Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:00, 21 April 2011

Ark-Hives
User talk:LedRush/Archive001 User talk:LedRush/Archive002 User talk:LedRush/Archive003

Easy Access to Sub-pages

• User:LedRush/Bucknell Pong
• User:LedRush/Amanda Knox

Editing

Thanks for the support man, but I'm afraid the other guys will be watching my stuff and deleting my contributions like they did with my other stuff.--SteinlageT (talk) 05:23, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Mega Drive article - VRC section

Hey, apart the other stuff going on, I was wondering if you could help cleanup the VRC section in the article. If you think it doesn't need any cleanup, then feel free to take the tag away, but I think it may be a little confusing (not too sure.)--SexyKick 06:55, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

So without the "+" there, how is the "over" in "over 4 million" and "over 2 million" (1994+1995) included in the max estimate? I didn't think writing "over" before that would be very encyclopedic either, but I was unsure.--SexyKick 03:53, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I think that writing "more than" or "over" is more encyclopedic than the symbol. Thanks for cleaning up my initial edits.LedRush (talk) 05:07, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Amanda Knox

Please make a sub-page off your talk page so we can mark-up an article for Amanda Knox. Once we have the article in good order, you can create the Knox page and load our content into in all at once. The key to preserving a good wiki, is to create content which appeals to the readers, meets wiki standards and moots the deletionists who clamor for deletion. A rich, detailed article; launched as such on day one, would (I think) prevent people like Pablo from naysaying an Amanda Knox article page any further. 98.118.62.140 (talk) 19:58, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

How do I do this?LedRush (talk) 02:47, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Just like you did your other sub-pages (User:LedRush/Bucknell Pong, etc).TMCk (talk) 03:38, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I didn't do that.LedRush (talk) 04:37, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

First, thank you TMC for stalking me...I didn't know that the Bucknell Pong article was still around. Second, I think I've set up a sub page at User:LedRush/Amanda Knox.LedRush (talk) 05:04, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Amanda Knox again

Not commenting on whether closing the discussion was right or wrong, but - face it - it is a pointless discussion. It can either go on forever with "yes it is", "no it isn't" or, if you are wildly, wildly optimistic, it can end with "yes it us", "okay I agree but so what?" (i.e. the MOMK talkpage is not a forum which can re-activate the deleted article - you need a deletion review or an RfC for that).

The main issue here seems to me to be that there is scant encylopaedia material from which to create a biography of Knox. Details of her life prior to the murder, beyond on few lines, are simply not encyclopaedic. Details of her life since the murder belong in the existing article. This may differ form other cases where the motivation and background of the criminal has been a matter of undeniable media interest (eg Seung-Hui Cho). You should keep in mind that there have already been a number community discussions about this and there are not any obvious grounds for supposing that the material factors have changed in the meantime. If you feel strongly, though, you should do something about it other than meaningless protesting (IMO) on the talkpage. --FormerIP (talk) 02:01, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Procedurally, I think that MLauba is an uncivil bully. On the points of an Amanda Knox article, I think you are demonstrably wrong. The amount of information on her is vast, and she could easily support a separate article like countless people who have articles with far less notability and information. However, on the fruitfulness of the discussion on the Meredith Kercher, you are absolutely right, as I have stated before.LedRush (talk) 02:14, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay, so if if we can agree that it is fruitless, can we also agree that it is pointless to continue it?

If you really think an Amanda Knox article is viable, then maybe you should try it out on your talkpage. In principle, I would not be against a genuinely encyclopaedic article - but I do think it is not possible. Background details such as "she liked to pick flowers" (as we had in previous proposal) are not valid content. Details about the murder, the trial and media coverage of the trial belong in the existing article, and there would be no validity to a fork that largely duplicates that information. Details about her MySpace, sex-life etc are not appropriate because they were not relevant at her trial and there is a BLP issue because she is currently appealing her sentence and there is the possibility she may be freed. If you know of any info not covered by any of this, then, like I say, please feel free to create (IMO "waste your time with") a userpage draft. --FormerIP (talk) 02:35, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, we may agree that I'll get no joy out of the discussion on the Amanda Kercher Murder article, we'll have to continue to disagree about everything else. I think that the discussion on that article about Knox is good because that's where the most vocal opponents of a Knox article are, and increasing understanding of the alternate points of view must be a good thing. I also disagree about the content of a potential Knox article on several points. You are right that it doesn't matter that she enjoys picking flowers, but things that have been heavily covered by the media can and should be included in the article. Also, we can add much more detail about her trial and appeals than we can in the Kercher article (because of issues regarding WP:UNDUE. At the end of the day, though, I am reticent to create the article on my sub page because it will take me a long time and I don't believe that the opponents to the article have the best interests of Misplaced Pages in mind.LedRush (talk) 02:45, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

