Misplaced Pages

Pat Tillman's death

Xenophrenic,

I have recently added information, extracted from a US Army CID report that reflects there was an ambush of Serial 2 just before they fired on Serial 1 (Pat's unit). I have even gone so far as provided a link to the report so folks can read this. My post of information is supported by this official CID report of investigation, though it may be contrary to the popular information that is out there. I believe folks are confusing the information between there were no hostile forces that fired on Serial 1, veruses the hostile forces that fired on Serial 2. We need to present the facts are they are, that being Serial 2 was under the belief that Serial 1 was part of the ambush. Please review the CID report and you will what I am talking about.

Scarabaeus2 (talk) 20:27, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Moved to article talk page for discussion. Xenophrenic (talk) 06:03, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Why do you insist on removing the following direct quote from a source (USA Today source #25) cited earlier in the section???

Also according to the documents, investigators pressed officers and soldiers on a question Mrs. Tillman has been asking all along. "Have you, at any time since this incident occurred back on April 22, 2004, have you ever received any information even rumor that Cpl. Tillman was killed by anybody within his own unit intentionally?" an investigator asked then-Capt. Richard Scott. Scott, and others who were asked, said they were certain the shooting was accidental. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.162.0.41 (talk) 16:18, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi. If you'll note what the edit summary says, (rem redundancy), it should be selfexplanatory. That content is already present in the article. The previous paragraph in that article states:

When officers and soldiers were asked, they said they were certain the shooting was accidental. According to one of his fellow soldiers, Tillman "was popular among his fellow soldiers and had no enemies.

...and it is cited to that same USA today article. In addition, your same edit also removed other content without explanation on that article's talk page. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 19:21, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

The dailymail website you cite is not a reputible news source, but rather an online tabloid. A URL pointing to another website, is not 'sourcing,' but rather internet smoke and mirrors. In reference to the following daily mail statements (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-473037/Was-pin-boy-Bushs-War-Terror-assassinated.html#ixzz1CvtV5lj3):

"Now comes a new and even darker possibility. A growing body of evidence suggests that Tillman died neither at the hands of his nation's enemy nor in the tragic, accidental confusion of "friendly fire"; rather he was shot with three bullets in tight formation in the forehead at very close range. If so, this is evidence of murder."

and

"Astonishingly, long-hidden details of his death support the murder theory: medical evidence never did match up with the scenario of friendly fire; those three bullets from an M16 combat rifle could not have been fired from farther than ten yards; there were special forces snipers in the group immediately behind Tillman's platoon."

....... Neither of these articles is properly sourced, and plain inaccurate. They countermand known and undisputed testimony (previously cited in this article) that the deadly shots came from an M249.... moreover, there is no indication that these tabloid sensationalists even realized that the two weapons use the same ammunition. And perhaps you have never served in the military and do not realize that a tight grouping from a vehicle mounted (possibly stationary) light machine gun such as the M249 from approximately 40 yards, is not "evidence of murder" or magical snipers, but average marksmanship. And a meeting with Chomsky (we'll have to take Noam's word for it) is at best circumstantial, and not the smoking gun motive it is made out to be. Additionally, this article countermands itself, because first it claims that the shots were fired from 10 yards away, then that some mystical 'snipers' missing from all other testimony (including all the members of Tillman's fire team who also nearly lost their lives that day) were 'BEHIND' the other Serial... which was it.... were they 10 yards away, or behind the other serial. Either way, this 'news' publication is vacantly deceiptful in its discourse.

So this is what it boils down to: This seems like a good article, and you seem to have had a part in it, so I thank you. The U.S. Army, and its leadership (possibly as high as the president) were calously neglegent in their deceiptful dealings with the Tillman family and the public, possibly on a massive scale... And yes, none of them were properly punished for this wrongdoing. Having been under fire myself, the unit level actions, and the insuing coverup are worthy of criminally neglegent homicide and aiding charges!! But let's stick to facts and reason... insinuating an assasination or even deliberate killing is simply baseless according to the references supplied throughout the article. I followed the links referenced for these claims (some copied above), and you seem like the type of person to agree that an accusation of such weight requires more than slanderously contrived theories in an online tabloid.

Also, in reference to your above statement that the item is redundant, you are correct. I apologize for including redundancies, but thought it very important that the statement confirming an accidental killing punctuate the article. Would like to hear your thoughts, and come to an amenable stylistic compromise. Regards, O.T.S. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.162.0.44 (talk) 21:49, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

The Daily Mail is the UKs second largest-selling newspaper (not just online), and whether or not it is "reputable" is a matter for WP:RSN. (I personally do not know enough about the source to have an opinion either way.) I'd suggest raising your concerns there. If you feel there is content in the Tillman article that lacks in reliable sourcing, then you should raise that specific issue on the article talk page. Other editors with interest or knowledge on that subject matter will be watching that article talk page, and not my personal talk page here -- so the article talk page is the proper venue. Continually deleting sourced content or reverting other editors without discussion and consensus will likely result in blocks and page protections. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 23:11, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate your recommendation on the method needed to dispute this article. Perhaps I did go about this the wrong way, but I'll blame that on my inexperience with Misplaced Pages (as you can tell I'm so new I don't even own a login yet). I'm not even sure how this blocking and protection thing works, but it seems to make sense that constant stylistic disputes would cause this forum to become a zoo. However, in this matter, I am serious about preventing slander. Unfounded claims of conspiratorial premeditated murder of Pat Tillman, further defame his name and detract from genuine factual accounts of the real army PR white wash which occurred. By all accounts (and I've read most out there, in addition to some of the actual redacted investigation notes) any claim of premeditation in this is wholly false. The only purpose these slanderous claims accomplish, is to allow those who should be held accountable for the Army's propaganda to escape since the genuine fact finding of the Tillman family is lumped with these nutty conspiracy theories. The U.S. National Inquirer may be ranked among syndicated news sources just like this Daily Mail, but referencing it as a source in an article is plain yellow journalism. Thank you. Best O.T.S.

Bill Maher

Hi, Xenophrenic!

I was just wondering why you deleted my edits in the Bill Maher page. I'm a huge fan of his (have been for years) and am currently rewatching all the Real Time with Bill Maher episodes (from 2003 onwards). I just thought I'd read up on Bill on Wiki and discovered that the Political Views section is a little thin. I'm absolutely certain Bill has expressed the views which I included in my edit, numerous times at that. How come you deleted them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vivisexionist (talk • contribs) 19:38, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Vivisexionist. The content was removed because it wasn't cited to a reliable source. While you may be absolutely certain that the content is accurate and relevant, the rest of us readers need to be equally certain. Can you please provide a citation to reliable sources supporting your edits? Thanks. By the way, my edit summary should have been more descriptive, but the edit was accidently entered before I added comments. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 20:59, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick and detailed response. I will try to find citations and I hope there are transcripts of the shows somewhere. Vivisexionist —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vivisexionist (talk • contribs) 01:44, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Hallo Xenophrenic from Barmispain, I have to ask. Why have you removed my edit which categorizes Bill Maher in American Jews and Jewish comedians? I don't believe it is because you dispute that he is American or that he is a comedian (though some may not be sure about the latter). Your action presumably relates to the correctness of his ethnicity. I'm always very careful to follow Misplaced Pages guidelines when it comes to biographies and particularly categorization, and would only categorize someone on the basis of referenced material. Maher's Jewish ethnicity is based on referenced information and this is correctly cited in the article. I notice the latter has been in the article for a material length of time. I don't want to start of ping-pong process of inclusion and deletion of information in this article, so please let me know why you insist on its non-inclusion. (I notice that you have removed other categorizations of this individual before, as well.) Do you have information that proves that Maher is not Jewish?Barmispain (talk) 08:30, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

nndb is not a reliable source, and there are no reliable sources in the article stating he is Jewish. Jayjg 03:05, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Tea Party

this edit. You know that there was a reason for removal. Try to ingage in talk rather than make uncivil remarks in the edit history along with the previous claim that I was making POV edits. Arzel (talk) 13:58, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Arzel, why did you use the word "vandalism" in your edit summary when you reverted Xeno's edit of 12:13 15 July 2010? Reading WP:NOTVAND makes it clear that those are uncivil remarks in edit summaries when used in such fashion. From now on, please refrain from using the word "vandalism" in your edit summaries when describing other editors positions --AzureCitizen (talk) 14:09, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I said boarderline vandilism because of a limited effort to engage in discussion and misleading edit comments. Arzel (talk) 13:14, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Arzel, please do not misrepresent the situation; especially on my talk page, where you know your misstatements will be quickly corrected. Given the possibility that you have misread or are confusing one edit summary with another, I will copy my edit summary here just so we can be sure we're on the same page:

(restored content deleted without explanation)

As you can see, that is not an uncivil edit summary. If you'll look a little more carefully at the edit previous to mine, you'll see that an editor had deleted content without giving an explanation for the content removal, and without participating in the existing talk page discussion -- so my edit summary was not only civil, but accurate. As for your suggestion that I should "engage in talk"; please note that I have already been discussing this very issue on the talk page, which leads me to believe you are probably confusing me with another editor.

With regard to the ongoing discussion about your proposal to remove certain the polling data, you still have not made a case for its removal. Your initial objection that the poll was only of the Seattle area has been shown to be inaccurate. According to the news link provided by you, "Similar to nationwide numbers, about 20 percent of registered voters in Washington state identify themselves as strong supporters of the Tea Party movement. University of Washington Professor and pollster Matt Barreto decided to delve into the social and political opinions of that 20 percent." The poll sample was of 1700 folks from Washington State, and the specific findings were based on results from strong supporters of the Tea Party movement, not some special "fringe" group of TPers that don't represent the "real" TPers.

Finally, in your haste to revert, you apparently overlooked and wiped away other edits that included reference formatting, etc. Please use a little more care. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 17:40, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

You don't understand polling. You cannot use a poll from one limited subset of people to frame the entire US. It might be possible to include if Washington State was a bellweather state, but it is not, and has never been. Arzel (talk) 13:17, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

All polling is of a limited subset of people, and the poll we're discussing isn't trying to "frame the entire US"; it is examining Tea Party movement supporters. It might be possible to exclude if reliable sources indicate so. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:54, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I ask you to please stop making dishonest edit summaries, like you do here , which reverted my edit here . I can't remember if I've warned you in the past, but have noticed numerous incidences with other editors asking you to quit it. I don't know is it constitutes vandalism or a personal attack, and frankly I don't care. The biggest problem would be the disruption it causes and the confusion to other editors that may not understand your sense of humor. Thanks. †TE†Talk 06:09, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi, TE! Here is my exact edit summary:

(Undid revision 373845909 by ThinkEnemies (talk) restored content deleted without explanation; returned sourced polling data per talk)

Looks honest and accurate to me. I did revert your edit that deleted the "after receiving sharp criticism from other tea party leaders" content. I did return the polling data that had been previously boldly deleted, for reasons explained on the talk page. No humor intended. Perhaps you have my edits confused with those of someone else? Let me know if I can be of any further help. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:46, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:SPA

Ceemow is a textbook example of a single purpose account. Literally 100% of his edits—not 90%, not 99.99% but 100%—have been on mainspace and article Talk pages for ACORN 2009 undercover videos controversy, the related Wikibios of Mr. O'Keefe, Mr. Breitbart and Ms. Giles, and three User Talk pages (where he discusses nothing but this extremely narrow subject matter). TMCK was discussing this on my User Talk page, and defending Ceemow as you are: by deleting the entirely appropriate SPA tags.

