Archive 2
I invite you to discuss the dead links by clicking above link. -- George Ho ( talk) 22:11, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
As a heads up the user 69.171.176.173 ( contributions) did two edits very similar to the ones by Kelseyxxx15 that you reverted. -- Marc Kupper| talk 04:54, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is
BLP violations, wikilawyering, and tendentious editing by Tdadamemd. Thank you.
NeilN
talk to me 00:38, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
http://www.thenewamerican.com/freedomindex/ DD2k I was not spamming the pages I was adding relevant information that is not available on any other website government or private. I don't think you took the time to really explore the pages within our voter index area. Every sitting senator or representative has an individual page with how they cast their vote. Example On Passage of the Bill S. 815: A bill to prohibit employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. Vote Date: November 7, 2013 http://www.thenewamerican.com/freedomindex/profile.php?id=S001141 Jefferson Sessions page. You can go here and see how he voted on 70+ key bills. You my not agree on how we rate the vote but what you should see is the information is relevant to his user page on Wikipedia. I added a citation that wasn't in anyway malicious to the pages I edited.
Each bill on the voter index page on The New American is linked to the bill. The information provided on these pages carry weight and add to the [BLP]. This is how they voted on a specific bill. If the person viewing the page wants to understand the bill all thy need to do is click the bill name that is linked and they view the bill. This is factual information. The above bill in my example is linked to http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=113&session=1&vote=00232
I looked up what Americus55 (talk): said Rv - no, this is an non-notable site and has no weight on this BLP
This is a notable website and I disagree with this statement and the information provided is backed up by reliable sources validating the edited I added were reliable sources.
DD2K Please provide me with a link that I can go view all this verified information on every standing senator and representative in one source.
Weight is defined- Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.
/info/en/?search=Wikipedia:UNDUE#cite_ref-3
I am asking you review the content within the freedom index and let me know if you feel your still correct and say I am spamming.
If your decision remain unchanged I would like to request this discussion be passed to a moderator. Thanks Jmullinax ( talk) 14:14, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
If you have time and the desire to re-engage in the debate over legal issues and polls at the Justin Bieber article ....pls comment at Talk:Justin Bieber#RfC: Behaviour and legal issues Thank you for your time. -- Moxy ( talk) 04:07, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
My update for Yee's Voting on SCA-5 could be found on http://legiscan.com/CA/rollcall/SCA5/id/313934
please check for the info — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tingtone ( talk • contribs) 07:58, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Following on from the discussion, CFredkin is now claiming that because the sources he provided on Mark Begich's page were not reliable, completely different sources on Michael Grimm's page are now also "not reliable", despite the source in question being a named journalist and political director. There is a discussion going on at the talk page and your input would be appreciated. Thanks, Tiller54 ( talk) 00:52, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
I was wrong about the revert policy and I did cross 3RR on Southern Poverty Law Center. Sorry. EvergreenFir ( talk) 06:31, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi DD2K: Your consensus for section blanking at the "Obama" page for Legacy section blanking is being stated there, could you glance at this. FelixRosch ( talk) 15:33, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
![]() |
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | |
For your outstanding work in unearthing the true origins of Jews and Communism Coretheapple ( talk) 18:42, 28 April 2014 (UTC) |
First I wanted to thank you for the outstanding work you've done on Jews and Communism on Jimbo's talk page. Question: Does the article continue to duplicate that external website in a substantive way? Because if so, the page needs to be blanked per WP:COPYVIO. Coretheapple ( talk) 17:28, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
In June 1917, the number of Jewish Bolsheviks present at the First All-Russian Congress of Soviets was a minimum of 31 percent, in addition 37 percent of Unified Social Democrats were Jews.[3] In the 23 October 1917 Bolshevik Central Committee meeting that discussed and voted on a "armed insurrection", 6 of the 12 participants were Jews. Vladimir Lenin,✡ Leon Trotsky,✡ Grigory Zinoviev,✡ and Grigory Sokolnikov✡ consisted the four of the seven Politburo members responsible for directing the so-called "October Revolution."
