Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by TracyMcClark (talk | contribs) at 21:29, 22 October 2009 (→Perhaps I should be asking you: What has "LotLE" to do with this and what do I have to do with him?????). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Help needed - Edit war 2 - Aggressive and Incompetent Edits by User Verbal

I am requesting help with an over-aggressive and inconsiderate editor by the name of VERBAL. This person keeps reverting a page to add an external link while losing dozens of valid updates to the original page. He/She ignores when proper updates are made and reverts them even using Twinkle and spurious excuses for the revisions. I am ill-equipped to fight this user. You will see what I mean if you check the revision history for the following page.

List of channelled texts

Thanks in advance for any help you can provide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.175.53.72 (talk) 16:23, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Edit war

I am well within the 3rr rule. There is no war. Thay have finally gone to the talkpage, which Brothe whatever reverted.--Die4Dixie (talk) 22:48, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Please don't tell me you don't see a war when it happens :)  ;) --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:02, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Seems like others agree with my assessment. About time there was alittle oversite on that page ;)Die4Dixie (talk) 04:51, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Revert on Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories

In re: this revert and edit summary. Per talk refers to this talk page section, specifically the discussions with User:Brothejr (the user who originally reverted my changes). Protonk (talk) 23:11, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Consensus is not clear yet . The discussion with Brothejr is only part of the discussion with one editor and is/was not addressing what should be dumped/rewritten or integrated in a different way.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:01, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, at the time of writing (or re-adding the content), the only person registering a complaint was Brothejr. the other comments in the thread were variously supportive of the revisions made. As I said there, I'm not interested in discussing things for the sake of discussing them, so if someone has a real objection to the changes made, let's hear it. If they don't, I can't imagine why the discussion between me and Brothejr would not settle the matter of the quotes under discussion. Absent some objection to the changes, what is the 'consensus' we are waiting for? Protonk (talk) 00:07, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

It's just not very vise (in my opinion) to be bold while there is still a discussion going on and probably won't lead to a stable version of the article regarding this issue.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:35, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Response to question about Klan

I have answered your question about the Klan on my talkpage. I was not offended in the slightest.--Die4Dixie (talk) 04:02, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Die4Dixie

I think he means me. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:37, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. With D4D you never know.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:49, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Ashe the Cyborg

Hi, thank you so much for your advice. I did actually use the tildes when posting on the talk page but something screwy happened. Nevertheless, good advice :) ABCGi (talk) 08:07, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Sh*t happens but it's nothing to worry about since it can be fixed :) . Best, --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:29, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Ron Paul

Hello, The Magnificent Clean-keeper. I've put forward another proposal in an attempt to resolve the content dispute at Ron Paul. Please take a look and let me know what you think. Thanks! Nick Graves (talk) 17:01, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Nick. I'll kick in when I have time.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

RE: September 2009/Barack Obama Joker Poster

I had already discussed and sourced that particular bit of information on the articles talk page. The article I sourced the "including democrats" from is already referenced in the article.

However, last time I tried to use the same reference more than once I ended up creating several of the same reference links at the bottom of the article. If you could have a look and help me out with this, that would be awesome.

Hope to hear back soon. Metty (talk) 02:21, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I will take a look shortly.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 02:31, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Metty (talk) 02:44, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Done.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 02:46, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

(Oops. Thanks for removing the duplicate quote I just copy and pasted by mistake.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 02:54, 13 September 2009 (UTC))

ACORN

Regarding consensus at ACORN, it wasn't just one editor. It was three. Please see Wikidemon's Talk page, I refuse to be baited into an edit war. Satisfy yourself that this edit was fully supported, and then revert yourself. Thanks. 71.57.8.103 (talk) 01:52, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Nope, it wasn't and you already did get some responses in this regard on both talk pages.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 18:53, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Your ACORN edits

(copy from Noroton's talk page to keep it together)

• Title: Acorn edit and RS :

"Did you really think a fact like that wouldn't have multiple sources?"

Nope, but you should know better and should have provided a RS in the first place (although an online source would be preferred). Cheers, --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:14, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Please point out where a consensus has established that the New York Post is not RS. -- Noroton (talk) 20:16, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

What is it that you want? You provided another source and Wikidemon converted it into an online one. Problem solved, isn't it?--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:21, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

You put a note on my page in which you continued to call the New York Post an unreliable source. I wanted to know why. What is it you want? -- Noroton (talk) 20:26, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

PS: There is a big difference in "it would be investigating" and "is investigating".--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:28, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, no, the difference is so trivial as to not be worth mentioning. You didn't answer my question. -- Noroton (talk) 20:41, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

National dish article

Hi, thank you for your response. I am sorry that I can't get back to you on the discussion over national dish article, specifically on Germany, as I've been terribly busy lately. I will let you know when we can work it out together. Haleth (talk) 12:12, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

You asked an excellent question. Here's an excellent answer.