Then he ran away.

If you'd like to pick up where he left off, I offer a cordial invitation to my User Talk page. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 04:23, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi, P&W. I responded on your talk page. Xenophrenic (talk) 05:05, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Xeno, why did you remove the {{collapse}} tags on the article Talk page? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 02:18, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Taina Elg

Just curious. Why did you revert my edit re Elg's place of birth. Any definitive proof she was born in Helsinki? Yours, Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 20:35, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Rms125a! I based my edit primarily on Elg's autobiography, and in particular on this bit of information from the forward of Varpailla maailmalle:

Taina Elg was born at the Boije Hospital on the Boulevard in Helsinki, but the family moved soon to Turku. Taina's mother was a Russian emigrant pianist, named Helena (Lola) Dobroumova, her father was a pianist named Åke Elg. They were divorced when Taina was three years old. Taina and her mother moved to Sortavala, then to Suojärvi, then to Impilahti, where Taina's maternal grandparents had a big villa. From there they moved to Helsinki, from Helsinki to Mariehamn, from there to Viborg. Then the Winter War began and they were evacuated to Rantasalmi. After that they moved back to Helsinki, where Taina started balet classes at the age of 10 in 1940.

I understand Helsinki & Impilahti have both been used to describe her birthplace, and she did live in both locations, but most sources put her birth in Helsinki. Do you have reliable sources that contradict this? Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 21:04, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

No, sounds good to me. Thanks for your detailed response. Yours, Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 18:57, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Xenophrenic! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot notifying you on behalf of the the unreferenced biographies team that 1 of the articles that you created is currently tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 2 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

1. George Edward Smith - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 08:48, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Statistics at Restoring Honor Rally

Howdy again! Have you noticed the discussion over at Restoring Honor Rally regarding the statistical estimates of the crowd size that attended the August 28th event? The relevant portion begins here starting with the page being put on lock down for 7 days, then if you work your way down you can see the proposals. Don't know if you have any interest but I thought I'd bring it to your attention. --AzureCitizen (talk) 13:49, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I've been watching it. With the article currently protected, I may hold off on commenting for a little bit while the more vocal editors there hash things out. If the discussions work their way into a "deadlock", I'll see if I have anything constructive to add. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:47, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Could you provide the source for Beck predicting before the rally that the media would diminish the the crowd size through estimates? ThanksThe Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 23:27, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll see what I can dig up. I recall Beck, during one of his radio shows, making a comment that he expected the media to minimize or underestimate the attendence, and he also indicated that he would be ready for that. Accusing the media of bias is a daily routine for Beck, but finding his exact words about coverage of his rally turn-out will take a bit of digging. A quick search turns up these similar examples of the coverage he anticipates, but they aren't the ones I'm looking for on the crowd size specifically:

• "You know, I don't know if anybody's even going to cover it. They can cover it in the newspaper... No, no. They'll cover it, but will it be the truth? They'll cover it any way they want. The stories are already written. It doesn't matter." Fox
• "You watch the media. They'll paint it any way they can." Fox
• "My prediction is that this will be covered incorrectly, they will take one line from somebody or one thing or they will find one person on the stage that shouldn't have been there and or there will be somebody in the crowd, whatever, they will focus on one thing." Beck

...about the media's anticipated coverage of the event. Still looking for complete transcripts of radio shows... Xenophrenic (talk) 05:48, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Very entertaining. :) As you said previously, you like to swim in the deep end... AzureCitizen (talk) 02:51, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Cinequest

Hey Xenophrenic, we're editing our wiki page Cinequest Film Festival and have run into some issues. We noticed that you reverted most of our recent changes. Can we chat when you have a few minutes. Thanks! --Opsal.matt (talk) 23:55, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I always have a few minutes; what specifically would you like to discuss? Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 05:48, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

We're trying to re-write our wiki to make it more neutral and update some of the events over the years. In your opinion, we should reference claims as much as possible so that they are verifiable versus stating claims as fact? Would this distance our edits from the marketing language that has been reverted? Opsal.matt (talk) 17:12, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

When editing Misplaced Pages's articles, content additions should be cited to reliable sources, and the content should be written in encyclopedic, informative fashion. Several of the previous edits were reverted because they had removed content without explanation, or had undone formatting and links. In addition, wording that carries a promotional tone, or directly copies wording from the organization's website, is likely to be reworded or removed. Do you know if the more recent events to which you refer have been covered in newspapers, magazines or trade periodicals? Xenophrenic (talk) 19:25, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll work with our PR and Mktg teams to find the articles so we can properly cite each edit. Thanks Xenophrenic! Opsal.matt (talk) 21:54, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Archived Talk:Restoring Honor rally

Hello, I archived Talk:Restoring Honor rally for two reasons, 1) my browser kept crashing when I viewed the page and 2)It would help the mediation process if the angry conversations were archived. Thanks --Alpha Quadrant (talk) 19:43, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure which of the ongoing conversations are the "angry" ones that you describe, but you also archived all of the current discussions -- some less than an hour old. Perhaps you could remedy your browser deficiencies without disrupting ongoing discussions? Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 19:48, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I know that some of the arguments are less than a hour old. But they are the same argument that were at the top of the page. Continuing would be Misplaced Pages:Beating a dead horse. The continuing debate is at a draw, that is why I proposed a compromise. Not to mention that the dispute crashes browsers :). Best, --Alpha Quadrant (talk) 19:57, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

'turf wars

Astroturf article lists numerous conservative examples of astroturfing, but very few liberal examples. One recent example associated with Obama and democratic support, 'Ellie Light' letters to the editor, was removed because it 'referred mass-mailing, not astroturfing.' which I'd argue isn't the case.

Why the bias? Valkarie63 (talk) 06:03, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Valkarie63. Astroturfing is neither conservative nor liberal. As for the Ellie Light incident, that doesn't qualify as "astroturf". That was an individual doing a mass-mailing. Every letter to the editor was signed by Ellie Light, not by unique names, so there was no attempt to appear as many different people and no attempt to appear as a big grassroots effort. Just one person mailing to a lot of newspapers. As for "bias", I'm not sure what you are asking. Care to elaborate? Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 08:29, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree that a-turfing is party-independent and is used by both parties to various extents. Article to be fair/objective (if that is the goal) would show that in content and in numbers. 'Ellie' was intended to appear from different people in different cities with different addresses with the same purpose: to portray 'grassroots' support for the president when it was from one person/organization. Following the definition presented for astroturfing, this is one example of " political campaign that are formally planned by an organization, but are disguised as spontaneous, popular "grassroots" behavior."

If the "content and numbers" of 'turfing incidents appear to lean to one side or another, it is possible that there just happen to be more on one side than the other; but feel free to add appropriate and reliably sourced content to "balance" the article. "Ellie" was not intended to appear as different people; what other names were used? As for claiming different addresses, 'Ellie' did that to meet the requirements set by the newspaper editors that letters should be from local residents in order to be printed. While that is certainly dishonest, it is in no way "astroturfing" and wasn't "formally planned by an organization". Xenophrenic (talk) 17:49, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm struggling to get how the readers of the 42+ papers that carried the letter would reasonably conclude that they were part of the 'mass mailing' campaign as you call it. To the readers, the letter intended to influence public opinion from someone in their community when in fact the citizen was 'planted' to promote one view as a 'grassroot' letter. It was dishonest but also disguised as spontaneous citizens expressing their opinion when it wasn't. Taking a different approach on this before pursuing other examples, was would have to be different for the Ellie letter to be considered as an astroturf example? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.188.61.102 (talk) 18:27, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

All letters to editors of newspapers are intended to influence opinion, and the 'Ellie' letters are no different. You say, "It was dishonest but also disguised as spontaneous citizens expressing their opinion..." -- it was a citizen (not the plural "citizens" as you said) expressing an opinion. There was no attempt to appear as many people. Much the same as when a campaign office of a politician emails their talking points to millions of people, it goes from one source to many recipients -- just as the Ellie Light letter went from one source to many recipients. It's not astroturf; it's politics as usual. If you could cite some hidden "organization or group" behind the effort, then you might be able to make a case for astroturfing, but there wasn't any -- and that is why the article on it was eventually deleted. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:11, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Xeno - I'm curious to know how the Paul Krugman opining qualifies as a valid, supported example of astroturfing, especially when compared to other examples and submitted but deleted examples. It wasn't a mysterious deletion because I annotated the edit with comments on fit and standards you provided earlier. What gives? 67.170.96.66 (talk) 05:53, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Krugman's opining doesn't qualify as an example of astroturf. You can find the definition of astruturf here. Also, how a situation compares to other situations is not part of the definition of astroturf. The edit I reverted had no explanatory edit summary. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:14, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

So the last entry of Krugman opining on what is astroturfing should be dropped from the list of political examples, correct?

67.170.96.66 (talk) 18:26, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Why? You still haven't stated why it should be. No one is claiming that Krugman is an astroturfer. I also don't see where he is expressing an opinion of his own. Looks like he is talking about reporting by TPM, LA Times, etc. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:31, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Good question: why is Krugman's talking about reporting done by another source about a POSSIBLE astroturfing example listed as an example?! You yourself said that his opinion doesn't qualify as an example, and it certainly doesn't meet the definition you provide. Maybe another (better) question to ask is how did this edit get reviewed/approved in the 1st place...if by your own logic it doesn't meet the definition or standards bar you're setting? 67.170.96.66 (talk) 00:02, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

No, "me myself" said "Krugman's opining doesn't qualify as an example of astroturf." It's true; giving opinions isn't astroturfing. People give their opinions every day and no one accuses them of astroturfing. Were you going to answer my question? Xenophrenic (talk) 00:48, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

What question did you want me to answer? Why the Krugman line should be dropped from the examples list? 67.170.96.66 (talk) 04:03, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Guess this is where it ends? Thanks for the opportunity to learn 1st hand how 'pedia content and user contributions are managed, policed and protected.Valkarie63 (talk) 15:38, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Still no answer? No matter, you are very welcome and I am glad I could help. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:17, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Just so you know

You have a friend here.TMCk (talk) 23:52, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Yep.Malke 2010 (talk) 00:11, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I warned the ip. Looks like sockpuppetry. Any further action needed? --Ronz (talk) 01:41, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Good idea on the warning. How do you know he's a sockpuppet?Malke 2010 (talk) 02:37, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Looking at his contributions and what he has said about me, I guess I must be doing something right. Thanks for reverting the trolling, TMCk, and for warning the guy (gal?), Ronz. Malke, I can't say for certain that socking has absolutely occurred, but the ducks are quacking loudly:

207.29.40.2 (talk · contribs) - Registered to New York State Unified Court System

24.193.146.146 (talk · contribs) - First edits on a New York Court Competition

Wikigirl33 (talk · contribs) - Only edits on a New York Court Competition (got logged out and edited from the IP above?)

