User talk:Threeafterthree/Archive 7

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Threeafterthree. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Thank you for participating in editing the Bill Ayers article and discussing calmly on the talk page. I'm trying to come to a consensus on various aspects of the lead. In order to keep comments about "violence" in one spot, I consolidated a short section and moved your comment and Scjessey's into Talk:Bill Ayers#Ayers and violence. I'm going to try to ignore all impolite comments on that page and reach a consensus. If you have a problem with my moving your comment, please feel free to move it back. I appreciate the views of any editors, whether or not they agree with mine, as long as they can state them civilly, so thank you. I've also got a proposal at Talk:Weatherman (organization)/Terrorism RfC#Noroton's proposal #1 -- for Bernardine Dohrn which I expect will get more comment. I'll be making a similar proposal about Bill Ayers on that page by tomorrow, and whether you agree or disagree, any civil comments there are welcome, too. -- Noroton (talk) 15:42, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Norton, thanks for the heads up and no, I don't mind if you move my comments. As always, Wikipedia is not about the "truth" but about already established, reliably sourced material. Are there sources that describe Ayers as violent? If so, it would be good to add that citation to the lead paragraph of that article so the revert war can slow. Thank you, --Tom 15:46, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Responded on my talk page -- Noroton (talk) 16:17, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi! This is a form notice sent to several editors who have contributed recently at the Bill Ayers page or talk page (sent in accordance with WP:CANVASS). A proposal has been made near the bottom of Talk:Weatherman (organization)/Terrorism RfC concerning the Bill Ayers article in connection with use of the word "terrorism" and discussion of it in the article. Other proposals have been made concerning similar articles, and a large amount of information about sources on this topic are available on the page. Please take a look and consider supporting or opposing some of the proposals. Also, if you think "violent" is a better description for Ayers or Weatherman, please take another look at Talk:Bill Ayers#Ayers and violence. Thanks. -- Noroton (talk) 02:48, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Tom, please exercise more judgment in how you're using the edit summary field on the Neil Goldschmidt article. A great many of us watch that article, and expect to be able to generally keep track of what's going on from edit summaries. You have already been criticized for your use of the field, and you apologized (which I appreciate). But if the behavior doesn't change, the apology isn't worth much.

Very few of these edits are accurately described as "copy edits" (ce). I will withhold judgment about whether they are appropriate edits or not; providing an accurate summary of your work is an important aspect of a collaborative project. -Pete (talk) 19:09, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Pete, yeah, I wasn't sure how to describe those changes in the edit summary. Should I have said "Changed section title from sexual abuse to sex with minor" or something like that? I guess so. Also, I know I am sort of late to the party on this bio, but it seems that "consensus" is an ongoing process and I know its a pain to rehash issues, but consensus can and goes change as more editors get involved with articles. For the record, I am no fan of this individual or a supportor of sexual relations with minors, I sometimes find myself "defending" some real scumbags in this project, see Tom Metzger for example. Anyways, cheers, --Tom 13:25, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Tom -- I apologize if I've been unnecessarily cranky. As I'm sure you can tell, that article has been the subject of some unpleasant conflict for some time, and I can see it's affecting my patience. I hear and believe you that your chief concern is accuracy and fairness, rather than advancing a POV; that goes for me as well. (If you look through the discussion, you will see that I was a chief advocate against the inclusion of the term child sex abuse; really, I'm not trying to make Goldschmidt look good or bad, rather to make sure that the story of his life and career is told dispassionately and accurately.) Part of my impatience comes from having read the news coverage of this guy in painstaking detail, and having to rehash similar arguments over and over with editors who are new to the issue. But, of course, everyone's view is unique, and I should be careful about leaping to conclusions.

