Thanks for the support man, but I'm afraid the other guys will be watching my stuff and deleting my contributions like they did with my other stuff.-- SteinlageT ( talk) 05:23, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Hey, apart the other stuff going on, I was wondering if you could help cleanup the VRC section in the article. If you think it doesn't need any cleanup, then feel free to take the tag away, but I think it may be a little confusing (not too sure.)-- Sexy Kick 06:55, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Please make a sub-page off your talk page so we can mark-up an article for Amanda Knox. Once we have the article in good order, you can create the Knox page and load our content into in all at once. The key to preserving a good wiki, is to create content which appeals to the readers, meets wiki standards and moots the deletionists who clamor for deletion. A rich, detailed article; launched as such on day one, would (I think) prevent people like Pablo from naysaying an Amanda Knox article page any further. 98.118.62.140 ( talk) 19:58, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Not commenting on whether closing the discussion was right or wrong, but - face it - it is a pointless discussion. It can either go on forever with "yes it is", "no it isn't" or, if you are wildly, wildly optimistic, it can end with "yes it us", "okay I agree but so what?" (i.e. the MOMK talkpage is not a forum which can re-activate the deleted article - you need a deletion review or an RfC for that).
The main issue here seems to me to be that there is scant encylopaedia material from which to create a biography of Knox. Details of her life prior to the murder, beyond on few lines, are simply not encyclopaedic. Details of her life since the murder belong in the existing article. This may differ form other cases where the motivation and background of the criminal has been a matter of undeniable media interest (eg Seung-Hui Cho). You should keep in mind that there have already been a number community discussions about this and there are not any obvious grounds for supposing that the material factors have changed in the meantime. If you feel strongly, though, you should do something about it other than meaningless protesting (IMO) on the talkpage. -- FormerIP ( talk) 02:01, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Create a new sub page like this:
1) Navigate to the page under which you want to create the sub-page. In this instance, the page you want to start on is: User_talk:LedRush
2) Look in your browser navigation field and see the URL which is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:LedRush
3) At the end of that URL, append the name of the new page (I've already created a new page for you, it's called Amanda).
After you append the new page name, the URL will look like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:LedRush/Amanda
Had I intended to name the new page "cheese" the new URL you want would say http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:LedRush/Cheese
4) As soon as you see the URL reading the way you want, hit enter and your browser will try to navigate to that new page
5) However, becase the new page doesn't exist, the wiki will prompt you to enter some information and thereby create the new page.
6) You do not need a "create page" button as the URL method does it for you. It's a recursive process. You call for a page which does not exists and the wiki prompts you to create it.
Click here to go to your new Amanda page
98.118.62.140 ( talk) 15:22, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
I think WP:CIVIL and WP:TALK would be good places to start. Without knowing the specific situation, it's hard for me to say for sure what should or should not have been done. I don't claim to be any kind of expert on policies. But I do have a policy of my own, which is pretty much connected with wikipedia policy as far as I know: I almost never mess with another user's talk page edits, unless they're horrible rules violations, such as extreme personal attacks. In general, I figure it's up to admins and/or the targets of those attacks to take action, if they choose to. If an established editor reverts something like that, I would typically check the circumstances; and then ask the user, if I don't understand their actions. I might do likewise with an IP address user, but either way I would check to see if there's already a pattern of abuse and then turn the user over to WP:AIV and let the admins decide what to do, if anything. As far as I know, it's within the rules for both admins and non-admins to revert personal attacks and trolling and such as that. But care should be taken to avoid a talk-page edit-war, plus it's more handy if the "evidence" is still on the page, in case you have turned them in to AIV; and that's why I don't often revert users' comments. Communication is the key. I hope that helps. If you can tell me the specifics, that would help more. But that's up to you. As regards the admin's warning to you, sometimes admins forget that not everyone knows they're an admin. Again, communication is key. ← Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:06, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
An RfC/U about AlexCovarrubias ( talk · contribs) has been filed - I know you have expressed concerns about his conduct at a previous time and encourage you to participate. ·Maunus·ƛ· 15:24, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
:)
Judaispriest ( talk) 20:55, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
May I ask why you're adding the same citation after each sentence instead of placing it once at the end of the content to be backed up by? TMCk ( talk) 14:29, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Just want to you know how delighted I am by the outcome of Judaispriest's report. Revan ( talk) 22:30, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm surprised that you don't know, since he made clear that you know each other personally. Maybe he's too ashamed of it. Nevermind, he was busted for sock puppetry by Piriczki after being reported because of foul language, name-calling, and accusing someone of being "a complete waste of oxygen". As you can see here, he futilely hoped the issue to be over and done as soon as possible. But then there was the case of sock puppetry. You can see Piriczki's link here, and Scieberking's meaningless excuse of what had occurred. Here is the Scieberking sock puppet investigation. Apparently he's a stand up wiki user, so I don't know if Judaispriest was one of his puppets he used for relieving some of his abusive needs, but I don't think so. Judaispreist's abusive and sadistic comments backfired - there wasn't really anything you contributed with by being so persistently obstinate in your laddish maneuvers. Revan ( talk) 20:53, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
For reference: http://hnn.us/articles/802.html LedRush ( talk) 01:40, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
I see that you are someone who despises vandalism and reverts it with extreme pride. Therefore I assume that you are unaware that the 300 million sales figure in Led Zeppelin's article originated as an unsourced contribution from a known vandal. All sources reporting that figure post-date its first appearance in Led Zeppelin's Wikipedia article. You can research this yourself, but it has already been exhaustively explored here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Led_Zeppelin/Archive_5#Disputed_accuracy_of_worldwide_album_sales 206.216.34.251 ( talk) 01:23, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, you are reminded not to
attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the
welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. You are welcome to rephrase your comment as a civil criticism of the article. Thank you.
Hipocrite (
talk)
13:48, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
I have raised this issue at WP:WQA, at Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#LedRush.C2.A0.28talk.C2.A0.C2.B7_contribs.29. I should note that my responses to you on your talk page are being deleted by you. Thanks for your efforts. Hipocrite ( talk) 14:26, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Further, I should apologize for using npa-1 which has the insulting "Welcome to Wikipedia." language as opposed to npa-2, which would have avoided the assumption you are a new user. I am honestly surprised, looking at your editing history, that you have been here for years, and I admit that I should have checked that before templating you. For that I apologize. Hipocrite ( talk) 14:31, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Some examples of Hipocrite's personal attacks and uncivil behavior: a detailed attack blaming a world of problems on one editor [3], accusation of grandstanding [4], purposeful misrepresentation of another's position [5], insultig an editor for not making the least bit of sense [6], insulting a specific editor, and others at the same time [7], calling another editor's contributions a "word salad" constitution "grandstanding" [8], says editor is listing random factoids and says "who cares?" 4 times [9], accuses an editor of "bloating Wikipedia and distorting the facts via selective presentation" [10]. LedRush ( talk) 22:14, 31 March 2011 (UTC) A completely unsubstantiated personal attack by Hipocrite on Wikid77 and me, misrepresenting our positions and edit histories and imploring us not to edit the article any more. [11] LedRush ( talk) 13:00, 10 April 2011 (UTC) Calling a floor plan that another editor created crappy in his edit summary (where he tagged the content despite consensus to include) [12]. Calling the work of another editor the work of a "10 year old with MS paint". [13]. Making it seem like I support an edit which I have explicitly told him I do not support [14]. LedRush ( talk) 18:32, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Your latest attack on me is despicable. Desist or behold the consequenses.(You have about 15 1/2 h left) TMCk ( talk) 08:34, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for trying with the Chamber of Commerce section. Congress is investigating some of this, so there may be some harder facts yet revealed. best wishes, Richard Myers ( talk) 18:18, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
You're on 4rr. Best, TMCk ( talk) 19:40, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Now it's your turn to show me "declaratory statements" in my editsummaries please. TMCk ( talk) 20:32, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm off to bed. That discussion is one where I found myself stopping and thinking... ouch, I just typed hundreds of words over something that doesn't matter too much. I won't dispute it if you prefer to swap the word "witness" in sentence one for "homeless heroin-addict". :) Is that a reasonable compromise? -- Errant ( chat!) 22:33, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Last Fri night I worked my way through the
box set with a wee bit of Smirnoffs. I'm probably about to annoy my neighbors with 2112 ...no, wait Counterparts and wee bit of bourbon (Beam)....and not let matters of the wiki bother me...I would hope that for you as well. :) I just missed Rush even though they played in my hometown area. I have seen them many times before and they remain one of my favorite all-time bands...now, if you'll excuse me, I have a stereo that has "11" on the volume.