98.116.113.166 (talk · contribs) - Tag-team edit-warring in January with 207.x & 24.x on Harry Smith (television) and others

TruthfulPerson (talk · contribs) - admits to being IP 207.x here

...would definitely head the list if I were to file a SPI, with geolocations near New York (near the PA border), Court Systems and editing the Coffee Party USA article (within minutes of each other) being the common denominators. That, and the obvious love of tendentious edit warring with Xenophrenic. Xenophrenic (talk) 06:46, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any obvious use of sockpuppetry to get around or avoid a block. I'd hold back on a SPI report at this time, but then I'm very conservative on the use of SPI. --Ronz (talk) 17:07, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

4+ reverts all on January 2, spread across multiple accounts, on the afore-mentioned Harry Smith article, indicates abusive socking to avoid a block (and that is just one example). He is also effectively avoiding scrutiny, since the numerous warnings and blocks he has already received has been spread across many accounts, and therefore doesn't look as severe. I'm not motivated to file a SPI just yet, but I have a hunch a checkuser investigation will be part of an inevitable, larger disruptive editing complaint. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:10, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Restoring Honor rally article

My apologies. However, AzureCitizen has also made three reverts in the same period without explanation. Editing is deadlocked because certain editors decided to waltz in and undo everything we fought over for a month. For that reason I am going to request that the page be locked again until we work it out. Again. BS24 (talk) 03:32, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I see an explanation from AzureCitizen about his edits on the talk page. Perhaps you missed it? As for requesting that the page be locked until the problems are resolved, you could just opt to not edit the page until the problems are resolved. That way, the edit warring ceases, and other editors can still make productive edits to the article. Xenophrenic (talk) 03:59, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. BS24 (talk) 03:44, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

...or you can push forward with having the page (or the editors that oppose your edits, I see you suggested) locked and blocked. Perhaps your method may turn out for the best, as it will surely draw more eyes to the situation. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 03:59, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Xenophrenic, just a note to let you know that you were discussed here. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 18:36, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I've been following that, too. You do know that IP address has been blocked before as a proxy, right? Hopefully all the sniping will subside soon, and productive editing resume. Best, Xenophrenic (talk) 18:45, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

No, I wasn't aware that it had been blocked before as a proxy - how can I figure out something like that in the future? --AzureCitizen (talk) 18:53, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I stumbled upon it as I was checking the IP's contribution history, by clicking on the "Block log" link. There are tables, somewhere, of common proxy IP ranges that bots use to identify proxies. Any of the checkuser admins could probably give you more detailed information than I could. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:59, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

That's good to know, I've never clicked on the "block log" link before and thus learned something new today. Thanks! Here's to hoping things quiet down and get resolved amicably... --AzureCitizen (talk) 19:04, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Request for mediation of Restoring Honor rally

Thank you, AGK 21:35, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

In the interest of compromise/civility I have taken out the edits to the issues summary which were critical of you. I just want to end this process once and for all, and we need your cooperation. BS24 (talk) 14:57, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

In regards to your mediation talk page concerns, I have removed the sockpuppet piece. I completely agree with you and User:AzureCitizen, who I am working with for a fairer mediation request page, that the proposed mediation should focus on content and not other editors. If you have any other concerns, please contact me, or add them to the Additional issues section of the mediation page. Thanks! BS24 (talk) 03:07, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Request for mediation accepted

The request for mediation concerning Restoring Honor rally, to which you were are a party, has been accepted. Please watchlist the case page (which is where the mediation will take place). For guidance on accepted cases, refer to this resource. A mediator should be assigned to this dispute within two weeks. If you have any queries, please contact a Committee member or the mediation mailing list.

For the Mediation Committee, AGK 19:45, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Message delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.

Restoring Honor Mediation

Greetings!

I have agreed to mediate the Restoring Honor case. I'm requesting that all parties start with opening statements, instructions are at the top of the page. Thanks for agreeing to go to mediation, I'm hopeful we can get this resolved to the satisfaction of all parties. Don't hesitate to contact me with any questions or issues. --WGFinley (talk) 00:52, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Alleged Sockpuppetry of BS24

I think you're right and a proper investigation is the next step. I've never launched one and will try to take care with it. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 19:44, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

This was not hard to do, and your research made the task easy. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 20:02, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Whoa whoa whoa. I thought we were moving away from personal attacks against editors. Guess I was wrong. BS24 (talk) 22:07, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the personal attacks against editors has indeed subsided. Are you indicating you are aware of recent incidents? Xenophrenic (talk) 01:02, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Forced break...

Just an FYI, I'm going to be in a travel status throughout the weekend and into next week until Wednesday or Thursday, with little chance to edit, so I won't be around much for talk page discussions with SpecialKCL or the RHR Mediation page (which seems to be crawling along at a snail's pace anyway). Just wanted to mention it lest it seem like I just disappeared, LOL... AzureCitizen (talk) 16:07, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

You haven't missed much; things have been 100% uneventful in your absence. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:17, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

ACORN 2009 undercover videos controversy

Xenophrenic. You might want to take a look at .TMCk (talk) 16:20, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up, and also for the words of advice you offered on that situation -- even though they unfortunately went unheeded. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:17, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your assistance with the ACORN 2009 undercover videos controversy page. I think it looks better. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 23:35, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

It still needs a lot of work, but you did a huge amount of the tedious reference clean-up; thanks for that. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 17:17, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Xenophrenic: Hi. I have no idea how the YouTube refs got reinserted. I don't even use YouTube. The edits I made were specifically indicated in the edit summaries (i.e. spelling correction of Leoning to Leonnig; possessive tense ("Giles's"); space between words, etc.) Is it possible someone else was editing at the same time and their edits got piggybacked onto mine while my very slow dial up service was processing? Otherwise I really have no idea. As I say I have no interest in YouTube and would not have dealt with anything to do with YouTube unless I hit a wrong key somewhere while I was typing but that doesn't really explain it does it. Anyway to fix whatever had happened on my watch I went back to your edit from 11:28, 29 October 2010 (whose summary states "See Talk Page; rem non-reliable source and deadlink YouTube links and citations") and redid my own minor edits from there. Hope everything is OK now. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 13:13, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

FYI - Courtesy Notification - WND RSN

Within a current RSN, I have quoted an observation of yours made to a prior RSN on World Net Daily as an RS. I believe I have made both a fair and relevant representation of your prior comment but I am alerting you should you wish to further clarify or, perhaps, contribute further comment. Thanks JakeInJoisey (talk) 21:31, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

No need to respond, just FYI. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:28, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

ACORN

I actually thought the word "Murder" was vandalism, cleverly inserted into the URL title, as I hadn't read anything about ACORN workers being accused of murder or confessing to it. However I see that was not the case but at the time I was manually redacting the YouTube snafu (see above; which I still don't understand) and didn't get that the "murder" confession was one of the "absurd" confessions made by the former ACORN employee Tresa Kaelske, which was not specified in the Misplaced Pages article text. Got it now. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 14:45, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

The YouTube thing was probably just an edit-conflict mixup, as we were both editing at the same time. No worries. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:57, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

By the way, is it necessary to include the adjective "Democratic" re politicians such as Scott Harshberger, Jerry Brown, and Charles Hynes? I don't think there is any reference to Schwarzenegger as "Republican". It sounds partisan. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 14:45, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you, and have commented further on the article talk page. I mentioned your concern there. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:57, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Checked out "broken" link, to which you referred. It functions fine without the "/", not that it is a big deal. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 17:29, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Yep, I removed the '/' and it worked fine. You probably just hit an extra key during your edits. Thanks, by the way, for cleaning up the refs, etc. I noticed you had to redo some of your work a few times when the article kept getting reverted. Watching you have to repeatedly fix the spelling of Wolf Blitzer's name was getting frustrating. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 18:57, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Restore Honor

Talkback

Indefinite Block of BS24

BS24 is on indefinite block for abusing multiple accounts. This editor has had many socks and is likely to return under a new account. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 17:49, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Your riddle too hard for me

I don't know the answer to your riddle, so I ask someone for help. 82.135.29.209 (talk) 21:23, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

SpecialKCL66

SpecialKCL66 is real suspicious. It was created on Oct. 10 2010, has been blocked for 3RR and edit warring , is contentious and prone to ad hominem attacks (according to an admin: "I have rarely seen such a clear case...of an editor who blames others for their action"), and this the kicker, has a precocious familiarity with Wiki protocols and Wikilawyering, WP:ANI, forum shopping (going to another parent) etc.... SpecialK also has a fondness for one of BS24's tagging articles with nuetrality tags, showing this hardly a week after starting to edit. , I asked the newbie if this SpecialK was a clean start. Given NYyankees51's compulsive nature, this all smells of duck. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 05:09, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Superhead

I have declined your speedy deletion nomination for this redirect. According to Per User talk:PhilKnight#Karrine Steffans and the source mentioned there, this redirect doesn't qualify for speedily deletion. Favonian (talk) 15:04, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

hello

Saw your comments on the mediation cabal page. I've been waiting for you to show up.  :) Malke 2010 (talk) 05:45, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Malke! I did a brief fly over to remind the mediation participants that just because a proposal appears to only have one supporter in the mediation, that does not mean that proposal isn't widely supported by other Misplaced Pages editors outside of the mediation. It can't be stressed enough that consensus is achieved by agreement among the participants, and not by counting votes. You won't be seeing much of me at that mediation; the holidays are fast approaching and the joys and stress of the season will be consuming more of my time than usual. Good luck with the mediation (remember to keep a cool head), and I hope the holidays find you in good health and spirits. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 21:01, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Happy holidays to you, too, Xenophrenic. :) Malke 2010 (talk) 05:47, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Restoring Honor rally

Hi Xen, I saw that Arzel undid your valid change. I brought this issue up on the talk page. 82.135.29.209 (talk) 18:29, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I noticed; I read it; I fixed it. Per the cited CBS source, "CBS News elected to use the higher estimate." If there were only one estimate, as Arzel wrongly asserts, then CBS would not have had to choose between multiple estimates. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:35, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

You fixed it incorrectly. The statement implies that there were multiple estimates of 87,000. This is not factually true. Arzel (talk) 20:44, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect. The text in the lead says, "scientific estimates placed the crowd size around 87,000". All of the scientific estimates noted in the article do indeed fall "around 87,000". That text "implies" nothing more to me, so perhaps it is a matter unique to your personal perception. Xenophrenic (talk) 00:05, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

You noticed; you read it; you fixed it; problem solved. 82.135.29.209 (talk) 08:55, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Mediation

Good idea. Could you also append that to the Honor Rally talk page, so all are aware? BTW, I'm beginning to suspect benign neglect on the part of ArbCom. Any ideas on how to sound them out> --The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 18:52, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll see if I can get us another mediator to either take over the project, or at least fill in during Wgfinley's absence. As for the ArbCom ... there is not much I can say; they operate mostly behind closed doors and without any apparent urgency. I think we just need to wait on the results, but we certainly don't need to put the mediation on hold. Xenophrenic (talk) 00:05, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Deletion review for Tea Party racist sign image

If you take it to deletion review and want a supporting view, drop me a note. This was an obvious case of fair use. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 04:29, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

File:Dale Robertson Racist Sign.jpg

Hi Xeno,

I was just adding up the editors for your deletion review and was wondering if I'm missing anyone. Omitting the two editors with zero previous edits, I have the count at:

_* Uploader of file -- No comment despite three separate notifications

• This may be subject to change

Not sure how much the vote matters, though. Do you think this should be mentioned at the TPM talk page if the review results in a relisting? †TE†Talk 00:15, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I took the liberty of adding the name of the editor that submitted the image and introduced it to the article; I'll go out on a limb and guess that he would be pro-keep. You are right that the vote doesn't matter as much as establishing that the image can or can not be used under the "Fair Use" rules, without clearly violating WP:NFCC. Xenophrenic (talk) 06:09, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I just removed my asterisk. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 00:58, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

LOL, I didn't want to be too presumptuous. Removed mine as well. †TE†Talk 02:22, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Hey there Xeno, little late to the party. How'd it get deleted in the first place? Did somebody complain? Is it a copy vio? Malke 2010 (talk) 02:53, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Xeno my friend, I've commented on the deletion thing. Malke 2010 (talk) 03:02, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Think, not at all. I made my intentions very clear in the section above, so you were quite right to place me in the left column. I'm happy, because this is my big chance to be on the left for once. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 02:55, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi folks. I think the primary complaint was that Misplaced Pages's "fair use" of the image might deprive the cited source of commercial value, which would violate WP:NFCC#2. Since that source required several variations of much higher resolution to illustrate the assertions made by the source article, the version in use by Misplaced Pages cannot possibly "replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media." (Note that Mediaite says the image closest to the original that they could obtain was a high-res version here, from the Houston Tea Party website.) Not to mention the fact that there are 100+ documented uses of that image across the interwebs already. Xenophrenic (talk) 06:09, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Xeno, looking at the higher-res image you just linked, I noticed that the offensive term was clearly written on a separate sheet of paper that was later attached to the sign. (Presumably, he misspelled it even more on his first attempt.) Out of curiosity, is that detail noticeable in the lower-res image that we had prior to the deletion? Dylan Flaherty (talk) 06:49, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

According to an exclusive interview with Robertson:

The photograph in question, available in hi-res here, depicts Robertson holding a sign that says “Congress=Slaveowner, Taxpayer=Niggar.” The misspelled n-word appears to have been duct-taped over the original sign, which Robertson claims read “Congress=Slaveowner, Taxpayer=Slave.” He says he never taped anything over the original sign, nor did anyone else. He says the photo must be a fake.

Robertson further claimed that he would provide a photo of the "unaltered" sign (but he still never has), and photo experts have since determined that the image has not been photoshopped or faked. I've also seen reports (rumors which I can not confirm) that the sign originally said "nigger", but Robertson was told to either stop displaying the sign or change that word; so he taped a misspelled version of the word to the sign. I don't recall how much sign detail was visible on our lower-res image. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:01, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

TinEye is a really cool tool. Bookmarked. †TE†Talk 17:37, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

That's exactly what I said when I first discovered it on Malke's talk page! (Just send me a bill for any royalties, Malke...) Xenophrenic (talk) 21:01, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Will do, my friend. In the meantime, I've dropped off a little early Christmas gift. Malke 2010 (talk) 21:51, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

Thank you very much, Malke! My first Barnstar; I guess that means I am no longer a barnstar-virgin, and I owe it all to you! Oh wait, there must be a better way to word that...  ;-)

Here's hoping you have a fantastic Thanksgiving. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 21:25, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

in regards to your self-revert, my talkpage

Don't worry about clutter or abrasiveness. I would restore your post but I'll leave that up to you, perhaps you could simply strike/remove the 'limited' from 'limited opinion.' -PrBeacon (talk) 20:49, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I put it back. I had been typing it out in segments before you posted your latest response, but with many interruptions (I was simultaneously making phone calls and working on other projects), and didn't notice your comment until after I had saved mine. Yours conveyed much the same thing, without all the excess verbiage and examples (and my trademarked snarkiness). By the way, your observation that I could have worded the article talk-page header better is spot on; but I tend to follow the old newspaper editor's adage that "A headline must grab the reader and command him to read the article, even if it goes a little over the top..." Best regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 21:20, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

• Alright, after her most recent comments, I'm finding it difficult not to suspect we're being trolled. If I respond anymore at all, it will be to tell her to take it to ANI. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:14, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Restoring Honor

Any info on the mediation? (OK to leave response here) The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 01:24, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Don't know if this helps. 82.135.29.209 (talk) 18:08, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

AGK has responded, and says he'll try to find another mediator for us. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:14, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

re TPM

Great line at Talk:TPM -- "Duh!" stories don't usually have news articles written about them, while "Huh?!" stories usually do. Your recent post there and the earlier exchange with Lucy-Marie make me wonder why we got off on the wrong foot at the Restoring Honor rally, re crowd size. Anyway, I thought you might also like to weigh in at the SPLC page where a couple of POV-warriors are wearing down the regulars there. (I'm relatively new at that article but unofrtunately I'm familiar with their tactics from other articles like MMfA and Fox News). Regards, -PrBeacon (talk) 03:43, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Not to interfere with the hug-fest, but I should probably mention that both Glen Beck and Sarah Palin are currently hot spots. Dylan Flaherty 03:50, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

This edit

... isn't humor as much as it is largely true. ;) †TE†Talk 21:41, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Heya, stranger :)

The only true parts of that edit were the names Giles & O'Keefe. I'll take your "wink emoticon" as an indication that you already know this. Xenophrenic (talk) 01:44, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Nah, my wink was aimed at acknowledging that the edit lacked balance. If you don't know -- I'll advise you to learn about these stings and what they yielded. They didn't get the exact same responses aiding in their prostitution business and the young illegals they were bringing in, but, they received more than enough help from certain locations. We know better than to argue about known facts, right? †TE†Talk 08:26, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I did learn about the antics of O'Keefe and Giles -- both about what they "received" from the people with whom they spoke, as well as what they tried to make the public believe they received. We know better to argue about known facts, of course; I shouldn't need to advise you to not argue from a position of lack of facts. Get the whole story. Would it be an imposition if I were to ask you for just one specific example of the most damning "yield" from O'Keefe and Giles? Xenophrenic (talk) 09:14, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm confused, your edit summary states: "no partisan conspiracy groupies here, so we'd better stick to the facts". What does that mean? Aren't you the one that is asking me to illustrate the most "damning" events that led to the defunding of ACORN?

Do you want my opinion of what I found to be the most objectionable, or are you asking me to repeat what the media and Congress says was the worst?

Should I also explain why water is wet and fire is hot?

We're cool, you know. I just don't understand why you would be digging in as some kind of conspiracy theorist. †TE†Talk 08:16, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Of course we're cool - that's why I am engaging you on this issue, instead of just waving you off as another parroter of a partisan meme. I've come to expect at least a reasoned argument from you (whether or not I agree with it, or whether it proves to be 100% based in fact), and that is what I've been trying to draw out of you. I've seen the videoes manufactured and released by O'Keefe/Giles/Breitbart, and the damage they did before they (and the edited-out parts) were investigated and closely examined. I have also seen the results of those investigations into the videos, and into ACORN, conducted after it was too late. It turns out the videos were heavily edited to falsely convey a sinister storyline; there was no criminal activity on the part of the ACORN employees; investigations by the Government Accounting Office and IRS found no mishandling of money; and O'Keefe & accomplices are presently defending themselves against several lawsuits.

You mentioned "aiding in their prostitution business and the young illegals they were bringing in", which sounds a lot like the original fabricated storyline, rather than the actual "aiding in protecting a fleeing prostitute and underage illegals from an abusive pimp" reality, gleaned from the unedited and full version of the recordings. You do see the disconnect, right? You asked me, "Aren't you the one that is asking me to illustrate the most "damning" events that led to the defunding of ACORN?" No, I am not -- you have misunderstood my question. We all know what led to the ludicrous defunding reactions, before anyone bothered to actually look into the edited "videos" and ACORN. (See Sherrod for a similar demonstration of reactionary lunacy to misleading video editing.) I was asking you to give me an example of what you think is the worst thing that can be pinned on ACORN from the O'Keefe productions, POST-investigation into said production. Xenophrenic (talk) 00:41, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Quick note

Just a quick note/FYI, the quote from the "dead link" actually comes straight out of the CA AG Report at the bottom of page 4 in footnote 2. Figured you'd want to know that if you missed it previously... AzureCitizen (talk) 22:05, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Ah, good find, and thank you! I have also seen sources describe it as a disputed "claim" made by the AG. As far as I know, the $5 million claim was a misstatement advanced by a couple former (dismissed) disgruntled ACORN folks that have been filing their own lawsuits. I've been going round & round on this point with a special purpose account on the Rathke article. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:14, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I've replaced the deadlink source with the St Augustine Record source. I see the deadlink source was dated October 2009, which predates the April, 2010 CA AG report -- so I doubt that report was the original source. Do we have a resolution to the investigation being done by the Louisiana AG ... or was it shelved? Xenophrenic (talk) 22:40, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

You found the best solution - I didn't realize it pre-dated the CA AG report.  :) Unsure as to how the LA AG investigation was resolved (would be interested to know), but you're probably on the right track thinking it was shelved or dismissed... AzureCitizen (talk) 22:46, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Gacy

Hello, Xenophrenic! I can't find the copy I used to have of Sullivan & Maiken, but the sources I have say 18 months:

Foreman 1992, p.63 - "A model prisoner, Gacy won parole, and on June 18, 1970, after serving only 18 months of his sentence, he walked out of prison a free man - although subject to provisions of parole."

Linedecker 1986, p.47 - "Even if Gacy hadn't been paroled after eighteen months," Judge Van Metre pointed out, "he would have been out in less than five years."

Even this source (which appears to be based on the Sullivan/Maiken source) says 18 months. Can you quote the exact sentence from the source? We've got to go by a consensus of sources, and I'm curious as to what the source says. Thanks :> Doc talk 09:35, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Howdy, Doc. I used Google books to take a peek at "Killer Clown: John Wayne: The John Wayne Gacy Murders By Terry Sullivan, Peter T. Maiken"; I entered "parole" in the search box, and found the following text on page 276:

Shortly after noon on the appointed day, Gacy's best friend from Waterloo, Clarence Lane, picked him up at the release center in Newton. Gacy had been incarcerated for twenty-one months of his ten-year sentence. (Here's a link)

I'm not real sure why there's a 3 month difference between sources, but I did notice in the Linedecker 1986 source, page 40, that the judge gave Gacy 84 days of credit for time served (spent in the Black Hawk County Jail during the proceedings prior to his sentencing). I also see in the Linedecker 1986 source, on page 36, it says:

In September and again in October, Gacy was referred by order of Judge George C. Heath, of the Tenth Judicial District Court of Iowa in Black Hawk County, to psychiatrists for evaluation of his mental health. (Link)

September would be 21 months before his June 18, 1970 release date. Also, according to Linedecker (page 37), Gacy was entering his plea in court as far back as November 7, 1968 -- that's 19 months and 10 days before his release date, so he has certainly been incarcerated at least that long. It appears he spent 3 months (84 days) in the county jail during his court proceedings, and was then sentenced to 10 years and transfered to prison, where he did an additional 18 months before being released. You are welcome to handle the wording of that any way you see fit. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 18:39, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Awesome - thanks for the links, too :> I hate it when reliable sources contradict each other, and it's always a challenge on how to handle it. Three months is probably an eternity in prison, and it's weird how the "of his sentence" part was included in the one source. We'll figure it out, but it's not a huge deal. Cheers :> Doc talk 03:29, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Breastfeeding - poor latch

Hi Xenophrenic, and thank you for finding a reliable source for this! You've probably just made ] (talk · contribs)'s day. All the best. — Mr. Stradivarius 10:16, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Greetings, Mr. Stradivarius!