You could always write it offline and paste it into a subpage when you feel it's ready. I think it will be quite a difficult task to create and justify a standalone article (previous attempts by other editors were unsuccessful), but am quite happy to be proved wrong. Actually writing the article would certainly be far preferable to the many, many, previous discussions. pablo 09:05, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Sub Pages

Create a new sub page like this:

1) Navigate to the page under which you want to create the sub-page. In this instance, the page you want to start on is: User_talk:LedRush

2) Look in your browser navigation field and see the URL which is: http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:LedRush

3) At the end of that URL, append the name of the new page (I've already created a new page for you, it's called Amanda).

After you append the new page name, the URL will look like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:LedRush/Amanda

Had I intended to name the new page "cheese" the new URL you want would say http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:LedRush/Cheese

4) As soon as you see the URL reading the way you want, hit enter and your browser will try to navigate to that new page

5) However, becase the new page doesn't exist, the wiki will prompt you to enter some information and thereby create the new page.

6) You do not need a "create page" button as the URL method does it for you. It's a recursive process. You call for a page which does not exists and the wiki prompts you to create it.

Click here to go to your new Amanda page

98.118.62.140 (talk) 15:22, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, but I think I already set mine up at User:LedRush/Amanda Knox.LedRush (talk) 15:37, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages policy

I think WP:CIVIL and WP:TALK would be good places to start. Without knowing the specific situation, it's hard for me to say for sure what should or should not have been done. I don't claim to be any kind of expert on policies. But I do have a policy of my own, which is pretty much connected with wikipedia policy as far as I know: I almost never mess with another user's talk page edits, unless they're horrible rules violations, such as extreme personal attacks. In general, I figure it's up to admins and/or the targets of those attacks to take action, if they choose to. If an established editor reverts something like that, I would typically check the circumstances; and then ask the user, if I don't understand their actions. I might do likewise with an IP address user, but either way I would check to see if there's already a pattern of abuse and then turn the user over to WP:AIV and let the admins decide what to do, if anything. As far as I know, it's within the rules for both admins and non-admins to revert personal attacks and trolling and such as that. But care should be taken to avoid a talk-page edit-war, plus it's more handy if the "evidence" is still on the page, in case you have turned them in to AIV; and that's why I don't often revert users' comments. Communication is the key. I hope that helps. If you can tell me the specifics, that would help more. But that's up to you. As regards the admin's warning to you, sometimes admins forget that not everyone knows they're an admin. Again, communication is key. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 19:06, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, I assume it's this that started it: I wouldn't have put it back, because although it seems pretty mild on its face, it's still a violation of the "letter of the law" about commenting on users rather than on content, making a charge of bias without presenting any evidence. It's possible that IP has made other contentious and accusatory comments on this controversial page, and maybe the admin had heard enough from that IP. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 19:21, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I was thinking that you could call the admin's bluff and take him to ANI over this, but since he was within the letter of the law, I wouldn't count on it getting any good results. In theory, many rules violation can be corrected by non-admins, so although he might have been treating it as an admin action, I could have done it too. In theory. That general kind of topic turns up frequently at ANI, where an admin is accused of "admin abuse", even though the specific action the admin took was one that any editor could take, hence the complaint is dismissed unless the editorial action was against the rules. The threat to block you for it was, in my opinion, an overreaction. He could have issued a "caution" rather than a "warning". But it is within an admin's power to put a stop to what he might see as "disruption". Again, the best thing to do when a scrape arises is to try to investigate and communicate. It's also a good idea to have one or more trusted admins in your circle, as I do, and go to them for advice when something doesn't seem right. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 20:10, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

