edit is not compliant with this policy. Please stop adding it. Grsz¹¹ 14:37, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

It is a fact, not an opinion, that the head of the government agency that enforces the tax laws, did not pay his taxes. Grundle2600 (talk) 14:55, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't make it appropriate or neutral. Grsz¹¹ 17:16, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

You've been around long enough to know what sources are acceptable and which are not. Grsz¹¹ 18:43, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Your edit at my talk page

Don't make "preempive" edits like this [1]. I reverted it [2] (and please read my edit summary there). Thanks.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 15:55, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

You ignored my questions on the article's talk page about why you erased my relevant, well sourced material. Grundle2600 (talk) 16:00, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009

Hi, you just made a change on the stimulus page, I think you inadvertently blew my recent change away. Can you put it back? Thanks ConstRepublic (talk) 21:33, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Oops! I am so sorry. I now see that another editor has already fixed it. Grundle2600 (talk) 21:37, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 and Presidency of Barack Obama. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Grsz¹¹ 21:56, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I have been trying to use the talk page, but you ignore my questions. And it's you who are reverting my edits, not the other way around. Grundle2600 (talk) 22:03, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

And please stop edit warring your opinion into the articles, again. Grsz¹¹ 00:08, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

The things that I added are facts, not opinions. Grundle2600 (talk) 00:13, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Original research

I just wanted to point out an error in this edit summary. Original research applies to adding information, not removing it. Grsz¹¹ 22:50, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

You love removing sourced info from articles, don't you? Grundle2600 (talk) 22:56, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I like removing incorrect information, yes. ;) Grsz¹¹ 23:16, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

The source you cited didn't say Obama appointed him; it just said he was in the administration. Geithner was the one that appointed him. The article now reflects this with a new source, along with some more information. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 23:04, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I really like what you did - especially the part that says, "In total, 21 members of the Obama administration have formerly been registered as federal lobbyists." Grundle2600 (talk) 23:08, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

ITN for 2009 nuclear submarine collision

On 16 February, 2009, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article 2009 nuclear submarine collision, which you created. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the In the news candidates page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 15:19, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Grundle2600 (talk) 15:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

ARRA

Yeah well he waited 4 days because he wanted to actually read the act, you ever think of that? I dont think it was a vacation, he just wanted to get away from Washington and read it in private. It is 1500 pages long for God sakes! Obama cares about helping people. What do you got against him? Left wing or right wing, opinionated blogs or columns are NOT reliable sources, keep them off articles TomCat4680 (talk) 02:12, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

TomCat4680 (talk) has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

OK. It's possible that Obama did take that time to read all of it. I don't have anything against Obama as a person - I think he's a very good person. I do disagree with his belief that this bill will help the economy, but that's a matter of our differing views on economics, not on how good we are as human beings. Grundle2600 (talk) 02:35, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

So you're against getting free money to do whatever you want with? You're against creating or saving millions of jobs and upgrading the nation's infrastruture and giving healthcare to all Americans and ending our reliance on foreign oil and going green? Why? I don't understand why any Congresspeople and Senators voted against it. Can I ask who you voted for on November 4, I'm guessing McCain?TomCat4680 (talk) 02:42, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I wrote in for Ron Paul for President.

There is no such thing as "free money." The idea of the states sending money to Washington D.C., so the federal government can take part of it out for "administration," and then send the rest of it back to the states, is preposterous.

For example, I live in Pittsburgh, a city with more bridges than any other U.S. city. But our city wants to spend almost half a billion dollars to dig a tunnel under the river, right next to a bridge. And the only jutification they can give for doing it is that 80% of the money would come from the federal government. This huge waste of money would not be happening if we didn't have the ridiculous procedure of filtering our money through Washington D.C. I am in favor of infrastructure. I am against wasting money.

I am in favor of universal health care. The U.S. already spends more tax dollars per person on health care than any other country except Norway. The U.S. already spends $569 more tax dollars per person on health care than France, whice the World Health Organization ranked as having the best health care in the world. I favor universal health care by making things more efficient, not by spending more money.

Government spending does not "create jobs." If you raise taxes on A, B, and C, in order to spend that money on D, E, and F, you are merely transferring jobs from A, B, and C, to D, E, and F. You are not creating any net new jobs. The way to create net new jobs is to cut the marginal tax rate on personal income, payroll, corporate income, and capital gains. The marginal tax rate is the tax that you pay on the next dollar that you earn. The lower this tax rate is, the more incentive there is to work, invest, and create jobs. Obama's plan does not do anything to cut marginal tax rates.

A petition against Obama's plan, which was signed by 200 economists, stated, "... we the undersigned do not believe that more government spending is a way to improve economic performance. More government spending by Hoover and Roosevelt did not pull the United States economy out of the Great Depression in the 1930s... To improve the economy, policymakers should focus on reforms that remove impediments to work, savings, investment, and production. Lower tax rates and a reduction in the burden of government are the best ways of using fiscal policy to boost growth."

So real world evidence from the past proves that Obama's plan will not work.

