| Revision as of 22:41, 17 August 2007 editRyanFreisling (talk | contribs)8,808 edits →Don't be so rude: Moreover, yet again you attack instead of responding to the content issue. This pattern of yours is highly non-constructive.← Previous edit | Revision as of 22:53, 17 August 2007 edit undoThreeafterthree (talk | contribs)21,164 edits →Don't be so rude: rm nonsense by agenda pushing baby, whaa, whaaa, whaaaNext edit → | ||
| Line 74: | Line 74: | ||
| :huh? {{unsigned|Threeafterthree}} | :huh? {{unsigned|Threeafterthree}} | ||
| ==Don't be so rude== | |||
| Stop being so rude and insulting to Ryan Friesling in your edit summaries and on the Talk page of ]. Right now, please. ] | ] 18:39, 17 August 2007 (UTC). | |||
| ::Hi Bishonen, can you please look at the section in dispute as it stands now since I can live with this. Can you also please look at the sources in that section and give your opinion? I really tried to assume good faith at first, but after awhile I do admitt I got very frustrated. Anyways, I will try not to interact with this editor and will defer to the communitty and hopefully uninvovled parties. Cheers! --] 19:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Note that you have provided no justification for your of the text 'Allegations have been made that Rove and the Bush campaign was responsible for {the push poll}', since the cites demonstrate exactly that. Instead, you chose to use your edit summary to attack me: | |||
| ::::''rv attack site. Can ANYBODY else please step in. Why do I have the feeling this isn't the first time Ryan has engaged in this type of edit waring and use of attack sites and agenda pushing?'' | |||
| :::As I said, not a rationale in sight for the deletion, and heaping personal attack.That's the kind of conduct that you've been engaged in throughout this dispute - evading issues of content by repeated personal attacks. -- ] ] 19:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The first citation does not support your edit version, still. It makes no mention of Rove. Would you support the version as it stands now? It includes the material that allegations were made against Rove, even though I still think that IMBD is not a reliable source. The way it reads now, 1)There was a push poll, fact. 2) People said Rove did it, see Bush's head source 3) Rove denied it. This appears more NPOV? --] 20:02, 17 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Here are the sources: , Also you wanted to add | |||
| ::::::::::You forgot this:? | |||
| :::::::::::''"White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove sharply dismissed an allegation Thursday that he was behind a 2000 rumor that Sen. John McCain was the father of an illegitimate African-American child."'' | |||
| ::::::::::Seriously, Threeafterthree... you are flat wrong deleting that text, and have no justification for it. -- ] ] 20:17, 17 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::I can only edit so fast :) --] 20:19, 17 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::ok, ok, ok! The GIST of the material should stay, OK? WHY do you have a problem presenting the material as I outlined above? A) Push poll tokk place B) Folks said Rove did it C) Rove said no I didn't ? --] 20:22, 17 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::I objected to the repeated blanking that you did, and as you've blanked less and less, the only objection to the latest version is that it doesn't say allegations were made, only that they were denied. That seems counter-intuitive. As it read before you reverted my last edit, It started with allegations being made, then described the allegations, then described the alleging parties, then presented Rove's denials, which makes more sense to me. So, I prefer the version before your last revert. I'm not freaking out about it though - I'm patient and although you may not agree, my agenda is to improve the articles I am knowledgeable enough to improve. That's it. -- ] ] 20:27, 17 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::What are you talking about? The allegations against Rove are still there. I don't really like the source, but I can live with it? Now I am really confused. Anyways I am out for a little while and I do APOLOGIZE (for now, but I do reserve the right to retract this, again :)) and do NOT want to battle you, OK? Cheers! --] 20:31, 17 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::I'm talking about of yours, that removed the intro of the first sentence (the part that provides the overall context to the situation). Moreover you made that edit summary yet another personal attack, of the kind that warrants an apology. | |||
| ::::::::::::::And 'reserving the right to retract an apology' for your OWN rude behavior IS NOT AN APOLOGY. Whatever you think my motives are, such conduct is never acceptable and a valid apology for your conduct would not be conditional. -- ] ] 20:34, 17 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::::Oh for goodness sake, get over yourself, geesh --] 22:15, 17 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::::Whatever. If you don't have the desire to be civil and apologize for your unacceptable conduct, that's your problem. Moreover, yet again you attack instead of responding to the content issue. This pattern of yours is highly non-constructive. -- ] ] 22:28, 17 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::The cites do indeed support exactly that. There was a push poll against McCain, allegations were made by the McCain campaign and others that the Bush campaign (and Rove specifically) was responsible, and the Bush campaign and Rove have repeatedly denied it. That is not NPOV, that is factual. And again, IMDB is not the source, John Weaver, former McCain campaign manager in the 2004 film and NYTimes bestseller #15 'Bush's Brain' is the source. No NPOV. -- ] ] 20:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Threeafterthree, note that as I said on ], I have regarding the content and conduct dispute at ]. In the interests of resolving this, please feel free to chime in there with your view of the situation. Whatever the result, it may be a good idea for us to pursue dispute resolution. Thanks. -- ] ] 19:25, 17 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 22:53, 17 August 2007
Welcome.......
Do YOU know what the word outwith means???
 Tom's Archives |
|---|
Welcome to my talk page. Please sign and date your entries by inserting -- ~~~~ at the end.
Start a new talk topic.
