Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:52, 20 April 2009

Blocked for 3RR

Quartermaster chiming in on Obama article and Rezko edits (as well as other stuff)

You come across as an exquisitely honest editor regarding the Obama article. You're a good shepherd. I will tread lightly per your suggestions. Have a barnstar.

		The Anti-Flame Barnstar
		Thanks, Mom! Quartermaster (talk) 20:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

September 2008

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): I'm not seeing edit warring at the article, and I believe this was a simple mistake after reviewing the contribution history of Scjessey and the filer of the original 3RR report. Wikidemon CENSEI is not completely innocent in this whole matter, and these type of reports and tenacious/gaming editing practices is becoming tiring. That said, I don't think that ceasing editing at Barack Obama is necessary, but please be aware of the sanctions that are in existence and save wholesale reverts for blatant vandalism. Cheers, seicer | talk | contribs 04:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC) Request handled by: seicer | talk | contribs 04:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I have left a note directly with the blocking editor suggesting that the block is a mistake and that the editing in question was routine, uncontroversial article patrol. The 3RR report itself is an over-the-top act of wikigaming by a problem editor. Wikidemon (talk) 00:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, Scjessey, as peculiar as this is, to eliminate any possible argument for the ongoing block will you kindly signal that you will not do more than 3 reverts per day on the main page, even unrelated uncontroversial ones, until and unless we clarify per the terms of article probation that this is okay? Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 01:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I've been away from Misplaced Pages for a few hours, and this block has come as a complete surprise to me. I agree that this is a highly dubious piece of wikigaming, and this is clearly confirmed by the reporting editor's attempt to ensure the block remains - an agenda-based 3RR report, basically. Oh well. No real harm done. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:54, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Re unblocked

I'm glad you got unblocked. I'm sorry you experienced problems with an autoblock. I hope that my comments, with perhaps an overly-strict interpretation of 3RR enforcement, didn't have too much adverse effect on your ability to edit freely. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 02:38, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Obama articles

Hello. Due to frequent mentions of you in the evidence for this case, as well as frequent activity in the scope of this case, I added you as a party. If you have evidence of your own,wish to respond to any, or have suggestions for this case, you may post in the appropriate case areas. Wizardman 02:49, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

It's not that you're being singled out but rather I'm adding parties in gradually as I begin to read the evidence. More will be added as I continue. Wizardman 17:45, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

For this. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ 21:51, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Glenn Beck's Criticism Section

I see you recently tagged Beck's criticism section and want to incorporate the material throughout the article. I agree, but the criticisms would be better placed chronologically throughout the career section rather than lumped at the end as a pseudo-criticism section that functions as such a section, only with organizational problems. Opinions?  EJNOGARB  22:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/YouTube fame

You may want to reword "So let's not have any article renaming shenanigans" to something like, "don't move the article until the AfD process is finished", mainly because it is more clear (to those not familiar with the linked discussion), and it comes off less snarkey.--kelapstick (talk) 20:44, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how it's appropriate for that to be there in the first place. The editor has probably already been told not to do it, and it's bringing the issue to unrelated editors in an unrelated discussion. --Raijinili (talk) 21:09, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

The Olbermann/O'Reilly squabbles

Greetings, Scjessy. I'll get right to point. How about something like this to break the log jam?

Though Olbermann's views tack to the left , he describes himself as "not a liberal (but) an American" .

In a similar vein O'Reilly might be described thusly:

O'Reilly's views tack to the right , but he describes himself as a "traditionalist" rather than as a conservative .

Badmintonhist (talk) 16:16, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Excellent first point about "tacking." Most people people know what "leaning" means. How about Olberman's/O'Reilly's views lean left/right? As for your second point I would say that O'Reilly is a large sized horse's horse's ass and that Olbermann is a huge-assed horse's horse's ass. Best Regards. By the way has anyone ever told you that you are rather reminiscent of Newman on the old Seinfeld show? Badmintonhist (talk) 19:38, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Jeez, I had forgotten about that. The guy hasn't exactly played the most admirable characters in the world has he? Badmintonhist (talk) 19:47, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Barney Frank

Could I plz get your input as a past contributer on the talk page on the section Lead (again) Soxwon (talk) 02:30, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Dreamhost comments

I have yet again removed your comments from the Dreamhost discussion thread, one I removed due to the reason that it contained Personal attacks in the form of serious unproven accusations for further reference see http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks and another rude comment due to the fact that it was off topic see http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines . Please do not make any more personal attacks or rude comments on the talk page. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.144.90.118 (talk) 17:50, 20 April 2009 (UTC)