You wrote "There was even a mistrial because jurors claimed to look for information and guidance in the bible." What case was this? Just a personal interest. Thanks! Hipocrite ( talk) 16:59, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Regards, Scieberking ( talk) 15:39, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi LedRush,
I saw your comment about RS. I'm working on it right now, I understand what you're saying. I may have to drop some of the support sites if I can't find a secondary source for them. Thanks Issymo ( talk) 17:59, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi LedRush, with respect to our discussion elsewhere, I'd like to apoloqize if you found my tone condescending, as that was certainly not my intention. And I appreciate that you could have a sense of frustration with the fine line between OR/POV and parroting sources. My involvement with the article is strictly from the standpoint of a relatively experienced Wikipedian who has absolutely no connection to or opinions on the topic, which nevertheless I am familiar with from high-level media sources. I've injected myself because I think that is exactly the kind of editor who can help out, and I picked that particular thread to get started. That said, two areas I'd like to note:
So again, sorry if I caused you offence and I hope we can keep discussing the content of the article at that talk page. I've just brought up some issues which I thought would be better placed here. Regards! Franamax ( talk) 21:49, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Notification absent any others. Collect ( talk) 00:18, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Wikid77 here. I just defended your actions at WP:Wikiquette_alerts in this edit. In the future, please feel free to notify me if you wish my opinion, at ANI, or elsewhere; I cannot promise to support any of your particular viewpoints, but I will try to be fair with my comments. Contacting me, directly, will not be a problem of WP:CANVAS because: (1) I have requested notification from you, and (2) I have noted I might not support your future viewpoints. Hence, contacting me would not be improper canvassing as if you knew I would always agree with your opinions (I might not). Thanks for your hard work, and please know that other editors can help settle disputes which people might start against you. - Wikid77 ( talk) 19:22, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
I want to apologize for my tone during the recent conversation regarding Amanda spending the night at Raffaele's. I honestly didn't intend to direct any accusations at you. Wikipedia reports on events as the media reported on the event, meaning if the media gets it wrong, so does Wikipedia. No system is perfect but Wikipedia is honestly not suited for controversial cases like this one. We have the ability to provide actual documentation directly associated with this case but unfortunately those documents are not considered credible to Wikipedia unless they are discussed in the New York Times or on CNN. Having access to the information that I do makes the Wikipedia process very frustrating. Of course my opinion about Wikipedia means nothing. I will do my best to keep a level tone. You have been more than fair with your work on the article. I will post a note stating that I was out of line on the talk page. BruceFisher ( talk) 00:59, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Because of continued resistance to expanding the details in the Kercher article, and numerous users being frustrated, I am planning to take the article to the WP:ANI noticeboard to see what can be done. Your username will probably be mentioned, so I thought to ask, now, if you had time for this soon. Without revealing any of your personal plans, is there a "best time" for such a discussion, such as starting on a Thursday, but not on a Monday or such? In my experience, talking with some people does no good, because they see discussions as weak resistance to be pushed aside by empty promises of better behavior. Kindness is always taken for weakness, and hence, stronger actions must be used with them. There is an essay of WP:COMPETENCE, which can be used to merely show a person is unable to function, at a productive level (repeating the same off-topic policies) with other users, while not being "proven" to have evil behavior, but rather as causing WP:DISRUPTION (a behavioral guideline) among the other editors trying to improve an article. This message is just a friendly notice, and if you wish to ignore the proposed WP:ANI discussion, then feel free to let this pass. - Wikid77 00:00, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
I really am sorry that I let Ultimahero drag me into an argument with him that ended up derailing the WQA. Didn't end up being a constructive WQA. However, I don't think the admins are very on the ball in WQA at all right now. There are a lot of reports that simply sit there and are ignored, and that creates a fertile environment for self-important types like Ultimahero to come in. The guy will pick and argument and monopolize a talk page on just about anything. He did it on NFL Rivalries (which I have no part of) and was called out for it. When I used the standard tag that WQA recommends to inform him I opened a WQA on him on your report, he actually took issue with the verbage on it, acting as if I wrote it. The dude would start an argument with a brick wall on whether it is actually made of bricks. If a competent admin had been there to weigh in on your WQA against Revan, I am confident things would have gone differently. You hit the nail on the head - all Ultimahero achieved was to embolden Revan, but in a way that's a good thing. He's been blocked before, and being emboldened will just get him blocked faster. I have seen his type before. An example is Tothwolf, I WQA'd him a year or two ago, and he kept right on arguing and going on the offensive just like Revan did here. In his case the WQA result was he was officially warned (but that's because competent admins got involved early), but still, his attitude was same as Revan's, and not long after I noticed he'd gotten blocked again. Karma works out in the end. Peace. Mmyers1976 ( talk) 19:54, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Guys, please don't talk about me behind my back. I argued the way I did because that's what I believed is right. You certainly don't have to agree with me, but I would appreciate it if I was just dropped as a subject. Ultimahero ( talk) 22:24, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Sir, I didn't edit those other pages to try and bug you. I argued the position I thought was right. You both disagree, and that's perfectly fine. But I would just like to not be discussed anymore, if you would be kind enough to drop me as a subject. Ultimahero ( talk) 22:31, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
I have no problem with you "venting". However, there's no denying that I personally (including things such as my motives, general personality, etc) am being discussed. I'm simply asking that you not discuss me personally. (Such as speculating on what my motives are, etc.) As far as my "tone", that is a very difficult thing to gauge over written text. I am not attempting, nor was I attempting, to be uncivil. I am not approving of everything Revan has done, nor am I approving of everything he has continued to do. But even in defending him against those charges (That's what I thought was right, and I know we disagree on this) I have warned him against being confrontational. So I would simply ask that you not talk about me as a person. Thank you. Ultimahero ( talk) 17:36, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Hey, I wrote an essay, and I would be very much interested in your feedback and suggestions/contributions you can offer. It's here. I screwed up and made it an article page, but I've asked an admin to fix that for me. Once it is fixed, the link I just gave you probably won't work, but the shortcut WP:BDDR should. Mmyers1976 ( talk) 04:19, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
LedRush, having looked over recent edits at Talk:Murder of Meredith Kercher, and considered their general intent, I'd like to apologise for the antagonistic and sarcastic tone used (especially here, when responding in a rather flippant manner to you). I understand now how the second and third comments that I made to the section didn't really help matters move forward, and could at least have been better worded if not dropped completely. You're right to state that there wasn't really much of an excuse for them, and I'll be the first to admit that at times I can be highly acerbic (and perhaps supercilious) in tone. I regret today's bitterness, and will strive to exercise a bit more self-restraint in these affairs from now on. Once again, apologies. Super Mario Man 22:09, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
On the other hand, if you can't distinguish telling it like it is from a personal attack, as it seems from this, you might wish to refrain from commenting in the future. Do you honestly think that bemoaning the influence on the page of partisan editors is a personal attack? I appreciate your intentions are good, but you're barking up the wrong tree with that one. -- John ( talk) 02:53, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
John calling anyone who disagrees with him not "fairminded". [24] LedRush ( talk) 20:55, 12 June 2011 (UTC) Anyone who disagrees with John is an "advocate". [25] LedRush ( talk) 20:55, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
John making one of many unsubstantiated accusations of off-wiki organization and vote stacking [26]. LedRush ( talk) 20:08, 13 June 2011 (UTC) John templating an established editor, despite the fact that a polite warning was giving just minutes before. [27]. John filing a bad faith, retaliatory action against me, minutes after giving me a warning even though no further edits were made. [28]. LedRush ( talk) 13:47, 14 June 2011 (UTC) John making a threat to report me. [29] LedRush ( talk) 17:40, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Sorry for all the crap that's happening today. Just freaking unbelievable BS. Ravensfire ( talk) 21:20, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Sorry to see the mess going on. Your doing a great job..... Please know it is not over looked. :)
Truth Mom has given you a
cookie! Cookies promote
WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can Spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{ subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{ subst:munch}}!
