| Revision as of 23:05, 19 June 2009 editRicoCorinth (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users5,566 edits Add.← Previous edit |
Revision as of 14:17, 26 June 2009 edit undoMiszaBot III (talk | contribs)597,462 editsm Archiving 2 thread(s) (older than 7d) to User talk:InaMaka/Archive 5.Next edit → |
| Line 19: |
Line 19: |
|
|align="center"|You are invited to participate in ], a project dedicated to developing and improving articles about the ] area. <br> |
|
|align="center"|You are invited to participate in ], a project dedicated to developing and improving articles about the ] area. <br> |
|
|} |
|
|} |
|
|
|
|
== Re: I have three questions == |
|
|
|
|
|
You can see my talk page at ] for answer. I'm really sorry for delay in answering your query. ] (]) 13:27, 6 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== June 2009 == |
|
|
] You currently appear to be engaged in an ]{{#if:David Letterman|  according to the reverts you have made on ]}}. Note that the ] prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the ]. If you continue, '''you may be ] from editing'''. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a ] among editors. If necessary, pursue ]. {{#if:|{{{2}}}|}}<!-- Template:uw-3rr --> ''']'''''<small><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></small>'' 21:14, 16 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:No. Let me help you out. I am NOT engaged in an edit war. There are parties that ARE engaged in an edit war, but I am NOT one of them. You need to warn the editors that ARE engaged in an edit war. I will check and see if you have warned the actual editors that are removing reliably source, notable, relevant information from the David Letterman article.--] (]) 21:29, 16 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::Three reverts to restore disputed material despite an ongoing discussion regarding that material equals edit warring. Please do not persist in this, or else you will in all likelihood end up blocked. --''']'''''<small><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></small>'' 21:37, 16 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::: (edit conflict) I'd suggest you familiarize yourself with our ], as you've made 3 mass reverts within less than 24 hours at ]: , , . I strongly urge you to engage in discussion on the relevant talk page. Thanks. --] <sup><font color="black">]</font></sup> 21:37, 16 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::::I have engaged in the discussion. I have already engaged in the discussion here: and here:. It is false comments like this one that makes working on Misplaced Pages a bitter experience for many editors. Look we all know that you are an admin. We also know that you do not agree with my edit. We also know that you do not have a good reason to bury this important piece of information about Letterman's career in this the Late Show article. We also know that the statement that there are not criticism section in BLP article is not true. (See ] or good lord, ]). We also know that a valid BLP argument is not present here. We also know that based upon your comments on my talk page that you are looking for reasons to have me blocked and ultimately banned from the Letterman article simply because you do not agree with my point of view. This is clear very early on. You are making the false claim that I am not engaged in the discussion. You are also editing the article and you are making false claims against someone who does not agree with your edits--specifically your edit to remove one of the most public fights Letterman has had with another person to a footnote in another article where it will be buried. Look, if you are going to ban me and block me why don't you just do it now and get it over with? You are obviously not a neutral, disinterested admin here. You have a desire to see your edit, that removed reliably sourced, notable, relevant information removed from the article stand. You are not interested in concensus--just getting your version of the article moved forward. There is no attempt on your part to discuss. So just block me now and let's get it over with. You are looking for reasons already. Also, you have another admin assisting you. So one of you IS going to block me for my point of view so that the article conforms to the version that two Letterman friendly admins want. Let just get it over with. I have been editing Misplaced Pages long enough to see where this is heading early on. There is no real discussion with you. Just threats of blocks and bans early on. No real discussion about the importance of the incident in Letterman's career--just right to the bully tactics of admins that have an axe to grind. No discussion about about how many times Letterman has had to made PUBLIC apologizes before in his career and no discussion about number of times that Letterman has had to apologize TWICE in the same incident. You and the admin don't really care for that discussion. You are only interested in burying the facts of the situation in the child article and keeping me, and other editors that disagree, quiet. AND then you call that CONCENSUS!!!! Freaking amazing.--] (]) 21:58, 16 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::I suggest you re-read our policies regarding ] and ]. Thanks. --] <sup><font color="black">]</font></sup> 23:07, 16 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::I would suggest that you also re-read ALL of the sections dealing with civility AND review the sections that deal with appropriate actions an admin--especially when an admin is editing the article.