In June 1917, the number of Jewish Bolsheviks present at the First All-Russian Congress of Soviets was a minimum of 31 percent.[16] In total, 1090 deputies were registered for the Congress, of which Bolsheviks had 105 seats.[17]
In the November 1917 election, the only free election of this period, Russian Jews voted for Zionists or for democratic socialist parties, rather than for the Bolsheviks.[18]
In the 23 October 1917 Bolshevik Central Committee meeting that discussed and voted on a "armed insurrection", 5 of the 12 participants were Jews. Leon Trotsky, Grigory Zinoviev, and Grigory Sokolnikov were three of the seven members of the Politburo, an ad hoc organ for political supervision of the armed uprising.[16] This Politburo should not be confused with the "core of the core" Bolshevik organ with the same name established in 1919.
I think there's an issue of plagiarism, possibly, but it needs further investigation. I think you might want to gather the evidence and post to ANI. The list of Stormfront threads is very important also. If we can't get this sorted simply, I am prepared to request arbitration. Jehochman Talk 19:07, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
If you think I have an issue apologizing, that much is simply not correct. But I actually understand a great deal of what you say (if heated and not exactly AGF), so for that..thank you.-- Maleko Mela ( talk) 05:04, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi DD2K. Another recently registered account tried to repeat the same edit on the list page despite the move review. Could you please keep an eye on the page? Best, Middayexpress ( talk) 18:27, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Dave, I respect the work you've already done and your position; you could well be right. But I would prefer to be described as struggling to be co-operative or trying to develop consensus (though not the unanimous kind) or well, pretty much anything rather than "collaborative" [1] - especially when I've just been reading Chetniks. NebY ( talk) 15:28, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jews_and_Communism_(2nd_nomination). Thanks.
MarkBernstein (
talk) 21:25, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi. You contributed to a recent RFC about this topic area. This message is to notify you that the arbitration proceedings at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics are underway, and evidence about all disruptive edits to articles within this topic is being accepted at the relevant case page. If you wish to submit evidence for the committee to consider in reaching its decision, please do so now. The evidence phase of the case ends soon, and evidence submitted after the deadline may not be considered. Further advice on submitting evidence, and what evidence the committee will accept, is linked at the top of the evidence page. Please contact me or the other drafting arbitrator if you require more time to submit evidence. Thank you. For the Arbitration Committee, AGK [•] 14:14, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Collapse rant from condescending asshat on a power trip |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Hey is there some legit justification for reverting my comment on the Admin Notice board?-- Atlantictire ( talk) 00:41, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
![]() |
Your Opinion is More Important than You Think Barnstar | |
You reopened a close that restored people's faith in administrators. Thank you for your effort to stem systemic bias on Wikipedia. USchick ( talk) 17:32, 19 May 2014 (UTC) |
Because you participated in the most recent discussion regarding the proposed move of Hillary Rodham Clinton, you are hereby notified per Wikipedia:Canvassing#Appropriate notification that the administrative determination of consensus from that discussion is being challenged at Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2014 May. Please feel free to comment there. Cheers! bd2412 T 19:20, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for reverting; I should have read the context. -- JustBerry ( talk) 01:15, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
hello;
as far as i can tell from the edit history, you have NEVER edited the Edward Furlong biopage before.
YET you pop up, 20 minutes after my edit, to revert it WITHOUT PROVIDING ANY EXPLANATION.
got a reason for doing that? just wondering...
if you concern was an "edit war", i'd politely suggest that you should examine the page-history more carefully.
this dispute started with user:binksternet unilaterally removing the image, WITHOUT providing a valid reason.
the image was placed on the article over a week earlier by another user, & is not "controversial" or in factual dispute.
it is also one of only 2 images we have of the subject, & is debatably a better photo.
so, i would be fascinated to know your reasons for becoming involved here.