-- Truth Mom ( talk) 22:52, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
I'll agree that the thread has outlived it's purpose. I'm concerned that Cody has disregarded the comments expressing concern about his edits. In part, the thread continues because he does some of the behavior that he objects to - sniping. More than one uninvolved editor expressed some worries about his recent edits, and he essentially blew them off. I accept that he believes that there are no problems with his edits, but he needs to accept that totally uninvolved editors have found problems with them. Ignoring that will end up causing problems for him. Read through the thread, removing all posts from everyone involved in MoMK, and see what you end up with. I'm not planning on continuing this any further, no worries on that.
I honestly don't know if there's a good path forward here based on that thread. An option is to totally leave him alone, and use the various project pages if there's a problem (ANI, WQA, EWN). If an edit is objectionable, revert it, start a thread on the talk and explain the concerns then see what happens. A concensus version is then developed on the talk page and only then added back to the article. If the concensus is the edit isn't salvagable or belongs on another page, then that's what happens. Might be a useful approach if things continue and all parties agree to it. Ravensfire ( talk) 17:37, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Uhm, how do you count? I've made only one single reversion of your addition that you reinstated since. You really don't make much sense there in your editsummary. TMCk ( talk) 20:22, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Hello,
you were the last logged in user on the Murder of Meredith Kercher article. it´s protected in the discussion site and i have no account. so i would you ask to change something in the article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Meredith_Kercher#Arrest_of_Guede :...On 20 November 2007, the German transport police arrested Guede on a train near Mainz, where he was apprehended for travelling without a ticket...
...The Transportpolizei (German for "Transport Police") WAS the transit police of the German Democratic Republic (East Germany) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transportpolizei
...Bahnpolizei was the name of the former Railway police of West Germany... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bahnpolizei
from there:
In 1992 the railway security mission was transferred from the Bahnpolizei to the Bundesgrenzschutz (Federal Border Guard Force). The BGS had already taken on these duties in 1990 for the territory of the former East Germany, replacing the former East German Transportpolizei. The Bundesgrenzschutz was renamed Bundespolizei (Federal Police) on July 1, 2005, and this force is currently responsible for security and passenger checks on the German railway system.
so it wasn´t the Transport Police who´s arrested him, it was the Federal Police (Bundespolizei). It´s just that the term Transport Polizei is (was) well known for police squads that had trouble with football (soccer) away fans in east germany.
could you please change the term? Thank you. 77.189.185.158 ( talk) 22:11, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
I posted the following on Tarc's talk page. He deleted it and has not acknowledged an issue:
Please do not engage in personal attacks or make mistatements of truth as you do here [30]. You should endeavor to make constructive comments which address people's actual points and opinions. LedRush ( talk) 14:54, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
LedRush ( talk) 15:53, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Tarc belittling another editor. [32]. LedRush ( talk) 19:50, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Tarc making one of many unsubstantiated accusations that anyone who disagrees with him is guilty of off-wiki organization. [33] LedRush ( talk) 19:56, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Tarc calling me a liar and threatening to take action against me. [34] LedRush ( talk) 17:03, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi. Wikid77 here. I think we would be happier spending more time working with other intelligent editors, and less time with the slow crowd. I have noticed your continual efforts to try to make progress on the MoMK article, but I am worried about the frustration levels there. Originally, I had thought that there was some agenda to slant the article, by refusing to allow improvements. However, it is obvious that almost nothing new is allowed into the article, from any view of innocence or guilt. They are simply afraid of new text, and what it might indicate, perhaps because they cannot read at that level of education. You've heard the adage, "Never attribute to malevolence that which can be explained by ignorance." Recently, I noted that the description of the cottage should be clarified to help sight-impaired readers, who cannot clearly view the diagrams or photos. That concept, of having descriptive text read to a blind person, seemed to be totally beyond their comprehension. Other factors support this view: it is widely known that even a 14-year-old school kid is laughing at their remarks on the talk-page, and yet they persist in the childish behaviour, as if they cannot comprehend why a young student would be laughing. They are not so much evil, but rather just way too slow to realize the situation. Meanwhile, numerous other articles about towns and events in Italy need to be expanded, from scholarly sources, because most of the Italian Wikipedia seems to be written by teenagers with limited experience. I recently read that, during the Roman civil war after the death of Julius Caesar, ancient Perugia supported Mark Antony against Octavian, who destroyed much of Perugia in 40 BC, during the conflicts. Such articles, about Perugian history, should be expanded with more detail. At this point, suggestions at Talk:MoMK need to be simplified and explained in more basic language, so that the ideas are easier to understand. Remember: the unfolding events of the Knox/Sollecito retrial will hit all major news outlets, and the text of the MoMK article is relatively insignificant, in comparison with that news coverage. The important issue is that challenged editors learn, some day, about policies WP:LEDE and WP:CONSENSUS, plus forensic evidence, and how some sight-impaired readers struggle to get the text read, despite their limited eyesight. Meanwhile, we can spend some time working with more intelligent editors and avoid the current frustrations. - Wikid77 ( talk) 18:10, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
You seem to be edit warring on the MoMK article; please, stop reverting and actually discuss on the talk page. Salvio Let's talk about it! 23:41, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Hello LedRush,
This is an automated friendly notification to inform you that you have been reported for Violation of the
Edit warring policy at the
Administrators' noticeboard.
If you feel that this report has been made in error, please reply as soon as possible on the
noticeboard. However, before contesting an Edit warring report, please review the respective policies to ensure you are not in violation of them.
~
NekoBot (
MeowTalk)
23:53, 12 June 2011 (UTC) (False positive?
Report it!)