I've been running into a lot of editors recently who have been inserting links to their personal websites into Misplaced Pages articles, usually as a way to increase traffic to those websites. When I glanced at the website cited as a reliable source, I saw that it was created by the less-than-professional sounding "Clip Sisters", and had a sales pitch at the bottom for anyone "Interested in buying this power point or any of the information you see on this site". My first impression was this was just another instance of website promotion, so I deleted it. Your reversal of my edit prompted me to look for more suitable references to cite that would allow us to keep the content in the article. That's when I located this list of higher grade references also used by the very website Mother18 had cited, including some medical journals. If Mother18 cites those journals directly when introducing related content in the future, she shouldn't run into the same difficulties. Best regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 19:27, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Western State

If you have a Linkedin account you can view O'Keefe's full profile. Under education he says Western State law school. Not sure how to cite such a source, but in any case the article that says he went to UCLA is incorrect. I think the journalist just assumed UCLA because Lila Rose went to UCLA. Ogo (talk) 03:21, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Ogo. The problem is that LinkedIn does nothing to verify that the person making the account is actually the person in question, or that the information added to the profile is accurate. As such, we can't reliably state that the information is accurate. Even if it were allowed, which I do not believe it currently is, it would fall under the restrictions for self-published sources about themselves, which can be found at WP:SELFPUB.

On the otherhand, if a reliable source conveys information about a subject, we generally accept that information unless it is disputed by another reliable source. We can't just act on our own personal beliefs that a reliable source is just making assumptions. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 20:23, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

which tp edit did you mean?

is any of the text in the current article yours, if so where? Darkstar1st (talk) 08:55, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Mine? I doubt it, as I only enter content from reliable sources. If you are asking if I have added new sourced content to the article that wasn't there previously, then yes. The content on the newly formed National Tea Party Federation, for instance. But the majority of my edits consist of reverting vandalism, improving formatting, minor wording changes so that content from sources is properly conveyed, and other gnomish work.

While I have your attention, maybe you can give me your opinion on something. When it comes to defining the TPers policies and positions, which of the several major groups holds the most influence, if any do? Xenophrenic (talk) 22:10, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

the beauty of the tp is it is a single issue group, taxes. many people try to add other issues, but none are universally accepted in all tp circles except the founding issue, less tax. this is also the reason for the broad acceptance, most of the 53% of the adult population thinks we pay too much. some of the 47% who dont pay income tax also understand lowering tax rates would actually increase tax revenue overall as more jobs and investment would result. Darkstar1st (talk) 09:29, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I'm fairly certain 99% of Americans would like to pay less tax. That doesn't sound like a TP-specific concern. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:22, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Idea

Create a mini-project to bring the articles of Neda, Mohamed Bouazizi, Khaled Said, and Hamza Ali Al-Khateeb up to GA/FA status. Possibly expand to include others whose deaths became symbols of war and peace (i.e. Pat Tillman). Would you like to work on something like this? Ocaasi 21:18, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Council/Proposals/HistoryBioLife. Might need a new name, but check it out... Ocaasi 04:34, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Reading is Fundamental

Copied from this talk page and this talk page to here for further discussion:

More illuminating commentary. Thank you. I've used neither sarcasm nor innuendo, but you are welcome to interpret my comments as such if you feel it helps you in some way. To answer your only question: Take it as it was given, as serious communication (no sarcasm or innuendo), especially the part about your editing the Steffans BLP (not all "BLPs", as you have again misread). My intent was to suggest that the Steffans BLP would be best handled by dispassionate (about her, and her "life", and her reputation, and her "noteriety", etc.) editors. If you have trouble understanding me (you wouldn't be unique, as I occasionally am not as clear as I could be), simply let me know and I'll do my best to clear up any confusion. Heh, or you can keep jumping to wrong conclusions and keep ending up with nothing but misinterpretations -- *shrugs* -- your call. By the way, I will indeed continue to work on snarkiness; I anticipate having it honed to a fine art eventually.

One request, The Gnome: could we please continue this (if that is your want) on either your or my talk page? We've cluttered Fæ's page enough, and we've even strayed from the original issue. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 04:37, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

The sarcasm and the innuendo in your correspondence are in the eye of the beholder, of course. Let's just leave your text up for all beholders. No more need be said on this, as I imagine more of it will be coming down the pipeline. On an unrelated note, I trust you will indeed work on getting rid of your self-admitted snarkiness, as promised.

One last request, Xenophrenic: could you please explain on what basis exactly you would think I'm not "dispassionate" enough to contribute to this particular article? When I said I inted to stay away from (appropariately) editing it, I was clearly pointing out my previous involvement in it, which again involved the duo of you and Malik Shabazz, a truly exhausting and dispiriting experience. I never implied I'm in any way passionate about the subject or the article. You may be confusing 'persistence' with 'passion'; not the same thing. Or you are simply throwing around ad hominem labels. Recap: You insinuate I'm not dispassionate; prove it. Or, else, sail on.-The Gnome (talk) 07:06, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

As I've noted above, "I've used neither sarcasm nor innuendo", but I've said you are welcome to 'behold' my comments any way you wish -- at least we agree on something.

• "...I trust you will indeed work on getting rid of your self-admitted snarkiness, as promised."

You appear to have misread yet again. Here is what I said: "I will indeed continue to work on snarkiness; I anticipate having it honed to a fine art eventually." Glad I could clear that up for you.

• could you please explain on what basis exactly you would think I'm not "dispassionate" enough to contribute to this particular article?

Of course -- but just so we're clear, I suggested that dispassionate editors would better edit the article, not that you were incapable of editing it. Your comments about "snow-whiting" and "noble endeavor" are the basis. When you see me remove poorly sourced content from this BLP, you make remarks that convey to me that you feel text is being 'supressed' because it is, in your opinion, negative or unflattering, instead of simply in violation of Misplaced Pages editing standards. That leaves me with the impression that you have already formed beliefs about the subject of the article, and that you would rather see those personal conclusions in the article instead of encyclopedic content that meets Misplaced Pages's requirements. In addition, you have referred to multiple editors as "a duo", further reinforcing the impression that not only do you feel your personal conclusions are being supressed, but that there is a concerted, collaborative effort to do so, instead of simply acknowledging that more than one editor has considered your edits problematic. There is no conspiracy here. Finally, reviewing your recent input on the article talk page and Fæ's talk page, fully 80% of your comments are about editors, and their alleged motivations, or their user pages, or misrepresentation of their comments to you, etc., while leaving a bullet-pointed list of actual article improvement concerns completely unaddressed.

Hopefully that more clearly explains why I feel the article would be better served by more dispassionate, less-invested editors. Preconceived conclusions about the article subject, conspiracy theories about cabals, and the combative nature of focusing on editors instead of article improvement are unproductive. Malik's very first sentence in his response to the latest round of content issues states: "I don't feel strongly about including it one way or the other, but it's got to have solid sources." I feel the same way. Do you have any interest in helping to achieve that goal? Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 19:45, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Well. I've had quite a few discussions with other Wiki editors, through the few years I'm here, and not all of them were quiet affairs but I have to concede first prize to you for sarcasm. Even when you seem to be denying the existence of sarcasm in your texts, you cannot help being sarcastic! Case in point, what you wrote above: "You appear to have misread yet again. Here is what I said: 'I will indeed continue to work on snarkiness; I anticipate having it honed to a fine art eventually.' Glad I could clear that up for you." Really? Well, go ahead and carry on, hone that snarkiness to a fine art. I happen to consider snarkiness extremely counter-productive in a collaborative effort, such as Misplaced Pages editing. Therefore, the rest of your text is rendered meaningless. It is quite clear that you are not in Misplaced Pages to contribute and/or collaborate in a honest and straightforwad manner (e.g. you refuse to abide by one of its most fundamental principles) but for other reasons, which I care not analyse. Please stay away from this Talk Page. It's been soiled enough. Sail on, now.-The Gnome (talk) 22:19, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

• "Really? Well, go ahead and carry on, hone that snarkiness to a fine art. I happen to consider snarkiness extremely counter-productive in a collaborative effort, such as Misplaced Pages editing."

Yes, really. And you are welcome to your opinion. I, on the other hand, find it frequently breaks down all-too-formal-barriers and allows for even more productivity. But to each their own.

• "Therefore, the rest of your text is rendered meaningless."

Huh? Where did that come from? If you don't have a reasonable answer, or need more time to formulate one, or realize you cannot, just say so ... no need to come up with non sequitur leaps of illogic.

I see you have also declined my request that you provide a diff showing the alleged violation of which you have accused me (no surprise there). One of Misplaced Pages's hundreds of fundamental principles, the WP:AGF guideline suggests that editors "should assume good faith". Identical in practice and function, my personal guideline is "do not assume bad faith" -- and I then go Misplaced Pages one better by refraining from making any unfounded assumptions at all (which, by the way, is fully supported by the very page to which you linked). Try it sometime; it does wonders for the advancement of contribution and collaboration in building this encyclopedia.

If you don't want my responses to you, then do not address me. Simple enough. Also, I don't sail; looks like fun, though. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 23:03, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I was serious, by the way, when I asked if you had any interest in helping with the proper sourcing of content in the Steffans article. I know you've indicated that you are "on the sidelines", but your input as one of the proponents of the content at issue would be valuable. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 05:48, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

On your recent post to ANI regarding review of an administrator's conduct.

Hullo. I did look this over, albeit in something slightly less than my usual depth.

I was initially taken quite aback by the content of the talk page you referenced. (And seriously, thanks heaps for coming out with all the diffs and all layed out and well formatted. It's a breath of fresh air.) But it seems to be quite out of character for this person. Maybe you've just rubbed them up the wrong way somehow? (Noting of course that everyone has to own how they respond to being rubbed, just saying.)

I've left a note on their talk where I hypothesis you're cut from 100% troll meat, by the way.

If this doesn't quiet down, please do feel free to leave a note on my talk page, I'd be happy to attempt to broker a detente. I'm quite effective, usually both parties end up hating me so much for my blundering and ham-fisted communication that they forget entirely what the beef was they had with each other.