--] (]) 14:28, 18 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::If you wish to bring up "false claims", then by all means let's do so. For one, I've no stake in the edit, nor am I "assisting" anyone with a particular POV, so that claim of yours is invalid. Your multiple reverts were clearly a problem, and I responded in accordance with standard practice. Attempting to distract focus from your actions with spurious claims of collusion will simply not fly. Sort out the problem on the talk page, and stop the reverts. It is that simple. --''']'''''<small><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></small>'' 23:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::Thank you Ckatz for proving my point so easily. You make a false claim in the comment above. My comments on this talk page are NOT an attempt to distract from my actions. They are straight on point refutation of the actions of you and another admin that have been editing an article (]) that you both have a stake in because you both have been editing. Now, you don't like what I stated so you are falsely claiming that I am attempting to distract--simply not true. I have been engaging in the discussion and I saw a CLEAR attempt to bury one of the most significant stories of David Letterman's career to a child article about the show--instead of being placed in the article about him. I stopped the attempted removal and the attempt to cover up this incident in Letterman's career and the attempt to have it buried. I was right and you don't like that. I did not violate 3RR so your comments are bogus. It comes down to that are an admin and you have a different opinion that me about whether the Letterman/Palin fight should be in his main article, which of course it should be, or whether it should be deeply buried as one line in a child article, which of course borders, or might just be, censorship. And remember Misplaced Pages is not censored. That is a Misplaced Pages policy.--] (]) 14:28, 18 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::3RR and edit warring reflect actions, not absolutes. Your actions were disrupting the article, and your concerns could have been addressed in a less disruptive manner. As for your erroneous claims above, where are my supposed edits of this article? Of the last 2000 edits to ], only ''one'' of them has been from me - and that was to remove an external link. --''']'''''<small><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></small>'' 21:08, 18 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::No. You are wrong. You are convinced of your bullying admin tactics and that is fine. My edits were not disruptive. That is just a blanket claim that bullying admins, such as you, throw out there when you can't come up with anything else. The bottomline is that the editor that attempted to remove the Palin information from the Letterman article was flat out wrong and I called him/her out on it. I then was pursued by you and another admin for petty false claims of 3RR and now "disruptive editing". You need to learn how to be more judicious in your use of your admin powers.--] (]) 01:33, 19 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::''You'' need to be ] and ]. There was nothing "petty" or "false" regarding the 3RR warning; it was quite in order. And if you are going to criticize people for making "blanket statements", I suggest you reconsider your own claim that "My edits were not disruptive". Glass houses, and all.... --] <sup><font color="black">]</font></sup> 02:05, 19 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::::Look at your comments. You talk to me as if I am a child. You are merely an admin in a volunteer project, but it gives you a sense of superiority that is truly not called for. You talk with arrogance and superiority and you make scorn people about being civility and good faith when I am pointing out that both you and the othe admin are the epitome of editors that completely ignore civility and good faith. You engage in bullying tactics when it fits into your view of the way an article should be edited and then you project your actions and thoughts onto the editors that disagree with you. The thing is that I'm NOT cowed by your bullying tactics and you are not quite sure what to do about my lack of concern other than the old tried and true tactic of threatening a block on me and then following through with it if I do not kow tow to your grand Wikipedian admin powers. Give me a break. This discussion with you and with the other admin is NOT about making Misplaced Pages a better place (if it was then we would have had a long discussion about how to make the David Letterman article better but we aren't you and the other admin are attempting to make me quake and shake to your one little power that you have, the ability to block volunteer Wikipedians. Man, if that is all you have in life then I would hope that things get better. Block me. It will make you feel better. But keep in mind when you do it, it will NOT be about making Misplaced Pages better, but about either you or the other admin keeping up appearances that you still block other Wikipedians and make then quake and shake in your presence. I will get up in the morning and I will have a real job and real wife and a real family to keep me busy. Good evening.--] (]) 02:18, 19 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::::::Goodbye, best of luck on the project. --] <sup><font color="black">]</font></sup> 02:28, 19 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Worst Miss USA answers in history == |
|
== Worst Miss USA answers in history == |
