This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
I am requesting help with an over-aggressive and inconsiderate editor by the name of VERBAL. This person keeps reverting a page to add an external link while losing dozens of valid updates to the original page. He/She ignores when proper updates are made and reverts them even using Twinkle and spurious excuses for the revisions. I am ill-equipped to fight this user. You will see what I mean if you check the revision history for the following page.
Thanks in advance for any help you can provide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.175.53.72 ( talk) 16:23, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
I am well within the 3rr rule. There is no war. Thay have finally gone to the talkpage, which Brothe whatever reverted.-- Die4Dixie ( talk) 22:48, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
In re: this revert and edit summary. Per talk refers to this talk page section, specifically the discussions with User:Brothejr (the user who originally reverted my changes). Protonk ( talk) 23:11, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
I have answered your question about the Klan on my talkpage. I was not offended in the slightest.-- Die4Dixie ( talk) 04:02, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
I think he means me. Who then was a gentleman? ( talk) 23:37, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi, thank you so much for your advice. I did actually use the tildes when posting on the talk page but something screwy happened. Nevertheless, good advice :) ABCGi ( talk) 08:07, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Hello, The Magnificent Clean-keeper. I've put forward another proposal in an attempt to resolve the content dispute at Ron Paul. Please take a look and let me know what you think. Thanks! Nick Graves ( talk) 17:01, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
I had already discussed and sourced that particular bit of information on the articles talk page. The article I sourced the "including democrats" from is already referenced in the article.
However, last time I tried to use the same reference more than once I ended up creating several of the same reference links at the bottom of the article. If you could have a look and help me out with this, that would be awesome.
Hope to hear back soon. Metty ( talk) 02:21, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
(Oops. Thanks for removing the duplicate quote I just copy and pasted by mistake.-- The Magnificent Clean-keeper ( talk) 02:54, 13 September 2009 (UTC))
Regarding consensus at ACORN, it wasn't just one editor. It was three. Please see Wikidemon's Talk page, I refuse to be baited into an edit war. Satisfy yourself that this edit was fully supported, and then revert yourself. Thanks. 71.57.8.103 ( talk) 01:52, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
(copy from Noroton's talk page to keep it together)
Please point out where a consensus has established that the New York Post is not RS. --
Noroton (
talk)
20:16, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi, thank you for your response. I am sorry that I can't get back to you on the discussion over national dish article, specifically on Germany, as I've been terribly busy lately. I will let you know when we can work it out together. Haleth ( talk) 12:12, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
In this edit of yours, where you erased the entry on medical marijuana from Presidency of Barack Obama, you commented, "A 'very popular topic'? For whom? Any source that says so or is it just a popular topic for you? rm. 'news section' w/o connection."
OK. That's a legitimate point.
On March 26, 2009, the New York Times reported, "... the first live Internet video chat by an American president... after 3.6 million votes were cast, one of the top questions turned out to be a query on whether legalizing marijuana..."
So there you have it. The New York Times has addressed your concern. Please revert your edit. Thank you.
Grundle2600 ( talk) 21:42, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
An excellent answer? Maybe by your standards, not by mine. Let's summarize the notability by using your source:
I'm trying to keep the baying mob which is gathering on Talk:Roman Polanski from burning down the cinema. Would you mind taking a look? Cheers, Crafty ( talk) 00:30, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
You made an honest mistake with the comment that you wrote when you made this edit. Your comment says that I violated my restriction. You are wrong. I am allowed one revert per week, per each Obama related article. I did not violate that restriction.
In addition, the information that I added is relevant and well sourced. Please revert your edit. Thank you.
Grundle2600 ( talk) 22:01, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Does LotLE get some sort of indulgence for his abrasive comments in his edit summaries? And are you likewise immune regarding your false sock accusations against me? 64.208.230.145 ( talk) 20:57, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps you might take a look at the recent edits by User:64.208.230.145. You've had some contact with this editor and his/her disruptive edits. In particular, I noticed the IPs insertion of an unnecessary and duplicative direct quote in Ward Churchill academic misconduct investigation today. I've taken it out, but obviously need to avoid 3RR myself. LotLE× talk 18:55, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
...and I am not using this account for any abusive sockpuppetry activities. I decided to create this account for security reasons. Notify all users that I am using this as an alternative.-- Das Sicherheit ( talk) 02:19, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
You have teh funnay. I like it. :) Crafty ( talk) 22:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Given AniMate's insistence on shutting down the ANI Rimarama, I'm mulling over the wisdom of commencing WP:RFC/U proceedings against Ottava. Only mulling mind you. What say you? Crafty ( talk) 01:13, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
As you participated in the recent
Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two
requests for comment that relate to the use of
SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the
SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome.
