User talk:Pi zero: Difference between revisions

This is starting to look pretty good. I'm unsure how you'd work on using JavaScript to jazz it up and have content put in as you go along; but, that's the obvious next step.

I appreciate what you're saying in the edit summary for the inv. pyramid page, but I'd struggle to see a way to trim that back. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 18:13, 11 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

The technical challenges of a js version are formidable; I can't even prove it's feasible (though I have some ideas to pursue). And a purely non-js version would be needed anyway for graceful degradation, so I figured we should get on with it.

Yeah, the last panel is bursting at the seams. I'd been struggling with my notes, having trouble seeing it as a whole, and decided to put it on-wiki and let my mind relax for a bit. Then I can view it as a purely external thing. --Pi zero (talk) 19:08, 11 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

I've put together a few questions on User:Ragettho/Interview proposal for National Archives Wikipedian in Residence. Feel free to add any other questions you might have. Ragettho (talk) 02:01, 12 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi,

Somehow a sentence in the text was left out in subsequent revisions. So the whole pullquote is in the text. Hope you don't mind that I added it back. Best wishes, Mattisse (talk) 16:20, 13 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

• Yeah, I missed that in reviewing. I sighted the replacement. I knew it was all correct. :p Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 16:34, 13 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

It's a good quote; I'm glad to see it's squared now (and I'll try to remember to look for partials like that when double-checking long pull-quotes in future).

I'm limited in what I can verify for review on this article, since I can't access NYT. --Pi zero (talk) 16:51, 13 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Just curious. Why can't you access the NYT? I get five free article views per week (I think that's the number.) I thought everyone did. Not you? Mattisse (talk) 17:13, 13 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

My difficulties with NYT come and go; I usually don't even try anymore, tbh. They're probably some mixture of others on the same dynamically assigned IP address accessing NYT recently (thus using up weekly, or monthly or whatever it is, allotment), and my principled (not to say stiff-necked) aversion to allowing commercial news sites to set cookies on my browser. --Pi zero (talk) 17:46, 13 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Why would I do this?[1] Because Red Blood Sandman told me to. He said it was necessary to preserve the history of my article edits. Is there another way, so I all my edits and hard word on the article is preserved in the article? Otherwise it becomes a paste job. Since no one answered my question on how to do a merge, (I have no idea) and since you pointed out the critical time limit in a published article, I followed what advice I understood. No more was offered. Best wishes, Mattisse (talk) 08:10, 25 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

The unpublished article gets redirected to the published one, so that the edit history of the unpublished one can be retained (as the history of a redirect) without anything but the published article being visible (by default) to the outside world.

Regarding the water cooler thread. I composed a post on how to do an edit merge, which took me a while because I was unsure what needed explanation. There was an edit conflict: you had posted saying (I thought) that you understood after all what you'd been told to do, and were going to do it. This left me even less sure of what, if anything, needed explaining; and I could imagine either endlessly revising my comment to try to catch up with an active water-cooler thread, or creating a three-legged race between my comments and your article revisions to do what you'd thought I'd intended to say. So I decided to say less rather than more. --Pi zero (talk) 13:47, 25 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

This is not a significant change.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:09, 25 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

It is. Copyediting counts as a "significant change", which is not allowed 24 hours after an article has been published. アンパロ ^{Io ti odio!} 19:11, 25 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

And where is that stated?--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:12, 25 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

It's not stated anywhere, it's common sense. Copyediting affects the original structure of the article, that's it. アンパロ ^{Io ti odio!} 19:13, 25 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

"Minor corrections such as spelling are acceptable but the addition of information which alters the balance of the article should be reversed." - This has not been done.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:14, 25 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

There's absolutely no valid reason for the revert.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:18, 25 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

It wasn't an edit that would be allowed on an archived article. --Pi zero (talk) 19:24, 25 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

The page is not archived. This is a late edit, it says in the directions: "copyedit as required".--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:26, 25 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