An RfCU

An RfC/U about AlexCovarrubias (talk · contribs) has been filed - I know you have expressed concerns about his conduct at a previous time and encourage you to participate.·Maunus·ƛ· 15:24, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

 :)

Judaispriest (talk) 20:55, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Knox film article

May I ask why you're adding the same citation after each sentence instead of placing it once at the end of the content to be backed up by?TMCk (talk) 14:29, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Because people were deleting any sentence without a citation. I would rather do what you suggest, but people have such strong opinions and entrenched beliefs, they sometimes take any reason to remove content, no matter how silly. Just look at Ian's continued reverts regarding where the dna was on the knife.LedRush (talk) 14:34, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Ian's removal looks more like a misunderstanding because he failed to see and read additional pages in the source. Happened to myself before. As for the citations, repeating the same ref makes no difference - Making sure the cited information is indeed available in the citation does. Cheers, TMCk (talk) 14:55, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I wish I could believe it was a misunderstanding. I explained to him that the material was there. I quoted it on the talk page. I asked him to discuss before any further removals. He was either deliberately obstinate or exceedingly stupid and unwilling to confer before editing. Either one is not helpful to an article.LedRush (talk) 15:11, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I see. So no AGF? Maybe you reconsider since you just added bogus citations to Wikid's OR edits today. Must have been deliberately by your standards. Think about it.TMCk (talk) 15:26, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I assumed good faith on the first two edits and the first two explanations I gave him. I assumed good faith when I quoted the actual language and put in on the talk page for him. However, when he made that third reversion despite all the evidence, and despite the fact that I had opened up a dialog on the talk page with direct quotations, it is either bad faith or stupidity/unwillingness to discuss. That is a fact, not an opinion.

Your example may be well intentioned, but I never once reverted when people removed Wikid's OR (I hadn't noticed it until I saw the reverts taking them out). I would hope you would be more careful with your analysis in the future.LedRush (talk) 15:45, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I thought you might not like your own standards you just set above. Nobody does.TMCk (talk) 15:59, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Are you trying to be antagonistic and dense? By my own standards, I would have needed to be warned a couple of times, been given conclusive proof that the edits didn't belong, and have been asked to discuss it on the talk page and still revert 3 times. I reverted 0 times. That's 3 less than 3! No one started any discussions with me. No one gave any proof. I merely looked at the diff and saw that it was right to remove the material. Easy peasy. That's how WP is supposed to work when people aren't either deliberately obstinate or a lethal combo of stupid and unwilling to discuss. LedRush (talk) 16:11, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

This discussion is becoming senseless. I didn't accuse you of bad faith but of not assuming good faith while apparently you yourself didn't pay the proper attention to either what is in the source or in the article. There is not more and not less to it but you seem to refuse to see any resemblance.TMCk (talk) 16:24, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

This is absurd. You are merely here to insult and to antagonize. I don't recognize a resemblance because there is none. As I stated above "by my own standards, I would have needed to be warned a couple of times, been given conclusive proof that the edits didn't belong, and have been asked to discuss it on the talk page and still revert 3 times. I reverted 0 times. That's 3 less than 3! No one started any discussions with me. No one gave any proof. I merely looked at the diff and saw that it was right to remove the material. Easy peasy. That's how WP is supposed to work when people aren't either deliberately obstinate or a lethal combo of stupid and unwilling to discuss." In summary, it took zero warnings, zero explanations and zero reverts for me to see my mistake. It took Ian 5 warnings, 5 explanations (including a direct quotation, and 3 reverts to see his mistake (and he ignored repeated calls to discuss the situation). Your attempt to equate the two actions is insulting and illogical.LedRush (talk) 16:31, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Judaispreist