For the Arbitration Committee,
Risker (
talk)
08:35, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
I see that you suspect that Wastful is a sockpuppet. So do i. User_talk:Wastful do you think we should send this to WP:SPI. Thanks. Oldag07 ( talk) 22:10, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
I am unsure, why did you revert the edit on polanski, there is an active discussion on the talkpage and the blp noticeboard, please explain why you simply reverted with no discussion and no edit summary? Off2riorob ( talk) 18:57, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
For tidying up a second accidental deletion in an edit conflict on Global Warming. -- BozMo talk 20:37, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Happy Festivus! Grundle2600 ( talk) 19:13, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
LeadSongDog come howl 15:22, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Merry Christmas.-- Sky Attacker the legend reborn... 01:34, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
I am now so fed up with PilgrimRose that I want her formally reviewed by an admin. How do I go about it, seeing that there is already a section on her activities on the ANI? Do I need to do more that I have done already (see ANI page)? I would appreciate your assistance as I have never done this before. Cheers rturus ( talk) 19:04, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
I am rather dismayed by Bigtimepeace's "resolution" to your ANI. It seems to me that he has totally failed to recognise my attempts to placate PilgrimRose and paid no attention to her persistent character assassination of me. I have posted something here on my talk page and I would be grateful if you could spare the time to review what I have written and I would appreciate any comments. I really don't want to be seen as some pedant who drags things on and on but I also don't see why PR should be allowed to indulge in character assassination of me with no comeback. rturus ( talk) 16:05, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Whole thread with context to be found here [6].
Hi TMCK: I've undone your recent edit which removed all external links from the noted article(s). When I checked the links I found that they didn't contravene wp:Spam as they weren't promotional advertising pages, and they actually provided technical information directly related to the subject matter. Such sites are beneficial to those interested in soundproofing as they impart specific technical information. I did change the last item on the list to point directly to a sound-proofing article rather than the main index page which had a minor advertising strip at the very top. Best: HarryZilber ( talk) 13:36, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Merry Christmas Tree Worm!!! Grundle2600 ( talk) 05:14, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Seriously? I gave an explanatory edit summary, and it is by no means a requirement to point to a related talk page discussion. I hardly think it was worth bothering my talk page with it. In fact, I'd really rather you hadn't. People with 14,000+ Wikipedia edits don't really need lectures on edit summaries. -- Scjessey ( talk) 01:49, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Can you please explain your reverts of my edits?-- Epeefleche ( talk) 02:45, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Many thanks for creating this. If you think it's "not exactly state of the art" you must never have seen any of my efforts! All the best, Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:58, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
please see this [ [7]] Hell In A Bucket ( talk) 19:42, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
LOL, I love your edit. I was thinking that same thing, but since the editor feels so strongly I moved it to the talk page. Nice save. Malke 2010 21:21, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Chhe ( talk)
Thanks for taking an interest in the Murder of Meredith Kercher article. Every time I look at it just makes me angry because (to my probably prejudiced mind) Zlykinskyja seems to be trying to turn it into an "Amanda Knox is innocent" article. I keep deciding to take the article off my watchlist then, a few days later, I weaken and just have to take a peek and see what has happened to it! It would be good to get some independent views and a clearer consensus. If you can contribute to that, it would be of great benefit to the article. Bluewave ( talk) 22:31, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Curious, what should we do about the disruptions of Zlykinskyja?