Hi LedRush. Please could you explain what you are getting at here? It appears to be directed at me, yet I can't see any hostility or sarcasm in this post, which is presumably the one you're referring to. (Nor is it wrong, incidentally) pablo 14:20, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
-- Errant ( chat!) 19:29, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
TMCk threatening me for removing his personal attacks. [35] TMCk personally insulting me as having no common sense for hatting his personal attacks. [36]
Hi. You reinstated this edit at United States nationality law — something that was reverted twice before you (by another user and by a bot). This material appears suspicious and is not supported by any source. Can you cite any sources to confirm the claim in question? Richwales ( talk · contribs) 02:09, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
After the latest move request has landed up with about equal numbers for both sides I've started a mediation request. Please indicate there if you wish to participate. Thanks. -- Eraserhead1 < talk> 18:42, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
I haven't forgotten the now-archived section
here and believe that additions would be good. Guede is scheduled to begin testifying on June 27 and I believe that whatever he has to say will likely accompany the other testimonies in additions to the appeals section.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► (
(⊕))
19:50, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
In light of the seemingly endless disputes over their respective titles, a neutral mediator has crafted a proposal to rename the two major abortion articles ( pro-life/anti-abortion movement, and pro-choice/abortion rights movement) to completely new names. The idea, which is located here, is currently open for opinions. As you have been a contributor in the past to at least one of the articles, your thoughts on the matter would be appreciated.
The hope is that, if a consensus can be reached on the article titles, the energy that has been spent debating the titles of the articles here and here can be better spent giving both articles some much needed improvement to their content. Please take some time to read the proposal and weigh in on the matter. Even if your opinion is simple indifference, that opinion would be valuable to have posted.
To avoid accusations that this posting violates WP:CANVASS, this posting is being made to every non-anon editor who has edited either page since 1 July 2010, irrespective of possible previous participation at the mediation page. HuskyHuskie ( talk) 19:46, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Tech note: some of the refs you've added are messed up (look in ref section)...if you haven't got them by the time I get back in a bit, I'll help clean up. :)
⋙–Berean–Hunter—►
19:52, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
http://obit-mag.com/meet-obit LedRush ( talk) 03:13, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
...to gain insight about tags may be had at
this thread at ANI.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—►
00:59, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
For the kind words regarding BLP1E @ ErrantX's talk page. :) Cerejota ( talk) 00:32, 24 July 2011 (UTC) |
Answering first regarding BLP. My main concern is that an article on Casey Anthony simply isn't needed. My secondary concern is BLP. Simply put, as she was acquitted, a separate article isn't required. Now from a BLP viewpoint, Casey can be covered succinctly in the main article. A separate article would tend to attract mention of much of the prurient stuff that has been dug up over three years but is not directly relevant to Caylee's death. In other words, it would become an attractive nuisance. I should mention at this point that my personal opinion is that Casey likely WAS guilty of at least negligence. But even so, I cannot support creation of the article.
Safiel (
talk)
18:55, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
As for closing up the discussions on the other talk page. The discussions were two weeks old and had trailed off. I personally saw a slight consensus for no create. Certainly not a strong consensus. Perhaps you saw it differently. At best it was a no consensus. I would suggest reopening the discussion at Talk:Death of Caylee Anthony. If the consensus goes against my position, no big deal, I have been on the losing end of consensus a time or two. :) Again, my more predominant argument is simply that the article is not needed. BLP is secondary. Safiel ( talk) 18:55, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Opposition to the legalisation of abortion". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by July 22, 2011.
Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by
MediationBot (
talk) on
behalf of the Mediation Committee.
01:51, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Abortion and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
Thanks, Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 03:30, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Thought I'd bounce this off of Cody's page - no reason to keep it going there. Glrx made a very polite request, so let's see what happens. Oh yeah, I've been to most, if not all, of the major advocacy sites on this case. Pretty much the same as most advocacy sites - if you share the POV, it's all good. If you don't, it's not so much fun. Some of them are better than others about controlling the level of debate. I used to spend a lot of time on TribalWar (Tribes and Tribes2 fan sites, EXTREMELY active) and there weren't too many rules there. Some of the stuff got rather heated, but that's their moderation style. To some extent, I agree with the description - there is a lot of hate there, but to an editor that shares the POV, it's unlikely they'd call it a hate site and would take umbrage to it being described that way. I'm sure Cody would object to a pro-Knox site being described a hate site, but some of those easily match the level of vitriol. My comment on his page was to nudge him to look at it in that manner.
The comment in part is pretty under-handed. "This person posts at a site that I disagree with, so everyone here should feel free to ignore their opinion and view." That's pure WP:BATTLEGROUND. Take it to the logical next step, and anyone that posts on an advocacy site should be ignored because someone disagrees with that site's view. That's not too many editors left if that happens. And it's bunk. For the most part, what happens off WP should stay there. I very, very rarely look at those sites anymore. I came to the conclusion that they are all echo chambers, with only views and links that support the predominate view being posted. *shrug* Not helpful to me.
I won't comment on Cody's page on this further, but hopefully he'll strike and avoid such charged language in the future. It won't help anything on WP for it to continue. Ravensfire ( talk) 14:57, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Please see and list your comments there. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 21:50, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
The request for formal mediation concerning Opposition to the legalisation of abortion, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.
For the Mediation Committee,
AGK [
•
21:33, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
(Delivered by
MediationBot,
on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)
An arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion/Evidence. Please add your evidence by August 26, 2011, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 05:14, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi, there was a long discussion about the table you have removed ( diff) that I recall reached a consensus to keep. You may want to ferret through the talk archive to double check you are not going against a reasonable local consensus. Thanks Fæ ( talk) 14:43, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Haven't seen you on the case page for a while. Any progress? Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 02:08, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Talk:Mega Drive. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. — KieferSkunk ( talk) — 01:15, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Your last edit has dissappeared, please re-add. Kwenchin ( talk) 13:50, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
I replied to you about the GameFAQs and Gamespot issue some time ago. I'd like to see if you have any followup as the issue does not look like it will be resolved with so little participation and disagreement.∞ 陣 内 Jinnai 00:45, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Thought you might find this interesting reading :
Long arm of Mignini as a sore loser?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—►
02:28, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
first of all, it IS in source provided, number 2, even if it's not, WP recommendation is NOT to delete, but to modify or find a source...but in this case the source is there...no valid reason to remove... Just because of " I don't like it" reasons. Blatantly removing a whole section on flimsy grounds because you can't find it in the source (it was in the paper newspaper, but regardless, it's in OTHER sources as well, that can easily be looked up...which tells me that it's not because it's supposedly "not sourced" but because you just don't like the section for POV or personal reasons.) The WP policy is not to vandalize, or remove, willy nilly, but to modify and maybe find another source. Stop vandalizing...this has already been discussed on Talk. Regards. Hashem sfarim ( talk) 20:49, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Don't call me a douche, that is a personal attack and if you repeat such a comment I will report you. Off2riorob ( talk) 13:09, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi - regarding your replacement of these externals I have opened a discussion at the reliable source noticeboard - please make your case for their inclusion there thanks - Off2riorob ( talk) 22:12, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
I want to commend your courage and heroic tenacity in resisting these peoples efforts to use Wikipedia to press their personal opinons.
But I think there is more need to individually report them to Wikipedia administrators (perhaps in some cases to get the worst offenders banned).
Plus following this all the way through the appeals process may be needed. Some of these people should no longer be editing, plain and simple.
I don't know enough about how to do that, though. I wish I knew more about the process, and I also don't know as much about the Edit-wars regarding the Kerchner and Knox articles, which also would be needed in order to make good cases.
Anyway, those are just some thoughts. Thanks for your decency and courage in hanging in there (I have no connection to the Knox family by the way, but I know when a Wikipedia article is under pressure to be misused when I see it).