Anyway, please don't take the sharpness of my words as an indication that I don't welcome your input. I do want to make this article as good as it can be, and often that means talking things through with people coming from a diferent perspective. By the way, I've worked on the Metzger article a bit too -- small world! (He was a prominent figure out here when I moved here in 1991.) -Pete (talk) 18:11, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey Pete, no problem at all. Yeah, the Goldschmidt article looks like it has quite a history and has been quite contentious, I probably shouldn't have jumped in head first :) I sometimes like to review the BLP board and jump into articles that way. I ended up there either that way or maybe by way of the ANI board? Anyways, it can be sometimes very hard to tell what people's "real" motivations or agendas are in here, thats for sure. When I first started here, I noticed that a group of IPs had added "Jewish-American" to the lead sentence of over 800 biographies. I reverted 100s of these but ended up getting a month long block for my troubles. Anyways, I have no real interest in Goldschmidt and have chimmed in and don't want to be disruptive so I'll probably stear clear...for now :) Cheers! --Tom 18:24, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I've warned him several times about this, and told him the next time he'd be blocked. I've blocked him now. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:46, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted your tendentious addition of the word "violent" in the lead of Bill Ayers. Since this is a biography of Ayers, and not an article about the Weather Underground, an uncited characterization is inappropriate. The existing description of "radical left organization" (with a link to the article) is more than sufficient. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

This is WP:POT. --Tom 16:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Please self-revert this edit immediately. Contentious descriptions of organizations do not belong in biographies of living persons. The characterization of "violent" needs a citation, and therefore it is inappropriate for an article lead - particularly when it is not the subject of the article. For your information, this is tangentially related to this RfC. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

The tags were removed because they were added by Jsn9333 (talk · contribs), a troll who pops up every so often to push his agenda on FNC. He was previously topic banned from the article, disappeared again, and has now returned. It's usually best to not feed him, or it turns into a fiasco. Best, - auburnpilot talk 18:27, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok. I didn't see an edit summary, so I reverted that back. Cheers, --Tom 18:29, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Just a friendly note - please be careful regarding WP:3RR over at Obama–Ayers controversy - I think you've done three today and really best not to go over any limits. Personally, I wouldn't call deleting "however" an edit war because it's such a minor thing, but you've probably seen how contentious things can get. Cheers, Wikidemon (talk) 23:25, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

If Palin has real responsibilities, why isn't she responsible for hiring and firing decisions? Or for knowing the results of hiring and firing decisions? Or for knowing what budget items were cut (including a miscellaneous fund as Mayor of Wasilla)?Jimmuldrow (talk) 16:22, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Huh? --Tom 16:35, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

After a 3RR violation, please come up with a better explanation of why Pain is not responsible for her hiring, firing and budget decisions than "huh?" or stop reverting.Jimmuldrow (talk) 17:05, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I am not sure what you are talking about. Is this in regard to the "rape kits" material? If so, please take it to the appropriate talk page, thanks, --Tom 17:06, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

An article that you have been involved in editing, Michael Q. Schmidt, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Q. Schmidt (2nd nomination). Thank you. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:51, 15 October 2008 (UTC) Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice?

Please post at talk, thanks. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 03:41, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Please visit the discussion page to cast your vote - is the article biased or neutral? Thanks. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 03:59, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Go Phils indeed! Coemgenus 20:32, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

One down, three to go. I AM STOKED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! --Tom 12:52, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Remember, Tom, WP:3RR applies to a 24 hour period, and 24 hours have not passed since your last reversion of the shopping paragraph, after which you wrote that you wouldn't revert in again for a day]. Because your last edit was your second violation of 3RR, please revert it. Thanks. --Evb-wiki (talk) 13:29, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey Evb-wiki, thanks for the heads up. I will try to do better. Thanks! --Tom 13:33, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure ehat you meant by Not a forum but he is entitled to express an opinion. You can't just delete it. Theresa Knott | The otter sank

Talk pages are not a forum for any comment. Users are allowed their opinion but that comment went well beyond that as the editor even admitted to. --Tom 18:03, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

But you removed everything he wrote! Theresa Knott | The otter sank 18:05, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I guess I could have left his vote and the reason I guess. The editor's snarkyness is pretty evident, but no big deal. --Tom 18:07, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

You guess you could have? Of course you must have. Removing people's votes is a big no no. Anyway. I reverted immediately so no harm done. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 18:09, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Done, see that page. --Tom 19:17, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I see you either edited or kind of "censored?" my entry on the talk page. That's been addressed here (viewing the short interaction above). I just am giving the "heads up" that you didn't really revert it to my original entry. You seem to have edited my entry once, then waited a while, THEN came back to entirely delete my entry. So when the other editor came to revert your deletion, your "sanitized" version was all that got restored. Moreover, I read your justification. Thanks for the attempt at justification, it's kind of annoying to see people running roughshod over Wikipedia without commentary on their edits.