The fact that you think there is such a thing as "free money" suggests that you could use a lesson in Economics. I recommend that you read Economics in One Lesson. Grundle2600 (talk) 13:33, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Just wondering, are you against ANY government spending? Or are you against the government spending that has been going on throughout these past 8 years, including now? Do you believe the government can spend money correctly, and, if so, do you know how? Do you believe we shouldn't give any money to the banks? I just want to know about your beliefs.--Montaced (talk) 22:14, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I think the government should spend money on military defense, police, courts, roads, bridges, sewers, health care, education, food stamps, and social programs for people who truly need them. I am against the government spending money on the Iraq war, the military defense of western Europe and Japan, the war on drugs, corporate welfare, farm subsidies, bank subsidies, and auto bailouts. I do believe the government can spend money correctly, and this can be done by prohibiting earmakrs, pork, and special favors for anyone. If any particular item in the federal budget is directed at just one city or just one state, that particular item should be eliminated from the federal budget, and if the city or state really wants it, then the people of that city or state can use their own city or state tax dollars to pay for it. Grundle2600 (talk) 00:43, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

OK. We disagree on some levels (I believe in welfare), but at least you're not an extreme no-government spending conservative. I do agree about the auto bailout. I was just wondering if you hated stimulus packages of any kind, in which I would have an argument.--Montaced (talk) 20:22, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm in favor of cutting marginal tax rates for personal income, payroll, corporate income, and capital gains, because that encourages people to work, invest, and create jobs. That's real stimulus that works. We can make up any lost tax revenue by creating taxes on pollution, carbon dioxide, and other things that harm the environment. Grundle2600 (talk) 20:28, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Bailout mentality

I have nominated Bailout mentality, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bailout mentality. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Grsz¹¹ 19:21, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't object. I had thought the term would gain more widespread usage, but I turned out to be wrong. It's not one of my favorite articles. Grundle2600 (talk) 21:57, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Ya, somebody else challenged my proposed deletion so I'm just taking the next step. Grsz¹¹ 22:16, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi to you

Because you sound a lot like Michael Moore (who I HAVE met in person, btw). He has alot of government conspiracy theories. Does he quote sources? Yes. Are they reliable? Probably not. (biased blogs, personal websites and forums are NOT reliable sources. Heck alot of newspapers and magazines are even considered biased and unreliable). So just because something is on the internet doesn't mean its true. TomCat4680 (talk) 20:48, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I sound like someone who is interested in real world applications of economic policies. Grundle2600 (talk) 21:51, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Well how do you think we should solve the unemployment problem, and the crumbling infrastructure, and the home foreclosure problem, and 20th century technology in a 21st century world? Sit around and pray they fix themselves? Ignore it and hope it goes away? Obama is trying to fix the economy and help people. So he has to spend some money to do it, so what? Are there any problems in the world that cost no money to fix? I highly doubt it.TomCat4680 (talk) 13:38, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I already answered that above, but I'll answer it again. We should cut marginal tax rates on personal income, payroll, corporate income, and capital gains to encourage work, investment, and job creation. States and cities should be free to keep their own money to decide which construction projects are needed the most, instead of filtering it through Washington D.C., which only encourages waste and inefficiency. Filtering money through Washington D.C. always encourages waste and inefficiency. States are not just lines on a map - they are capable of handling their own needs if they don't have to send so much of their money to Washington D.C. We should repeal the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, which has not solved the problems its supporters claimed it would solve, and has only caused capital flight and job losses. We should tax carbon dioxide emissions and use that tax revenue to lower marginal income tax rates. We should let the private sector be free to determine what the best sources of carbon free energy are. We should stop bailing out companies that fail - such bailouts make everyone worse off. Do you think the government should have bailed out the horse and buggy industry when the car was invented 100 years ago? The only way the government can prevent old, outdated jobs from being destroyed, is by preventing newer, better jobs from being created. The government does not create wealth - it only redistributes wealth. It is the private sector that creates wealth. Government controlled economies have been a proven failure all over the world - time and time again. And you have still not answered my question about why you think it's possible for us to get "free money." Where does this "free money" come from? Grundle2600 (talk) 14:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't really understand Economics, you're right. But I think this plan will succeeed and the country will be on the right track again. Everything you've said is speculation based on unproven theories. Giving money to old outdated technology instead of new and improved technology is just plain stupid if you ask me. I agree that GM and Chrysler don't deserve a bailout. They ruined Michigan's economy when they started laying off thousand of workers back in the late 80's. I've owned 4 GM cars and 3 of them have broke down. But its still better than driving a horse and buggy would be. Obama/Biden 2012! TomCat4680 (talk) 15:08, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad you agree with me about GM and Chrysler. Actually, the petition from the 200 economists that I quoted above said that the increased government spending of Hoover and FDR did not end the Depression in the 1930s, so there is evidence on my side. Also, when JFK and Reagan cut marginal tax rates, it did help to create jobs. However, sometimes the future is hard to predict. If Obama's plan does create the millions of jobs that he promised, I will have learned a new lesson. If it doesn't create those jobs, I hope you will have learned a new lesson. Grundle2600 (talk) 15:12, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

To answer the question about free money, you're right its technically not free, its just a redistribution. Also if you think about it, technically the government does "generate wealth" for some, U.S. Senators make over 6 figures and they give themselves raises every year! Republicans sit there and talk about cutting the pork, then they go collect their $200,000 paychecks! That's the biggest waste of taxpayer dollars allowed by the government. Investing in the country's future is not, in my opinion.TomCat4680 (talk) 15:19, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

"Shitty" Cars Bailout

Do you still have this image? I was curious because I was wanting to see what the fuss was about on the 2008 Automotive Industry Crisis article... if only to get a good laugh. Thanks. --Marsbound2024 (talk) 02:55, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