regards,
Lx 121 ( talk) 16:36, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Thank you very much for catching my mistake and reverting my revert :) Snowolf How can I help? 15:29, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Just a note to point out that the AfD result was a procedural delete with the note, "At this point any editor (actually in good-standing) is free to re-create an article on Denise Donnelly if they so choose..." VQuakr ( talk) 05:02, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Hello DD2K: Did you see that someone changed your edit on Putin yesterday. Your Grover Cleveland example looked convincing. Maybe you could look at that Page to see what happened. LawrencePrincipe ( talk) 00:53, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Dave, you deleted my edit on the XOM article which concerned the Gates Foundation being the largest single shareholder of XOM stock. It seems that you somewhere got the idea my edit was stating the Gates Foundation held the most shares of various funds but it only concerned which single shareholder held the most shares of Exxon Mobil stock. I guess it was the rather rambling messages that preceded yours that gave you the idea my edit was about something else but I'm just guessing. Anyway, let me know something. TL36 ( talk) 04:54, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
You mentioned Wikia on Jimbo's Talk page, but it sounded as if you weren't aware of this discussion. 71.23.178.214 ( talk) 15:58, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
My main concern was whether clicking on the link itself could lead to malware, or if the link was to a place notorious for malware. Obviously, the user in question was clueless as to how to express any legitimate concerns he might have had. ← Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:39, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Sorry for reverting your edit. Misunderstood edit summary. Warrenkychu ( talk) 15:16, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Can you help me wit the editing? I quoted the same sources that were used in web page on Jan Karski but you refused to include them into the web page on Roosevelt. Why ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcus19771107 ( talk • contribs)
Thanks for the proposal, I will. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcus19771107 ( talk • contribs) 22:01, 30 June 2014 (UTC) And I must apologize for not complying to the rules, I simple did not know them. Thanks for the help! Marcus19771107 ( talk) 09:21, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed your comment about John having posted on my talk page and that you thought this was canvassing on his part. FYI I had actually approached John first, and at the time I was in the process of advising him on how to improve his editing (and we were actually having some success). John has suffered quite a bit of abuse, false allegations and attacks here and few people have reached out to offer him any support or appropriate guidance in perfecting his editing style and instead they just make the problem worse. He was fully entitled to ask me for further advice/input (in fact I'm pleased that he did for once) and his message was simply a part of an ongoing conversation. That said, in isolation it could look like something else, so I fully understand how you cam to the conclusion you did. -- Shakehandsman ( talk) 17:03, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi DD2K, Your edit suggestion of adding "closely-held" on the president's page for Healthcare looked good and I supported it by posting it with consensus from 5 editors. Another editor has called your edit suggestion a "redundant" expansion and against consensus. Could you take a glance at it. LawrencePrincipe ( talk) 19:03, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
You added a comment on NYB right under mine, saying "you" without specifying (or notifying) whom you mean. Probably not me? -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 17:16, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Your edits made this history section much better. I would put it under "provisional" as the two citations still don't meet WP:Reliable sources, but I am now convinced a reliable source does exists. Actually, that new second source might be, but the link is dead. Can you fix that? Also, that link to the town website is not a WP:Reliable sources, however, the link suggests the information comes from the Brownstone Historical Society. A direct reference to their publishing of this history would likely be WP:Reliable Source, but the town website is not. Anyways, if you have any questions feel free to ask. -- Dkriegls ( talk to me!) 21:28, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Look, I don't what to get into another dispute about this. My only concern is that the source does not say that they are conservative but that they have the same concerns conservatives have. Whether or not you agree isn't really an issue, because that's my position. So what can we agree on in terms of wording that would satisfy both of us? I'm fine saying they are conservative leaning if there is a source for that. Heck, I'm fine with saying it was founded by conservatives if there is a better source that says so explicitly. So what language would you propose?--v/r - T P 21:30, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
This was not a significant edit, but I think that reverting my edit to "Grumman Olson" is wrong. I changed "Grumman Olson" to "Morgan Olson" as the company/product name changed more than 10 years ago (2003). These vehicles are not only old vehicles - brand new Morgan Olson vehicles are being purchased by UPS today. Further, the link "Grumman Olson" takes us to the Morgan Olson article. A google search for Grumman Olson does the same. If the term "Grumman Olson" needs to be mentioned anywhere then it's only on the Morgan Olson page as part of that company's history. Dariomur ( talk) 04:06, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Didn't see the correction at the time, sorry. All's well, thanks. Dariomur ( talk) 01:13, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Okay, you bumped my unfinished work. Now you're obliged to engage on the talk page! No hard feelings, I look forward to continuing the discussion. Womby838 ( talk) 04:32, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Not content with the fact that critical theory is already Marxist she adds even more Marxism to it, and is a feminist too. An yes, Marxist feminism is a thing. -- SNAAAAKE!! ( talk) 04:14, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Also don't remove 12 kilobytes of content to make a point of disagreeing with 2 words. -- SNAAAAKE!! ( talk) 04:16, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Is it really hard to remove smething manually? Is it? -- SNAAAAKE!! ( talk) 04:23, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
"consensus is against it" -- REALLY!? how do you get that conclusion, exactly?
because if you read through the ENTIRE talk page & the article's edit history, you get 2 users who are camped out on the page, dedicatedly reverting any new material that is unfavourable to the subject, for wp:bullshit reasons.
you get one hapless walk-on (& then walk-off) opinion supporting them, citing an essay; a person who never bothered to reply further in the discussion, & has made no significant edits on the article, other than a revert in favour of their position.