Aaron Brenneman (talk) 06:25, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps I need to stop making that joke-at-my-own-expense, lest I accidentally make it true by repeating it too often. Is there no place in this binary world for any nuance? - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 10:33, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and I failed to mention before that I'd appreciate it if you could refrain from reverting F for a little while? This may be tantamount to asking you not to edit it, I realise, but the article isn't going anywhere and it might help cool things down. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 10:40, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I've refrained for a while; going to go back to editing now. In particular, I'm concerned about the loading up of the Talk page with material that WP:BLP policy otherwise won't allow in the article. Doesn't BLP cover Talk pages as well? Xenophrenic (talk) 19:11, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

TPM parentage

Hey Xeno -- I ldon't kow about the rest of JLMadrigal's comments -- and I don't know why SignBot hasn't added a signature for him -- but I looked at the Atlantic reference, and it does in fact refer to Paul as the intellectual godfather of the TPM. (I found the WP Ron Paul article interesting in that regard as well.) Jo3sampl (talk) 20:10, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't disputing that some have referred to him as the "intellectual godfather" of the TPm. My concern was that he was being described as the founder of the present TP movement, which he isn't. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 17:24, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Possible copyvio problems - Wade Sanders

Hi Xenophrenic, I have been directed here by your Complaints Department. Please could you take a look at Talk:Wade Sanders#Possible copyvio and offer your thoughts. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:47, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I've addressed the issues on the article Talk page. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 17:24, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

You havent explained your edits on the article and are dangerously close to edit warring over it. Please reconsider and come talk about it. ZHurlihee (talk) 20:49, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

You should read the article talk page. Missed you, Xenophrenic (talk) 20:57, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Bot

I have to admit, I'm one too. There's nothing wrong with bots per se, but their quality is directly related to the skill and attention of their algorithm writers. ;) Even so, that posting is disturbing. A few stock phrases are one thing, but duplicating an entire conversation is another.   Will Beback  talk  10:14, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit conflicts

LOL, looks like we were thinking the same thing at the same time. AzureCitizen (talk) 21:10, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

In the span of about 20 minutes, I had edit conflicts with you on 3 different articles. Yours were always a split-second before mine; I guess I'm getting rusty ;-) Xenophrenic (talk) 01:47, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Coffee Party related articles & 3-Day old account:Galafax

• FYI, there is a posting on ANI regarding your editing on Annabel Park; the user lodging their concern apparently forgot to post the usual ANI notices. AzureCitizen (talk) 05:50, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

• You're being discussed at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. Just a FYI that you are listed as a disputant on a report on this board. The thread in question is Coffee Party USA. Have a nice day. Hasteur (talk) 13:00, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the notices. Galafax has also posted at the 3rd Opinion noticeboard as well, but appears to have removed that request. It would probably be better if all of these identical discussions were rolled into a single location just to cut down on the confusion. I'll refrain from commenting until a proper venue is selected, and a neutral summary of the existing issues is generated. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:24, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

DRN had them close down the 3O request (Otherwise it's canvasing). When I saw the ANI thread, I cross linked both postings and made the suggestion that one should be closed down to unify the discussion. Hasteur (talk) 12:57, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the assistance, Hasteur. The new Galafax account hasn't edited since he posted his request at various venues. As of this bot edit, the ANI thread has been archived. As for the remaining DRN thread, Galafax's statement completely misquotes me; Galafax links this diff, and then claims I reverted it (I didn't; that was a different editor). There is really nothing at that thread to which I can respond to at this time. As I noted above, I'll be quite happy to comment if a neutral summary of actual existing issues is ever generated. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 18:18, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

...that thread, too, has scrolled off into the archives. I'm going to consider the issue closed until he reappears under another name. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:11, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

James O'Keefe BLP concerns

Hi, the material I removed with this edit is inappropriate because it makes controversial claims about a living person in the encyclopedic voice, rather than merely summarizing noteworthy criticisms and allowing readers to draw their own conclusions. Please note that there is an exception to the three-revert rule for "Removal of libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material that violates the policy on biographies of living persons (BLP)." (See WP:NOT3RR) Please discuss this material on the article talk page before reinserting it. DickClarkMises (talk) 04:19, 21 August 2011 (UTC) FYI: I've submitted a report at the BLP noticeboard here. DickClarkMises (talk) 04:29, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Howdy. Please raise your specific concerns on the article talk page for discussion. I've looked at the diff of your edit, and I do not see the "controversial claims" to which you refer. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 06:20, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

James O'Keefe

Thanks for working on this and keeping me informed. Editors have been incorrect in using material from RS; I have found more inaccuracies in this article than almost any other, including changing words in quotes. Also think the Lead is getting overweighted with lengthy quotes. Made some changes to the Hoyt material - he didn't have the raw footage at the time, as it wasn't released until after the California AG had released its report. (Something I had noticed a while ago.)Parkwells (talk) 17:19, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Your edit summary gave me a good chuckle

Hey, I logged in and checked my watchlist and saw this edit by you, and your edit summary gave me a good chuckle for whatever reason. It just sounded funny. I'm super tired and needed a good laugh! :) John Shandy` • talk 13:12, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

FYI

Hello Xenophrenic, I just wanted to let you know that you are mentioned by myself in this ANI post. Thanks,  Redthoreau -- (talk) 21:24, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Remarks allegedly made by Clinton, Berry, et al

not only is the qoute in a rs, (ill let you look it up since i am making the point it does not belong in wp, ergo, why no source listed, but i will eat my hat if i am wrong, see user page for proof i will actually eat it.), but 3 other people, with high lvl clearance, witnessed her say it. Darkstar1st (talk) 20:35, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

You are making the claim, so I'd appreciate if you'd direct me to the reliable source upon which you are basing it. By reliable source, I mean sources that would meet Misplaced Pages's standards for such a contentious assertion about a living person. I have looked, and I see no sources, and would consider that assertion to be nothing more than 'National Enquirer'-style rubbish or political chicanery. If "the point you are making" is that such rubbish doesn't belong in Misplaced Pages because it isn't reliably sourced, then you will get no argument from me. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:43, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Some would say that Civil rights laws were not passed to protect the rights of white men and do not apply to them, but civil rights apply to all people, Mary Frances Berry, Chairwoman, US Commission on Civil Rights. i cant stand getting quotes out of context, if you can provide a source for the above, i will strike my post and issue an apology. Darkstar1st (talk) 17:06, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll show you mine, if you show me yours. And I asked first (see above). You took the Obama quote out of context, as described on the TPm talk page. You haven't yet provided a source for the alleged Clinton quote. Now, I see that you have finally produced a source for a "Ramirez and Berry" statement, but that source contradicts (and certainly doesn't support) the alleged Berry misquote you also posted. Where is the source for that? Oh, wait ... I see now. You claim it is from Robert R. Detlefsen's "Civil Rights Under Reagan", page 141? Sorry - your misquote isn't in that source, either. You didn't think I'd check? Xenophrenic (talk) 18:32, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Alan Grayson

I have asked for a third opinion on the infobox issue and it's now listed there under active disagreements.-Regards-KeptSouth (talk) 12:58, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

hey

Didn't realize you were in the protect ip page. (I had had a copy open most of the day so I was looking at cache.) I'll go work on some of the other stuff that needs doing, so we don't trip on each other. I've only looked at your first edit, it looks fine though. Elinruby (talk) 11:20, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to edit while I am editing; it is no bother to me. It's a multi-user system, if not the best design. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 17:33, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

SOPA

Why undo my templating of a reference? The reference was put into its right form and added an archive. ~~Ebe123~~ → report on my contribs. 18:50, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Please accept my apologies. The change to the reference citation was inadvertant. I had rolled back an edit immediately following that reference, and your change apparently got caught with it -- it should be fixed now. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:54, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

It's fine, and I was just confused and didn't revert as it may of been reverted on purpose. ~~Ebe123~~ → report on my contribs. 23:31, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Isn't a separate candidates/opposition section pretty useful when people are actively looking for anti-SOPA challengers to support instead? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel831 (talk • contribs)

You are welcome to create an article for those people, if you believe it would meet Misplaced Pages's encyclopedic requirements and if you believe you can find suitable reliable sources from which to draw. Xenophrenic (talk) 10:44, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Request for your perspective on SOPA

Hi Xenophrenic, there's currently an ongoing discussion about splitting the Stop Online Piracy Act page at Talk:Stop_Online_Piracy_Act#ONGOING_DISCUSSION_-_Splitting_the_Article. You've familiarized yourself with the entry before, and your insight and perspective on the matter would be appreciated. Hope to see you there, Sloggerbum (talk) 23:34, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Seems to have been well covered by the numerous responses already posted there. I see a wide variety of proposals, none of which seem to satisfy everyone. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:02, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Reinstating Smith copyvio note

You removed a noteworthy fact cited to highly reliable good quality sources here. Your reason seems to be objection to the characterization in the edit summary of this matter as "widely reported in news" - which it was. Examples:

Time , Forbes , International Business Times (twice) , Atlantic Wire ...

Also via well known secondary outlets (TechDirt, Mashable etc) usually considered RS for BLPs.

If you feel "widely reported" in the edit summary would be a poor description of this, or risks a BLP issue, just ask me to revdelete the edit summary, or if I'd mind you doing it. I'd have agreed, though it's useful and significant for clarity. Reinstated bare fact with an edit summary that is specific and verifiable to high standards but tried to avoid egregious mentions, hence giving extra detail for you here instead. FT2  19:42, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Update: if you actually meant you would like not to have mentions of time, forbes or "wide reporting" in the ES without them being verifiably cited in the article, that makes more sense. The link for Forbes is already in the article, the links for Time and IBT are above, please go ahead. Also do you want to collapse this section? FT2  19:48, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi, FT2. "McCain has a black baby!" and "Obama is a secret Muslim!" allegations were also widely reported, and I'm not oblivious to the intended impact. However, my concern is that it fails to meet the "High quality reliable sources" requirement of BLP. Reading *all* of the sources shows that he hasn't been "found guilty" at all, and actual reliable sources don't stretch that far. Should we really be citing blogger Tassi for the criminal accusations you've edited into a Misplaced Pages article? I understand that he is the villain of the hour, but seriously...

We really should be discussing this on the article talk page. Would you mind if I copied this to that location for continued discussion? Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 20:29, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

That would work. The difference in this case is there's a specific copyright holder who has specifically stated it's his photo, and specifically stated copyright was violated in its use when he learned of it. Forbes, a major business magazine, and Time, both published on it as did many others. We have not one reliable source saying this isn't the case. Even Smith did not issue a statement denying the violation. Words like "theft", "hypocrite" and the like were used, headlines read "X is a copyright violator" with no qualifiers to avoid legal action, nobody sued, the headlines weren't retracted. So unlike the random conspiracy theories, it's verifiable and reliably sourced, even for a sensitive BLP point. I wouldn't have added it otherwise, and having added it I gave it minimal mention to avoid undue weight. Hence my surprise at your concern. I was also surprised you added "apparently" which is not sourced and crosses into breaking NPOV/NOR, as sources are clear it was a violation, not "apparently" one (on the same facts). I think that word has to be removed, but again, it's not something to rush on, if you want to consider it a bit. Thanks for discussing though, and if there's still an issue, let's keep talking. FT2  21:33, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

What the photographer actually specifically stated is:

• "I switched my images from traditional copyright protection to be protected under the Creative Commons license a few years ago, which simply states that they can use my images as long as they attribute the image to me and do not use it for commercial purposes. I do not see anywhere on the screen capture that you have provided that the image was attributed to the source (me). So my conclusion would be that Lamar Smith's organization did improperly use my image. So according to the SOPA bill, should it pass, maybe I could petition the court to take action against www.texansforlamarsmith.com."

The fact that you don't have Smith's side of the story should be a red flag. And an editor as experienced as you should know that we don't cite story headlines for our information, as those tend to be notoriously over-the-top to grab a reader's attention. No qualifiers in the headlines, you say?