You can see it here. Grundle2600 (talk) 11:48, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

That is really funny. And true. --Montaced (talk) 01:42, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

ARRA Vandalism

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. I thought you were a serious editor. I now realize you're just a nutjob who supports Ron Paul and vandalises legislation he is against. TomCat4680 (talk) 17:51, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism? I cited my source. If I can't let 1 edit out of every 500 be kind of silly, then there is something very wrong with the administration of this website. Grundle2600 (talk) 19:40, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Your so called source is obviously a satire site which DOES NOT fit the criteria of a reliable source and is obviously meant to be derogatory.TomCat4680 (talk) 19:54, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Obama and the Democrats broke their promise about letting people have 5 days to read the bill. No one who voted for it knows what it said. Obama signed it, but doens't know what it said, because he was on vacation. No one knows what it says. It's a spending bill, not a stimulus bill. Grundle2600 (talk) 19:56, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

There's no proof that anyone in the House, Senate and President Obama didn't read it. That statement is clearly unprovable and therefore weasel words. You're getting your tax breaks whether you like it or not!TomCat4680 (talk) 20:06, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Dude none of our politcal views are the same. I'm pro life, I think all drugs including marijuana should be outlawed, I'm for the ARRA, I'm a democrat. What exactly do we have in common politically?TomCat4680 (talk) 20:12, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh., I guess I was wrong - we don't have any political views in common. Wow! Obama couldn't have read it because he was on vacation. The House members couldn't have read it because they did not have enough time to read it. And even you don't dispute my claim that they lied about giving the public time to read it before voting on it. Grundle2600 (talk) 20:15, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Dude I already said there's no proof supporting your claim of not enough time to read it. People have read 1,000 page Steven King books in one day, I'm sure there was plenty of time last weekend for it to be read by Congress and President Obama. Keep your viewpoints off of the article. If you're so against it start a blog, its your first amendment right for god's sake.TomCat4680 (talk) 20:21, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Your vandalism to Infinite monkey theorem

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Infinite monkey theorem, you will be blocked from editing. caknuck _° is a silly pudding 19:05, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I cited my source. What I did was not vandalism. Grundle2600 (talk) 19:41, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

It was a disruptive edit meant to push an agenda. You should be well aware that it's not going to be tolerated. caknuck _° is a silly pudding 19:53, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I won't put it back in. But a funny article deserves funny sources! Grundle2600 (talk) 19:59, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of your opinion of the tenor of the Infinite monkey theorem article, this edit and this edit are without question vandalism. You have consistently been a disruptive editor on the ARRA and Presidency of Barack Obama article and I strongly suggest that you correct that behavior and start editing in a productive manner. You have already been warned] about articles related to Barack Obama are under probation, so technically I don't have to give you another warning, but if you continue your current course of action, you will be reported on WP:AN/I and you will be blocked or topic banned. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 23:16, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I won't do it anymore. But I still think my edits were funny, not vandalism. I knew they would be corrected in a very short amount of time, and I hope some people here got the humor in them. If my overall edit history is 99.9% legitimate edits, I think I should be cut some slack for the other 0.1%. But since you were kind enough to warn me, I won't do it anymore. Thanks for the warning - it's way better than a ban or a block. I won't do those kinds of edits anymore. Grundle2600 (talk) 14:10, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your contrition. While your intentions may have been light-hearted, bear in mind that most of the vandalism that we fight is intended to be "funny" (although usually in a much more hamfisted sense). Don't think that Wikipedia has to be devoid of humor, however it needs to be restricted to places outside of the mainspace. In the future, please restrict your jokes to the talk pages. Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks, caknuck _° is a silly pudding 17:37, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes. OK. Thank you. Grundle2600 (talk) 20:23, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Volcano monitoring

Did you really think that would fly? Grsz¹¹ 19:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

AGF, Grsz. That page was not nonsense, and it could have become a good article, had you let Grundle work on it. Xclamation point 19:53, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it was meant for any kind of scientific topic like the article it was redirected to. It was an attack, and I can't imagine how much better it could have become. Grsz¹¹ 20:08, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

First of all, I am very happy with the redirect. Secondly, it was not an attack. Third, I was planning to add more to it, but the redirect is better than anything I could have done. Fourth, if you look at my userpage, you'll see I started plenty of scientific articles, including Titanoboa and 2009 satellite collision, both of which were wikipedia in the news articles this month. Grundle2600 (talk) 20:13, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad you agree. I just don't understand how you start a scientific article with content like that. The redirect target is the same content, so no harm done. Nothing personal, it's just that you've been around long enough to know that that's not how we do things here. Grsz¹¹ 20:16, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Obama Bear Market

A tag has been placed on Obama Bear Market requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 15:39, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

You're not supposed to delete articles that have the "under contstruction" tag unless they haven't been edited for a few days. Grundle2600 (talk) 15:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

As you'll have noticed, I didn't delete the article. Furthermore, articles are normally expected to meet the content criteria; yours didn't, so I've tagged it, and an admin will make a decision. Please be aware that you should not remove the tag from the article yourself. Thanks. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 15:46, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

It's too soon to delete it. You're supposed to give me a few days to work on the article first. Grundle2600 (talk) 15:49, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I haven't deleted it. You can tell this, because it's still there! And I am not supposed to give you a few days. If an admin judges that it is likely to improve, they can decline the tag. But the whole point of the new pages patrol is to spot iffy pages as they are made.

