Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:13, 23 July 2009

warning

Thanks for reminding me to sign my edit warring warning. The warning was not out of line because yours was about non-constructive edits, and mine is about edit warring. I know he only made 2 edits, but you don't need 3 to have an edit war, and because he's new I thought it would be better to warn him early.LedRush (talk) 01:34, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

If you want to bring a canon to a pistol fight, that's fine with me. :)--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:44, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

neutral version?

Please explain on the Talk page why your preferred version of the Project Vote page is the "neutral" version. What is neutral is, of course, precisely the question at issue, hence it does not advance the dispute towards any resolution to just claim that one perspective is the "neutral" one without any argument or evidence.Bdell555 (talk) 16:52, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Your bold change is disputed and therefore I reverted to the "original" consensus version which seems to me neutral enough to call it so. Furthermore, may I suggest WP:BRD as part of the solution to avoid an edit war?--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 17:04, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, the version you reverted to is obviously disputed as well (by me), "therefore" I changed it! But that's not very convincing, is it? What I dispute is your contention that there was any consensus for the previous version; as I've noted, there was no discussion on the Talk page supporting the "Since 1994" language that I removed. If you read the entirety of the Talk page, you'd also see that there is a great deal of evidence for the contention that there are sources alleging a affiliate/arm/offshoot relationship. Whatever the case, I'm just suggesting that a valid reason be attached to your edit summaries, or better yet, precede it with a Talk page contribution. Claiming to revert to the "neutral" version is ultimately no reason, because one can take the opposite view and claim the exact same reason!Bdell555 (talk) 17:22, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, then just go ahead and start an edit war. I don't care and won't hold you back. End of discussion?--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 17:31, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm interested in AVOIDING an edit war. To do that, everyone involved needs to talk/explain/reason as opposed to just reverting each other. If you don't want to participate in the latter, you certainly don't have to, I am just suggesting that the latter (talk/explain) should be engaged in by anyone, such as yourself, who takes it upon him or herself to revert someone else (i.e. "edit war").Bdell555 (talk) 17:41, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Your userpage

I noticed you had a blue username, and I clicked on it. I like it! Digital 23:26, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I finally found something suitable, thanks to you and our "chicken vs. egg" exchange. Thanks for your input. I do appreciate it. :)--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:18, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

RFC on McCain campaign

There's a discussion going on in regard to the jihadist comments that some editors want included in the John McCain 2008 presidential campaign article here: Talk:John_McCain_presidential_campaign,_2008#RfC_on_al-Qaeda_.22endorsement.22. The discussion is starting to go in circles, and it's quite frankly tiring me. A fresh opinion would be appreciated if you have the time. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 17:11, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

John McCain presidential campaign, 2008

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/John McCain presidential campaign, 2008, and indicate whether you agree or disagree to mediation. If you are unfamiliar with mediation on Misplaced Pages, please refer to Misplaced Pages:Mediation. Please note there is a seven-day time limit on all parties responding to the request with their agreement or disagreement to mediation. Thanks, Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 06:16, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Request for mediation not accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/John McCain presidential campaign, 2008. For the Mediation Committee, WJBscribe (talk) 00:25, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Help Needed re Joe the Plumber warning

Hi The Magnificent Clean-keeper - Is this the appropriate place ask about the "edit war" warning I received for edits I made to the "Joe the Plumber" entry? Please let me know, thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.35.118.176 (talk) 00:52, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Not really. I just wanted to give you a heads-up to prevent you from getting in "trouble". You might want to look up the link provided in that "warning" I gave you about (WP:3RR). Warning sounds somehow negative but it's like I said just a heads up (and standard template).

A note on the side: Remember to add new sections always at the bottom of any talk page. The easiest way to do so is to click "new section" at the top of the screen (or edit screen) of the page you want to place a new edit. I moved your posting to the bottom but you'll still be able to find it easily.

