User talk:Obamafan70

This user has published peer-reviewed articles in academic journals.

		The Socratic Barnstar
		for your work in saving a featured article List of Heisman Trophy winners Guiltlessgecko (talk) 13:19, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		I was so impressed with how you handled original research on the Silent Hill film article that I have awarded you this barnstar to display! First, you found two scholarly articles to add to support something that was going to be deleted. Then, you removed the interpretations section completely which had no citations and was just a POV excuse. Well done for diligence! Kcchief915 (talk) 21:31, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Wow

User notes for Talk Page

• Please be polite.
• Please assume good faith.
• Please note the page for reference.
• Please no ad hominems.

EXAMPLE:

Yes we can't!!!! LOL gee, nice screen name, Borack Hussein.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Sfnativesfortruuth (talk • contribs) 23:27, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! Obamafan70 (talk) 21:23, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

ROWR!

My main interests include:

• the Barack Obama administration & health care reform
• the French Revolution
• the Louvre
• Tahiti
• Ecuador
• Nazca Lines
• Easter Island
• Peru
• Vivaldi
• Santorini
• Egypt
• Thomas Paine

Meek!Meek!Meek!

I contribute greatly to the following topics:

• Music: Vivaldi
• Literary Intellectual: Thomas Paine
• Parks and Recreation tv show on NBC, Sweetums episode about corn syrup in candy manufacturing
• college football: college football playoff debate, Bowl Championship Series, College Football Performance Awards, Boise State football, mythical national championship
• The Office tv show on NBC, Erin Hannon, character in later seasons, Dinner Party episode
• economics: Economics, Monopoly
• science: Scientific method, Stephen Hawking

Thanks!

Hey Obamafan70, I'm Hunter Kahn. I've been doing a lot of work over the last few months on Parks and Recreation-related articles, and I just wanted to thank you for your plot summary additions at Sweetums (Parks and Recreation). That was extremely fast, given that the article just aired a few minutes ago! lol. Well done, your contributions are very much appreciated! — Hunter Kahn 02:48, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks much, Obamafan70! I also appreciate your contributions to the articles! — Hunter Kahn 14:47, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Haiti

Hi. Feel free to make your change again. I hopped on the vandal right as you made your edit. Just a coincidence there. Dawnseeker2000 22:37, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you.Obamafan70 (talk) 22:38, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Silent Hill

You're a peach, thanks for the Barnstar. Made any headway on finding some more Lovecraft stuff for us? I still think we could use that article you found over on the game's article. I've been distracted by gathering sources for a Book article in desperate need of an upgrade so I ahven't been doing any real research of plot drafting for films for a bit. Millahnna (mouse)talk 15:57, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Your contributions to WP are appreciated.....With respect to the SH article, I (more or less) stopped looking for Lovecraft references once I found the IMDB link that Director Gans created a film with "Lovecraft" in the title. That pretty much solidified the plausibility (to me) that he would use similar references and themes in future films of the same genre. My interest in the subject was purely academic; I don't have necessarily (nor always) have your care and patience for improving WP. Obamafan70 (talk) 17:43, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for the barnstar! Quite a surprise, but very much appreciated! — Hunter Kahn 03:21, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Strong efforts merit recognition. You work tirelessly, and you get information available very quickly. I doubt there are any national brands that work more quickly.Obamafan70 (talk) 16:49, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

Thanks for the barnstar. You may have noticed that on my talk page, I am accepting Tigers.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:56, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Well-deserved recognition. Feel free to add yourself one of those lovely statues on my behalf as of today. Obamafan70 (talk) 18:02, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Criticism of Atheism

Just curious (as I only watch the page out of topical interest and rarely edit there), what undue weight problem do you think the page has? Oh and hello again. :D Millahnna (talk) 17:32, 31 August 2010 (UTC) i added a source and changed what you thought was unbiased i aslo used a oxford ENGLAND ENGLISH dictionary for the corrections and yet you still see it as vandalism why are you placing in your own biased viewpoint —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.110.10.177 (talk) 18:09, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I can barely make sense of whatever it is you wrote. Also, you obviously have not read WP:CIVIL as per the request....not to mention that the grammar and spelling in the entry is completely unacceptable. Also, I might add that if you don't start WP:AGF very soon, you are going to start running into a lot of problems -- admins are typically less patient than I am. Obamafan70 (talk) 18:24, 4 October 2010 (UTC

i would be willing to come to a equal conclusion where i get to keep the edit yet its satisfys your bias as you argument of vandelism does not fit in with what wikipedia counts as vandalism. Reverting obvious vandalism – edits which any well-intentioned user would immediately agree constitute vandalism, such as page blanking and adding offensive language.