There's no need for us to bicker further; a decision will be made shortly by an admin, and we can both accept that. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 15:51, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I need time to work on the article, which I can't do when I'm talking with you. Grundle2600 (talk) 15:54, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Obama Bear Market

I have nominated Obama Bear Market, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Obama Bear Market. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 15:56, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

What actually is a bear market?

Just out of idle curiosity, I don't actually understand the article, notability aside. It doesn't seem to explain what the term means, where it comes from, etc. I'd be personally interested to hear this, and it might help if you included it in the article! Sorry to interfere again... ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 17:16, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

A bear market is usually described as when the stock market falls by at least 20%, although the definition is not exact. Grundle2600 (talk) 17:18, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

The majority of sources will say that it's a bear market when the market falls from a *peak* by 20%. The peak happened in October of 2007. The bear market was declared in June 2008. We have been in the same bear market since. There is no Obama Bear Market and there is no Bear Market of 2009. I provided five references for that fact when I edited Bear Market of 2009 this morning. Since the bear market was declared in 2008, the article should be called Bear Market of 2008. However, you choose to erase mainstream media sources in order to push your far reich POV.Kgrr (talk) 23:45, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

It's a POV fork. It is not a separate bear market and you know it. Quit pushing your POV.Kgrr (talk) 00:40, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I cited multiple sources. Grundle2600 (talk) 00:46, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

It's still POV.. Take a close look at this graph and let reality settle in. Bear market of 2008. Look how much the drop has been during the Bush administration. Why don't you write a "Bush Bear Market" article? Quit pushing POV.Kgrr (talk) 01:13, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

The drop since Obama took office is noteworhy because it is the fastest drop after a newly inaugurated President in at least 90 years. It has also been cited by multiple sources. These things are facts, not opinions. Grundle2600 (talk) 01:17, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

It's the same bear market that started in 2007, declared in 2008. There is no new bear market. These are all Republican opinions. All of your sources are editorials. What has got you so brainwashed? Can't you see the facts? Did you look at the graph? Can't you see how everything by Murdoch's Fox News, Murdoch's Wall Street Journal is cooked-up for you? There are no two bear markets. It alternates between bear and bull markets? Do you take the public to be fools like you? Quit pushing your far reich puking-sick POV ok?Kgrr (talk) 01:23, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I just found even more sources. The phrase "Obama bear market" is gaining widespread use. I may move the article back to its original title. Grundle2600 (talk) 01:29, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Bill Gates public domain mugshot.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Bill Gates public domain mugshot.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 20:18, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Mug shot

Copyright status

Booking photographs are automatically entered into the public domain in the United States, and can be obtained by anyone through the Freedom of Information Act, except in special cases when the arrestees' record has been sealed.

Grundle2600 (talk) 00:15, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Flo from Progressive Insurance

I see your point. I also looked over the articles for State Farm, Allstate, and Geico, and see they have no images from their advertising campaigns. So, it's best to leave the Flo image out.THD3 (talk) 11:06, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply! Grundle2600 (talk) 11:21, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Carmen L. Robinson

An article that you have been involved in editing, Carmen L. Robinson, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carmen L. Robinson. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Grsz¹¹ 20:18, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

You probably shot yourself in the foot with the early move to mainspace. I see two possible outcomes: Re-userfication, or outright deletion. I would be very shocked if the article is kept unless she turns out to be a lot more notable than the article makes her out to be. Even if it is just re-userfied, you will need to take it to deletion review before restoring it to the main article space, and you will need to show that the person is notable enough to warrant an article. By the way, Google does not index userfied articles. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 22:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I just tried to "undo" the move, but it didn't work. How do I move it back to my userspace? Or, would you do it? Thanks. Grundle2600 (talk) 22:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

It is improper to try to do this until either the AFD closes or until everyone who has contributed to the article and everyone who has contributed to the AFD signs off on it. Right now, you have not signed off on userfication in the AFD, nor has S Marshall (talk · contribs). If you sign off on it and he signs off on it and noone else edits either the article or the AFD without also signing off on it, it can be moved back without raising a stink. Otherwise, the AFD will run the full 5 days and the closing admin will make a decision. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:03, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

By the way, the technical way to move the article back to userspace is just to open it, click "Move," then put User:Grundle2600/Carmen L. Robinson in the "To new title" field. Don't do this while the AFD is active unless you have the consent of everyone involved though, or you will get wrist-slapped. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:06, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. But since she will be appearing in televised debates, how is this not noteworthy? Grundle2600 (talk) 10:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Lots of people appear on television. This is local television and doesn't make a person notable. She's running in a primary for mayor of a relatively small city. She needs wide coverage (national news, compared to the PPG or Trib) like Ravenstahl earned when he became mayor. If she wins or does something else notable, then she could merit an article. Grsz¹¹ 13:34, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

The coverage must be "significant." Routine coverage, such as political debates which are routinely televised, is not necessarily significant. "Significance" is one of those things that is best determined by asking other editors. The fact that the article is at AFD and nobody, with the possible exception of yourself, thinks the person has achieved notability, pretty much settles the question for now. Things change though, the day after the debate she may "get noticed" and wind up on the cover of the following week's Time magazine, but that's doubtful. Even "national" coverage isn't necessarily significant, if it's a "one off" thing or a "side item" thing. For example, if she tripped and broke her leg and that wound up in the national news, that wouldn't by itself qualify as significant. Nor would a mere mention of her if the debate itself got national press due to what another candidate said. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 13:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