• The Author of SOPA Is Also a Copyright Violator (Sort of) -- The Atlantic Wire

And that article never really says he is guilty; it just quotes the photographer. No, the sources (reliable ones, I mean ... not the blogs trying to create a story here) are not clear that it was a violation. As for the word "apparently"...

• The pretty picture in the background? Apparently Smith didn’t attribute it to DJ Schulte, the photographer who took it. --Time

We could test this out on the BLPNoticeboard just to be sure; should be no scarcity of input given all the commotion surrounding this issue. Look at the bright side: it will certainly lend even more visibility to the "ironic" incident. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:26, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

SOPA process for court order

Penyulap inadvertently undid your undo of my change from earlier. My reasoning behind that edit was, as in the edit summary, the separate process for IP holders, which the next paragraph details. Since IP holders have to first notify the ad networks and payment processors before seeking an injunction against a specific company, it can't really be grouped with DOJ's ability to seek a blanket order forcing all payment processors/ad networks to comply. If I have something terribly wrong, just replace the text again. Thanks.--Res2216firestar 02:39, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I doubt the "undo" was inadvertent. Thank you for the additional explanation -- I see the reasoning behind you edit more clearly now, and I've reincorporated most of it with a minor change. The first sentence was intended to be a collective statement about both "court order" processes, with the subsequent text explaining each one. The wording was probably derived from this in the cited source:

The bill, called SOPA, would allow the U.S. Department of Justice and copyright holders to seek court orders requiring online advertising networks, payment processors and other organizations to stop payments to websites and Web-based services accused of copyright infringement.

Let me know if the present wording can be improved. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 13:44, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Firestar, it would be helpful if you could add a note about changes of mind like this to the talkpage of the article, it's difficult for me to keep track when it's on user talkpages, just makes me look as if I'm warring, when I'm so doing my best to help everyone on that page. Penyulap _talk 08:02, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi

Hi Xenophrenic, I wanted to invite you to join a discussion where I asked about you here I hope you'll come along and have a chat. Penyulap _talk 17:40, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

SOPA

Cirts idea and the solution, can you see any problems with it ? Penyulap _talk 20:21, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Fæ

A request for comments has been opened on administrator User:Fæ. You are being notified due to your prior participation in ANI, RfA, or RfC discussions regarding this user. Thank you, MadmanBot (talk) 20:07, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up

As his history shows, he is pretty difficult to deal with. I bet he is a helluva guy to pal around with in real life.

Incidentally, he is "Ike" on Cleanup.atf, that is where all the new accounts came from yesterday to build his "consensus".AceD (talk) 12:56, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of John Kerry VVAW controversy for deletion

The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/John Kerry VVAW controversy until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Gamaliel (talk) 18:24, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

FYI - Courtesy Notification

As I was intent on changing my position to a simple Keep in the Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/John Kerry VVAW controversy petition, I have asked the closing admin to consider re-opening the AfD to accommodate that position change. JakeInJoisey (talk) 04:56, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Any reason besides the one you gave in your edit summary?

You reverted this external link without a reason. I was/am curious. Swliv (talk) 23:49, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

No reason, besides the one I already gave. Per WP:EL, external links should be kept minimal in articles. It had nothing to do with the actual content of the link (I haven't looked at it, in fact) -- I merely reverted an addition to an already too-long list. So why, you may ask, did I revert that one, and not the link you added just a couple days ago? The short answer: I've seen your edits around Misplaced Pages (SOPA related articles, I think?) and they appear legitimate, whereas 100% of the edits made by User:Chrisbis have been to linkspam external links to the DIPEx Charity website into various Misplaced Pages articles. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 01:58, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Thnx. Mea culpa. Y, to SOPA, a bit; real. Cheers FN. Good to be off on a right (or left) (or correct) foot, with you, for sure. And, FBFW, you've now steered me toward ... DIPEx .... \:-| I need intriguing distractions like a .... Swliv (talk) 21:20, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Feeling like a cat leaving a dead mouse offering at the doorstep. Swliv (talk) 02:33, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm stunned that such a widely linked-to individual doesn't yet have his own Misplaced Pages article. :-) Xenophrenic (talk) 22:50, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

STORM

Why redirect to "Revolutionary movement"? It provides absolutely no information about STORM, nor should it. In fact that article is essentially a dictionary definition. 24.22.217.162 (talk) 21:22, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Howdy. The BLP to which you redirected also provides absolutely no information about the group, nor should it. A reader looking for information about the group should be given reliable information about the group. The "Revolutionary movement" article cites examples, and this could be just such an example (see the full name of the group), but is presently in stub format. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:34, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Steffans talk page

Please stop edit-warring over the talk page. If you can't participate in a civil discussion about possible WP:OWN behavior, maybe you need to take a short break from the article. (Please note that I'm not offering an opinion on the merits of the complaint.) Think about it. Thank you. — MShabazz /_Stalk 07:15, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Malik. Please don't confuse an inappropriate posting of unrelated commentary about editors with a "civil discussion about WP:OWN behavior". The editor posting the garbage has clearly stated, "So rather than discuss it I await mediation" ... so I am waiting for him to initiate that mediation. He hasn't raised a concern on the article talk page that can be "discussed", despite being asked several times. Can you offer a suggestion that will help move things productively forward? Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 07:26, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I've re-read User:Warmtoast's messages and while I see your point, I think it's better to leave the message alone than to edit war over it. I just left a comment in response to the editor's latest message, which included numerous diffs. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 15:32, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution survey

Perdue

Regarding your revert at Bev Perdue, the source does exist, but an extra character was added when the link was put in the article. You can see it here. (I didn't revert your edit because I don't necessarily think it even belongs in the article. No action requested.)  Frank  |  talk  20:18, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Frank. Since I got a 404 error when following the initial link, I had already assumed that was the case. I was able to locate The Blaze source by simply searching for the article title, and then noted that article was just parroting this WITN story -- but thank you for taking the time to provide that link anyway. I won't be reverting my edit, but if I were, it would be to simply state that she was against the amendment, and perhaps to quote her Mississippi quip. It certainly doesn't warrant its own useless "Controversy" header (the current "Political positions" section is fine for this), nor the previous editor's "drew ire" qualification and focus. Information on public figures political positions is fine for these BLP articles; partisan word-play sparring between Governors ... not so much. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 20:41, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Agree; again, no action was requested. My note was as much for your benefit as anything; if someone comes back and says "YES IT IS THERE" you don't have to take the time to dig through and figure out what they're talking about.  Frank  |  talk  22:34, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Requesting another topic ban for User:BruceGrubb. Thank you. Jayjg 01:06, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Bill Maher

I suppose we could just say taking "Maher & his sister". It is sister, right? I think he only has one sibling. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 14:33, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Jenny McCarthy

Seriously? You bounce clearly relevant information that is thoroughly backed up by government sites and documents. You do this solely because the links go through another site whose _URL_ you object to? And you say that you are not even going to review the information? Unbelievable. Kcmurphy88 (talk) 01:41, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Believe it. Please read WP:BLP, especially the parts about sourcing. Thanks, Xenophrenic (talk) 01:50, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Friendly notification

Hi Xenophrenic, I mentioned you here. Best wishes, Draco 18:25, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Bill Maher edit undo

The youtube link was the audio of the person cited. It is an appropriate use of an audio or video recording and it supports the statement I added to the article. You deletion was inappropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drinkzin (talk • contribs) 18:50, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

It was removed as non-notable tabloid trivia. If your addition conveys encylcopedic information of interest to readers, then I'm sure you can find that information conveyed by a WP:RS. YouTube is not a reliable source. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 18:55, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 22

Hi. When you recently edited Tea Party movement, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Scott Walker (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

CNN article and other news agency references

Hi Xeno. I and others (see the CNN talk archives) would like to keep this article free of references of other news agencies. You reverted a removal of such a reference, justifying this change as wording from the supporting citation. First, this should be a direct quote in double parenthesis if you truly wish justify inclusion based on that alone. Second, though most importantly, it is irrelevant whether ten other agencies were specifically 'worded' in the citation as this article is on CNN, not Fox, or MSNBC or whoever else may be mentioned in the citation.

This is a slippery slope that has, after some battles, already been fought back and won. This article is as neutral as one could hope to expect considering the topic. If we allow all of these other news agency references to creep in again, I fear it will turn back into the CNN vs Fox vs MSNBC battleground that it previously was (and that the Fox News Misplaced Pages article sadly still is). I will remove the reference in 24 hours if I do not hear back from you either here or in the CNN talk page. I know you would like to keep the conversations here, but the talk for this article already has a section and I'd like others to see it so that there can be consensus. Daydreamer302000 (talk) 08:47, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Responded on article Talk page. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:44, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit war at Zero Dark Thirty - closed

See WP:AN3#User:Mollskman reported by User:StillStanding-247 (Result: ). You appear to have reverted the article yourself during this time period, and you have made at least four groups of edits on September 2. An edit such as this one, marked as a copy edit, seems to change some of the disputed language, such as 'selectively edited.' If you will agree to avoid the article for seven days, the case might close with no sanctions against you. If you want to dispute the 3RR, consider commenting in the report. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:37, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Ed! It appears that I slept through all of the drama and fireworks; the editor who reverted at least 4 times in a 24 hour period has already been blocked, and the case closed. I do still wish, however, to respond to the message you left me. If you'll indulge me, and allow me to momentarily don a wikilawyer hat and ruthlessly parse the crap out of what you said:

• You appear to have reverted the article yourself during this time period

Yes, I did. So did Mollskman, Belchfire, Orvilleunder, StillStanding-247, North8000, AzureCitizen, and even InfamousPrince, if the removal of tags that I inserted is considered a revert. Out of all these editors, only Mollskman reverted more than 3 times in a 24-hour period. A "revert", defined as any edit that changes existing content, is a legitimate and necessary part of the editing process.

• you have made at least four groups of edits on September 2

No, I made only 3 groups of edits on September 2 (and a total of only 4 groups of edits to that article *ever*, at the time of this edit). I believe your error stems from splitting my first 3 edits to the article into two groups, when they were actually all part of the same editing session -- broken only by my brief detour to that article's Talk page to leave multiple comments before I continued editing. You can verify this by checking my contributions for that timeframe. With that error rectified, I have to ask: What's your point? I've been known to make twice that many "groups of edits" on a single article, especially during weekends when I have the time available.

• An edit such as this one, marked as a copy edit, seems to change some of the disputed language, such as "selectively edited."

Seems to? Oh, it definitely does -- make no mistake about it. Just as this previous edit by Mollskman, also marked as a copy edit, seems to delete that identical disputed language. I could argue that I was just mirroring a similar edit with a similar summary, but if you'll look closer at our two edits, you'll see that my edit also fixed punctuation (note the close-quotation mark addition in the lead) and reference formatting ... you know, actual copy edits -- and was accompanied by a lengthy, simultaneous (within 15 seconds) explanation on the talk page that wouldn't fit in that edit summary. By contrast, Mollskman's edit merely deleted 3 words that he didn't like, under the misdescription of "copy edit". If your concern is about edit summaries matching the edits, then I feel you are addressing the wrong editor. If your actual concern is that I undid another editor's deletion of those words, then please set that concern aside; my return of the deleted sourced wording was at Mollskman's direction. Please review the most recent discussion and let me know if you disagree:

The use of OPSEC has created a selectively edited video critical of Obama. Does the source call it a selectively edited video or does it talk about editing practices as you point out above? Call it what RS have called it and then talk about its editing style and practices. --Mollskman (talk) 23:35, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

The cited reliable source did indeed convey that the OPSEC video was selectively edited, but if you wish the article to also convey more detail about the selective editing that was done, we can certainly do that. My preference was brevity in that section, but let's give your suggestion a go. Xenophrenic (talk) 03:53, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

ok. --Mollskman (talk) 12:58, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I called it what reliable sources called it, as requested by Mollskman. Relevant source links: ABC News and from The News Journal: The group, Special Ops OPSEC (for operational security), says in a selectively edited video that Obama has deliberately leaked classified information about the 2011 SEAL raid that killed Osama bin Laden and has claimed too much credit for it.