We don't fiddle with the wording after the 24-hour post-publication horizon. The horizon was established at 24 hours by a consensus discussion on the water cooler; I'm thinking it was in the first half of 2010. This is the way other articles have been treated since then. The phrasing of WN:ARCHIVE is not precise, failing to make particularly clear where the line is, only describing bounds on both sides (fixing spelling is on one side of the line, adding new information is on the other side of the line); in my experience, we draw the line fairly close to the "fixing spelling" side of that band. --Pi zero (talk) 19:41, 25 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

No information was added. What is the big deal? This is preventing the article from being improved.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:48, 25 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Each news article is a snapshot in time. The time that it's a snapshot of has to have an end somewhere, and we've chosen to set that at 24 hours after publication. It seems there's a bit of a Catch-22 here, in that the less significant it is, the less of a problem disallowing it should be, and the more significant it is, the stronger the case for disallowing it.

You may wish to pose this as a question for community discussion on the policy water cooler, and perhaps get a larger sampling of perspectives on the matter. The article isn't going to be changing its status anytime soon, as it's well past the 24-hour threshold and several days away from being archived, so it seems to me there's comfortably time to invite other members of the community to weigh in. --Pi zero (talk) 20:20, 25 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Sorry. I'll be more careful next time. Billim1 (talk) 18:55, 28 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hey Pi zero. Firstly, thank you so much for your vote of confidence during my reviewer nomination, and also for the advice and mentoring you had given me preceding that nomination! I look forward to working with you more. :)

Thanks for the astute comment you left on the Water cooler regarding my NARA article. It really is great food for thought, especially now when one of the persons quoted in the article raises concerns about the way her statements were used in the article. Your comment speaks to the importance of the balancing of two opposing interests: those of the source trying to communicate an idea, and those of the journalist trying to objectively disseminate that information to others. In this particular case, it seems that the balance may have been breached in some way, and I hope that the situation shall resolve itself shortly. Indeed, I've already left a comment on Talk:Wikinews interviews US National Archives Wikipedian in Residence, and I would appreciate your input. (or the input of anyone interested, for that matter) Regardless of the outcome, there certainly is much to learn from this incident. Cheers! Ragettho (talk) 03:47, 1 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Could you take a look at Congressman Thad McCotter to run for U.S. President? It's very time-sensitive and hope it can be published as soon as possible. Thanks.--William S. Saturn (talk) 20:11, 1 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the review. I added two new sources.--William S. Saturn (talk) 00:38, 2 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

It says on the source that he was elected in 2002, which means he would start his term in 2003.--William S. Saturn (talk) 01:08, 2 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Okay. --Pi zero (talk) 01:57, 2 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

{{replied|User talk:Ragettho}}Ragettho (talk) 03:52, 2 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Can you please review South Sudan gains independence? I would be grateful if you could do that for me. --Rayboy8 (my talk) (my contributions) 23:08, 9 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Unfortunately, probably not; I doubt I'll be able to mount the time and intensity of mental focus. It's at least possible that, later this evening, I can take a look and maybe do some copyediting on it, but don't anticipate that would expand into a full review. Sorry. --Pi zero (talk) 23:45, 9 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for changing the headline on China’s consumer prices rise to a three-year high in June as food prices soar 14.4%. (I seem to have a problem with headlines!) Best wishes, Mattisse (talk) 17:53, 11 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hello. If I wanted to create a category on sex, would it be named "sex" or "sexuality"? Also, would the category be split between two parent categories — Health or Culture and entertainment — similar to what we did with the Royalty category?

Also, if we are to follow the decision to delete the "Conservatism" category, it would seem that Libertarianism also has to be deleted. But could we redirect the category to a "Libertarian Party" page instead?

Thanks in advance. I figured that you would be the expert on these matters. (i.e. expert on categories, but if you, good sir, are also the expert on libertarianism or sex, then I congratulate you on being a stud) =P Ragettho (talk) 20:57, 11 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Sex — Immediate reaction, I don't think we should have a category on sex; it would be fine-grained and encyclopedic (er, the category, that is). The category wouldn't be maintainable in the long run, because people wouldn't think of it when "cat'ing up" an article. If there is a way to make categories like that work, we haven't invented the techniques (and perhaps technology) for it yet.