By the user Zlykinskyja! How about that! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonathancjudd ( talk • contribs) 00:26, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
If you look close you can see a "red dot" that Zlykinskyja placed there to misuse editsummaries instead of using the talk page. S/he just did it again and getting ftired of this. So if it continues like this s/he'll find her/himself at wp:ANI in no time. Oh, and before she left a marker in the article to remember where the Trump quote was. The Magnificent Clean-keeper ( talk) 00:07, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Magnificent Clean-Keeper, stop harassing me, stop coming after me and stop posting on my Talk page. I am here to research and write, not to have to put up with this nonsense. Zlykinskyja ( talk) 00:31, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
There's a message for you here [9]. Malke 2010 21:04, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
see history (deletions) of conversation for context |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Harassment by Magnificient Clean-KeeperMagnificent Clean-Keeper: STOP HARASSING ME. STOP DELETING MY WORK. I was simply trying to write on-line. I should be able to compose on-line without this harassment. I was simply doing my writing and researching as I typed. I had good sources for each statement. But it is simply easier to go back and put in the cites when finished composing. I specifically noted that I was intending to add cites to the new text!!!!!!!! It was OBVIOUS that is what I was doing. STOP HARASSING ME. I have as much of a privilege to contribute to Wikipedia as you do. Now I don't even know where my text is and I am too upset to continue writing. LEAVE ME ALONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!I If you continue harassing me I am going to report you. Zlykinskyja ( talk) 19:49, 7 March 2010 (UTC) TO DELETE TEXT WHILE SOMEONE IS COMPOSING TOTALLY WASTES THE EDITOR'S TIME AND IS INTENDED TO HARASS THE WRITER, NOT TO SERVE THE INTERESTS OF WRITING A GOOD ARTICLE, WHICH IS THE PURPOSE OF WIKIPEDIA. NOW MY TEXT IS GONE SOMEWHERE JUST BECAUSE YOU WOULD NOT ALLOW ME THE DECENCY OF COMPLETING WHAT I WAS WRITING SO THAT I COULD THEN ADD ALL OF THE SOURCES THAT TOOK ME A LONG TIME TO FIND AND HAD TO TRY TO TRANSLATE FROM ITALIAN. YOU ARE INTENTIONALLY HARASSING ME AND TRYING TO INTIMIDATE ME FROM PARTICIPATING IN WIKIPEDIA, AS REFLECTED BY YOUR PLOT AND JOKES ON YOUR TALK PAGE ABOUT INTENDING TO SEEK SANCTIONS AGAINST ME. YOU ARE INTENTIONALLY TRYING TO INSTIGATE SOMETHING SO THAT YOU CAN THEN FILE A COMPLAINT AGAINST ME. LEAVE ME ALONE. I HAVE HAD ENOUGH. THIS IS A TYPE OF CENSORSHIP OF THE ARTICLE. Zlykinskyja ( talk) 20:15, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
|
Edits at Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's article. The Magnificent Clean-keeper ( talk) 22:47, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
I think it was in the article, but I was just adding him to the category. Perhaps you were mistakenly confusing holocaust denial with 9/11 denial? TheGoodLocust ( talk) 21:57, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Sorry to bother you, but you have been helpful in the past, and I was hoping you could help me now. I'm having a problem with a user removing referenced information, without cause from the article Illinois gubernatorial election, 2010. There is two sections of information which a user User talk:GageSkidmore has repeatedly removed without explaining why or discussing it on the talk page and it appears to me that these edits have been done out of a personal bias. The first issue involves the listing of Rich Whitney in the polling table currently there are three polls listed and one of the three specifically lists Whitney, I believe that this merits his inclusion as a separate candidate listed in the polling table rather then lumped in the other column, the other user does not agree. My rational is that with so few polls 1 in 3 merits inclusion (obviously once more data is available inclusion or not will be obvious) No other user has objected to his inclusion and the user never responded to my message at his talk page about the issue. The second issue involves how the candidate Rich Whitney is listed in the article. In Illinois there are three legally established political parties that have primary elections the Republican, Democratic, and Green Parties. There had been a green primary section until the user removed it and added whitney to the other candidates in a third party/independents section. Whitney unlike the other candidates in the third party/independents section is already on the November ballot. The Primary section had referenced information relating to the number of votes he received and the fact that he ran unopposed in the primary. In light of these facts I see no reason why he keeps removing this material unless it is out of a personal POV bias, I could use some help dealing with this user and the article thank you for your consideration. unsigned user:Highground79 22:02, March 10, 2010
OK I've added my text in now. Many thanks for your support and encouragement. Bluewave ( talk) 14:31, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Split up from upper section. The Magnificent Clean-keeper ( talk) 00:16, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
I don't see this situation as funny at all. Zlykinskyja ( talk) 00:05, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Although the article needs some work (after yesterday and in general) I would suggest not to make major edits over there at least for a certain amount of time to not fire up another silly dispute with the same editor. I guess others will kick in sooner or later and improve that article. That's just my thought and you have to make your own decision. Best, The Magnificent Clean-keeper ( talk) 16:25, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Hope you didn't fall for the "new message" link again :) The Magnificent Clean-keeper ( talk) 16:26, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Bad faith edits and accusations:
(this includes refactoring editors comments after they where replied to)
(more minor refactoring)
(making a wp:point by highlighting twenty times without providing any evidence)
(More unfounded and unproven accusations against me [still not addressing nor acknowledging incivility issues against several editors as pointed out at wp:Wikiquette alerts)
"The non-bold text below is the discussion that followed after he set me up so that he could use my distress as evidence that I was being uncivil to him, never acknowledging that he had just deleted over a dozen of my edits."