I apologize for being so frank, but your grammar and logical reasoning make it impossible for me to continue this conversation with you. Please discuss this on the TALK PAGE of the article with the other editors who have supported the motion. Obamafan70 (talk) 17:59, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

?

An Obamafan coming to the aid of a Bush? Now that is truly reaching across the aisle. Drmies (talk) 17:59, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Haha...good one! :) Though to be fair, I'm not really a fan of his. It was just a suitable moniker given my satisfaction with having an intelligent -- or at least reasonably so -- president...and a non-white president, which was sort of a symbolic social victory for this country. Also, I'm not really coming to Bush's aid (I haven't provided him any legal advice); just trying to keep the article sound for the sake of public interest. Thanks for the humor....I needed it today! Obamafan70 (talk) 18:05, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Reggie Bush

Just to be sure, the word "is" is singular where as "are" is plural. If that proves to be the case would it not be the awards (plural) are in jeopardy?

You are correct that:

1. "Is" = singular
2. "Are" = plural

However, the grammar correction concerns subject-verb agreement....

The status of the many awards is uncertain.

The phrase "of the many awards" is a prepositional phrase. It can be removed from the sentence, and it will remain a sentence.

Notice the difference when used this way....

The many awards are uncertain.

Here, awards is the subject. The verb is are.

Also, please use the 4 tildes to sign your name. Thanks, Obamafan70 (talk) 04:20, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Denard Robinson

Thanks for the note, and also for the citation on the Performance Award. Glad you understand on the "Batman" thing. The NBC announcer did make a reference to Rich Rodriguez having found his "Batman" yesterday. There's also a published story today referring to Robinson as the new "Superman." He'll likely be picking up lots of occasional nicknames like that. But "Shoelace" has been his nickname since his pee wee football days. Cbl62 (talk) 16:01, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Perfectly reasoned. Obamafan70 (talk) 17:58, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome

But that wasn't Bsuorangecrush. That was an IP user 24.158.86.55, who not surprising is based in a place called Johnson City, Tennessee. I think Bsuorangecrush generally tries to do the right thing. —Ute in DC (talk) 21:29, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Great -- Thanks for the clarification. Obamafan70 (talk) 21:55, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes we can't!!!! LOL gee, nice screen name, Borack Hussein.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sfnativesfortruuth (talk • contribs) 23:27, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

1. This talk page specifically calls for no ad hominems, regardless of how humorous.
2. You make it awfully difficult to assume WP:AGF.
3. Please read WP:CIVIL before addressing me again.
4. I am carefully placing you under surveillance for vandalism on Reggie Bush.Obamafan70 (talk) 00:41, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Quoted: MDSanker, thank you for using WP and your dedication (specifically) to improving college football articles. A number of your fellow editors have expressed concerns about your editing, and I just wanted to provide a few of my own comments -- both for conflict resolution purposes and to better WP....I've read the series of exchanges between you and JWeiss11 and Ute in DC, and I think it would be beneficial if you re-read WP:AGF, WP:OWN, and WP:CIVIL before your next edit. We all value your hard work and commitment to improving WP, but none of us is above protocol, and some of your recent edits that you may violated a few WP policies. I'm not an administrator, I'm not here to personally attack you; I'm just here to remind you that Wikipedia is a collaborative project effort and to be a bit more mindful of that. Thank you, Obamafan70 (talk) 19:42, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

MDSanker, I noticed you deleted the above statement....I don't see why you would be opposed to my leaving constructive criticism for you as a user. As I mentioned, WP is a collaborative project, a process -- by deleting my comment, it seems as if you are flippantly dismissing its value to you as user, which I find worrisome, since I'm only trying to help. Obamafan70 (talk) 20:27, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I deleted the post however I keep it. Don't take it personel, I was going to rely with a thank you for your help. However I had something come up and untille now did not get back on the internet. MDSanker(talk) 22:10, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your direct response. Again, I'm just trying to help resolve conflicts as a third-party and of course better WP in the process.Obamafan70 (talk) 04:38, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I was wrong in a lot of thing as I have read over what you sent me. I was taking the pages as my creation or like it was just mine for everyone to read and not bother with. I was very wrong in that. I did not think about the cut and paste of the AP material. I will watch it in the from now on. So ageain thank you for your help.