Libertarianism —

• Although I imagine Libertarianism will eventually go away, I'm in no hurry about it. Partly that's because I'm moving very slowly and carefully ("deliberately") on major decisions about the category hierarchy; but also, Libertarianism is less urgently problematic than Conservatism: it's both better defined ideologically, and less mainstream, so its inclusion criteria are a critical bit less nebulous, making it more manageable.
• In the long run, I envision separate categories for individual political party organizations (most are specific to particular countries).
  • At the moment I'm just getting in to creating categories for legislative bodies; I wouldn't care to take on a second mega-task while I haven't even found my pace on the first one yet.
  • Perhaps —brainstorming— there'd be a higher-level Category:Libertarian parties, which would replace the current Category:Libertarianism.

--Pi zero (talk) 22:40, 11 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

I'm fine with your approach to Libertarianism, but I disagree with you on Sex. I think a Sex category (or at least one under a different or more specific name) is viable for articles such as Study shows long-term couples more satisfied with relationships and sex lives. And I also think that this is an easy category to come up with when writing an article. Ragettho (talk) 01:15, 12 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

I'll think on that overnight, and get back to you about it hopefully sometime tomorrow. Some careful planning at the outset might make a significant difference... --Pi zero (talk) 01:41, 12 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hey, do you know why no one is reading China's consumer prices rise to a three-year high in June as food prices soar 14.4 percent? Can't figure it out. Thanks, Mattisse (talk) 21:45, 11 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

(I think I figured it out!) Mattisse (talk) 21:48, 11 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Could you please review News Corp withdraws BSkyB bid? It is a breaking news story --Rayboy8 (my talk) (my contributions) 14:43, 13 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Sorry. I blew it, I suppose, in that I should have used {{Under review}}. --Pi zero (talk) 17:18, 13 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Please contact me..here or via email...kovalcj@gmail.com THANKS,,,DEMETRI 66.152.153.36 (talk) 13:36, 14 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

You're welcome to say here what you have to say. --Pi zero (talk) 14:11, 14 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Could you maybe take a look at Ron Paul announces he will not seek House re-election in 2012; will focus on U.S. presidential campaign? It may look like there's a great deal of sources to go through, but I assure you, the story is covered by the first and second. The third shows only the margin of victory in the 2010 race, the fourth shows the personal facts, the fifth shows the percentage won in the 1988 presidential election and the last discusses the nickname Dr. No. Thank you.--William S. Saturn (talk) 04:44, 15 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Bawolff is on vacation or something for nearly a month. Since he's on ArbCom right now I suspect that he wouldn't mind being renommed, if he were here. Can people be nommed in absentee? Gopher65_talk 15:59, 15 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Yup, I'd second it:). Gopher65_talk 14:37, 16 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

It appears I don't pay much attention. :p —Mikemoral♪♫ 19:46, 15 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

No worries. :-)  --Pi zero (talk) 20:00, 15 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Would you be willing to publish Obama raises $35M re-election funds from 244 campaign 'bundlers' as it is about to go stale technically, since William S. Saturn said he evaluated it as publishable? See Talk:Obama raises $35M re-election funds from 244 campaign 'bundlers'. He is being overly cautious (in my opinion) in not publishing it himself, since I asked him a question about the article. Best wishes, Mattisse (talk) 16:49, 17 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Sorry if I screwed things up by adding names to the article and the NYTimes source. I didn't realize you were editing it. Should I remove my additions? They really aren't necessary. Mattisse (talk) 18:25, 17 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks so much for your careful work. I'm glad that you removed the new additions, as it was a misguided attempt on my part to keep the article from going stale and, IMO, actually detracted from the article. What's a few more names! Regards, Mattisse (talk) 20:40, 17 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

I'm glad I could be of help. --Pi zero (talk) 21:02, 17 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks very much for the interest and the kind words about me, but I'm not interested in being a candidate this time around. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 14:13, 18 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Right-o. I figured it'd serve as a holding action till we heard back from you (and it did :-). --Pi zero (talk) 15:20, 18 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Please, leave me off this page, Wikinews:Arbitration Committee/2011 election/Nominations and voting, it messes up the Table of Contents as to how many candidates there are. -- Cirt (talk) 16:22, 20 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