69.171.160.182 ( talk) 16:58, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
I finished the list
here if you would like to add them.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—►
01:06, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the support man, but I'm afraid the other guys will be watching my stuff and deleting my contributions like they did with my other stuff.-- SteinlageT ( talk) 05:23, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Hey, apart the other stuff going on, I was wondering if you could help cleanup the VRC section in the article. If you think it doesn't need any cleanup, then feel free to take the tag away, but I think it may be a little confusing (not too sure.)-- Sexy Kick 06:55, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Please make a sub-page off your talk page so we can mark-up an article for Amanda Knox. Once we have the article in good order, you can create the Knox page and load our content into in all at once. The key to preserving a good wiki, is to create content which appeals to the readers, meets wiki standards and moots the deletionists who clamor for deletion. A rich, detailed article; launched as such on day one, would (I think) prevent people like Pablo from naysaying an Amanda Knox article page any further. 98.118.62.140 ( talk) 19:58, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Not commenting on whether closing the discussion was right or wrong, but - face it - it is a pointless discussion. It can either go on forever with "yes it is", "no it isn't" or, if you are wildly, wildly optimistic, it can end with "yes it us", "okay I agree but so what?" (i.e. the MOMK talkpage is not a forum which can re-activate the deleted article - you need a deletion review or an RfC for that).
The main issue here seems to me to be that there is scant encylopaedia material from which to create a biography of Knox. Details of her life prior to the murder, beyond on few lines, are simply not encyclopaedic. Details of her life since the murder belong in the existing article. This may differ form other cases where the motivation and background of the criminal has been a matter of undeniable media interest (eg Seung-Hui Cho). You should keep in mind that there have already been a number community discussions about this and there are not any obvious grounds for supposing that the material factors have changed in the meantime. If you feel strongly, though, you should do something about it other than meaningless protesting (IMO) on the talkpage. -- FormerIP ( talk) 02:01, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Create a new sub page like this:
1) Navigate to the page under which you want to create the sub-page. In this instance, the page you want to start on is: User_talk:LedRush
2) Look in your browser navigation field and see the URL which is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:LedRush
3) At the end of that URL, append the name of the new page (I've already created a new page for you, it's called Amanda).
After you append the new page name, the URL will look like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:LedRush/Amanda
Had I intended to name the new page "cheese" the new URL you want would say http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:LedRush/Cheese
4) As soon as you see the URL reading the way you want, hit enter and your browser will try to navigate to that new page
5) However, becase the new page doesn't exist, the wiki will prompt you to enter some information and thereby create the new page.
6) You do not need a "create page" button as the URL method does it for you. It's a recursive process. You call for a page which does not exists and the wiki prompts you to create it.
Click here to go to your new Amanda page
98.118.62.140 ( talk) 15:22, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
I think WP:CIVIL and WP:TALK would be good places to start. Without knowing the specific situation, it's hard for me to say for sure what should or should not have been done. I don't claim to be any kind of expert on policies. But I do have a policy of my own, which is pretty much connected with wikipedia policy as far as I know: I almost never mess with another user's talk page edits, unless they're horrible rules violations, such as extreme personal attacks. In general, I figure it's up to admins and/or the targets of those attacks to take action, if they choose to. If an established editor reverts something like that, I would typically check the circumstances; and then ask the user, if I don't understand their actions. I might do likewise with an IP address user, but either way I would check to see if there's already a pattern of abuse and then turn the user over to WP:AIV and let the admins decide what to do, if anything. As far as I know, it's within the rules for both admins and non-admins to revert personal attacks and trolling and such as that. But care should be taken to avoid a talk-page edit-war, plus it's more handy if the "evidence" is still on the page, in case you have turned them in to AIV; and that's why I don't often revert users' comments. Communication is the key. I hope that helps. If you can tell me the specifics, that would help more. But that's up to you. As regards the admin's warning to you, sometimes admins forget that not everyone knows they're an admin. Again, communication is key. ← Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:06, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
An RfC/U about AlexCovarrubias ( talk · contribs) has been filed - I know you have expressed concerns about his conduct at a previous time and encourage you to participate. ·Maunus·ƛ· 15:24, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
:)
Judaispriest ( talk) 20:55, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
May I ask why you're adding the same citation after each sentence instead of placing it once at the end of the content to be backed up by? TMCk ( talk) 14:29, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Just want to you know how delighted I am by the outcome of Judaispriest's report. Revan ( talk) 22:30, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm surprised that you don't know, since he made clear that you know each other personally. Maybe he's too ashamed of it. Nevermind, he was busted for sock puppetry by Piriczki after being reported because of foul language, name-calling, and accusing someone of being "a complete waste of oxygen". As you can see here, he futilely hoped the issue to be over and done as soon as possible. But then there was the case of sock puppetry. You can see Piriczki's link here, and Scieberking's meaningless excuse of what had occurred. Here is the Scieberking sock puppet investigation. Apparently he's a stand up wiki user, so I don't know if Judaispriest was one of his puppets he used for relieving some of his abusive needs, but I don't think so. Judaispreist's abusive and sadistic comments backfired - there wasn't really anything you contributed with by being so persistently obstinate in your laddish maneuvers. Revan ( talk) 20:53, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
For reference: http://hnn.us/articles/802.html LedRush ( talk) 01:40, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
I see that you are someone who despises vandalism and reverts it with extreme pride. Therefore I assume that you are unaware that the 300 million sales figure in Led Zeppelin's article originated as an unsourced contribution from a known vandal. All sources reporting that figure post-date its first appearance in Led Zeppelin's Wikipedia article. You can research this yourself, but it has already been exhaustively explored here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Led_Zeppelin/Archive_5#Disputed_accuracy_of_worldwide_album_sales 206.216.34.251 ( talk) 01:23, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, you are reminded not to
attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the
welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. You are welcome to rephrase your comment as a civil criticism of the article. Thank you.
Hipocrite (
talk)
13:48, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
I have raised this issue at WP:WQA, at Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#LedRush.C2.A0.28talk.C2.A0.C2.B7_contribs.29. I should note that my responses to you on your talk page are being deleted by you. Thanks for your efforts. Hipocrite ( talk) 14:26, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Further, I should apologize for using npa-1 which has the insulting "Welcome to Wikipedia." language as opposed to npa-2, which would have avoided the assumption you are a new user. I am honestly surprised, looking at your editing history, that you have been here for years, and I admit that I should have checked that before templating you. For that I apologize. Hipocrite ( talk) 14:31, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Some examples of Hipocrite's personal attacks and uncivil behavior: a detailed attack blaming a world of problems on one editor [3], accusation of grandstanding [4], purposeful misrepresentation of another's position [5], insultig an editor for not making the least bit of sense [6], insulting a specific editor, and others at the same time [7], calling another editor's contributions a "word salad" constitution "grandstanding" [8], says editor is listing random factoids and says "who cares?" 4 times [9], accuses an editor of "bloating Wikipedia and distorting the facts via selective presentation" [10]. LedRush ( talk) 22:14, 31 March 2011 (UTC) A completely unsubstantiated personal attack by Hipocrite on Wikid77 and me, misrepresenting our positions and edit histories and imploring us not to edit the article any more. [11] LedRush ( talk) 13:00, 10 April 2011 (UTC) Calling a floor plan that another editor created crappy in his edit summary (where he tagged the content despite consensus to include) [12]. Calling the work of another editor the work of a "10 year old with MS paint". [13]. Making it seem like I support an edit which I have explicitly told him I do not support [14]. LedRush ( talk) 18:32, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Your latest attack on me is despicable. Desist or behold the consequenses.(You have about 15 1/2 h left) TMCk ( talk) 08:34, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for trying with the Chamber of Commerce section. Congress is investigating some of this, so there may be some harder facts yet revealed. best wishes, Richard Myers ( talk) 18:18, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
You're on 4rr. Best, TMCk ( talk) 19:40, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Now it's your turn to show me "declaratory statements" in my editsummaries please. TMCk ( talk) 20:32, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm off to bed. That discussion is one where I found myself stopping and thinking... ouch, I just typed hundreds of words over something that doesn't matter too much. I won't dispute it if you prefer to swap the word "witness" in sentence one for "homeless heroin-addict". :) Is that a reasonable compromise? -- Errant ( chat!) 22:33, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Last Fri night I worked my way through the
box set with a wee bit of Smirnoffs. I'm probably about to annoy my neighbors with 2112 ...no, wait Counterparts and wee bit of bourbon (Beam)....and not let matters of the wiki bother me...I would hope that for you as well. :) I just missed Rush even though they played in my hometown area. I have seen them many times before and they remain one of my favorite all-time bands...now, if you'll excuse me, I have a stereo that has "11" on the volume.