By the way, sometimes Wikipedia idioms like "notable" don't exactly match the English-language usage of the word. Terms like "notability" are defined by the consensus outcomes of debates over notability in AFD discussions. It's sort of like English common-law. The outcomes of these discussions are what forms the basis of the notability guidelines. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 13:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Bill articles

Grundle, I'm not sure articles about proposed bills are notable or appropriate. If there is not much media attention on them, then they cannot stand up to WP:N or WP:V. A one-off mention is not sufficient to merit notability. Grsz¹¹ 12:53, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

That's why it's under construction. Please allow some time for it. I like to get articles started as early as possible. Grundle2600 (talk) 12:55, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

That's not how it works. Wikipedia is not news and we aren't a crystal ball. We can't tell what will become notable, we just write about what already is notable. Grsz¹¹ 13:10, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

OK. I moved it to my user space, and used the nowiki tag for the categories. Grundle2600 (talk) 13:21, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

If this becomes a bigger deal it should be notable, as it would be a major piece of legislation. Until then, it's best as draft in your userspace. Thanks, Grsz¹¹ 17:04, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

March 2009

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Public image of Barack Obama. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Obama "anti-business"? This is grossly non-neutral and misrepresents the source you provided. Scjessey (talk) 18:52, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Reuters is a reliable source. Grundle2600 (talk) 19:01, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes it is. But the source doesn't say anything about Obama being "anti-business". That's just your opinion. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:06, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Reuters is a relaible source. But this does not make Reuters the only expert on what is pro- or anti-business. There are plenty of sources that will tell you just the opposite. Since your contribution is one sided, it clearly falls under POV. The 'balanced' way to talk about a stance is to present at least two or three sides and let the reader make up their mind. Please re-read and understand WP:NPOV. 24.16.206.104 (talk) 19:52, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Stem cell

You have misinterpreted what I said about primary sources. The "quotes" I was referring to mean, for example, things people have said that come from transcripts - that sort of thing. Quoting the document is not a legitimate use of a primary source. Please actually read WP:RS and learn how to do this properly, and stop trying to twist Wikipedia's rules and guidelines to suit your rather obvious agenda. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:29, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

"This anonymous user is a sock puppet"

Grundle2600 said: "Every edit that this anonymous user has made so far is in an article that I have also edited. They are following me around. They are a sock puppet for one of the several registered users who also likes to follow me around. Grundle2600 (talk) 18:49, 12 March 2009 (UTC)"

I looked at your contribs and have seen a lot of drive-by inflaming stuff. I have followed your path of destruction undoing your damage. That does not make me a sockpuppet. I simply wish to stay anonymous. I don't need some psycho coming after me. Why don't you study Wikipedia's guidelines and rules starting with WP:RS, WP:V, WP:OR and WP:NPOV

24.16.206.104 (talk) 19:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi

Hello Grundle2600. I noticed some of your contributions, and your conflicts with other editors. I may be able to assist, if you are willing to try. Please, reply on my talk page if you are interested. Sephiroth storm (talk) 19:52, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your willingness to work:) It's a good sign, that I am sure other editors will take note of. Now, Where would you say you have most conflicts with other editors on wikipedia? Sephiroth storm (talk) 20:55, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Anything related to Barack Obama! By the way, in case it matters, I'm a Libertarian and I voted for Ron Paul. You can look at my edit history if you want. If I need any specific assistance in the future, I will keep you in mind. Right now I am concerned about my edits at Stem cell controversy getting erased. Grundle2600 (talk) 21:00, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, you appear to be editing articles which you have an intense interest in. In general, this should be avoided, as emotions often get involved. See WP:COI for details. This is not to say that you should not contribute to the content of the article, I would even go as far as to suggest that if you find something you think should be in an article, leave a message on the talk page before editing an article. Wait for others to look at it, and read their responses. This gives you the opprtunity to learn. Take note of any policies they quote(as we are fond to do), and see how to apply them. Work with people not against them:) Thoughts Sephiroth storm (talk) 21:19, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Please read WP:MEAT. Thanks! :) --Bobblehead ^(rants) 21:05, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

• -Discussion with Bobblehead on Talk

I don't want any meat puppets. Grundle2600 (talk) 21:31, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of H.R. 1503

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article H.R. 1503, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

This is an article about a proposed piece of legislation that has little chance of becoming law. Recommend deletion until (and if) it becomes law.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Scjessey (talk) 23:34, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Your only reason for wanting to delete this is that you claim it has "little chance of becoming law." That statement is crystal balling, which is against wikipedia policy. Grundle2600 (talk) 23:42, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Grundel, a word of warning. Scjessy's objection is not WP:CBALL. CBall does not apply to delletion requests, it applies to the article. I suggest if you want to keep it that you find Reliable sources to back up the article. Your article also does not state why the subject is notable. Sephiroth storm (talk) 01:34, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

It's notable because it's a piece of federal legislation that will be put to a vote. Grundle2600 (talk) 12:29, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I have turned this article into a redirect, since it didn't have enough meat or notability to stand up on its own. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:26, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

That's a reasonable solution. Sephiroth storm (talk) 00:05, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