MDSanker(talk) 22:10, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

The act of contrition is admirable. Happy editing, Obamafan70 (talk) 16:37, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Reggie Bush

Per your request, I reverted the tense edits I made in the Reggie Bush article. Thanks for the heads up. Appreciate it. --AuthorAuthor (talk) 05:54, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Wow. Thank you for "The Resilient Barnstar" badge. Unexpected and much appreciated! --AuthorAuthor (talk) 06:46, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. Your service to keeping WP sound is admirable. Obamafan70 (talk) 16:34, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit Semi Protected

Hi, when answering edit semi-protected requests (like when you did at Talk:Reggie Bush) remember to change the {{edit semiprotected}} into {{tlx|edit semi-protected}} to remove the request from the open requests category. Thanks, Stickee (talk) 05:58, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the barnstar and thanks again for your recent helpful mediation. Jweiss11 (talk) 23:17, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

The barnstar you awarded me was a pleasant surprise and I really appreciate it. Thanks!  Gongshow ^Talk 07:05, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I second that - thanks for the star, much appreciated. --David Shankbone 17:48, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Newcomers

This is just a very friendly reminder not to bite the newcomers (as here). Marking the edit as unconstructive would have been sufficient, along with a user warning for unsourced content. Thanks for reverting the vandalism! Jess_talk|_edits 23:44, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the friendly reminder to make friendly reminders. Is what I wrote really that biting? I don't see anything there inconsistent with WP:CIVIL or WP:AGF. If it is, I apologize, and I will try to make a better effort in the future. This doesn't justify rudeness -- but sometimes it's most effective to just call a spade a spade....the grammar there, for instance, really was horrendous. But I digress...thank you for the consciousness raising effort; my intentions were only to maximize the usefulness of WP. Obamafan70 (talk) 00:15, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

No worries :) The thing about grammar could certainly be toned down (keep in mind the user could be a non-native speaker), but I was mostly referring to the last part: "please go play in the sandbox before editing here again". To a new editor, this could be interpreted as "you're not welcome here", which is not the message we want to be sending to newbies. The content submitted was definitely unconstructive, but it's easy to imagine a user who believed strongly about that material, legitimately hoping to improve WP by including it. This just demonstrates an unfamiliarity with editing policies (particularly WP:V), not intent to vandalize, which is luckily very easy to rectify with a friendly "unsourced material" user warning. My particular editing habits (which are by no means exemplary) are to simply mark reverts with a neutral comment relating to a policy, such as "unsourced material", "content removal with no edit summary", etc... and then issue a cut and dry uw (which hopefully reflects community consensus on wording) on the talk page. Adjectives targeting the content tend to personalize things more than necessary for this sort of issue.

Anyway, no worries or anything... but hopefully that explains my thought process a bit. Thanks again for reverting the vandalism! :) Jess_talk|_edits 01:17, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Hmm....I understand your thought process, and I definitely view your edit style as superior. I think, based upon anecdotal evidence, you are correct that people tend to personalize things when the content contains adjectives like horrendous (even when it seems accurate).

Where I disagree with you is that telling someone to go play in the sandbox communicates a lack of welcome. I'd say it's just the opposite, though, I could have worded it better and used a link. Obamafan70 (talk) 17:18, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar!

Many thanks for the pleasant surprise of a barnstar, it's greatly appreciated. As a mere amateur, it's very helpful to know that my contributions to evolution articles have been of use. . . dave souza, talk 10:23, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

JUST HOW SPECIFICALLY did you like it?....I joke.....But are you sure that you are a 'mere amateur' concerning your contributions to evolution? Somehow I suspect that you 3+ billion years experience at it. :) Obamafan70 (talk) 12:29, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Erm, hi.

I'm not really an experienced editor but I'd like to point out an IP Address that has been a thorn in my side for a few weeks. You caught one edit and warned him but you can see from the talk page that it's pretty much nonstop. The IP is: 173.185.184.2 Some of the changes made are done so that it looks real, but I'm pretty sure most all of it is garbage. For instance, in one article, they changed the population of a city to a slightly higher figure and added 'notable individuals' who hailed from there, but if the past updates are any indicator, it's likely false. In other instances, they replace large chunks of data with gibberish or just outright delete it. I don't really know who else to contact, but you seem like you might know better. Thanks for your time. siv0r 16:07, 21 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Siv0r (talk • contribs)

I did catch it, and I will check it out. I will provide a few more warnings as per basic Wikipedia and proceed from there. Thanks to you as a fellow Wiki warrior & happy editing, Obamafan70 (talk) 16:55, 21 October 2010 (UTC)