Thick and tired of it: The Magnificent Clean-keeper ( talk) 22:48, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Hallo, wo sind Sie? Malke 2010 18:51, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Gerardw ( talk) 15:54, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
First of all, wie geht's? Then, I'm writing here, because, reading Z.'z talk page, I see that he keeps making comments about you, as you can see here, here and here. In the last diff he also shows a little bit of paranoia...
Apparently, honey did not work; is it time we tried with vinegar (I don't know if this is understandable...)? Salvio giuliano ( talk) 14:13, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
The "editor" I referenced was not meant to be you. Apologies for any offense taken.-- Happysomeone ( talk) 16:54, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
I noticed a comment by Gerardw that you reinstated. Could you just check it's in the right place. It looks wrong, but I havent been following things! Bluewave ( talk) 18:32, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
TO ALL: JUST GIVE ME A SHORT BRAKE, PLEASE XDXDXDXD LOL and thanks.
The Magnificent Clean-keeper (
talk)
18:51, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
But I'll be back shortly ;)
The Magnificent Clean-keeper (
talk)
18:53, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm half back. The Magnificent Clean-keeper ( talk) 19:29, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
And I made a mistake that everybody can read here. The Magnificent Clean-keeper ( talk) 19:31, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Happy St. Paddy's Day, Magnificent O'Clean Keeper. :D Malke 2010 22:48, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Du hast post. Malke 2010 21:44, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Both parties may be sanctioned if this continues. Wait to get consensus on the talk page before reverting again. See WP:EW for the policy. EdJohnston ( talk) 01:59, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
As she asked me a while ago not to post on her talk page and I didn't besides reasonable warnings and other directly related to her in regards of conduct and issues that I'm supposed to post by policy (she is deleting not only deleting those but also good faith advise I gave her like other editors did too and where ignored and deleted), so basically all post's on her talk page from editors that don't share her views are gone. So now I start this section where I mostly will add comments from or for her. Although I would like to repeat and stress that Zlykinskyja is not welcome here as long as she doesn't post in a civil manner. The Magnificent Clean-keeper ( talk) 19:51, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
With regard to your post at ANI, I'm sorry you've ended up being portrayed as the leader of an anti-Knox conspiracy...for a long time, it looked as though I was going to be in the frame for that! Cheers. Bluewave ( talk) 11:43, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Just to thank you. ;) You can call me Salvio ( talk) 23:21, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, here too. ;) Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 15:15, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
It is conventional that the description applied to a diff correlates to the edit it shows. Your description referred to an earlier edit that the diff reverted. While there's nothing wrong with having a diff link to the revert, it should be described as such to prevent confusion. In particularly contentious cases such as this, it is best to provide both diffs, each described. Cheers, User:LeadSongDog come howl 21:16, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
I will not make any more April Fool's edits in the article space.
Just in case you never saw it, here is my April Fool's edit from last year.
Grundle2600 ( talk) 21:36, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
As an user who commented at this discussion, you may wish to weigh in on Grundle2600's topic ban modification request. Ncmvocalist ( talk) 09:14, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Hallo, Wie sind Sie gewesen? Was mit Ihnen neu ist. Sind Sie glücklich? Ist Ihre Familie gut? Forgive the lack of 'Du.' Malke 2010 22:23, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi Clean keeper, the responder, Crum375 agreed to the deletion, please don't mess with it. I'm talking directly with Jimbo, which is what he wants from here on, thanks. Scott P. ( talk) 22:14, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
I am requesting help with an over-aggressive and inconsiderate editor by the name of VERBAL. This person keeps reverting a page to add an external link while losing dozens of valid updates to the original page. He/She ignores when proper updates are made and reverts them even using Twinkle and spurious excuses for the revisions. I am ill-equipped to fight this user. You will see what I mean if you check the revision history for the following page.