That's great! I just wanted the info to be somewhere, and a redirect is far better than a delete. If more sourced info becomes available later, such that I can significantly expand the article, I can always undo the redirect. Grundle2600 (talk) 00:06, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Political positions

I've had to rollback your recent addition to Political positions of Barack Obama, because what you added wasn't a political position. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:38, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Economy of Venezuela

Hi, if you want to add detail on the land reforms, fine. However a one-line summary lifted from a Reuters article about something else isn't going to cut it. It's a complex issue, it needs more work than that. Rd232 ^talk 16:21, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not just one line. It started out with the price controls. The price controls forced the farmers to sell their food at a loss. So they stopped selling the food. Then Chavez used the military to seize 750 tons of food. Then Chavez threatened to seize the farmers' land. I had all of that stuff in there, not just one sentence. Grundle2600 (talk) 16:28, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Watch WP:SYNTHESIS. The narrative you're writing isn't in the sources given. Rd232 ^talk 16:51, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok. But I can still cite each individual event on its own. Grundle2600 (talk) 16:53, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Also I didn't delete the cement industry bit and I thought the steel industry was covered elsewhere. Also I'm trying to get away from the WP:COATRACK style of "ooh and he did this as well" in favour of more analytical and less news prose. Rd232 ^talk 16:57, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

The cement stuff was in the Hugo Chavez article. When you moved stuff to daugher article, you erased it from the Hugo Chavez article, but you did not put it in the daugher article.

Wikipedia articles are not supposed to be "analytical." They are supposed to report verifiable facts. The facts that Chavez has nationalized all of these industries are all verifiable facts, and it would be violating NPOV to not include them.

Grundle2600 (talk) 17:06, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I moved a lot of stuff in cleaning up the mess, it was easy to miss something. As to "analytical", actually articles are supposed to be that: WP is an encyclopedia; WP:NOT a newspaper. WP:V doesn't refer to facts specifically, it also covers arguments. And whilst we must avoid WP:OR (including WP:SYNTHESIS), merely stringing facts from news articles together does not an encyclopedia article make. Facts need to support arguments, not substitute for them. A big part of that is structure - organising material so that different parts fit together, and aren't jumbled up as different editors add things in passing, which is what tends to happen, especially if there isn't a good structure to begin with. Rd232 ^talk 05:03, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Undone your edit again, for reasons specified on Talk:Hugo Chavez. NB some of your arguments lead me to point you to WP:OWN. Now can you please do an RFC on the content as I asked (or at least politely tell me why not)? Rd232 ^talk 14:21, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I never said I owned it. You are only interested in watering that info down. You have never added to it. What is RFC? Grundle2600 (talk) 14:44, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Some of your comments (in edit summaries and elsewhere) have suggested WP:OWN issues. RFC is request for comment, as I explained on Talk:Hugo Chavez where I made my initial request and where this discussion was until you started trying to sidestep it at Economy of Venezuela. My version is not "watered down", that's your opinion. IMO it contains more relevant detail and is more accurate. For reasons explained at what now approaches book length :( Rd232 ^talk 14:52, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

NB if you bothered to check you would see I have added to it. I have not added more for the reason given X times (which you've never disagreed with), the need to improve the daughtr article instead of waste countless manhours talking about how to summarise material that needs much improvement, instead of improving that material first. Rd232 ^talk 14:54, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Well I've done 2 RFCs, which is twice as messy as the 1 RFC we could have had before you tried to sidestep the debate by going to Economy of Venezuela. Rd232 ^talk 15:42, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I would prefer to have the info in the Hugo Chavez article, but you erased 100% of it. When I tried to put it back, you kept erasing most it, and now that article is locked from editing. Grundle2600 (talk) 15:51, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Nature’s Most Amazing Events

What do you think makes it notable now since it's not even aired yet and won't be so till end of May (if at all... remember [wp:crystalball]]?). Please state/explain your case/reason(s) here as I'm watching your talk page and will respond here if necessary. Thanks and regards, --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 02:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

PS: Nothing wrong about this article in general but it seems you're jumping (more than two month) ahead again.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 02:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

It was made by the same people who made Planet Earth. I'll add that to the article - it was already in the source that I used. Grundle2600 (talk) 02:25, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:ITN/C

It's more likely to make it to Main Page if you suggest a blurb for your nominated article. --BorgQueen (talk) 14:42, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Grundle2600 (talk) 14:43, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Image tagging for File:Vladimir Putin and Ronald Reagan public domain image.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Vladimir Putin and Ronald Reagan public domain image.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 23:05, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

You're a bot, and you didn't notice the public domain tag? Grundle2600 (talk) 00:36, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

TOTUS

Hey could you please upload this image http://www.podiumpundits.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/obama-prompter.bmp and add it to the TOTUS article - my account is too new to upload. Dermus (talk) 00:28, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

In order to upload the image and not have it deleted, I would need information about who owns the copyright. Most images on the internet cannot be uploaded to wikipedia due to copyright. If the picture was taken by a federal employee as part of his or her job, the picture would be in the public domain, which would mean that we could put it in the article. Do you know who took that picture? Grundle2600 (talk) 00:35, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Good decision of yours to move it. Though normally the AFD would continue, I decided to IAR ands imply closed it as your redirect. If anyone wants to nominate it, they can still do so. 03:18, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Grundle2600 (talk) 11:46, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