You wrote "There was even a mistrial because jurors claimed to look for information and guidance in the bible." What case was this? Just a personal interest. Thanks! Hipocrite ( talk) 16:59, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Regards, Scieberking ( talk) 15:39, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi LedRush,
I saw your comment about RS. I'm working on it right now, I understand what you're saying. I may have to drop some of the support sites if I can't find a secondary source for them. Thanks Issymo ( talk) 17:59, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi LedRush, with respect to our discussion elsewhere, I'd like to apoloqize if you found my tone condescending, as that was certainly not my intention. And I appreciate that you could have a sense of frustration with the fine line between OR/POV and parroting sources. My involvement with the article is strictly from the standpoint of a relatively experienced Wikipedian who has absolutely no connection to or opinions on the topic, which nevertheless I am familiar with from high-level media sources. I've injected myself because I think that is exactly the kind of editor who can help out, and I picked that particular thread to get started. That said, two areas I'd like to note:
So again, sorry if I caused you offence and I hope we can keep discussing the content of the article at that talk page. I've just brought up some issues which I thought would be better placed here. Regards! Franamax ( talk) 21:49, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Notification absent any others. Collect ( talk) 00:18, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Wikid77 here. I just defended your actions at WP:Wikiquette_alerts in this edit. In the future, please feel free to notify me if you wish my opinion, at ANI, or elsewhere; I cannot promise to support any of your particular viewpoints, but I will try to be fair with my comments. Contacting me, directly, will not be a problem of WP:CANVAS because: (1) I have requested notification from you, and (2) I have noted I might not support your future viewpoints. Hence, contacting me would not be improper canvassing as if you knew I would always agree with your opinions (I might not). Thanks for your hard work, and please know that other editors can help settle disputes which people might start against you. - Wikid77 ( talk) 19:22, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
I want to apologize for my tone during the recent conversation regarding Amanda spending the night at Raffaele's. I honestly didn't intend to direct any accusations at you. Wikipedia reports on events as the media reported on the event, meaning if the media gets it wrong, so does Wikipedia. No system is perfect but Wikipedia is honestly not suited for controversial cases like this one. We have the ability to provide actual documentation directly associated with this case but unfortunately those documents are not considered credible to Wikipedia unless they are discussed in the New York Times or on CNN. Having access to the information that I do makes the Wikipedia process very frustrating. Of course my opinion about Wikipedia means nothing. I will do my best to keep a level tone. You have been more than fair with your work on the article. I will post a note stating that I was out of line on the talk page. BruceFisher ( talk) 00:59, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Because of continued resistance to expanding the details in the Kercher article, and numerous users being frustrated, I am planning to take the article to the WP:ANI noticeboard to see what can be done. Your username will probably be mentioned, so I thought to ask, now, if you had time for this soon. Without revealing any of your personal plans, is there a "best time" for such a discussion, such as starting on a Thursday, but not on a Monday or such? In my experience, talking with some people does no good, because they see discussions as weak resistance to be pushed aside by empty promises of better behavior. Kindness is always taken for weakness, and hence, stronger actions must be used with them. There is an essay of WP:COMPETENCE, which can be used to merely show a person is unable to function, at a productive level (repeating the same off-topic policies) with other users, while not being "proven" to have evil behavior, but rather as causing WP:DISRUPTION (a behavioral guideline) among the other editors trying to improve an article. This message is just a friendly notice, and if you wish to ignore the proposed WP:ANI discussion, then feel free to let this pass. - Wikid77 00:00, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
I really am sorry that I let Ultimahero drag me into an argument with him that ended up derailing the WQA. Didn't end up being a constructive WQA. However, I don't think the admins are very on the ball in WQA at all right now. There are a lot of reports that simply sit there and are ignored, and that creates a fertile environment for self-important types like Ultimahero to come in. The guy will pick and argument and monopolize a talk page on just about anything. He did it on NFL Rivalries (which I have no part of) and was called out for it. When I used the standard tag that WQA recommends to inform him I opened a WQA on him on your report, he actually took issue with the verbage on it, acting as if I wrote it. The dude would start an argument with a brick wall on whether it is actually made of bricks. If a competent admin had been there to weigh in on your WQA against Revan, I am confident things would have gone differently. You hit the nail on the head - all Ultimahero achieved was to embolden Revan, but in a way that's a good thing. He's been blocked before, and being emboldened will just get him blocked faster. I have seen his type before. An example is Tothwolf, I WQA'd him a year or two ago, and he kept right on arguing and going on the offensive just like Revan did here. In his case the WQA result was he was officially warned (but that's because competent admins got involved early), but still, his attitude was same as Revan's, and not long after I noticed he'd gotten blocked again. Karma works out in the end. Peace. Mmyers1976 ( talk) 19:54, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Guys, please don't talk about me behind my back. I argued the way I did because that's what I believed is right. You certainly don't have to agree with me, but I would appreciate it if I was just dropped as a subject. Ultimahero ( talk) 22:24, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Sir, I didn't edit those other pages to try and bug you. I argued the position I thought was right. You both disagree, and that's perfectly fine. But I would just like to not be discussed anymore, if you would be kind enough to drop me as a subject. Ultimahero ( talk) 22:31, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
I have no problem with you "venting". However, there's no denying that I personally (including things such as my motives, general personality, etc) am being discussed. I'm simply asking that you not discuss me personally. (Such as speculating on what my motives are, etc.) As far as my "tone", that is a very difficult thing to gauge over written text. I am not attempting, nor was I attempting, to be uncivil. I am not approving of everything Revan has done, nor am I approving of everything he has continued to do. But even in defending him against those charges (That's what I thought was right, and I know we disagree on this) I have warned him against being confrontational. So I would simply ask that you not talk about me as a person. Thank you. Ultimahero ( talk) 17:36, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Hey, I wrote an essay, and I would be very much interested in your feedback and suggestions/contributions you can offer. It's here. I screwed up and made it an article page, but I've asked an admin to fix that for me. Once it is fixed, the link I just gave you probably won't work, but the shortcut WP:BDDR should. Mmyers1976 ( talk) 04:19, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
LedRush, having looked over recent edits at Talk:Murder of Meredith Kercher, and considered their general intent, I'd like to apologise for the antagonistic and sarcastic tone used (especially here, when responding in a rather flippant manner to you). I understand now how the second and third comments that I made to the section didn't really help matters move forward, and could at least have been better worded if not dropped completely. You're right to state that there wasn't really much of an excuse for them, and I'll be the first to admit that at times I can be highly acerbic (and perhaps supercilious) in tone. I regret today's bitterness, and will strive to exercise a bit more self-restraint in these affairs from now on. Once again, apologies. Super Mario Man 22:09, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
On the other hand, if you can't distinguish telling it like it is from a personal attack, as it seems from this, you might wish to refrain from commenting in the future. Do you honestly think that bemoaning the influence on the page of partisan editors is a personal attack? I appreciate your intentions are good, but you're barking up the wrong tree with that one. -- John ( talk) 02:53, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
John calling anyone who disagrees with him not "fairminded". [24] LedRush ( talk) 20:55, 12 June 2011 (UTC) Anyone who disagrees with John is an "advocate". [25] LedRush ( talk) 20:55, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
John making one of many unsubstantiated accusations of off-wiki organization and vote stacking [26]. LedRush ( talk) 20:08, 13 June 2011 (UTC) John templating an established editor, despite the fact that a polite warning was giving just minutes before. [27]. John filing a bad faith, retaliatory action against me, minutes after giving me a warning even though no further edits were made. [28]. LedRush ( talk) 13:47, 14 June 2011 (UTC) John making a threat to report me. [29] LedRush ( talk) 17:40, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Sorry for all the crap that's happening today. Just freaking unbelievable BS. Ravensfire ( talk) 21:20, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Sorry to see the mess going on. Your doing a great job..... Please know it is not over looked. :)
Truth Mom has given you a
cookie! Cookies promote
WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can Spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{ subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{ subst:munch}}!