THEN, on the other side of it, there are at least about a HALF DOZEN people who have either :
a) added the picture.
b) restored the picture.
and/or c) spoken in favour of using the mugshot, on the article page.
NOT TO MENTION, that you yourself have completely disregarded the merits of the discussion to do a very arbitrary (& innaccurate) "snout count".
please edit more carefully in the future.
if you have any actual interest in working on the article in question, kindly submit your comments on the talk page there.
respectfully,
Lx 121 ( talk) 17:52, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
The simple answer to closing the ANI out is to completely remove the post. That way no one can say you are altering anything. GB fan 20:15, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
You've got some, please reply at your earliest convenience. WormTT( talk) 09:48, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Talk:African American#Straw poll. Thanks.
RightCowLeftCoast (
talk) 18:34, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Please remember to be WP:CIVIL, including in your edit summaries. "Stop messing up this article" [2] isn't particularly instructive. There's a discussion going on at Talk:Mark Udall so if you have thoughts about the article, please engage on the talk page. Champaign Supernova ( talk) 22:24, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate/Evidence. Please add your evidence by December 11, 2014, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Ks0stm ( T• C• G• E) 22:28, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Mind if I eat your brain? Just because I don't edit much doesn't make me a zombie account. -- coldacid ( talk| contrib) 19:39, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi Dave Dial, I've noticed that you have made a rather uncivil political insinuation about me in your edit summary here. Please respect WP:Civility. This is your second reminder from me tonight, and it appears that I am not the only editor that has needed to remind you of this recently. Wikipedia works better for everyone when we all follow the policies and try to interact constructively with each other. If you have concerns about my edits, I will be happy to have a rational discussion about them on the talk pages, in hopes that we may find a mutually-agreeable consensus. TBSchemer ( talk) 06:13, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Oh my! On the principle of "you have to laugh or you'll cry", I shall say thanks for the free entertainment! Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:42, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Archive 2
I invite you to discuss the dead links by clicking above link. -- George Ho ( talk) 22:11, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
As a heads up the user 69.171.176.173 ( contributions) did two edits very similar to the ones by Kelseyxxx15 that you reverted. -- Marc Kupper| talk 04:54, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is
BLP violations, wikilawyering, and tendentious editing by Tdadamemd. Thank you.
NeilN
talk to me 00:38, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
http://www.thenewamerican.com/freedomindex/ DD2k I was not spamming the pages I was adding relevant information that is not available on any other website government or private. I don't think you took the time to really explore the pages within our voter index area. Every sitting senator or representative has an individual page with how they cast their vote. Example On Passage of the Bill S. 815: A bill to prohibit employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. Vote Date: November 7, 2013 http://www.thenewamerican.com/freedomindex/profile.php?id=S001141 Jefferson Sessions page. You can go here and see how he voted on 70+ key bills. You my not agree on how we rate the vote but what you should see is the information is relevant to his user page on Wikipedia. I added a citation that wasn't in anyway malicious to the pages I edited.
Each bill on the voter index page on The New American is linked to the bill. The information provided on these pages carry weight and add to the [BLP]. This is how they voted on a specific bill. If the person viewing the page wants to understand the bill all thy need to do is click the bill name that is linked and they view the bill. This is factual information. The above bill in my example is linked to http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=113&session=1&vote=00232
I looked up what Americus55 (talk): said Rv - no, this is an non-notable site and has no weight on this BLP
This is a notable website and I disagree with this statement and the information provided is backed up by reliable sources validating the edited I added were reliable sources.
DD2K Please provide me with a link that I can go view all this verified information on every standing senator and representative in one source.
Weight is defined- Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.
/info/en/?search=Wikipedia:UNDUE#cite_ref-3
I am asking you review the content within the freedom index and let me know if you feel your still correct and say I am spamming.