An anonymous user (IP 75.27.118.44) is trying to vandalize it. Looks like a revert war. I'm new to wiki - how is this dealt with? Dermus (talk) 04:07, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

It looks like other editors are dealing with the problem very well! Grundle2600 (talk) 11:44, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Could you take a look at the RfC for "minimum wage"

We desperately need some outside editors to look at this. Thanks. Academic38 (talk) 14:29, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I looked at it. It seems to me there's a debate over possible copyright violation - I'm no expert on that. Then there is a debate over including certain material in the text of the article. I'm an inclusionist - I don't erase other people's stuff. I find it difficult and sometimes almost impossible to win edit wars with exclusionists who keep erasing stuff, and then they threaten me with the three revert rule. There's one particular editor there who keeps erasing some of my stuff in a different article. Grundle2600 (talk) 14:46, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't object to the material being included, but the way it's in there now as a chart gives it too much veneer of being the "truth," even though it is attributed, IMO. Cheers. Academic38 (talk) 19:36, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Nancy Pelosi

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did to Nancy Pelosi, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Scjessey (talk) 17:12, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

The San Francisco Chronicle is a legitimate source

My edit to the Nancy Pelosi article is completely legitimate.

Grundle2600 (talk) 17:16, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

The edit you made is not legitimate, because the source does not say that Pelosi "opposes antitrust laws". There is nothing wrong with the source, just your interpretation of it. I am not monitoring your edits - I have the Pelosi BLP watchlisted (along with many significant US politicians). -- Scjessey (talk) 17:19, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. The next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, as you did to Public image of Barack Obama, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Scjessey (talk) 13:18, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The New York Times is a legitimate source. Grundle2600 (talk) 13:20, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Please stop trying to shove your POV into articles. This teleprompter thing is nothing but trivial bullshit stoked-up by the right wing. It is not significant or important in any way, and you should be proud to have a president who prefers to be articulate and on message, instead of someone who behaved like a buffoon and embarrassed our nation with his antics. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:36, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

If it it not noteworthy, then why was it mentioned twice in The New York Times? Grundle2600 (talk) 13:57, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Public image of Barack Obama. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Please remember that Obama-related articles are on probation. You have already been warned about this. Your editing is violating the terms of probation. Scjessey (talk) 13:40, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

You made just as many reverts to that article as I did. Grundle2600 (talk) 13:57, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Reverts

The reversions I have made have been done so under the auspices of WP:BLP, which allows a certain latitude when removing material of a misleading or defamatory nature. Your edits represented undue weight at the very least, and blatant POV-pushing at the worst. Any more attempts to abuse your editing privileges with more of this agenda-based editing will force me to open a report at WP:ANI, where I will be soliciting the advice of administrators. They will take a very dim view of your activities and you may find yourself blocked for it - particularly because you consistently violate the rules of the probation on Obama-related articles. Think very carefully before you proceed. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:07, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The New York Times is a legitimate source. You are just trying to suppress certain information. Grundle2600 (talk) 14:09, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Think whatever you like. You don't have a clear understanding of what a "reliable source" is, or what "undue weight" is, or what is meant by "standards of verifiability" - in fact, it is obvious that you simply don't care. You are clearly trying to use Wikipedia to advance your ideology. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:26, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. The next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, as you did to Farmers' market, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Scjessey (talk) 20:28, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment: this is a vandalism template (and the highest level at that) and completely inappropriate for an edit content dispute. Noted also on the poster's talk page. Rd232 ^talk 22:32, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

It is actually a npov4 warning. Landon1980 (talk) 23:33, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

oops. Rd232 ^talk 00:41, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

The New York Times is a legitimate source. Grundle2600 (talk) 01:58, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

"..."decriminalize."... "legalize"?..."

"...I don't understand the difference." Then why don't you just read the article you just linked to??? Also click on the Legalization link provided there in the lead.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 14:12, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I had already done that. The only difference is that decriminalization includes a token punishment, which just means that Obama is afraid to say he supports legalization, even though he does. Decriminalization is for cowards. Grundle2600 (talk) 18:30, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Halloween Smurfs by Schleich.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Halloween Smurfs by Schleich.jpg. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 04:12, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Earth hour criticism

Don't worry when you see I've undone your edit. It was under a section about past events and someone had moved it up to where it belongs, with the current event - which you evidently didn't notice. So yours was a duplicate and I've removed it leaving just one copy of it. It isn't suppression of criticism, it's suppression of having the same material in the article twice. Dougweller (talk) 17:06, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! Grundle2600 (talk) 17:25, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes I know it's April Fools Day but...