Just want to you know how delighted I am by the outcome of Judaispriest's report. Revan (talk) 22:30, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're talking about.LedRush (talk) 00:10, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm surprised that you don't know, since he made clear that you know each other personally. Maybe he's too ashamed of it. Nevermind, he was busted for sock puppetry by Piriczki after being reported because of foul language, name-calling, and accusing someone of being "a complete waste of oxygen". As you can see here, he futilely hoped the issue to be over and done as soon as possible. But then there was the case of sock puppetry. You can see Piriczki's link here, and Scieberking's meaningless excuse of what had occurred. Here is the Scieberking sock puppet investigation. Apparently he's a stand up wiki user, so I don't know if Judaispriest was one of his puppets he used for relieving some of his abusive needs, but I don't think so. Judaispreist's abusive and sadistic comments backfired - there wasn't really anything you contributed with by being so persistently obstinate in your laddish maneuvers. Revan (talk) 20:53, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't don't why you'd think we know each other personally; I've never seen him on another article nor have I ever directed comments to him directly. And that you'd like to come here and try and gloat is just pathetic. But then again, you've proven to be an incredibly unintelligent, untrustworthy, and uncivil editor, so it shouldn't surprise me.LedRush (talk) 23:12, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

• I don't remember why your page is on my watchlist, but I took the liberty of removing the latest series of personal attacks directed against you. Revan ltrl is not in a position to write abusive messages to other for a while, and has been requested to stay away from you. MLauba 01:13, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• Come to think of it, I actually do remember, not that it matters in the least. Happy editing nonetheless. MLauba 01:15, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Meucci

For reference: http://hnn.us/articles/802.html LedRush (talk) 01:40, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism

I see that you are someone who despises vandalism and reverts it with extreme pride. Therefore I assume that you are unaware that the 300 million sales figure in Led Zeppelin's article originated as an unsourced contribution from a known vandal. All sources reporting that figure post-date its first appearance in Led Zeppelin's Misplaced Pages article. You can research this yourself, but it has already been exhaustively explored here: http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Led_Zeppelin/Archive_5#Disputed_accuracy_of_worldwide_album_sales 206.216.34.251 (talk) 01:23, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I see that your infatuation with the 300 million figure in Led Zeppelin's article continues. Therefore, I have a simple request for you. Find out WHERE the known vandal who initially added it to Led Zeppelin's article got it from. Had to come from somewhere, right? Otherwise, it's just vandalism with nothing to back it up. Find a source that predates its entry in the Led Zeppelin article. Any source. I don't even care if it's a reliable source. We can get to that later if you ever find anything, which you won't.

It is obvious to most impartial observers what happened. A vandal made up the 300 million figure and added it to Misplaced Pages. It remained there for months with no citation and no reverting. Sloppy journalists then used Misplaced Pages as a source and promulgated the phony sales figure. Now those articles are being used to support the initial vandalism. How you can support this is beyond me. Do you want truth in Led Zeppelin's article, or do you just want whatever makes Led Zeppelin look as awesome as possible? Do you want to be an encyclopedia editor or a fanboy? 206.216.34.251 (talk) 20:04, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Personal attacks by Hipocrite

Welcome to Misplaced Pages. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, you are reminded not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. You are welcome to rephrase your comment as a civil criticism of the article. Thank you. Hipocrite (talk) 13:48, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Please provide examples of personal attacks by me. I know you've attacked me before, but that's not the same. Also, it is considered uncivil to template an experienced editor's talk page. If you don't have anything substantive to add, I would ask you not to post here.LedRush (talk) 13:56, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

this is a blatant personal attack. Hipocrite (talk) 14:04, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