In any case I looked up the rule on editing another's entries pertaining to "talk" pages: Do not strike out the comments of other editors without their permission. If you would be so kind as to take the trouble to follow the link, it seems to indicate what you did is absolutely fine, once you've asked for my permission, and then after I've given the permission. So all you need is my permission. Feel free to email me or enter my talk page with that request, I'll revert the entry to its original state for now. I'm quite interested to read a detailed treatise on how and why my entry should be either deleted or edited on the "Joe the Plumber" talk page. I'm certain your explanation will be absolutely fascinating if not compelling. --VictorC (talk) 23:14, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

See the second line in the link you provided. --Tom 23:24, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Last warning: stop editing other user's comments without their permission. The fact that you are doing it on the arguably most contentious talk page on the project is evidence you are trying to prove a WP:POINT. Do not do this again, or you will be blocked. Tan | 39 23:30, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Tan, I was removing libel, that is permitted. --Tom 23:32, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I have asked Victorcoutin for permission to remove part of his comment on the talk page, hope that works better. --Tom 23:38, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

You were on really thin ice about removing other users comments and then you removed an anonymous editor's comment on a talk page with this edit. I personally think that the edit was inflamatory and probably should have been removed, but it might have been wiser to confer with another editor before being so bold.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 16:56, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Why do you keep removing the cited quote on spinmeisters that's been there for months? Those are her own words and the citation is accurate. You haven't given a reason for your actions on the talk page. So I'm confused. Perhaps you can explain it to me here?

I thought it was because someone had messed up the citations. But I fixed the citations. They're accurate now. Please check the citations, and -- unless you have some other reason -- when you see they're accurate, will you undo your recent changes? Thanks!GreekParadise (talk) 15:32, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Are you there? Please respond. If you don't, I'll presume you made a mistake, didn't realize I had corrected the citations, and deleted it thinking it wasn't cited. And I'll return it. I'll give you another half hour or so to respond before I revert it back.GreekParadise (talk) 15:47, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, your 45 minutes are up. I'll revert back on the guess that, since you didn't tell us what you were doing in the edit summary or on the talk page, you were confused. You were right the first time that the quote wasn't in the citation. (The citations had been messed with.) But you were wrong the second time, because I had fixed the citations. Read the citation yourself and you'll see the quotation is accurate. And PLEASE go to the talk page and say what you want to do before editing this part again. Thanks!GreekParadise (talk) 16:21, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

That was discussed pretty fully. We don't need every quote in the main bio, maybe in the sub article. --Tom 16:23, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

You only comment when I change it back? What's with that? Tom, there are pages of archives and hundreds of lines there saying to include the quote. You can't just delete it without any discussion. If you want to make your case, make it on the talk page. But I warn you: this quote has been supported by a dozen wikipedia editors over a period of several months. And if you don't agree, we're going to formal arbitration because the long-standing widespread consensus is to include it. It's very very difficult to argue that Palin's position on the bridge to nowhere -- and a direct quote from Palin -- is somehow irrelevant to section on the bridge to nowhere in an article about Palin. Indeed, I would suggest this quote is more important than 90% of the rest of the stuff in the section. How about taking out the quote where she cancelled the bridge? Would you agree to that? Of course you wouldn't. Because both sides have to be shown, when she was for it and when she was against it. This quote is the heart of the section. Please do not remove it again without stating your wishes on the talk page. Thanks. (If you really want to delete it, start a new section on the talk page, state your reasons why, and I will argue with you there. I'll also reproduce the pages and pages of archives on the discussion of it before and the consensus by a very large number of wikieditors to include it.)GreekParadise (talk) 16:33, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Since you continue to ignore me, I have no choice but to create an entirely new section on the talk page calling you out by name for bad faith. I highly encourage you to work with me. Please respond. Please tell me the reasons for your edits. Please put them on the talk page. Why do you consistently refuse to answer me and even taken the really egregious step of ignoring my requests to work with you while willy-nilly reverting without any discussion on the talk page? Sigh, I guess I have no choice. But I think you'd prefer to work with me rather than have me bring the issue to the attention of the whole wiki-community. I'm writing the section now, but I won't publish it for fifteen minutes to see if you act in good faith and respond to me or not. Please don't waste my whole Saturday. Work WITH me, rather than against me.GreekParadise (talk) 16:58, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Your fifteen minutes are up. I must say it's disgusting how you ignore me here and then continually revert without saying why. "Too much" is not enough. You have to say WHY. OK, I'll post there and we'll continue our discussion there. I AM willing to work with you. I don't know why you refuse to work with me.GreekParadise (talk)