Thanks in advance for any help you can provide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.175.53.72 ( talk) 16:23, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
I am well within the 3rr rule. There is no war. Thay have finally gone to the talkpage, which Brothe whatever reverted.-- Die4Dixie ( talk) 22:48, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
In re: this revert and edit summary. Per talk refers to this talk page section, specifically the discussions with User:Brothejr (the user who originally reverted my changes). Protonk ( talk) 23:11, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
I have answered your question about the Klan on my talkpage. I was not offended in the slightest.-- Die4Dixie ( talk) 04:02, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
I think he means me. Who then was a gentleman? ( talk) 23:37, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi, thank you so much for your advice. I did actually use the tildes when posting on the talk page but something screwy happened. Nevertheless, good advice :) ABCGi ( talk) 08:07, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Hello, The Magnificent Clean-keeper. I've put forward another proposal in an attempt to resolve the content dispute at Ron Paul. Please take a look and let me know what you think. Thanks! Nick Graves ( talk) 17:01, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
I had already discussed and sourced that particular bit of information on the articles talk page. The article I sourced the "including democrats" from is already referenced in the article.
However, last time I tried to use the same reference more than once I ended up creating several of the same reference links at the bottom of the article. If you could have a look and help me out with this, that would be awesome.
Hope to hear back soon. Metty ( talk) 02:21, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
(Oops. Thanks for removing the duplicate quote I just copy and pasted by mistake.-- The Magnificent Clean-keeper ( talk) 02:54, 13 September 2009 (UTC))
Regarding consensus at ACORN, it wasn't just one editor. It was three. Please see Wikidemon's Talk page, I refuse to be baited into an edit war. Satisfy yourself that this edit was fully supported, and then revert yourself. Thanks. 71.57.8.103 ( talk) 01:52, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
(copy from Noroton's talk page to keep it together)
Please point out where a consensus has established that the New York Post is not RS. --
Noroton (
talk)
20:16, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi, thank you for your response. I am sorry that I can't get back to you on the discussion over national dish article, specifically on Germany, as I've been terribly busy lately. I will let you know when we can work it out together. Haleth ( talk) 12:12, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
In this edit of yours, where you erased the entry on medical marijuana from Presidency of Barack Obama, you commented, "A 'very popular topic'? For whom? Any source that says so or is it just a popular topic for you? rm. 'news section' w/o connection."
OK. That's a legitimate point.
On March 26, 2009, the New York Times reported, "... the first live Internet video chat by an American president... after 3.6 million votes were cast, one of the top questions turned out to be a query on whether legalizing marijuana..."
So there you have it. The New York Times has addressed your concern. Please revert your edit. Thank you.
Grundle2600 ( talk) 21:42, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
An excellent answer? Maybe by your standards, not by mine. Let's summarize the notability by using your source:
I'm trying to keep the baying mob which is gathering on Talk:Roman Polanski from burning down the cinema. Would you mind taking a look? Cheers, Crafty ( talk) 00:30, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
You made an honest mistake with the comment that you wrote when you made this edit. Your comment says that I violated my restriction. You are wrong. I am allowed one revert per week, per each Obama related article. I did not violate that restriction.
In addition, the information that I added is relevant and well sourced. Please revert your edit. Thank you.
Grundle2600 ( talk) 22:01, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Does LotLE get some sort of indulgence for his abrasive comments in his edit summaries? And are you likewise immune regarding your false sock accusations against me? 64.208.230.145 ( talk) 20:57, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps you might take a look at the recent edits by User:64.208.230.145. You've had some contact with this editor and his/her disruptive edits. In particular, I noticed the IPs insertion of an unnecessary and duplicative direct quote in Ward Churchill academic misconduct investigation today. I've taken it out, but obviously need to avoid 3RR myself. LotLE× talk 18:55, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
...and I am not using this account for any abusive sockpuppetry activities. I decided to create this account for security reasons. Notify all users that I am using this as an alternative.-- Das Sicherheit ( talk) 02:19, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
You have teh funnay. I like it. :) Crafty ( talk) 22:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Given AniMate's insistence on shutting down the ANI Rimarama, I'm mulling over the wisdom of commencing WP:RFC/U proceedings against Ottava. Only mulling mind you. What say you? Crafty ( talk) 01:13, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
As you participated in the recent
Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two
requests for comment that relate to the use of
SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the
SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome.