I was never "withdrawn", as I never accepted in the first place. Please, I request you just leave me off the page. Thanks. -- Cirt (talk) 20:52, 20 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I have been working on the arrests etc in the phone hacking case, Arrests, resignations as probe into Britain's phone hacking scandal widens as you suggested on the Rebekah Brooks resigns from News International talk page. I am unsure what to do. Should it be under "Breaking news"? Developments seem to be happening quickly and there is still an article in the waiting-to-be-published queue relating to it, "News Corp's Les Hinton resigns". Best wishes, Mattisse (talk) 15:44, 18 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hey apologies if this is inappropriate, but I'm working on a new collaborative journalism project. We have short news updates, combined with longer, more in-depth articles for context. The updates are posted by admins and the context articles are openly editable. We use a custom combination of wordpress and mediawiki. I was curious what some of the wikinews editors though. If you are interested in checking it out, please let me know. Josh

There is such a thing as a "proper" lede but sometimes proper is not always best. In this case Rebekah Brooks' arrest was the "kick off" event and was the first among a cascade of related events. Sometimes the lede needs to draw the reader into the article and not just list the events in a table of contents manner. Also, the death of an ill, drug and alcohol abusing person is unfortunately not unusual. And there has been no sources that I have found so far that seem to think it was connected, other than Hoare was a figure in the history of the scandal. Just my opinion. Best wishes, Mattisse (talk) 21:17, 19 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

If you had one sentence to tell someone what the article was about, it would be actively deceptive to give them a sentence saying Brooks was arrested. That's what the first sentence should do. There's nothing in the nature of this article —I'm being specific here, not slavishly applying some rule— there's nothing in the nature of this article that constitutes a reason to undermine this valuable function of the first sentence. --Pi zero (talk) 22:10, 19 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for responding. A response is always appreciated. Regards, Mattisse (talk) 23:07, 19 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Sorry I couldn't respond sooner; when you left your note I was on a grocery expedition. --Pi zero (talk) 23:55, 19 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Its odd that all these people are appearing out of the woodwork to vote for arbcom canditates (and I can't find a single arbcom case here - where are they?) when rarely if even do any of the people running or voting ever write or review articles. What gives? What is the point of this project anyway? I truly don't get it or I wouldn't be asking. Is the point of this project to get elected to arbcom? Best wishes, Mattisse (talk) 23:02, 20 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Well, I'm sure you know BarkingFish, Diego Grez, dendodge, Pi zero, and Gryllida, since they're all fairly active on the project. Here are the others:

• Tom Morris is an occasional contributor, writing about 1 article a month on average.
• Skenmy isn't very active anymore, but he use to be.
• Brian New Zealand (not Brian McNeil, AKA Brianmc, that's someone else) has been on the project since pretty much the moment it was created. Here he is a Checkuser, Oversighter and Bureaucrat, and he's also an Admin on en.Wikipedia, as well as being active on several other projects. Because he's active on other projects, he doesn't spend as much time on en.Wikinews as he'd like to anymore, but he's still around, and still contributes in various ways.
• Bawolff doesn't write articles and never has. He also doesn't copyedit, and rarely reviews. This is because, to paraphrase him "I'm not a good writer". However, he maintains a great deal of Wikinews' behind the scenes custom tools and software. Many of the extensions, various tools, gadgets, and complex templates were created by Bawolff, and are upgraded and fixed by him as necessary. He's probably the single most indispensable person on the project.

Then there is me. I haven't been active for the past few months, but even when I was I rarely wrote articles, preferring to contribute in other ways instead (reviewing, copyediting, helping newbies along, etc). As I said in my ArbCom self-nom, I only ran this time around because (at the time) only 5 people were running for the six person committee, and that just wasn't enough.