GreekParadise, I am not ignoring you, I am actually trying to do other things in real life. I am not sure how fair it is to give editors 15 or 45 minutes to respond, then say you are being ignored. This article isn't going anywhere. My point was, we don't need every quotation included in the main bio space. The bridges have their own sub article, which I havn't edited. Feel free to expand there. Thanks, --Tom 18:21, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

You did ignore me. I know you weren't away from the computer because you gave an immediate reversion the moment I changed it without any discussion. That's not only rude; it's against the spirit of wikipedia. What you don't realize is you are disturbing a long-standing consensus, making major changes without any discussion.GreekParadise (talk) 18:43, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

There are a large body of editors that support me on this. The last time the issue was discussed was here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sarah_Palin/Archive_27#WP:UNDUE At that time, Hobartimus tried to remove the spinmeister quote showing Palin's support for the bridge (that had already been there for more than a month as of then). Loodog, Aprock, JamesMLane, Evbwiki, and Buster7 weighed in to support the quote and it was left unchanged. I wasn't in that discussion. I was at an earlier discussion.

That discussion is here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sarah_Palin/Archive_26#Should_Palin.27s_2006_support_of_the_Bridges_to_Nowhere_be_Excised_Completely_from_the_Article_Bridge_Section.3F Here Collect removed it (after being undisturbed for two weeks). And Duuude007, jossi, JamesMLane, Homunq joined in with me to support its reinclusion.

These were not the only two times we discussed this. There were many before and many other editors in support. But I don't have the time and inclination to do an exhaustive historical research right now. Thus far, I count Collect, Hobartimus, and Threeafterthree that want it out and eleven of us (Loodog, Aprock, JamesMLane, Evbwiki, Buster7, Duuude007, jossi, JamesMLane, Homunq, and GreekParadise, Fcried) that want it in.

What you don't seem to understand is that by solely removing a direct quote by Palin to help her POV, you invite those on the other side to remove direct quotes by Palin that are favorable to her. Then the whole wiki-consensus unravels. I will ask you one more time to revert back or to explain your reasoning on the talk page. If you don't, I will. And if you revert again without discussion, we'll have to go to administrators.

If you have reasons, GIVE THEM. But simply stating "we don't need every quotation included" is not good enough. How would you feel if I deleted every quotation in the article? The question is WHY delete THIS quotation? Is it because you think it makes Palin look bad? Do you have any legitimate non-POV reason?

And your deletion of Palin's support for Knik Arm bridge you have not ONCE even ATTEMPTED to justify. Why are you removing it?

I am trying to do things in real life too. And frankly, you are ruining my Saturday. Now if you make the changes again, we'll have to go to administrators and formal arbitration and fill the talk page and all kinds of nasty stuff. All I'm asking is for you to provide a REASON for your changes. And if you can't do it, please revert back.