If your decision remain unchanged I would like to request this discussion be passed to a moderator. Thanks Jmullinax ( talk) 14:14, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
If you have time and the desire to re-engage in the debate over legal issues and polls at the Justin Bieber article ....pls comment at Talk:Justin Bieber#RfC: Behaviour and legal issues Thank you for your time. -- Moxy ( talk) 04:07, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
My update for Yee's Voting on SCA-5 could be found on http://legiscan.com/CA/rollcall/SCA5/id/313934
please check for the info — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tingtone ( talk • contribs) 07:58, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Following on from the discussion, CFredkin is now claiming that because the sources he provided on Mark Begich's page were not reliable, completely different sources on Michael Grimm's page are now also "not reliable", despite the source in question being a named journalist and political director. There is a discussion going on at the talk page and your input would be appreciated. Thanks, Tiller54 ( talk) 00:52, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
I was wrong about the revert policy and I did cross 3RR on Southern Poverty Law Center. Sorry. EvergreenFir ( talk) 06:31, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi DD2K: Your consensus for section blanking at the "Obama" page for Legacy section blanking is being stated there, could you glance at this. FelixRosch ( talk) 15:33, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
![]() |
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | |
For your outstanding work in unearthing the true origins of Jews and Communism Coretheapple ( talk) 18:42, 28 April 2014 (UTC) |
First I wanted to thank you for the outstanding work you've done on Jews and Communism on Jimbo's talk page. Question: Does the article continue to duplicate that external website in a substantive way? Because if so, the page needs to be blanked per WP:COPYVIO. Coretheapple ( talk) 17:28, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
In June 1917, the number of Jewish Bolsheviks present at the First All-Russian Congress of Soviets was a minimum of 31 percent, in addition 37 percent of Unified Social Democrats were Jews.[3] In the 23 October 1917 Bolshevik Central Committee meeting that discussed and voted on a "armed insurrection", 6 of the 12 participants were Jews. Vladimir Lenin,✡ Leon Trotsky,✡ Grigory Zinoviev,✡ and Grigory Sokolnikov✡ consisted the four of the seven Politburo members responsible for directing the so-called "October Revolution."
In June 1917, the number of Jewish Bolsheviks present at the First All-Russian Congress of Soviets was a minimum of 31 percent.[16] In total, 1090 deputies were registered for the Congress, of which Bolsheviks had 105 seats.[17]
In the November 1917 election, the only free election of this period, Russian Jews voted for Zionists or for democratic socialist parties, rather than for the Bolsheviks.[18]
In the 23 October 1917 Bolshevik Central Committee meeting that discussed and voted on a "armed insurrection", 5 of the 12 participants were Jews. Leon Trotsky, Grigory Zinoviev, and Grigory Sokolnikov were three of the seven members of the Politburo, an ad hoc organ for political supervision of the armed uprising.[16] This Politburo should not be confused with the "core of the core" Bolshevik organ with the same name established in 1919.
I think there's an issue of plagiarism, possibly, but it needs further investigation. I think you might want to gather the evidence and post to ANI. The list of Stormfront threads is very important also. If we can't get this sorted simply, I am prepared to request arbitration. Jehochman Talk 19:07, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
If you think I have an issue apologizing, that much is simply not correct. But I actually understand a great deal of what you say (if heated and not exactly AGF), so for that..thank you.-- Maleko Mela ( talk) 05:04, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi DD2K. Another recently registered account tried to repeat the same edit on the list page despite the move review. Could you please keep an eye on the page? Best, Middayexpress ( talk) 18:27, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Dave, I respect the work you've already done and your position; you could well be right. But I would prefer to be described as struggling to be co-operative or trying to develop consensus (though not the unanimous kind) or well, pretty much anything rather than "collaborative" [1] - especially when I've just been reading Chetniks. NebY ( talk) 15:28, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jews_and_Communism_(2nd_nomination). Thanks.
MarkBernstein (
talk) 21:25, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi. You contributed to a recent RFC about this topic area. This message is to notify you that the arbitration proceedings at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics are underway, and evidence about all disruptive edits to articles within this topic is being accepted at the relevant case page. If you wish to submit evidence for the committee to consider in reaching its decision, please do so now. The evidence phase of the case ends soon, and evidence submitted after the deadline may not be considered. Further advice on submitting evidence, and what evidence the committee will accept, is linked at the top of the evidence page. Please contact me or the other drafting arbitrator if you require more time to submit evidence. Thank you. For the Arbitration Committee, AGK [•] 14:14, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Collapse rant from condescending asshat on a power trip |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Hey is there some legit justification for reverting my comment on the Admin Notice board?-- Atlantictire ( talk) 00:41, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
![]() |
Your Opinion is More Important than You Think Barnstar | |
You reopened a close that restored people's faith in administrators. Thank you for your effort to stem systemic bias on Wikipedia. USchick ( talk) 17:32, 19 May 2014 (UTC) |
Because you participated in the most recent discussion regarding the proposed move of Hillary Rodham Clinton, you are hereby notified per Wikipedia:Canvassing#Appropriate notification that the administrative determination of consensus from that discussion is being challenged at Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2014 May. Please feel free to comment there. Cheers! bd2412 T 19:20, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for reverting; I should have read the context. -- JustBerry ( talk) 01:15, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
hello;
as far as i can tell from the edit history, you have NEVER edited the Edward Furlong biopage before.