In this edit of yours, where you erased the entry on medical marijuana from Presidency of Barack Obama, you commented, "A 'very popular topic'? For whom? Any source that says so or is it just a popular topic for you? rm. 'news section' w/o connection."

OK. That's a legitimate point.

On March 26, 2009, the New York Times reported, "... the first live Internet video chat by an American president... after 3.6 million votes were cast, one of the top questions turned out to be a query on whether legalizing marijuana..."

So there you have it. The New York Times has addressed your concern. Please revert your edit. Thank you.

Grundle2600 (talk) 21:42, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

An excellent answer? Maybe by your standards, not by mine. Let's summarize the notability by using your source:

• Over "100,000 questions were submitted".
• Over "3.6 million votes were cast" to select the "most popular" questions (but what is the total # of votes?)..
• "after 3.6 million votes were cast, one of the top questions turned out to be a query on whether legalizing marijuana might stimulate the economy by allowing the government to regulate and tax the drug." So was it really about the drug itself?
• Obama quote about this: “I don’t know what this says about the online audience...". That one is a funny question that I'm asking myself.
• "more than 64,000 people watched President Obama answer questions on Thursday in the first live Internet video chat by an American president". Huh? Quite a low number considering the number of questions submitted and the millions of votes cast, doesn't this raise a question in your own mind?
• And finally, was this whole thing brought up again besides when it was "news"? (At this point I want to remind you about wp:NOTNEWS).

So why do you think it belongs in the article and to top it up, as you did, deserves even it's own section without connection what-so-ever? And please don't give me, at any point, your standard "NPOV"-lecture that you're spreading around. To be blunt (and I know it is not very polite from my side but my patience is running out fast now), why don't you shove it up yours till it hits your brain so you understand what you are talking about? Take it as a matter of speech even so it sounds somehow is for sure highly offensive. I just don't know how I can make some simple things clear to you (and I'm not the only one). Look, I neither love nor hate you. You're just not a good WP editor and probably never going to be one (when it comes to politics) but rather could or would be a good news reporter (and again, when it comes to politics). I mentioned this at least ones at some point.

Anyways, wish you the best (I really do), The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 22:53, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Roman Polanski

I'm trying to keep the baying mob which is gathering on Talk:Roman Polanski from burning down the cinema. Would you mind taking a look? Cheers, Crafty (talk) 00:30, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, besides other things I'm busy watching the article itself (even so user:Sinneed does a pretty good job there keeping notorious "crap" out there) although I have to call it a night shortly. Can't promise anything but I'll try to keep an eye at the article's talk page the next few days, depending on the news that come in (if any). Just keep your head up and poor some water on the "cinema". Best, The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:45, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Cheers, I've just reverted Urban's revert of your revert on the article page. But I think that's about all I can do without tripping over 3RR. Crafty (talk) 00:46, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

You made an honest mistake.

You made an honest mistake with the comment that you wrote when you made this edit. Your comment says that I violated my restriction. You are wrong. I am allowed one revert per week, per each Obama related article. I did not violate that restriction.

In addition, the information that I added is relevant and well sourced. Please revert your edit. Thank you.

Grundle2600 (talk) 22:01, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

That is your interpretation. I try to stick to the facts. Best, --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 22:12, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

If the facts back up your accusation that I violated my restriction, then please post links to the two reverts that I made to the article with a one week time period. Grundle2600 (talk) 22:28, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, wait. I see. I did add the same information twice in under a week, but I did not realize it when I did it the second time. I apologize. That was my fault. I thought the original objection was that I was synthesizing two things together into one. So by adding them into separate sections, I was not doing that, so there is no possibility of synthesis. In order to prove my good faith, I will avoid editing that particular article for the rest of October 2009, based on that standard time clock that's located in England. Grundle2600 (talk) 22:32, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

What you should avoid is that editors (like me) have to remind you about your restrictions that can get you blocked for some extended time if you don't obey them. I'll be the last one filing a report but don't count on other editors to give you the same kind of slack.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 22:40, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I should be asking you

Does LotLE get some sort of indulgence for his abrasive comments in his edit summaries? And are you likewise immune regarding your false sock accusations against me? 64.208.230.145 (talk) 20:57, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Why should I care about "LotLE" and why should I (and everybody else here) think that you're anything else but a sock? If you prefer to be taking serious in certain areas of WP, you might want to create an account ; But of course, you can choose whatever suits you best. Till then, have a fun and nice day.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:29, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

And if you have an answer to my question in my edit summary feel free to post it.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:29, 22 October 2009 (UTC)