It is a reminder to discuss edits, not editors. Perhaps I should have been more delicate (I added a more specific reminder to that edit, but I have reminded him several times and he is stepping up his personal attacks. I thought that you had settled down a little yourself, but it seems not. LedRush (talk) 14:09, 29 March 2011 (UTC) Unfounded accusation of meatpuppetry.LedRush (talk) 15:48, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I have raised this issue at WP:WQA, at Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette_alerts#LedRush.C2.A0.28talk.C2.A0.C2.B7_contribs.29. I should note that my responses to you on your talk page are being deleted by you. Thanks for your efforts. Hipocrite (talk) 14:26, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Further, I should apologize for using npa-1 which has the insulting "Welcome to Misplaced Pages." language as opposed to npa-2, which would have avoided the assumption you are a new user. I am honestly surprised, looking at your editing history, that you have been here for years, and I admit that I should have checked that before templating you. For that I apologize. Hipocrite (talk) 14:31, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Any templating of an established user is generally considered uncivil. Your apology to me contains more personal attacks than it does apologies. Since you've duplicated this discussion on your talk page, and you are here merely to harrass me, I will make all future comments over there and will revert any of your future comments here.LedRush (talk) 16:45, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Some examples of Hipocrite's personal attacks and uncivil behavior: a detailed attack blaming a world of problems on one editor , accusation of grandstanding, purposeful misrepresentation of another's position , insultig an editor for not making the least bit of sense , insulting a specific editor, and others at the same time , calling another editor's contributions a "word salad" constitution "grandstanding" , says editor is listing random factoids and says "who cares?" 4 times , accuses an editor of "bloating Misplaced Pages and distorting the facts via selective presentation" .LedRush (talk) 22:14, 31 March 2011 (UTC) A completely unsubstantiated personal attack by Hipocrite on Wikid77 and me, misrepresenting our positions and edit histories and imploring us not to edit the article any more.LedRush (talk) 13:00, 10 April 2011 (UTC) Calling a floor plan that another editor created crappy in his edit summary (where he tagged the content despite consensus to include). Calling the work of another editor the work of a "10 year old with MS paint". . Making it seem like I support an edit which I have explicitly told him I do not support.LedRush (talk) 18:32, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Final warning, pers. attack at Kercher article

Your latest attack on me is despicable. Desist or behold the consequenses.(You have about 15 1/2 h left)TMCk (talk) 08:34, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Could you please let me know to what attack your referring? I honestly have no idea what you're talking about?LedRush (talk) 10:59, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Wait, April Fool's day...I get it! Well played, sir.LedRush (talk) 11:04, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

See? I do like you afterall :) TMCk (talk) 11:16, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Hang in there Rush (though I get the impression you can take care of yourself). TMCk seems to have this thing about attacking those he cannot keep up with in fair argument. PietroLegno (talk) 11:18, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh come on. Don't stalk me and don't try to take away our newly friendship that just started. That not nice  ;(((( TMCk (talk) 11:37, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Don't flatter yourself. I am not stalking you. Since you threatened to remove my posts without informing me, I decided I should make sure you were not carrying through with the threat. In the process, I discovered that you have this thing about woofing on other people's talk pages. I wrote to commiserate. My communication was with Rush not with you. I reserve the right to let other users know that they are not the only ones being harassed. Perhaps we would all be better served trying to improve a badly flawed article rather than playing games. PietroLegno (talk) 11:59, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Now here is your problem: You're way too serious :) TMCk (talk) 12:10, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Pietro, thanks for coming to my defense, but TMCK was just joshing me for April Fools Day, and now, desptite sometimes conflicting views/methods on MoMK, we're best friends! LedRush (talk) 13:34, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

thanks

Thanks for trying with the Chamber of Commerce section. Congress is investigating some of this, so there may be some harder facts yet revealed. best wishes, Richard Myers (talk) 18:18, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I still think that there is something that could be said about this incident; maybe when more news about this is released.LedRush (talk) 01:21, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Courtesy reminder

You're on 4rr. Best, TMCk (talk) 19:40, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I'm on 2rr and have pledged not to otherise edit the ear-witness stuff until consensus is reached. Could you show me the diffs about which you are talking?LedRush (talk) 19:49, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Not that I intend to report you but sure: . TMCk (talk) 19:59, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I just eyeballed it, and it looks like you reverted 5 times, while I reverted twice. This was a fast look, so some of your reverts may have been reverts of other info.LedRush (talk) 20:00, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Looking at your diffs, it appears my eyeballing is right. The first two could be considered the same reversion, but I changed the way it was written to address concerns about the source, so I think they are different. The third one deleted reference to the mental illness, which was the only BLP issue raised at the time (and the only valid one). The 4th is completely unrelated, and happens in a completely different part of the article. As a summary, I think there aren't even 2 reverts, but you could argue there were 2. You could even make a bad argument for 3 (but it is really bad). But it is impossible to say it was 4rr.LedRush (talk) 20:04, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I can't believe it but apparently you've never read wp:3rr. Your reverts all count while mine are BLP exempt.TMCk (talk) 20:08, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I've read it. Please explain in what universe the 4th diff could possibly count? It's about a different witness, is sourced to multiple articles which state that he said these things himself. It is completely unrelated to the female ear-witness. And your edits might have been exempt if you had actually articulated BLP concerns before editing (declaratory statements in edit summaries don't count) and this exemption is controversial please read wp:3rr.LedRush (talk) 20:17, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Let me quote from 3:rr "Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert.
And this here is my very first revert where I indicate BLP in my editsummary:"No source. BLP applies"
Anything more?TMCk (talk) 20:25, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, you've proven my point about your BLP reverts. Yours were not exempt. You merely made a declarative statement (sometimes, not each time) with no explanation at all.LedRush (talk) 20:42, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