For the Arbitration Committee,
Risker (
talk)
08:35, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
I see that you suspect that Wastful is a sockpuppet. So do i. User_talk:Wastful do you think we should send this to WP:SPI. Thanks. Oldag07 ( talk) 22:10, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
I am unsure, why did you revert the edit on polanski, there is an active discussion on the talkpage and the blp noticeboard, please explain why you simply reverted with no discussion and no edit summary? Off2riorob ( talk) 18:57, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
For tidying up a second accidental deletion in an edit conflict on Global Warming. -- BozMo talk 20:37, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Happy Festivus! Grundle2600 ( talk) 19:13, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
LeadSongDog come howl 15:22, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Merry Christmas.-- Sky Attacker the legend reborn... 01:34, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
I am now so fed up with PilgrimRose that I want her formally reviewed by an admin. How do I go about it, seeing that there is already a section on her activities on the ANI? Do I need to do more that I have done already (see ANI page)? I would appreciate your assistance as I have never done this before. Cheers rturus ( talk) 19:04, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
I am rather dismayed by Bigtimepeace's "resolution" to your ANI. It seems to me that he has totally failed to recognise my attempts to placate PilgrimRose and paid no attention to her persistent character assassination of me. I have posted something here on my talk page and I would be grateful if you could spare the time to review what I have written and I would appreciate any comments. I really don't want to be seen as some pedant who drags things on and on but I also don't see why PR should be allowed to indulge in character assassination of me with no comeback. rturus ( talk) 16:05, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Whole thread with context to be found here [6].
Hi TMCK: I've undone your recent edit which removed all external links from the noted article(s). When I checked the links I found that they didn't contravene wp:Spam as they weren't promotional advertising pages, and they actually provided technical information directly related to the subject matter. Such sites are beneficial to those interested in soundproofing as they impart specific technical information. I did change the last item on the list to point directly to a sound-proofing article rather than the main index page which had a minor advertising strip at the very top. Best: HarryZilber ( talk) 13:36, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Merry Christmas Tree Worm!!! Grundle2600 ( talk) 05:14, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Seriously? I gave an explanatory edit summary, and it is by no means a requirement to point to a related talk page discussion. I hardly think it was worth bothering my talk page with it. In fact, I'd really rather you hadn't. People with 14,000+ Wikipedia edits don't really need lectures on edit summaries. -- Scjessey ( talk) 01:49, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Can you please explain your reverts of my edits?-- Epeefleche ( talk) 02:45, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Many thanks for creating this. If you think it's "not exactly state of the art" you must never have seen any of my efforts! All the best, Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:58, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
please see this [ [7]] Hell In A Bucket ( talk) 19:42, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
LOL, I love your edit. I was thinking that same thing, but since the editor feels so strongly I moved it to the talk page. Nice save. Malke 2010 21:21, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Chhe ( talk)
Thanks for taking an interest in the Murder of Meredith Kercher article. Every time I look at it just makes me angry because (to my probably prejudiced mind) Zlykinskyja seems to be trying to turn it into an "Amanda Knox is innocent" article. I keep deciding to take the article off my watchlist then, a few days later, I weaken and just have to take a peek and see what has happened to it! It would be good to get some independent views and a clearer consensus. If you can contribute to that, it would be of great benefit to the article. Bluewave ( talk) 22:31, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Curious, what should we do about the disruptions of Zlykinskyja?