...please don't make joke edits in articles, as you did to economic inequality ([3]). Although we like to have some fun on the mainpage, we still keep our encyclopedic articles encyclopedic. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 05:56, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Technically, what I said was true: "Studies show that on a global level, approximately 48.2% of the population (with a 3% margin of error) has an income that is below the median income. Although politicians have proposed various solutions to this problem, statisticians have expressed skepticism toward these proposed solutions." Grundle2600 (talk) 06:22, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

April 2009

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. The next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, as you did to Political positions of Barack Obama, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Please STOP your bad faith, agenda-based edits. The "tax increase" you are trying to add to this article is not a political position. Secondly, it was in a budget written BEFORE the Obama administration came to power. Scjessey (talk) 19:54, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

The article already said that he promised not to raise taxes on people earning more than $250,000. So the article should also mention that he broke that promise. It doesn't matter when it was written. What matters is that he signed it. He could have vetoed it, but he chose to sign it. Grundle2600 (talk) 21:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I, being a smoker and this tax hike hurts me more than you can imagine, do endorse Scjessey's point.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:45, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Since the article mentions Obama's promise, why should the article not also mention that he broke that promise, especially when the Associated Press specifially said that he broke that promise? Grundle2600 (talk) 22:34, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Associated Press is NOT a POV source. If you think my entry is biased, then FIX it, but DO NOT ERASE IT. Grundle2600 (talk) 22:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

There is a difference between articles and opinion pieces, even from the AP. You should try to learn to distinguish between them and also not apply those (together with your own personal interpretation) into WP-articles in a "opinion news commentator/writer" manner as you usually do. WP is not the place for this kind of editing. And BTW, it is NOT other editor's job to constantly go over your edits and "fix them to fit". You really should know this by now.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 22:42, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

It's a news article, not an opinion piece. See for yourself. Grundle2600 (talk) 23:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I see you've gotten away with 3RR again Grundle. This is your warning. Next time you'll be blocked. Grsz¹¹ 03:58, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I was reverting vandalism. They can't block me for that. Grundle2600 (talk) 13:15, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Grundle, that is a content dispute. Just because you disagree with the edits, it does not make it vandalism. It should also be noted that due to the probation on Obama articles, you do not actually have to violate 3RR. Any excessive reverting, even if it is just two or three reverts, can be reported as a violation of the topic's probation and result in a block. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 15:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

How typical - all four of my stalkers who like to follow me around and censor information from Associated Press have all come together to harass me. You people are just trying to censor the article. That goes against everything that wikipedia stands for. NPOV states, "Neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles, and of all article editors." Grundle2600 (talk) 16:02, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Checking on the edit history of an editor that has an obvious problem with complying with Wikipedia's policies is not stalking, Grundle. Matter of fact, it's expressly allowed in the Harassment policy. If you actually complied with the policies we wouldn't have to check your contributions. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 16:10, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I add things that are well sourced from Associated Press, The New York Times, The Washington Post, etc. You people are just trying to censor the articles. Grundle2600 (talk) 17:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

• yawn* Find a new accusation, please. Grsz¹¹ 17:26, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Political positions of Barack Obama. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Loonymonkey (talk) 23:29, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

You are also someone who has a long history of erasing my edits that cite legitimate sources such as Associated Press. You're just trying to censor the article. Grundle2600 (talk) 23:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

You should stop making up stuff and putting it in articles, Grundle. Where does it say in your source that Obama "broke a promise"? The answer is nowhere - that's just your non-neutral original research spin, as usual. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:33, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

You are wrong. It says, "One of President Barack Obama's campaign pledges on taxes went up in puffs of smoke Wednesday. The largest increase in tobacco taxes took effect despite Obama's promise not to raise taxes of any kind on families earning under $250,000 or individuals under $200,000." Grundle2600 (talk) 12:56, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Nowhere does it say "broke a promise" - that is fiction. "Broke" is your word, Grundle. Taxes on individual items have nothing to do with this anyway. The pledge refers to the entire tax burden, not sales-related taxes. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:49, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, that is original research. The article writer clearly meant to express the view that this tax broke that pledge. However, Grundle, do you always cite conservative POV-pushers for your "source"?

As for the Obama issue, "raising taxes on smokers" can be seen as something different from "raising taxes on the poor". It's not a need, and the tax is, in a way, optional, as opposed to food or housing taxes. Maybe you can shed your label of "bad-faith POV editor" if you tried to find sources for both sides of an issue when there are two sides of the issue. --Raijinili (talk) 02:40, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry to see you being harassed by POV pushing editors Grundle. Thanks for your good work on the encyclopedia. You ahve the patience of a saint. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:29, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Grundle2600 (talk) 01:33, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

By this, I meant to say you had broken 3RR. However, I'm a little off on my timing and the other additions were back on the 1st (that long ago?). Either way, I trust you will not continue edit warring on article subject to special probation. Grsz¹¹ 01:53, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I made that edit at the suggestion of someone on the talk page of Obama's political positions article. They suggested that it be in his presidency article instead of the article on his political positions. And I'm not edit warring. I'm simply reinstating legitimate, well sourced material from The Washington Post that keeps getting erased by vandals. NPOV says that all articles have to contain all relevant, well sourced information. I'm not being POV. It's you who are being POV when you erase this info from the article. Grundle2600 (talk) 14:56, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Reporting facts from The Washington Post is not POV

Undue weight is POV. Your edits only present one side of the issue. You seem to either seek out sources that present one point of view and/or ignore sources that present another point of view.

For example, while playing on one sympathy (poor smokers), you completely ignored another sympathy (that the taxes go to children's health care).

More importantly, you didn't put in the response, even though it was in that very article. --Raijinili (talk) 17:25, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Blocked

I have blocked you for 24 hours for resuming an edit war on Political positions of Barack Obama and Presidency of Barack Obama, despite being warned not to do so. Please note that although you gamed WP:3RR, your continual edit warring is grounds for blocking. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 19:26, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

If you think he's "gaming 3RR" you should take it to a notice board and get consensus. This block is inappropriate and your statement is a personal attack. Disgraceful. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:47, 4 April 2009 (UTC)