As for what ArbCom is, it is Wikinews' Arbitration Committee. It exists to act as, essentially, a supreme court for the Wikinews community, acting as a final place to go if disputes can't be resolved in any other way. It's basically there to act as a babysitter if two people throw a tantrum at each other, and can't resolve their issue(s) by themselves in a civilized fashion. English Wikinews ArbCom has rarely been used, because most disputes can be solved in other ways. Gopher65_talk 23:32, 20 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

If ArbCom is rarely used (and I haven't been able to find a single case) why are all these editors who do little if anything to contribute to the project on a consistent basis, all heated up and ready to run for and vote for Arbcom when they can't be bothered to contribute systematically to the project? Just wondering as it seems very peculair and really stands out when aricles (the few that are writton) go stale.Much more intrest in Arbcom canditatates than in actually contributing to the project. No wonder wikinews seems to be dying. Best wishes, Mattisse (talk) 00:41, 21 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

First, don't ever criticize someone for having limited time to contribute to a volunteer wiki. That's an untenable (because fundamentally unfair) position to take. Sorry to be blunt. Both writing and peer-review are massive tasks, and people who care deeply about the project and donate all the labor they can, can easily not be in a position to write or review atm, but be able to reach the frankly much lower threshold to carefully think through an ArbCom vote.

ArbCom is sometimes used, but rarely for a full-blown case hearing. There have only been three in its history, two shortly after its creation and, last year, a smaller follow-up to one of those. It's believed, by me among others, that being secure in the knowledge that ArbCom is there, and that it has the authority to resolve disputes, makes situations less likely to escalate to a full-blown ArbCom hearing. The first two hearings established its authority. Arbs individually and collectively do perform less-than-full-blown-hearing dispute resolution from time to time. --Pi zero (talk) 01:48, 21 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Ah! That explains a lot. I have very limited time also. What makes you think I don't? So the fact that I pressure myself and take time out of my busy day to prioritize and contribute here actually puts me in a lower class and so I get a lecture. You have clarified much. Thanks, Mattisse (talk) 21:25, 21 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

How much or little time you have for the project is irrelevant to the inappropriateness of your criticizing others for not having more free time than they do. Nor did I have any opinion about your time availability, nor did I speculate on it. And I see no reason you would think I had such an opinion; the source of your misapprehension is obscure to me. --Pi zero (talk) 22:46, 21 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Well, you have definitely clarified things. I will prioritize my time more appropriately as others have done. It certainly brings no respect here to actually write articles. That is clear. Thank you for setting me straight. I had some stupid idea of trying really hard to make this site work. I appreciate your honestly in setting me straight. Thanks, Mattisse (talk) 22:53, 21 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Writing articles earns respect. Insulting others for not having time to write articles does not earn respect. --Pi zero (talk) 23:05, 21 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

I did not insult. I asked a question. You interpreted it as an insult, you go out of your way to put me in a bad light and so I get a lecture. I was being "sarcastic" which is fine in your book. Sorry that you didn't "get it". Mattisse (talk) 18:18, 26 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Actually, as is my wont, I go out my way to view you objectively, assessing your strengths and weaknesses with dispassion. Among the latter, I have come to appreciate increasingly of late that you under-perceive negative skew in your own comments. I attempted to offer a helpful remark in that regard yesterday, which is perhaps my own entrenched optimism at work since, for better or worse, perception threshold is generally almost impossible to address from the outside. Fwiw, it's here. --Pi zero (talk) 20:43, 26 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Would you please explain policy and procedure on this issue? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Stapler80 (talk • contribs) 00:06, 22 July 2011

I've commented there. --Pi zero (talk) 00:15, 22 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for a unbiased review. I really appreciate that. What you said makes perfect sense. The other reviewers made no sense to me. Should I abandon the article? I have spent a lot of effort.Stapler80 (talk) 00:18, 22 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Yes, it should be abandoned. It's not going to work out, I'm afraid.

(BTW, if William S. Saturn is correct that you are the person the article is about, you do have a clear conflict of interest. But the article would not achieve publishability in any case.) --Pi zero (talk) 00:33, 22 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Do you think the level of civility was proper? I feel I have been bullied. I mean, it is hard for me to distinguish if your opinion is now based on the article or on the reaction of your peers and a posible fear on your part of hurting their sensibilities. They turned the conversation away from the article onto a suspicion of the author's identity. I see no clear consensus.