In the future, PLEASE don't make ANY major contentious repeated reversions without discussing them on the talk page first. Can I get you to promise me you'll do this?GreekParadise (talk) 18:43, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I seriously don't want to ruin your Saturday, this surely isn't worth that. Anyways, can we keep this at the article talk page, rather than here? Also, I was away from my computer, just as I was away from it for the past hour or so. --Tom 18:47, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

This kind of ill feeling can be avoided if you would state a proposed change and your reason for the change on the talk page prior to making a change. Or if you make a change -- and it's reverted -- again, go to the talk page with reasons. Repeatedly reverting without giving any reason gets you in trouble.GreekParadise (talk) 19:05, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

You have now reverted it three times. If you revert it a fourth time, I will sadly be required to report you to administrators for punishment and temporary banning from wikipedia. Please, for your own sake, do not revert again. State your reasons on the talk page. Thank you.GreekParadise (talk) 19:05, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

GP also reported. Collect (talk) 22:01, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I did not report you, Threeafterthree, so there's nothing to worry about. You did not make the fourth edit that would have been necessary for a report. And I appreciate that. In the future, please come to the talk page, suggest an edit, and give your reasons, particularly before reverting. It avoids much nastiness. And thanks for not ruining my Saturday.  :-D GreekParadise (talk) 01:10, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Tom, might I suggest a good faith edit to allow the Palin/SNL thing? I cleaned it up a bit yesterday (changed "spoofed" to "parodied" and removed some other POV term). I don't see that as particularly contentious, embarassing or harmful to the subject, and it's a pretty well-known bit nowadays. (I don't watch, as that's way past my bedtime now, but we'd be sticking our head in the sand not to recognize its "cultural significance".) Just a though. Fcreid (talk) 20:34, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Did you even read the Palin Talk Page? Did you just wait 24 hours to revert again?

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE don't delete the quote again without going to the talk page and getting a consensus for a change!!!!!

The consensus has been repeatedly NOT to delete the spinmeister quote. Did you even read this? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sarah_Palin&action=edit&section=10

Just YESTERDAY, Tvoz, and Jimmuldrow, and GreekParadise, and Fcreid, and Factcheckeratyourservice all said to leave this alone.

Did you read your own talk page above? Did you go to the cites I put there? I showed you eleven editors who in the past have been against deleting this quote over the past month. This quote has been there for two months and everytime someone suggests deleting it, the widespread consensus is to leave it in.

The sad thing is you haven't even given any reason, other than saying the bio's "too long." Why don't you be honest here? You don't want it because it makes Palin look bad, right? But you see, she said it, and you can't protect her from herself like that. In wikipedia, BOTH sides have to represented. You have to give a NPOV reason and you have to persuade other editors. It is YOU who have the burden of proof to remove a well-sourced relevant direct Palin quote.

But you have the unmitigated gall to just willy-nilly delete it again and again without even the decency to post on the talk page and let people know why. If you believe it should be gone, fine. Post on the talk page. Defend your position. Alert the 15 or so editors that disagree with you. Give them a chance to weigh in. Work hard to use reason to change the consensus. That's how wikipedia works.

But let me be blunt: you do NOT own wikipedia. This isn't a game. Do NOT delete again without going to the talk page and explaining why you want it deleted and getting support for the deletion.

Maybe you're a new editor. Maybe you don't realize the bad faith with which you're acting.

I've tried to be nice. I've tried to work with you. I would ask that you, in return, show a minimum of wiki-etiquette, so we can all calm down and REASON with each other.

You can fix this now. Revert your own edit. I'll give you several hours before I do so to show your good faith.

And then, if you want to delete it again, calmly go the board and defend your position why.GreekParadise (talk) 21:17, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

OK. It's been three and a half hours. No comment by you. I will revert. I will also issue a warning on the Sarah Palin talk page to you and others not to again delete it without coming on the talk page first, telling us what you're doing, and giving a reason. Please do not do it again.GreekParadise (talk) 00:46, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, there was no consensus to "remove per talk". Please contribute to the ongoing discussion on talk, but please don't unilaterally decide what the consensus will be before it is achieved. Read WP:CON. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 15:09, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

"please take this to talk": Please follow your own advice. There is ongoing discussion on talk. I and others (but I don't believe you) have contributed. So it has been taken to talk, and there is no consensus. Please cease edit warring. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 15:11, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

No consensus means the material should not be added. --Tom 15:18, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