By the user Zlykinskyja! How about that! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonathancjudd ( talk • contribs) 00:26, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
If you look close you can see a "red dot" that Zlykinskyja placed there to misuse editsummaries instead of using the talk page. S/he just did it again and getting ftired of this. So if it continues like this s/he'll find her/himself at wp:ANI in no time. Oh, and before she left a marker in the article to remember where the Trump quote was. The Magnificent Clean-keeper ( talk) 00:07, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Magnificent Clean-Keeper, stop harassing me, stop coming after me and stop posting on my Talk page. I am here to research and write, not to have to put up with this nonsense. Zlykinskyja ( talk) 00:31, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
There's a message for you here [9]. Malke 2010 21:04, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
see history (deletions) of conversation for context |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Harassment by Magnificient Clean-KeeperMagnificent Clean-Keeper: STOP HARASSING ME. STOP DELETING MY WORK. I was simply trying to write on-line. I should be able to compose on-line without this harassment. I was simply doing my writing and researching as I typed. I had good sources for each statement. But it is simply easier to go back and put in the cites when finished composing. I specifically noted that I was intending to add cites to the new text!!!!!!!! It was OBVIOUS that is what I was doing. STOP HARASSING ME. I have as much of a privilege to contribute to Wikipedia as you do. Now I don't even know where my text is and I am too upset to continue writing. LEAVE ME ALONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!I If you continue harassing me I am going to report you. Zlykinskyja ( talk) 19:49, 7 March 2010 (UTC) TO DELETE TEXT WHILE SOMEONE IS COMPOSING TOTALLY WASTES THE EDITOR'S TIME AND IS INTENDED TO HARASS THE WRITER, NOT TO SERVE THE INTERESTS OF WRITING A GOOD ARTICLE, WHICH IS THE PURPOSE OF WIKIPEDIA. NOW MY TEXT IS GONE SOMEWHERE JUST BECAUSE YOU WOULD NOT ALLOW ME THE DECENCY OF COMPLETING WHAT I WAS WRITING SO THAT I COULD THEN ADD ALL OF THE SOURCES THAT TOOK ME A LONG TIME TO FIND AND HAD TO TRY TO TRANSLATE FROM ITALIAN. YOU ARE INTENTIONALLY HARASSING ME AND TRYING TO INTIMIDATE ME FROM PARTICIPATING IN WIKIPEDIA, AS REFLECTED BY YOUR PLOT AND JOKES ON YOUR TALK PAGE ABOUT INTENDING TO SEEK SANCTIONS AGAINST ME. YOU ARE INTENTIONALLY TRYING TO INSTIGATE SOMETHING SO THAT YOU CAN THEN FILE A COMPLAINT AGAINST ME. LEAVE ME ALONE. I HAVE HAD ENOUGH. THIS IS A TYPE OF CENSORSHIP OF THE ARTICLE. Zlykinskyja ( talk) 20:15, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
|
Edits at Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's article. The Magnificent Clean-keeper ( talk) 22:47, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
I think it was in the article, but I was just adding him to the category. Perhaps you were mistakenly confusing holocaust denial with 9/11 denial? TheGoodLocust ( talk) 21:57, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Sorry to bother you, but you have been helpful in the past, and I was hoping you could help me now. I'm having a problem with a user removing referenced information, without cause from the article Illinois gubernatorial election, 2010. There is two sections of information which a user User talk:GageSkidmore has repeatedly removed without explaining why or discussing it on the talk page and it appears to me that these edits have been done out of a personal bias. The first issue involves the listing of Rich Whitney in the polling table currently there are three polls listed and one of the three specifically lists Whitney, I believe that this merits his inclusion as a separate candidate listed in the polling table rather then lumped in the other column, the other user does not agree. My rational is that with so few polls 1 in 3 merits inclusion (obviously once more data is available inclusion or not will be obvious) No other user has objected to his inclusion and the user never responded to my message at his talk page about the issue. The second issue involves how the candidate Rich Whitney is listed in the article. In Illinois there are three legally established political parties that have primary elections the Republican, Democratic, and Green Parties. There had been a green primary section until the user removed it and added whitney to the other candidates in a third party/independents section. Whitney unlike the other candidates in the third party/independents section is already on the November ballot. The Primary section had referenced information relating to the number of votes he received and the fact that he ran unopposed in the primary. In light of these facts I see no reason why he keeps removing this material unless it is out of a personal POV bias, I could use some help dealing with this user and the article thank you for your consideration. unsigned user:Highground79 22:02, March 10, 2010
OK I've added my text in now. Many thanks for your support and encouragement. Bluewave ( talk) 14:31, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Split up from upper section. The Magnificent Clean-keeper ( talk) 00:16, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
I don't see this situation as funny at all. Zlykinskyja ( talk) 00:05, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Although the article needs some work (after yesterday and in general) I would suggest not to make major edits over there at least for a certain amount of time to not fire up another silly dispute with the same editor. I guess others will kick in sooner or later and improve that article. That's just my thought and you have to make your own decision. Best, The Magnificent Clean-keeper ( talk) 16:25, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Hope you didn't fall for the "new message" link again :) The Magnificent Clean-keeper ( talk) 16:26, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Bad faith edits and accusations:
(this includes refactoring editors comments after they where replied to)
(more minor refactoring)
(making a wp:point by highlighting twenty times without providing any evidence)
(More unfounded and unproven accusations against me [still not addressing nor acknowledging incivility issues against several editors as pointed out at wp:Wikiquette alerts)
"The non-bold text below is the discussion that followed after he set me up so that he could use my distress as evidence that I was being uncivil to him, never acknowledging that he had just deleted over a dozen of my edits."