• If you will agree to avoid the article for seven days, the case might close with no sanctions against you.

The case already closed with no sanctions against me. Frankly, had I seen your comment before the case closed, I would have balked and immediately asked you to more clearly explain the reasoning behind your suggestion. (I also would have questioned why you did not make the same "avoid the article" request of the actual guilty party.)

• If you want to dispute the 3RR, consider commenting in the report.

I've just looked at that report, and I don't see anything in it that I would have disputed, or anything that would benefit from additional comment from me. There was definitely a 3RR violation, and I pretty much agree with everything discussed there.

_____________________________________________________________

Okay, I'll remove the wikilawyer hat now. Someone close to me often says, "wearing that hat makes a person's butt look big" — (that's her off-handed way of saying wikilawyering makes a person look like a big ass). She's probably right. Speaking instead as simply an editor to an admin: Thank you for choosing to visit a contributor's talk page with options, rather than reflexively whacking with the block-hammer anyone and everyone even remotely involved in a reported editing squabble. Too many admins do the latter, in my opinion, to the detriment of the project. I can appreciate your approach, even while I disagree (see the above arguments and clarifications) that my editing behavior was in any way inappropriate.

I still intend to edit that article (and eventually, related articles too, as I have reviewed numerous reliable sources related to the subject -- might as well make productive use of the information). Those edits may include the reverting of other edits, but that does not automatically equate to edit warring. Sometimes the revert will be at the behest of the contesting editor, as in this case; or as part of WP:BRD -- and I always push for constructive discussion; and I simply don't cross the 3RR bright line. I don't understand how someone with basic grade school math skills could ever violate 3RR, it's simple arithmetic; "edit-warring" in general, however, is obviously subject to wide interpretation. Something raised enough of a red flag that you were prompted to stop by and leave me a note, Ed, and that still has me concerned. If I'm missing or misunderstanding something, I hope you'll let me know, otherwise I'll consider your note a general caution. Xenophrenic (talk) 09:20, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I left you a note because you made a dozen edits to the Zero Dark Thirty article during the period when Mollskman was accused of edit warring. My initial thought was that more than one party might need to be sanctioned. You certainly came close enough to the edit war to smell the gunpowder. In that light, your confidence that it is easy to avoid 3RR by simple arithmetic could be misplaced. Regarding 'copy edit', you seem to argue that Mollskman's misuse of that term justifies your own. Mollskman is hardly a good example for others to follow, and you have much more experience. EdJohnston (talk) 14:40, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Wow - I really threw up that wall of text? I guess I was having a better holiday weekend than I realized. Sorry about that. To clarify in short (I promise!), I understand why I popped up on your radar ... I certainly was there. While I am very confident that I will avoid crossing the 3RR bright line, please don't confuse that with confidence that I will easily avoid being challenged about general edit warring. To the contrary, I have no confidence in that at all, as such challenges are based largely on the unpredictable subjective perceptions of a reviewing admin - and that actually scares me. I tend to smell a lot of gunpowder, especially around this time every 4 years - but I do what I can to avoid becoming collateral damage by engaging in discussions, seeking resolutions and refraining from edits when legitimate concerns are raised, but there is no defense against subjective arbitrariness. Re: 'copy edit' -- perhaps I was unclear; I said I "could argue (his use of the 'copy edit' description justifies my identical use)" but I didn't (because, as you point out, that really is no justification) and instead argued that my edit actually did contain 'copy edits' while Mollskman's edit did not. I concede, however, that I should have added a "see Talk page" to my edit summary to cover the restoral of text. Finally, if you've looked closely at the article talk page, you've probably noticed that my reserves of "good faith" in my interaction with Mollskman have been almost exhausted by his onslaught of personal attacks. It's not helping matters. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 19:14, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Saw your comments on the article's talk page after having been gone for the last 48 hours. Wanted to pass along this article if you hadn't already come across it in your travels... apparently, Fred Rustmann commented on Fox News in 2005 that there really wasn't any inappropriate security breach with regard to the administration and the leaking of Valerie Plame's information. Ironic, isn't it? AzureCitizen (talk) 15:47, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited BP, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Department of Justice and Clean Air Act (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:15, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

BP mediation

Hi, I noticed you have been helping at the BP talk page. Would you care to join us in a mediation process? Here is the section at BP talk. petrarchan47tc 06:19, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Has this been put on the back burner? Xenophrenic (talk) 20:37, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Personal issues kept me from Misplaced Pages, but it is time to go ahead with this mediation. Since this is my first, would you care to help guide us a bit? petrarchan47tc 19:50, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I doubt this is what you want to hear, but on Misplaced Pages, "Mediation" is rarely more than a ploy to maintain the status quo while a relatively ineffectual bureaucratic process plays itself out to a non-binding conclusion. For that reason, mediation is usually favored by editors when their preferred content appears supported, and their enthusiasm for mediation will decrease in proportion to increased objection to their preferred content. The result of mediation is usually that the article stays in the disputed state for weeks or months (because it's disruptive, some editors will claim, to make "controversial edits" while the Mediation is ongoing), and then no significant agreements are reached. Or if agreements are reached, they could have been achieved much more quickly and easily through simple Talk page discussions. Mediation is, after all, just another Talk page, with one new editor added to the mix with the task of trying to keep the talks focused and organized. But we can go that slow route if that's what folks want. I'll give the Talk page discussions another thorough review and see if I can distill the conflicts down to a few easily manageable issues. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:28, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Talk pages and personal attacks

(Moved from my talk page)

Would you care to reasonably discuss the current situation? Xenophrenic (talk) 13:33, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

We can start with this if you'd like:
(copied from an article Talk page)

I noticed that you have once again edited the comments of other users. Stop it, or you will be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages. If you insist on doing it, please note that if you edit other peoples comments last it makes it easy to just revert your editing other peoples comments. If you edit other peoples comments first, your comments made after you edited other peoples comments will be reverted as well, and it is not reasonable to expect the person who reverts your vandalism to always take the time to disentagle the two and re-add the comments you made. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:37, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I removed personal attacks, per WP:RPA and WP:TPOC. I understand that you may not consider your comments about fellow editors as attacks, but I am requesting that you refrain from making them. What's it going to take to reach an agreement on this? Sincerely, Xenophrenic (talk) 13:46, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I would love to discuss this. I suggest you start by following your own rule, posted at the top of your talk page: "If you post to my talk page, I will just reply here." I posted to your talk page. You didn't reply on your talk page. You deleted my comment and replied on my talk page. You can see my deleted comment here).

So, what part of "Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Talk:Mark Lane (author). Such edits are disruptive and appear to be vandalism." are you having trouble understanding? ---Guy Macon (talk) 13:52, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

It would appear we have a disagreement over what constitutes "legitimate talk page comments". I never removed any. I only removed personal attacks. No Personal Attacks Policy states, in the very first sentences: Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Misplaced Pages. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks do not help make a point; they only hurt the Misplaced Pages community and deter users from helping to create a good encyclopedia. Derogatory comments about other contributors may be removed by any editor. Repeated or egregious personal attacks may lead to blocks.

I know your edit summary said "comments that criticize your behavior", but I find allegations of POV-pushing to be unwarranted and extremely offensive. So I have removed them. Xenophrenic (talk) 14:07, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

May I ask why you insist on restoring those comments to an article Talk page? I mean, what purpose do you feel it serves? Xenophrenic (talk) 14:12, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I started to write a reply several times but had to break off to revert your continued vandalism of my comments. Could you at the very least vandalize without adding comments? I have tried to restore the bit that you wrote, but you are making that difficult. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:24, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

There has been no vandalism of your comments. WP:Vandalism policy states: it is acceptable to blank comments constituting vandalism, internal spam, or harassment or a personal attack. The policy also warns you against mislabeling my good faith edits as vandalism. Can you tell me now what purpose is served by your repeated restoring of your personal attacks? Xenophrenic (talk) 14:36, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

OK, I see that you have at least temporarily stopped vandalizing my comments.

I hope that you can understand that we can't just let you label anything you wish as a personal attack and delete it. We have guidelines that explain when you can and when you can not do that.

Please read this:

Misplaced Pages:Talk page guidelines#Editing comments

If you are going to try to make a case that your vandalizing other people's talk page comments is allowed, that's where you need to find the reason listed.

Another guideline that you should read is this:

Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks#Removal of text

As I suggested before, if you think I have violated WP:NPA, go to WP:ANI and report it, but first read WP:BOOMERANG. If you are right, an administrator will correct me.

And finally, several people have told you that edit warring is not allowed. You are not only vandalizing other people's talk page comments, you are edit warring when your vandalism is removed. Note that the 3RR limit does not apply to me reverting your vandalism of other people's talk page comments. As I said before, you mixing you own comments in with the vandalism makes it hard to just nuke your vandalism, but I have done my best to restore your comments.

And yes, I stand by my assertion that it is vandalism. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:55, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Can you tell me now what purpose is served by your repeated restoring of your personal attacks?

As for the the guidelines I've linked to you, and you've re-linked back to me above, of course I've read them, and they advise me to remove your personal attacks. As noted above, your comments have gone beyond being merely uncivil and are offensive. As for your misunderstanding of vandalism, you can call a loaf of bread a fish all day long, but it still isn't a fish. If you are still under the misconception that the removal of your personal attacks constitutes "vandalism", you should raise your concerns at WP:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism. You may wish to rethink your intent to use "vandalism" as an excuse to violate the 3RR bright line rule. If you'll read a little more carefully, you'll see the exemption is only for "obvious vandalism—edits that any well-intentioned user would agree constitute vandalism, such as page blanking and adding offensive language", and does not apply to your disruptive editing. Xenophrenic (talk) 15:31, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

In the interest of getting back to productive editing, how about we both agree to refrain from the kind of edits we've each complained about above? Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 23:57, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

You know where to go to report me, but of course you won't because you will be told not to edit other user's comments. Until you do, I will revert any and all vandalism of my comments. Unless they are on your talk page, you don't get to edit my comments, you don't get to move my comments elsewhere. YOU ARE NOT TO MODIFY MY COMMENTS IN ANY WAY. I stand by my comments. I strongly suggest that you voluntarily withdraw from editing the article. I do not believe that you are capable of editing with a neutral point of view, I am quite certain that your interpretation of Misplaced Pages's policies is incorrect, and I am far from being alone in these conclusions. Don't like hearing that? Think it is a personal attack? Go ahead and report it. but until you do, leave my comments on article talk pages alone. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:22, 1 January 2013 (UTC)