You're kidding me. All but one of my summaries ("user generated unvetted source by Bruce Fisher.") have the letters B L and P included. you just can't be taken serious, seriously.TMCk (talk) 20:51, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

My statement above is accurate. Perhaps the parenthetical should read (80% of the time) instead of what it does say.LedRush (talk) 21:03, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Regarding completely unrelated edits, I must confess I had no idea that was the rule. I've never seen the 3rr enforced this way, and I don't even understand how that could be the rule. I'm glad I know now, though, as I am sure I have breached this several times in the past without anyone even mentioning it.LedRush (talk) 20:42, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Now it's your turn to show me "declaratory statements" in my editsummaries please.TMCk (talk) 20:32, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Sure. . It seems you didn't even discuss your BLP concerns until after your 5th revert.LedRush (talk) 20:45, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

What the hell are you talking about showing me the dedithistory????????TMCk (talk) 20:51, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Providing the proof you asked for.LedRush (talk) 21:03, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Let me reqoute from above:"And this here is my very first revert where I indicate BLP in my editsummary:"No source. BLP applies" TMCk (talk) 20:52, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Right, you merely make a declarative statement in your edit summary (which is why I showed you the edit history). You didn't actually discuss any potential BLP issues on the talk page. It is controversial to depend on BLP for breaking 3rr, and it seems to do so without discussion would be more controversial.LedRush (talk) 21:03, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

• If you need more to understand editsummaries you're in the wrong place here on wiki. TMCk (talk) 21:09, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
• Ah, and don't try to explain me 3rr rules.... lol TMCk (talk) 21:11, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, I understand that you are making a declatory statement that something violates BLP. But when there is an active discussion going on, and editors are reacting to those stated concerns, it seems not very helpful at all to stand silent on the sidelines reverting edits that address the concerns on the talk page. And I certainly don't think that your edits would be exempt from 3rr given the circumstances. However, I've already proven that my previous understanding of 3rr was completely wrong, so maybe I'm wrong again.LedRush (talk) 21:14, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Witness

I'm off to bed. That discussion is one where I found myself stopping and thinking... ouch, I just typed hundreds of words over something that doesn't matter too much. I won't dispute it if you prefer to swap the word "witness" in sentence one for "homeless heroin-addict". :) Is that a reasonable compromise? --Errant 22:33, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I do think that the language and placement is important, but because of the contentious nature of the article, and the fact that I have thought that the 3rr meant something different for the last 3 years, I didn't want to revert anything you did (especially as you are a highly reasonable editor amenable to compromise). I think I will make the change, but I will wait to see how certain others chime in.LedRush (talk) 22:54, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

It's hard sometimes to see the wood for the trees on articles like that. Thanks for taking the time to talk about it first. --Errant 23:07, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

(re to Led) Your response is wise. Unless something is blatant vandalism or against a standing consensus, restraining oneself to below 3RR is better than skating the edge.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 23:25, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to bitch about it exactly... or revert etc. But my proposed compromise was to switch witness for homeless heroin-addict in the sentences I had written. Not to revert back to the slightly convoluted original sentences. How much of a problem for you would it be to go back to the following?

Their version of events was contradicted by a homeless heroin-addict who testified that he had seen Knox and Sollecito chatting animatedly on a basketball court around five times, between 9.30 and midnight on the night of the murder. The witness, who has appeared as a witness in a number of murder trials, contradicted his testimony on the time and place he saw Knox and Sellecito several times during the appeals trial.'