Please post new messages at the bottom of my talk page. Please use headlines when starting new talk topics. I will respond to you in here AND copy and paste the thread onto your talk page as well. Thank you. - Tom
Jessica Biel
I see that her ethnicity keeps getting restored, even though it doesn't seem to ever be backed by any reliable sources... oh well. By the way, there is an interesting case developing over at Talk:Zac Efron (see the very bottom), which I've noticed you have commented on previously. Cheers, Mad Jack 17:18, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
- Hey MadJ, I'll check out both, thanks! --Tom 12:12, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Dick Morris
Three,
I am writing concerning your repeated removal of certain content from the 'Dick Morris' Misplaced Pages article.
I understand you are under the impression that the item you continue to remove is 'commentary' or part of an 'agenda'. Please understand that I did not place it in the article myself. If you had looked at edits previous to mine, you would see that the introduction of Mr. Sabato as an accurate predictor of elections for the sake of coherence already existed in the article for quite some time. The change I made was in response to a 'citation needed' tag placed next to that fact. I inserted two citations for the fact. All the rest of my edits were attempts to rearrange the sentence for the sake of clarity, not to change the substance of the existing sentence.
Perhaps the article would be better off without the sentences on Mr. Morris's accuracy or lack therof altogether. However, it would seem clear that your repeated attempts to remove this fact are not in the spirit of Misplaced Pages, and certainly do not reflect well on your claim to be anti-agenda. I would appreciate a full response to this message prior to any attempt to delete or alter any further content from that article.
Thank you. --GoldenMean 19:46, 07 August 2007 (UTC)
- Hi GoldenMean, My take on it, just one little editor, is that the description before Mr. Sabato's name is unneccessary, unsourced, commentary, extraneous, original research, take your pick. Readers can go to Mr. Sabato's articvle and decide for themselves on how to describe this gentleman. It seems that there is alot of this type of extraneous editorializing description of events, places and people. My response would be what is the point/agenda of continually readding that descritive word before that man's name? Anyways, I will probably revert it a few more times, take it to talk and then seek consensus. About 2/3s of the articles I edit, I have absolutely no horse in the race or prior interest in the article, just trying to copy edit and maintain wp:mos and wp:npov. Thanks and cheers! --Tom 12:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Tom,
I reluctantly accept your deletion of the complete subsection, but, for the record, you are simply mistaken about it being "unsourced" or "original research". As is apparent from a quick reading of the now deleted section, there were in fact two good sources--so neither "unsourced" or "original research" are accurate descriptions of the smaller portion you previously insisted on removing again and again.
In addition, from a quick examination of the two sources provided, one can see that Mr. Sabato's accuracy is in fact good (by any definition of the word), and furthermore, that he is quite noteworthy for this accuracy. Available, reliable sources unambiguously demonstrate that his accuracy and expertise are well-documented facts--not "commentary".
The reason I felt your removal of the preexisting description of Mr. Sabato as an "accurate" political prognosticator was detrimental is simply that with that introduction removed, some people would not know who Mr. Sabato was, or why they should give any consideration to his thoughts on matters of political prediction. Being that his accuracy in this regard is quite well-established, it would be difficult to argue that including the word "accurate" does anything other than provide the most basic context for his quote.
Concerning your deletion of the entire section, I would just say that I think that is a better solution than deleting only the section providing basic context for Mr. Sabato's statement. I personally feel it would have been--and always is--preferable to seek consensus, and rework content into a more appropriate place in the article rather than to delete it outright.
Should you have a disagreement with someone on such a matter in the future, I'm sure they would appreciate it if you would work with them to address the substance of your disagreement rather than starting an edit war, or accusing them of having an "agenda". We all have biases, even if we are unaware of them. Substantive discussion and reasoned compromise seem to produce increasingly richer and accurate articles whereas edit wars and ad hominem arguments seem to lead to article gridlock and corrosion. I hope you agree.
Thanks,
GoldenMean 03:37, 12 August 2007 (UTC)GoldenMean
- Hi GoldenMean, Yeah, taking stuff to talk page and trying to seek consensus is always a good deal. I didn't think my edits were that big a deal and I do not want to edit war. Anyways, no big deal and thanks for your response. I will watch the article and try to use the talk page more. Cheers! --Tom 12:15, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Katharine Graham
And what are "reliable sources" to you? Those that fit your interests? Be objective, this is not Conservapedia. Dukered
- Hi Dukered, I guess I would defer to wp:rs. I actually don't believe a thing on the Web :). Anyways, it seems that a few folks have chimmed in on the talk page. Hopefully we can work things out there. Also, I would not label myself as conservative and do not edit from that perspective. Cheers! --Tom 12:18, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Teton Range
Actually, the origin of the name is disputed (see Grand Teton). Even if the name of the mountains originated from the French word for breasts, the name only applies to the three members of the cathedral group, and not the entire range. I guess it might be suitable to discuss the origins of the name, but the sources from Grand Teton should be re-used to emphasis the controversial origins of the naming. Personally, I think it adds nothing to the article. - CosmicPenguin (Talk) 17:10, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- Hi Cosmic, thanks for the clarification. Sorry if my edit summary was a bit snippy. I remember from my time spent in the Tetons that the name was derived from the french word for breast so I thought it was relevant. Anyways, no biggie either way. Cheers! --Tom 17:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Acctualy, téton is slang for breast, so it realy translate as boob, not breast. The fact is that the early french travelers, after months alone, looking for fur, where sometime craving for something else than civilisation... It adds something to the article because, if you read french you may wonder if the name realy means boobs (which is weird), or if the Teton Sioux gave the name to the range. Of course, we gave the name to the Sioux...— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.52.40.42 (talk • contribs)
- huh? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Threeafterthree (talk • contribs)