Also remember to sign your posts. There is also a button for it at the same place you'll find the "new section" one (at the edit screen). Happy editing, --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:08, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

edit summary cut short

My edit summary was "Please try pushing this in Talk" which should sound a lot less angry, I hope! I have been having weird problems editing in WP today, and some pages take forever to load. Think they have server problems? In any case, I apologize if my comment sounded mean-spirited in the least! Collect (talk) 15:42, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

No offense taken. And no, for me WP is running smooth :) . so I guess it just depends on the page you're trying to load.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 16:02, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

PS: A good edit summary can prevent reintroducing of the same.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 16:06, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Powell a conservative?

Huh? Who has ever called Powell a conservative? And you reinstated this, claiming that it's OR to say he's not?! Haven't you got that backwards? -- Zsero (talk) 02:09, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you try stop alienating editors who are basically on your side , at least mostly? Yes, that's what you're doing even if you're not aware of it.

Powell a "liberal Republican"? Is that what you're saying? If so, I'm respectfully not responding further to your "out-of-line" comment besides the following since you took out "Republican" in your last edit.

So Powell is not a Republican anymore? Guess someone tried that before (probably because s/he was "pissed" about his endorsement for Obama) and made him a Democrat. Going by that standard Joe Lieberman would be a Republican, or would he? No, he's not and Powell is still a longtime Republican, like it or not.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 03:28, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I didn't take out Republican; I moved it up to the beginning of the sentence. The sentence includes both conservatives and Republicans; Powell is the latter but nobody has ever suggested that he's the former, and it's OR to claim that he is. -- Zsero (talk) 03:46, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I just made a minor change. See below my response to SchutteGod (or his IP?).

"Powell is the latter but nobody has ever suggested that he's the former, and it's OR to claim that he is."

Actually someone did. I could find it but believe me someone did. It made me laugh :) --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 05:15, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

• Remark on the side: I like working with you. Seems to me we're getting there, little by little, step by step.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 05:53, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Colin Powell the 'conservative'

Colin_Powell#Political_views SchutteGod (talk) 02:19, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Never cite WP for WP-articles (and arguments). If there is a citation which confirms your statement you could and should cite it (as you could also cite it to the Palin paragraph in question). After Zsero's edit Frum is still there and I guess it's up to him to cite it, even so I doubt he'll do anything in this regard. He seems to have made up his mind without even thinking that he might be wrong. At least his edit is just a sign of seeing WP as a "battleground" for his own POW. Sadly he sees editors who don't agree with him 100% as "enemies". Wrong approach, big time.

Back to the initial 'dispute" between us: Can you give me a non-WP citation for Powell or/and could we otherwise just say "conservatives and Republicans" (or switch it around if you'd like). The way it stands now (if it hasn't changed while I'm writing) would require to "label" all persons that are mentioned and hat would be all but a BLP "homerun".--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 03:30, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Zsero's edit is fine with me. --SchutteGod 70.181.171.159 (talk) 04:49, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I just made a minor change. Please take a look at it and tell me what you think. I'm still and always open for improvements.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 05:07, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that was my IP. Sorry about that. It looks fine. SchutteGod (talk) 17:12, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

No problem. IP or user name, I thought it was you; who else other than you could have been? Anyway, fine that you're approving the result (even so it did get a little makeover from another editor later). Thanks for your feedback, --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:23, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Moving your comment

The only reason I moved your comment at the ACORN Talk page was to keep all "votes" together, in one place. It is a protected article and (probably) an admin who has never seen the Talk page before will respond to the {{editprotected}} template. I'm only trying to help that unfamiliar admin to see clearly, whether there is consensus or not. Please do not take offense at these good faith efforts. 300wackerdrive (talk) 14:02, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Sure, and now you're blocked indef. for such and other...! Fare well.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 18:18, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Lame-duck needs a citation?