Thick and tired of it: The Magnificent Clean-keeper ( talk) 22:48, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Hallo, wo sind Sie? Malke 2010 18:51, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Gerardw ( talk) 15:54, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
First of all, wie geht's? Then, I'm writing here, because, reading Z.'z talk page, I see that he keeps making comments about you, as you can see here, here and here. In the last diff he also shows a little bit of paranoia...
Apparently, honey did not work; is it time we tried with vinegar (I don't know if this is understandable...)? Salvio giuliano ( talk) 14:13, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
The "editor" I referenced was not meant to be you. Apologies for any offense taken.-- Happysomeone ( talk) 16:54, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
I noticed a comment by Gerardw that you reinstated. Could you just check it's in the right place. It looks wrong, but I havent been following things! Bluewave ( talk) 18:32, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
TO ALL: JUST GIVE ME A SHORT BRAKE, PLEASE XDXDXDXD LOL and thanks.
The Magnificent Clean-keeper (
talk)
18:51, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
But I'll be back shortly ;)
The Magnificent Clean-keeper (
talk)
18:53, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm half back. The Magnificent Clean-keeper ( talk) 19:29, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
And I made a mistake that everybody can read here. The Magnificent Clean-keeper ( talk) 19:31, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Happy St. Paddy's Day, Magnificent O'Clean Keeper. :D Malke 2010 22:48, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Du hast post. Malke 2010 21:44, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Both parties may be sanctioned if this continues. Wait to get consensus on the talk page before reverting again. See WP:EW for the policy. EdJohnston ( talk) 01:59, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
As she asked me a while ago not to post on her talk page and I didn't besides reasonable warnings and other directly related to her in regards of conduct and issues that I'm supposed to post by policy (she is deleting not only deleting those but also good faith advise I gave her like other editors did too and where ignored and deleted), so basically all post's on her talk page from editors that don't share her views are gone. So now I start this section where I mostly will add comments from or for her. Although I would like to repeat and stress that Zlykinskyja is not welcome here as long as she doesn't post in a civil manner. The Magnificent Clean-keeper ( talk) 19:51, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
With regard to your post at ANI, I'm sorry you've ended up being portrayed as the leader of an anti-Knox conspiracy...for a long time, it looked as though I was going to be in the frame for that! Cheers. Bluewave ( talk) 11:43, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Just to thank you. ;) You can call me Salvio ( talk) 23:21, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, here too. ;) Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 15:15, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
It is conventional that the description applied to a diff correlates to the edit it shows. Your description referred to an earlier edit that the diff reverted. While there's nothing wrong with having a diff link to the revert, it should be described as such to prevent confusion. In particularly contentious cases such as this, it is best to provide both diffs, each described. Cheers, User:LeadSongDog come howl 21:16, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
I will not make any more April Fool's edits in the article space.
Just in case you never saw it, here is my April Fool's edit from last year.
Grundle2600 ( talk) 21:36, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
As an user who commented at this discussion, you may wish to weigh in on Grundle2600's topic ban modification request. Ncmvocalist ( talk) 09:14, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Hallo, Wie sind Sie gewesen? Was mit Ihnen neu ist. Sind Sie glücklich? Ist Ihre Familie gut? Forgive the lack of 'Du.' Malke 2010 22:23, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi Clean keeper, the responder, Crum375 agreed to the deletion, please don't mess with it. I'm talking directly with Jimbo, which is what he wants from here on, thanks. Scott P. ( talk) 22:14, 21 April 2010 (UTC)