YET you pop up, 20 minutes after my edit, to revert it WITHOUT PROVIDING ANY EXPLANATION.
got a reason for doing that? just wondering...
if you concern was an "edit war", i'd politely suggest that you should examine the page-history more carefully.
this dispute started with user:binksternet unilaterally removing the image, WITHOUT providing a valid reason.
the image was placed on the article over a week earlier by another user, & is not "controversial" or in factual dispute.
it is also one of only 2 images we have of the subject, & is debatably a better photo.
so, i would be fascinated to know your reasons for becoming involved here.
regards,
Lx 121 ( talk) 16:36, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Thank you very much for catching my mistake and reverting my revert :) Snowolf How can I help? 15:29, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Just a note to point out that the AfD result was a procedural delete with the note, "At this point any editor (actually in good-standing) is free to re-create an article on Denise Donnelly if they so choose..." VQuakr ( talk) 05:02, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Hello DD2K: Did you see that someone changed your edit on Putin yesterday. Your Grover Cleveland example looked convincing. Maybe you could look at that Page to see what happened. LawrencePrincipe ( talk) 00:53, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Dave, you deleted my edit on the XOM article which concerned the Gates Foundation being the largest single shareholder of XOM stock. It seems that you somewhere got the idea my edit was stating the Gates Foundation held the most shares of various funds but it only concerned which single shareholder held the most shares of Exxon Mobil stock. I guess it was the rather rambling messages that preceded yours that gave you the idea my edit was about something else but I'm just guessing. Anyway, let me know something. TL36 ( talk) 04:54, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
You mentioned Wikia on Jimbo's Talk page, but it sounded as if you weren't aware of this discussion. 71.23.178.214 ( talk) 15:58, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
My main concern was whether clicking on the link itself could lead to malware, or if the link was to a place notorious for malware. Obviously, the user in question was clueless as to how to express any legitimate concerns he might have had. ← Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:39, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Sorry for reverting your edit. Misunderstood edit summary. Warrenkychu ( talk) 15:16, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Can you help me wit the editing? I quoted the same sources that were used in web page on Jan Karski but you refused to include them into the web page on Roosevelt. Why ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcus19771107 ( talk • contribs)
Thanks for the proposal, I will. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcus19771107 ( talk • contribs) 22:01, 30 June 2014 (UTC) And I must apologize for not complying to the rules, I simple did not know them. Thanks for the help! Marcus19771107 ( talk) 09:21, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed your comment about John having posted on my talk page and that you thought this was canvassing on his part. FYI I had actually approached John first, and at the time I was in the process of advising him on how to improve his editing (and we were actually having some success). John has suffered quite a bit of abuse, false allegations and attacks here and few people have reached out to offer him any support or appropriate guidance in perfecting his editing style and instead they just make the problem worse. He was fully entitled to ask me for further advice/input (in fact I'm pleased that he did for once) and his message was simply a part of an ongoing conversation. That said, in isolation it could look like something else, so I fully understand how you cam to the conclusion you did. -- Shakehandsman ( talk) 17:03, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi DD2K, Your edit suggestion of adding "closely-held" on the president's page for Healthcare looked good and I supported it by posting it with consensus from 5 editors. Another editor has called your edit suggestion a "redundant" expansion and against consensus. Could you take a glance at it. LawrencePrincipe ( talk) 19:03, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
You added a comment on NYB right under mine, saying "you" without specifying (or notifying) whom you mean. Probably not me? -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 17:16, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Your edits made this history section much better. I would put it under "provisional" as the two citations still don't meet WP:Reliable sources, but I am now convinced a reliable source does exists. Actually, that new second source might be, but the link is dead. Can you fix that? Also, that link to the town website is not a WP:Reliable sources, however, the link suggests the information comes from the Brownstone Historical Society. A direct reference to their publishing of this history would likely be WP:Reliable Source, but the town website is not. Anyways, if you have any questions feel free to ask. -- Dkriegls ( talk to me!) 21:28, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Look, I don't what to get into another dispute about this. My only concern is that the source does not say that they are conservative but that they have the same concerns conservatives have. Whether or not you agree isn't really an issue, because that's my position. So what can we agree on in terms of wording that would satisfy both of us? I'm fine saying they are conservative leaning if there is a source for that. Heck, I'm fine with saying it was founded by conservatives if there is a better source that says so explicitly. So what language would you propose?--v/r - T P 21:30, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
