User talk:Oakbranch

Welcome...

Hello, Oakbranch, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! Somno (talk) 03:30, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Somno (talk) 03:30, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{main}}[edit]

for furture reference. Cheers. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 10:16, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Oakbranch (talk) 21:09, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

99ers[edit]

Oakbranch, you are right on the entrie not being a stub. Its at least Start-class. I have changed it already, thanks.

On the importance rating: Low means that "Subject is only marginally important to the field of economics. Either the subject is of limited interest even to specialists, or it is tenuously connected to economics as a discipline". According to this guideline, the 99ers entry is "low importance" (to economics, not to politics). Sometimes, an entry gets a low importance tag in a certain wikiproject, but a mid rating in another. You should get a Wikiproject in Politics to put the assesment template on the article.

Or check this other guideline: "If a topic is unlikely to be discussed in an introductory or intermediate level economics textbook, it should have 'Low' importance (eg. Land value tax), unless it is likely to be a major topic in an advanced economics textbook, in which case it should have a higher rating, eg. Prisoner's Dilemma, Information asymmetry.". Again, 99ers qualifies as Low for economics. If you are still unsatisfied, please let me know. --Forich (talk) 15:17, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Forich. Thanks for the change on the class and for the rating explanation. Works for me. Oakbranch (talk) 07:43, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per your actions on the talk page you are clearly acting as an advocate for the causes of the 99er's, and I take some displeasure in being called a vandal biased against them. The article needs to conform to NPOV regardless of how righteous you believe the plight to help them is. Please read up on WP:NOTADVOCATE and perhaps we can work to a more balanced view of the article and not the clearly biased page that currently exists. Arzel (talk) 14:25, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're the one with the warnings all over your talk page about ideological editing, Arzel. Your NPOV was vandalism because the article is well sourced and cited. It is clear by your prior editing and many warnings on your talk page, you are ideologically far to the right of the spectrum. A administrator needs to look at your editing and ideological history to make sure you are not throwing articles with which you disagree into doubt just to delegitimize them. If you are, and that is my read on what you're doing, then you're not acting up to wiki standards and that's a shame. Oakbranch (talk) 01:01, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP is not a battleground but your actions seem to lead in that manner. Edit summaries like this are not a sign of working in a collaborative effort. Accusing other editors of vandalism when it is clearly not, is not a civil way to edit. I wish to discuss on how to improve the article, you seem to want to attack me personally. Discuss the edits not the editor. Arzel (talk) 03:10, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Arzel, the people who keep attacking the article because of their partisanship are the ones trying to make it a battleground, not me. If you want to improve the article, the cite specifically, quote by quote, what is in dispute. Don't use tags to throw an article you don't agree with into dispute. That's what I'm convinced people have been doing with this article and it's why I feel strongly about it. My position is not personal. I'm don't want to see Wikipedia used as an extension of partisan attacks on a group that has been lied about. The facts are the facts. The article reports on an economic group and the discrimination against them. Each excerpt and blockquote is cited. They were said. The 99ers are being demonized. It's important that it's reported because it's part of the history and the current event. If you think it's partisan to tell the truth, then what does that say about your position? I don't want to fight with you, either. I do want you to step back as ask yourself if your need to throw the article into dispute will help those who are using the demonization of the poor as a political tool. If that's not your purpose, it's what the outcome will be because of your actions. Either way, you need to prove your claim. The article is cited and the see also links, which keep getting deleted (and that is vandalism), support the article as do the footnotes. Prove your claim, or you're not trying to improve anything. Oakbranch (talk) 05:04, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I found this article because of Ed Shultz. The talk page indicated that you were advocating the plight of the 99ers. Not that there is anything inherantly wrong with that, but WP is not the place to be an advocate. After reviewing the article is was clear that was being edited from a specific point of view, which is understandable. Most articles initially violate some aspect of NPOV because those that create them have a specific interest in them. Further review shows that you appear to be violating WP:COPYPASTE as well. Violations of NPOV can be a matter of opinion, but violations of copyright are a serious issue that must be addressed. You cannot simply copy large sections of text from published article and insert them into WP articles. Lets work together to present this article in a neutral tone without violating basic WP policies. Arzel (talk) 06:38, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not advocating as much as trying to counterbalance disinformation. The article cites the fact that there are exponentially more job seekers than jobs. That comes from nonpartisan government data that is both quoted and linked (cited). The statements against the unemployed (i.e. Hatch's screed that all unemployed should get drug tested or Beck's "unemployed are unAmerican...) are accurately quoted and cited. Those statements have influenced the voting. They're relevant. When anonymous users vandalized the article I stepped in to try to stop it because an administrator was not. I'm not saying you did that, Arzel. But others have and the article needs to be protected so that it reflects the truth - not just editing standards. And the truth is that certain Republicans are falsely advocating against the long-term unemployed and are using them as scapegoats to sway elections. WP should not help them do that. Oakbranch (talk) 22:13, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I came across the 99ers article today and had two reactions. First, I was incredibly impressed with the documentation of the article: how I wish all entries were as well sourced as this! Second, I felt strongly in agreeance with Arzel that there were obvious Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV) and WP:NOTADVOCATE violations going on here. The article sounded like a Huffington Post opinion piece trying to sway rather than a neutral encyclopedia trying to point out facts. Here's a few examples of NPOV language violations: "cause has been championed by Ed Schultz" reads favorable to Schultz vs saying something like "Schultz advocated". Actually the whole section "Media Coverage" should be removed. Not only is there no balance between right and left leaning media source citations, but the media coverage of the unemployed is an unnotable event irrelevant to an encyclopedia entry on 99ers: that is, compared to other articles on other political topics, no such paragraph exists. Another example of bias is that the only "Controversy" is of those opposed to the extension of benefits to 99ers while in reality, the topic of extending benefits to historic lengths is itself a controversial topic. Reidwiki (talk) 03:12, 31 October 2010 (UTC)Reidwiki[reply]

Craig Cobb[edit]

I'm not entirely convinced he's notable enough for a Wikipedia entry, and some of the sources aren't particularly reliable. However, there are some reliable sources, but are they just trivial? Feel free to take the article to WP:AFD to see what the community thinks! Somno (talk) 08:27, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

October 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Satya Nadella may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 1 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

where: "According to recent research by the American Association of University Women, last year (2013} women were paid 78 percent of what equally qualified men received, although there is some data to

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:28, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. I've fixed the bracket. Oakbranch (talk) 23:07, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]