I don't think there's been a problem with incivility here. News requires predominance of candor and brevity, so neither of those should be taken as incivility. I've been working especially hard on my explanations in this matter, and if my explanations have been helpful to you, I'm glad.

I don't actually know why William S. Saturn believes you are the person in the article, so can't speak to that point atm, but my reviews of the article, and my advice, are not based on that. (I only mentioned it to offer a clarification of policy.)

And although I like to get along with people, I would choose, and have chosen, my principles over popularity. Wikinewsies do tend to be idealists (as do, I think, Wikimedians generally). -Pi zero (talk) 01:30, 22 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

I placed a request for arbitration seeking community consensus. I am not sure a I made it the proper way. Would you please check if it was properly presented? And if there are anything I missed. Thanks Stapler80 (talk) 01:51, 22 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Actually, the page you edited isn't for community consensus, it's for the ArbCom, the court of last resort. So that page wouldn't properly be your next step anyway.

I'll be honest. Regarding the questioning of your identity, I see no case for you. Reviewers are responsible for protecting, among other things, the reputation of the project; and if we published an article somebody wrote about themself, that would severely damage our reputation. Some of us here choose to remain anonymous, for one reason or another; but if, say, I were to write an article and a reviewer had a credible concern that I might have a COI due to my real-world identity, I'd find a way to reassure them (and I'd find a way to do so without publicly revealing my identity).

As for incivility, I don't see it. Folks have criticized your work bluntly, and I've used a different style of criticism than some, but that doesn't make their style incivil, just abrupt. Ruthless criticism of one's work is in the nature of news writing. The assertions about you (that I've noticed) have been policy-relevant assertions regarding your identity; true or false, I don't see them as incivil.

I don't recommend pursuing this further; there's nothing useful to accomplish by it. But if you wish to do so, I'll consider what route would be best. --Pi zero (talk) 02:53, 22 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

I concur with PiZero on this. The fact that you're saying a "theory" is going to court in the title is just the start of a downhill bob-sled ride into poor grammar, and non-news-style writing. A suspected Conflict of Interest is trivial in comparison to the other faults when I last looked at this, or the "dubious" emails to support it. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 09:29, 22 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

I am not evil. I am not a conspirator. I forced the community to put aside personal attacks and achieve civility. The whole COI attack was abusive. The charge that "case is closed" was abusive. I feel vindicated by the Delete process. But I will pursue arbitration Stapler80 (talk) 20:26, 22 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

┌─────────┘
Again, the ArbCom case was rejected. —Mikemoral♪♫ 20:38, 22 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

I request that you no longer defend the use of sarcasm. It is hostile and causes a poisoned atmosphere. See tht dictionary definition: [2] Sarcasm - "harsh or bitter derision or irony." also "a sharply ironical taunt; sneering or cutting remark: a review full of sarcasms." Mattisse (talk) 18:10, 26 July 2011 (UTC). I would think you would want to decrease the making of sarcastic remarks rather than defend them. Respectfully, Mattisse (talk) 18:15, 26 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hey! Do you have any advice to give here? Ragettho (talk) 06:15, 2 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

This is a direct quote from one of the sources in the article.

"The Senate, where support is stronger, is expected to take up the bill on Tuesday." from President Obama: Deal reached on debt crisis given as a source in the article.

I believe this is important because the article gives details of the expected House vote but not the Senate vote expected on Tuesday. It seems to indicate that the Senate has already voted, which is not true. Mattisse (talk) 13:52, 2 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

The current version of that source does not contain such a quote, as best I can see; it's not in the text (sanity check: string search for keywords such as "Tuesday"), there's no next page, and the only video I see in it is Obama's statement. Perhaps you're looking at an earlier version of the page (or even inadvertently a different page)? (Both have happened to me, at one time or another.) --Pi zero (talk) 14:38, 2 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

It is in the current version. That is where I got the quote. Doing a search for "Tuesday" doesn't work. You have to actually read the article. It is in a box near the bottom right, under August 1, just as it was before. The article has not changed. Mattisse (talk) 15:15, 2 August 2011 (UTC)Reply