This was not a significant edit, but I think that reverting my edit to "Grumman Olson" is wrong. I changed "Grumman Olson" to "Morgan Olson" as the company/product name changed more than 10 years ago (2003). These vehicles are not only old vehicles - brand new Morgan Olson vehicles are being purchased by UPS today. Further, the link "Grumman Olson" takes us to the Morgan Olson article. A google search for Grumman Olson does the same. If the term "Grumman Olson" needs to be mentioned anywhere then it's only on the Morgan Olson page as part of that company's history. Dariomur ( talk) 04:06, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Didn't see the correction at the time, sorry. All's well, thanks. Dariomur ( talk) 01:13, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Okay, you bumped my unfinished work. Now you're obliged to engage on the talk page! No hard feelings, I look forward to continuing the discussion. Womby838 ( talk) 04:32, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Not content with the fact that critical theory is already Marxist she adds even more Marxism to it, and is a feminist too. An yes, Marxist feminism is a thing. -- SNAAAAKE!! ( talk) 04:14, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Also don't remove 12 kilobytes of content to make a point of disagreeing with 2 words. -- SNAAAAKE!! ( talk) 04:16, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Is it really hard to remove smething manually? Is it? -- SNAAAAKE!! ( talk) 04:23, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
"consensus is against it" -- REALLY!? how do you get that conclusion, exactly?
because if you read through the ENTIRE talk page & the article's edit history, you get 2 users who are camped out on the page, dedicatedly reverting any new material that is unfavourable to the subject, for wp:bullshit reasons.
you get one hapless walk-on (& then walk-off) opinion supporting them, citing an essay; a person who never bothered to reply further in the discussion, & has made no significant edits on the article, other than a revert in favour of their position.
THEN, on the other side of it, there are at least about a HALF DOZEN people who have either :
a) added the picture.
b) restored the picture.
and/or c) spoken in favour of using the mugshot, on the article page.
NOT TO MENTION, that you yourself have completely disregarded the merits of the discussion to do a very arbitrary (& innaccurate) "snout count".
please edit more carefully in the future.
if you have any actual interest in working on the article in question, kindly submit your comments on the talk page there.
respectfully,
Lx 121 ( talk) 17:52, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
The simple answer to closing the ANI out is to completely remove the post. That way no one can say you are altering anything. GB fan 20:15, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
You've got some, please reply at your earliest convenience. WormTT( talk) 09:48, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Talk:African American#Straw poll. Thanks.
RightCowLeftCoast (
talk) 18:34, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Please remember to be WP:CIVIL, including in your edit summaries. "Stop messing up this article" [2] isn't particularly instructive. There's a discussion going on at Talk:Mark Udall so if you have thoughts about the article, please engage on the talk page. Champaign Supernova ( talk) 22:24, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate/Evidence. Please add your evidence by December 11, 2014, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Ks0stm ( T• C• G• E) 22:28, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Mind if I eat your brain? Just because I don't edit much doesn't make me a zombie account. -- coldacid ( talk| contrib) 19:39, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi Dave Dial, I've noticed that you have made a rather uncivil political insinuation about me in your edit summary here. Please respect WP:Civility. This is your second reminder from me tonight, and it appears that I am not the only editor that has needed to remind you of this recently. Wikipedia works better for everyone when we all follow the policies and try to interact constructively with each other. If you have concerns about my edits, I will be happy to have a rational discussion about them on the talk pages, in hopes that we may find a mutually-agreeable consensus. TBSchemer ( talk) 06:13, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Oh my! On the principle of "you have to laugh or you'll cry", I shall say thanks for the free entertainment! Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:42, 13 December 2014 (UTC)