That's your version of "no consensus". Again with all due respect, you seem to be a bit fuzzy on some of the facts. First you tell me to take it to talk when I had already done so and you had not. Now, you create your own version of WP:CON. Give me a Wikipedia policy that broadly states sourced information must be removed if there is no consensus to include it. Ward3001 (talk) 15:23, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

You're free to remove anything from your talk page, as I'm sure you'll remove it again. But putting your head in the sand doesn't negate to truth. And careful with words like "nonsense". Read WP:NPA You can disagree without making disparaging remarks. Ward3001 (talk) 15:30, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Whatever. --Tom 16:41, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

An article that you have been involved in editing, Kamau Kambon, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kamau Kambon (2nd nomination). Thank you. Trickrick1985 (talk) 00:21, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Just wondering.Jimmuldrow (talk) 02:26, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

huh? --Tom 14:01, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Note the article probation in effect at Barack Obama (see Talk:barack Obama for details).

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on 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. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:11, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I just filed (regretfully) a 3rr report here [1]--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 19:42, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey The Magnificent Clean-keeper, don't worry about it. I could use a week long wiki break :) Cheers! --Tom 20:42, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey, great! I was just about posting the following:

I'm honestly sorry and surpised about that outcome as I just commented at 3rrn. That was not what I had in mind. Well, what else can I say besides "cheer up" and take it as a chance to do other thinks like spending time at your personal live which is never a waste. Best regards in spite of the "trouble" I brought you, --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:51, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

No worries :) --Tom 21:33, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Here. You gotta have them so take them with you but share with family and friends.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:47, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

emmm, TU,--Tom 13:54, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I have removed a few unsourced cvategories and material. Thanks, --Tom 14:09, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

His status as African American was already sourced in the article (referring to his father: "one of the first African American elected officials in North Carolina since Reconstruction", followed by a citation), so the category deletions were unjustified. (And please don't try to argue that his father being African American does not qualify Butterfield as African American. That's a moot point on Wikipedia and society in general. Barack Obama's father was not even American and his mother was not African American, but no one has any problems identifying him as African American, so Butterfield is at least as African American as Obama). I am adding a citation for membership in CBC. Please do not delete again. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 19:13, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

If you have sources that call him African American, please provide them. otherwise, those categories should be removed. Thank you, --Tom 20:00, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Here you go. "Butterfield, an only child, was born in Wilson, North Carolina. His parents were Dr. G. K. Butterfield and Addie Davis Butterfield. Despite his phenotype, Butterfield has immediate African American ancestry and has self-identified as an African American his entire life." Tan | 39 20:08, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Tan, thanks for that source. Would you mind adding to that article if it isn't already there? Cheers! --Tom 20:21, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I also thank Tan for finding a source, although as I have already said, a source specifically identifying G.K. Butterfield as African American is unnecessary because it is already very well sourced that his father was African American. Please do not edit war over this issue. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 23:44, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

You have been blocked for a period of 1 week for edit warring on Barack Obama. It is essential that you are more careful to discuss controversial changes with the user in question, rather than simply revert them repeatedly: this applies even if you think or know you are correct. Edit warring helps nobody, and actually harms the page in question, and the encyclopedia. To contest this block please place {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Tiptoety ^talk 20:08, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Threeafterthree (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Hi Tiptoety, I wasn't aware that I had reverted more than 3 times in 24 hours. I understand that the 3rr is not a right to revert 3 times, but I wasn't going to revert again. There seems to be an ongoing dispute with naming conventions for info boxes. I will try to stay out of the mix for the time being and would appreciate being unblocked or even a shorty block rather than a week. Thank you in advance, --Tom 20:16, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Having been blocked for this before, and relatively recently, you should have been more self-aware. The block length is appropriate given your history of this, and I hope you can take the block time to refresh yourself of our policies and that you will strive for collegial editing in the future — Fritzpoll (talk) 20:22, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

There is a wikimedia meetup in Providence on Dec. 13. --mikeu ^talk 15:19, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

That's cool. Thanks for the heads up. Details to follow I guess? --Tom 14:09, 17 November 2008 (UTC)