My original argment remains... whilst I concede that the drugs/homeless element is definitely pertinent there is no desperate need to establish he is a perrenial witness before we discuss his testimony :) And, in fact, I do feel it is "point pushing" to discredit him so thoroughly before adding his testimony. It's not an issue that will have me re-opening talk page discussions, because it is simply not worth it, but I do think that current content is not the best it could be. Can we compromise? --Errant 22:38, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Go ahead. I'm sorry for the misunderstanding. I tried to keep your other change, but didn't realize (or remember) that you wanted it to retail your formulation.LedRush (talk) 22:46, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks :) No apologies necessary at all, in fact any apology should be from my side. Frankly, it's nice to be able to compromise with such civility and ease, thanks :) --Errant 23:22, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Fri night

Last Fri night I worked my way through the box set with a wee bit of Smirnoffs. I'm probably about to annoy my neighbors with 2112 ...no, wait Counterparts and wee bit of bourbon (Beam)....and not let matters of the wiki bother me...I would hope that for you as well. :) I just missed Rush even though they played in my hometown area. I have seen them many times before and they remain one of my favorite all-time bands...now, if you'll excuse me, I have a stereo that has "11" on the volume.

Sunday night I'm going to see Rush at MSG...7th row center. I've seen them a lot recently, but it is still a thrill every time. Next time you need to piss off your neighbors by turning your volume to 11, I would suggest the new 5.1 mix/Blu-ray of Moving Picture...it's friggin fantastic!LedRush (talk) 01:19, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Mistrial?

You wrote "There was even a mistrial because jurors claimed to look for information and guidance in the bible." What case was this? Just a personal interest. Thanks! Hipocrite (talk) 16:59, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I was inaccurate. The court threw out the sentence and imposed a more lenient one because they consulted the bible on the correct punishment. LedRush (talk) 17:16, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Ahh, ok. I knew about the Harlan case. Thanks! Hipocrite (talk) 17:40, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Is there any reason you would know about the Harlan case? Are you a law student?LedRush (talk) 17:54, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I've cared about death penalty issues since being forced to sit through a Grand Jury term about 15 years ago. Hipocrite (talk) 18:21, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Regards, Scieberking (talk) 15:39, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Support for Knox and Sollecito RS

Hi LedRush,

I saw your comment about RS. I'm working on it right now, I understand what you're saying. I may have to drop some of the support sites if I can't find a secondary source for them. Thanks Issymo (talk) 17:59, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Proposed text for addition...

Hi LedRush, with respect to our discussion elsewhere, I'd like to apoloqize if you found my tone condescending, as that was certainly not my intention. And I appreciate that you could have a sense of frustration with the fine line between OR/POV and parroting sources. My involvement with the article is strictly from the standpoint of a relatively experienced Wikipedian who has absolutely no connection to or opinions on the topic, which nevertheless I am familiar with from high-level media sources. I've injected myself because I think that is exactly the kind of editor who can help out, and I picked that particular thread to get started. That said, two areas I'd like to note:

• I do have some concerns with your approach, as it seems to me that you are first choosing what you want to say, then finding sources that will support your chosen wording. That's a little backwards to our preferred approach, which is to investigate the subject and find neutral wording. No biggie though, I'm sure we can work on that at the article talk page and hammer something out. I take your other point and hopefully later today (I am in PDT/UTC-0700) I will propose an alternative wording.
• The other thing I'd like to discuss with you directly is the question of copyright on the one phrase describing the views of the group. In my opinion, it absolutely is a copyvio in the first 3 versions, and still unacceptable in your last proposal. I'm not exactly a wiki-copyright expert but I've had a bit of experience in the area and if I saw that during a copy-cleanup session, I'd remove it without a thought. The reason is that, no matter how much you change the individual words, you've clearly taken a particular turn of phrase and decided to use it no matter what. But someone else wrote that phrase, so it belongs to them, not us (unless we quote it, in which case it doesn't belong to us and we're clear about that). I'd invite you to discuss further this problem to see if we can arrive at a mutual understanding of proper incorporation of external material. It's quite possible that I'm dead wrong, that wouldn't fit with my previous experience, so it's a learning opportunity to me also. If there are other examples of this sort of rewording that you have added to articles in the past, could you point a few out? We can discuss your approach to be sure it's on-track.