-- Truth Mom ( talk) 22:52, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
I'll agree that the thread has outlived it's purpose. I'm concerned that Cody has disregarded the comments expressing concern about his edits. In part, the thread continues because he does some of the behavior that he objects to - sniping. More than one uninvolved editor expressed some worries about his recent edits, and he essentially blew them off. I accept that he believes that there are no problems with his edits, but he needs to accept that totally uninvolved editors have found problems with them. Ignoring that will end up causing problems for him. Read through the thread, removing all posts from everyone involved in MoMK, and see what you end up with. I'm not planning on continuing this any further, no worries on that.
I honestly don't know if there's a good path forward here based on that thread. An option is to totally leave him alone, and use the various project pages if there's a problem (ANI, WQA, EWN). If an edit is objectionable, revert it, start a thread on the talk and explain the concerns then see what happens. A concensus version is then developed on the talk page and only then added back to the article. If the concensus is the edit isn't salvagable or belongs on another page, then that's what happens. Might be a useful approach if things continue and all parties agree to it. Ravensfire ( talk) 17:37, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Uhm, how do you count? I've made only one single reversion of your addition that you reinstated since. You really don't make much sense there in your editsummary. TMCk ( talk) 20:22, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Hello,
you were the last logged in user on the Murder of Meredith Kercher article. it´s protected in the discussion site and i have no account. so i would you ask to change something in the article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Meredith_Kercher#Arrest_of_Guede :...On 20 November 2007, the German transport police arrested Guede on a train near Mainz, where he was apprehended for travelling without a ticket...
...The Transportpolizei (German for "Transport Police") WAS the transit police of the German Democratic Republic (East Germany) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transportpolizei
...Bahnpolizei was the name of the former Railway police of West Germany... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bahnpolizei
from there:
In 1992 the railway security mission was transferred from the Bahnpolizei to the Bundesgrenzschutz (Federal Border Guard Force). The BGS had already taken on these duties in 1990 for the territory of the former East Germany, replacing the former East German Transportpolizei. The Bundesgrenzschutz was renamed Bundespolizei (Federal Police) on July 1, 2005, and this force is currently responsible for security and passenger checks on the German railway system.
so it wasn´t the Transport Police who´s arrested him, it was the Federal Police (Bundespolizei). It´s just that the term Transport Polizei is (was) well known for police squads that had trouble with football (soccer) away fans in east germany.
could you please change the term? Thank you. 77.189.185.158 ( talk) 22:11, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
I posted the following on Tarc's talk page. He deleted it and has not acknowledged an issue:
Please do not engage in personal attacks or make mistatements of truth as you do here [30]. You should endeavor to make constructive comments which address people's actual points and opinions. LedRush ( talk) 14:54, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
LedRush ( talk) 15:53, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Tarc belittling another editor. [32]. LedRush ( talk) 19:50, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Tarc making one of many unsubstantiated accusations that anyone who disagrees with him is guilty of off-wiki organization. [33] LedRush ( talk) 19:56, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Tarc calling me a liar and threatening to take action against me. [34] LedRush ( talk) 17:03, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi. Wikid77 here. I think we would be happier spending more time working with other intelligent editors, and less time with the slow crowd. I have noticed your continual efforts to try to make progress on the MoMK article, but I am worried about the frustration levels there. Originally, I had thought that there was some agenda to slant the article, by refusing to allow improvements. However, it is obvious that almost nothing new is allowed into the article, from any view of innocence or guilt. They are simply afraid of new text, and what it might indicate, perhaps because they cannot read at that level of education. You've heard the adage, "Never attribute to malevolence that which can be explained by ignorance." Recently, I noted that the description of the cottage should be clarified to help sight-impaired readers, who cannot clearly view the diagrams or photos. That concept, of having descriptive text read to a blind person, seemed to be totally beyond their comprehension. Other factors support this view: it is widely known that even a 14-year-old school kid is laughing at their remarks on the talk-page, and yet they persist in the childish behaviour, as if they cannot comprehend why a young student would be laughing. They are not so much evil, but rather just way too slow to realize the situation. Meanwhile, numerous other articles about towns and events in Italy need to be expanded, from scholarly sources, because most of the Italian Wikipedia seems to be written by teenagers with limited experience. I recently read that, during the Roman civil war after the death of Julius Caesar, ancient Perugia supported Mark Antony against Octavian, who destroyed much of Perugia in 40 BC, during the conflicts. Such articles, about Perugian history, should be expanded with more detail. At this point, suggestions at Talk:MoMK need to be simplified and explained in more basic language, so that the ideas are easier to understand. Remember: the unfolding events of the Knox/Sollecito retrial will hit all major news outlets, and the text of the MoMK article is relatively insignificant, in comparison with that news coverage. The important issue is that challenged editors learn, some day, about policies WP:LEDE and WP:CONSENSUS, plus forensic evidence, and how some sight-impaired readers struggle to get the text read, despite their limited eyesight. Meanwhile, we can spend some time working with more intelligent editors and avoid the current frustrations. - Wikid77 ( talk) 18:10, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
You seem to be edit warring on the MoMK article; please, stop reverting and actually discuss on the talk page. Salvio Let's talk about it! 23:41, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Hello LedRush,
This is an automated friendly notification to inform you that you have been reported for Violation of the
Edit warring policy at the
Administrators' noticeboard.
If you feel that this report has been made in error, please reply as soon as possible on the
noticeboard. However, before contesting an Edit warring report, please review the respective policies to ensure you are not in violation of them.
~
NekoBot (
MeowTalk)
23:53, 12 June 2011 (UTC) (False positive?
Report it!)
Hi LedRush. Please could you explain what you are getting at here? It appears to be directed at me, yet I can't see any hostility or sarcasm in this post, which is presumably the one you're referring to. (Nor is it wrong, incidentally) pablo 14:20, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
-- Errant ( chat!) 19:29, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
TMCk threatening me for removing his personal attacks. [35] TMCk personally insulting me as having no common sense for hatting his personal attacks. [36]
Hi. You reinstated this edit at United States nationality law — something that was reverted twice before you (by another user and by a bot). This material appears suspicious and is not supported by any source. Can you cite any sources to confirm the claim in question? Richwales ( talk · contribs) 02:09, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
After the latest move request has landed up with about equal numbers for both sides I've started a mediation request. Please indicate there if you wish to participate. Thanks. -- Eraserhead1 < talk> 18:42, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
I haven't forgotten the now-archived section
here and believe that additions would be good. Guede is scheduled to begin testifying on June 27 and I believe that whatever he has to say will likely accompany the other testimonies in additions to the appeals section.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► (
(⊕))
19:50, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
In light of the seemingly endless disputes over their respective titles, a neutral mediator has crafted a proposal to rename the two major abortion articles ( pro-life/anti-abortion movement, and pro-choice/abortion rights movement) to completely new names. The idea, which is located here, is currently open for opinions. As you have been a contributor in the past to at least one of the articles, your thoughts on the matter would be appreciated.
The hope is that, if a consensus can be reached on the article titles, the energy that has been spent debating the titles of the articles here and here can be better spent giving both articles some much needed improvement to their content. Please take some time to read the proposal and weigh in on the matter. Even if your opinion is simple indifference, that opinion would be valuable to have posted.
To avoid accusations that this posting violates WP:CANVASS, this posting is being made to every non-anon editor who has edited either page since 1 July 2010, irrespective of possible previous participation at the mediation page. HuskyHuskie ( talk) 19:46, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Tech note: some of the refs you've added are messed up (look in ref section)...if you haven't got them by the time I get back in a bit, I'll help clean up. :)
⋙–Berean–Hunter—►
19:52, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
http://obit-mag.com/meet-obit LedRush ( talk) 03:13, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
...to gain insight about tags may be had at
this thread at ANI.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—►
00:59, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
For the kind words regarding BLP1E @ ErrantX's talk page. :) Cerejota ( talk) 00:32, 24 July 2011 (UTC) |
Answering first regarding BLP. My main concern is that an article on Casey Anthony simply isn't needed. My secondary concern is BLP. Simply put, as she was acquitted, a separate article isn't required. Now from a BLP viewpoint, Casey can be covered succinctly in the main article. A separate article would tend to attract mention of much of the prurient stuff that has been dug up over three years but is not directly relevant to Caylee's death. In other words, it would become an attractive nuisance. I should mention at this point that my personal opinion is that Casey likely WAS guilty of at least negligence. But even so, I cannot support creation of the article.
Safiel (
talk)
18:55, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
As for closing up the discussions on the other talk page. The discussions were two weeks old and had trailed off. I personally saw a slight consensus for no create. Certainly not a strong consensus. Perhaps you saw it differently. At best it was a no consensus. I would suggest reopening the discussion at Talk:Death of Caylee Anthony. If the consensus goes against my position, no big deal, I have been on the losing end of consensus a time or two. :) Again, my more predominant argument is simply that the article is not needed. BLP is secondary. Safiel ( talk) 18:55, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Opposition to the legalisation of abortion". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by July 22, 2011.
Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by
MediationBot (
talk) on
behalf of the Mediation Committee.
01:51, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Abortion and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
Thanks, Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 03:30, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Thought I'd bounce this off of Cody's page - no reason to keep it going there. Glrx made a very polite request, so let's see what happens. Oh yeah, I've been to most, if not all, of the major advocacy sites on this case. Pretty much the same as most advocacy sites - if you share the POV, it's all good. If you don't, it's not so much fun. Some of them are better than others about controlling the level of debate. I used to spend a lot of time on TribalWar (Tribes and Tribes2 fan sites, EXTREMELY active) and there weren't too many rules there. Some of the stuff got rather heated, but that's their moderation style. To some extent, I agree with the description - there is a lot of hate there, but to an editor that shares the POV, it's unlikely they'd call it a hate site and would take umbrage to it being described that way. I'm sure Cody would object to a pro-Knox site being described a hate site, but some of those easily match the level of vitriol. My comment on his page was to nudge him to look at it in that manner.
The comment in part is pretty under-handed. "This person posts at a site that I disagree with, so everyone here should feel free to ignore their opinion and view." That's pure WP:BATTLEGROUND. Take it to the logical next step, and anyone that posts on an advocacy site should be ignored because someone disagrees with that site's view. That's not too many editors left if that happens. And it's bunk. For the most part, what happens off WP should stay there. I very, very rarely look at those sites anymore. I came to the conclusion that they are all echo chambers, with only views and links that support the predominate view being posted. *shrug* Not helpful to me.
I won't comment on Cody's page on this further, but hopefully he'll strike and avoid such charged language in the future. It won't help anything on WP for it to continue. Ravensfire ( talk) 14:57, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Please see and list your comments there. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 21:50, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
The request for formal mediation concerning Opposition to the legalisation of abortion, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.
For the Mediation Committee,
AGK [
•
21:33, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
(Delivered by
MediationBot,
on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)
An arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion/Evidence. Please add your evidence by August 26, 2011, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 05:14, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi, there was a long discussion about the table you have removed ( diff) that I recall reached a consensus to keep. You may want to ferret through the talk archive to double check you are not going against a reasonable local consensus. Thanks Fæ ( talk) 14:43, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Haven't seen you on the case page for a while. Any progress? Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 02:08, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Talk:Mega Drive. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. — KieferSkunk ( talk) — 01:15, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Your last edit has dissappeared, please re-add. Kwenchin ( talk) 13:50, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
I replied to you about the GameFAQs and Gamespot issue some time ago. I'd like to see if you have any followup as the issue does not look like it will be resolved with so little participation and disagreement.∞ 陣 内 Jinnai 00:45, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Thought you might find this interesting reading :
Long arm of Mignini as a sore loser?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—►
02:28, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
first of all, it IS in source provided, number 2, even if it's not, WP recommendation is NOT to delete, but to modify or find a source...but in this case the source is there...no valid reason to remove... Just because of " I don't like it" reasons. Blatantly removing a whole section on flimsy grounds because you can't find it in the source (it was in the paper newspaper, but regardless, it's in OTHER sources as well, that can easily be looked up...which tells me that it's not because it's supposedly "not sourced" but because you just don't like the section for POV or personal reasons.) The WP policy is not to vandalize, or remove, willy nilly, but to modify and maybe find another source. Stop vandalizing...this has already been discussed on Talk. Regards. Hashem sfarim ( talk) 20:49, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Don't call me a douche, that is a personal attack and if you repeat such a comment I will report you. Off2riorob ( talk) 13:09, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi - regarding your replacement of these externals I have opened a discussion at the reliable source noticeboard - please make your case for their inclusion there thanks - Off2riorob ( talk) 22:12, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
I want to commend your courage and heroic tenacity in resisting these peoples efforts to use Wikipedia to press their personal opinons.
But I think there is more need to individually report them to Wikipedia administrators (perhaps in some cases to get the worst offenders banned).
Plus following this all the way through the appeals process may be needed. Some of these people should no longer be editing, plain and simple.
I don't know enough about how to do that, though. I wish I knew more about the process, and I also don't know as much about the Edit-wars regarding the Kerchner and Knox articles, which also would be needed in order to make good cases.
Anyway, those are just some thoughts. Thanks for your decency and courage in hanging in there (I have no connection to the Knox family by the way, but I know when a Wikipedia article is under pressure to be misused when I see it).
69.171.160.182 ( talk) 16:58, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
I finished the list
here if you would like to add them.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—►
01:06, 20 October 2011 (UTC)