So again, sorry if I caused you offence and I hope we can keep discussing the content of the article at that talk page. I've just brought up some issues which I thought would be better placed here. Regards! Franamax (talk) 21:49, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to respond to me here. Regarding your first point, I don't think that is accurate at all. Generally what happens is that I find a new article on the case and I try to incorporate the info into our article. If it seems like I have what I want to say, it's because I do: I want to say what the article says, without introducing POV and of course, mindful of copyright issues. On your second point, I really can't see it at all. I have experience in copyright law, and, at least in america, the idea that this would be an issue is beyond laughable. Of course, we're worried about WP policy here. My reading of the policy has my proposed text not even remotely an issue as well. The phrase is short, the sentence structure completely different, the vocabulary is completely different, and only the tone remains. This is a no-brainer, to me. Of course, you see things differently. If you can make a new suggestion which stays close to the article, you don't think violates copyright, and which other editors don't believe either deviates from the original either to soften or exacerbate its point, I am more than happy to let you do so.

Again, I really thank you for your response. I was frustrated because I see so much wikilawyering and obstructionism on this article that it prevents the article from getting better and more NPOV. I believe when people raise legitimate concerns about proposed or existing text, they should be working to make the text acceptable, not merely sniping at why it isn't acceptable. I can do this for information that both the "teach the controversy" and "there's no real controversy" camps on the board, but I feel I am one of about 3 editors who takes this approach. This approach also means I take shit from all sides. But I believe it is the right approach to take, both procedurally from a WP policy standpoint and from a common courtesy stand point.LedRush (talk) 22:19, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

WQA from Hipocrite

Notification absent any others. Collect (talk) 00:18, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Notify me if you need comments

Wikid77 here. I just defended your actions at WP:Wikiquette_alerts in this edit. In the future, please feel free to notify me if you wish my opinion, at ANI, or elsewhere; I cannot promise to support any of your particular viewpoints, but I will try to be fair with my comments. Contacting me, directly, will not be a problem of WP:CANVAS because: (1) I have requested notification from you, and (2) I have noted I might not support your future viewpoints. Hence, contacting me would not be improper canvassing as if you knew I would always agree with your opinions (I might not). Thanks for your hard work, and please know that other editors can help settle disputes which people might start against you. -Wikid77 (talk) 19:22, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Wikid77, I appreciate it.LedRush (talk) 19:24, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

My tone on the Meredith Kercher talk page

I want to apologize for my tone during the recent conversation regarding Amanda spending the night at Raffaele's. I honestly didn't intend to direct any accusations at you. Misplaced Pages reports on events as the media reported on the event, meaning if the media gets it wrong, so does Misplaced Pages. No system is perfect but Misplaced Pages is honestly not suited for controversial cases like this one. We have the ability to provide actual documentation directly associated with this case but unfortunately those documents are not considered credible to Misplaced Pages unless they are discussed in the New York Times or on CNN. Having access to the information that I do makes the Misplaced Pages process very frustrating. Of course my opinion about Misplaced Pages means nothing. I will do my best to keep a level tone. You have been more than fair with your work on the article. I will post a note stating that I was out of line on the talk page. BruceFisher (talk) 00:59, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much Bruce. I understand that you have strong opinions on this matter and I will always endeavor to take your opinions seriously, even when I don't agree with them.LedRush (talk) 03:20, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Notice of intent to take article to WP:ANI

Because of continued resistance to expanding the details in the Kercher article, and numerous users being frustrated, I am planning to take the article to the WP:ANI noticeboard to see what can be done. Your username will probably be mentioned, so I thought to ask, now, if you had time for this soon. Without revealing any of your personal plans, is there a "best time" for such a discussion, such as starting on a Thursday, but not on a Monday or such? In my experience, talking with some people does no good, because they see discussions as weak resistance to be pushed aside by empty promises of better behavior. Kindness is always taken for weakness, and hence, stronger actions must be used with them. There is an essay of WP:COMPETENCE, which can be used to merely show a person is unable to function, at a productive level (repeating the same off-topic policies) with other users, while not being "proven" to have evil behavior, but rather as causing WP:DISRUPTION (a behavioral guideline) among the other editors trying to improve an article. This message is just a friendly notice, and if you wish to ignore the proposed WP:ANI discussion, then feel free to let this pass. -Wikid77 00:00, 21 April 2011 (UTC)