A lame-duck session is, by definition, one that takes place after an election and before the new Congress is sworn in, and includes members who have lost re-election or chose not to run. The link to the term "lame duck" should have been explaination enough. Just found it puzzling why it should need to be cited, esp. since it has been called just that in the media (ex:If the Senate Reconvenes, Two Seats May Be Empty, NY Times).Fredmdbud (talk) 06:54, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

With regard the OR tag

1. Shouldn't it have gone on before the article's speculative claims were removed?
2. Even so, while I don't agree that coverage given to opinion when it's labeled as such would not comprise original research, I do allow that it's best to leave speculation qua speculation out that's hasn't become sufficiently notable in its own right.
3. In any case, at this point, its handful of listed names remaining are all confirmed by G.B. Rob'ts. (Here.)  〜Justmeherenow (  ) 15:43, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually true. I didn't check further and just assumed the remaining entries are from same (or even lesser?) quality. I'll take the template back out.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 15:50, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Uhm, you just did already so. Good.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 15:52, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

<Justme smiles and tips hat, then -- upon thought about what would signal the most gender neutrality -- curtsies>  〜Justmeherenow (  ) 16:23, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Stephen Colbert

Hi The Magnificent Clean-keeper, you reverted my edit with the edit summary "Huh, no", which was not needed. Please use the talk page and see WP:ALSO. Thanks, --Tom 13:57, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

"Bad faith editor" and that on Thanksgiving day? You might want to distance yourself from such "bad faith" statements. See you after the long Holyday-weekend if not sooner.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:10, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Tom: I appreciate much of your edits but naturally not all of them. Since different issues piled up I'll respond to all of them here (and placing a links to this section on you talk).

• Stephen Colbert:

By now you've already explained your edit on the article talk page and your own and corrected your recent edit that I was not conform with. So no need to get into that further because now you made your point clear and left the 2nd (see also) entrance standing to either be left there or worked into the main body. I agree 100% with you now and besides I must admit that I didn't see the link to the Stephen Colbert (character)"bio" at the top at the page. Guess it was to obvious.

• "Bad faith editor":

The 2nd edit of mine (at your talk page) was unnecessary, out of line and I shouldn't have made it and therefore apologize for doing so. But I still wonder why you took out the 1st one . If you have such impression about me in the first place you should've addressed it to me personally. I don't think it is polite in any way to hack on an editor like this after one edit that we disagreed on at the time. I really would've like top get a response from you about it and still do.

• "About talk pages":

I was mostly referring to this edit of yours (which was reversed by another editor). I agree with you about all those "forum-edits" and such but blanking an edit of an established editor doesn't fall (usually) under those strict criteria's and as you said by yourself, "...one man's attack can be another man's praise or something like that" and I think it those cases it's not for us to decide. The simple and easy way to approach this without scrutiny is to inform the editor (either on the "affected" talk page or his/her talk). I certainly wouldn't like it if some would just erase a talk page edit of mine unless it is a clear controversial and senseless "output" from my side (that I kinda expect anyway to be erased quickly even so that didn't happen on article's pages yet).

By the way: This edit I see as appropriate. It happens rarely that the editor wants to keep it and can do so with ease. I recently undid a vandal on your main page. Don't know if you noticed.

Did I leave anything out? In that case tell me and I'll address it after being back from going back to my Holyday-break (even so I'll look into WP off and on).

As for you now, "trick or treat"? Let me know. Thanks, --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:30, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

PS: Don't know if I can give you this " I am also wishing for World peace for my Xmas gift :)." as a treat but I'll try ;) .--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:30, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Another PS: I do read policies and guideline ;)--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:36, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey The Magnificent Clean-keeper, in this age of instant gratification and quick responses, you sure go into great detail :). Anyways, everything looks pretty good with your responses. I have a pretty short memory around here when dealing with editors which is good I think since I try not to hold grudges and just push forward. I am actually pretty busy with real life right now so this is a quick note. Cheers, --Tom 14:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Fox News Poll

Should this be added to the FNC article?

The tone of Fox News Channel's nightly "Special Report" is both more balanced and more negative than the broadcast network shows. On FOX, McCain and Palin combined have received 39% favorable and 61% unfavorable comments, compared to 28% favorable and 72% unfavorable comments about Obama and Biden.166.217.198.228 (talk) 13:47, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's gotta wait.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:39, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Closing discussions

Your discussion closure posture seems to be heavy-handed. Closing a discussion where that type of resolution is not customary sometimes turns out to be incendiary rather than productive. Moreover, closure at article talk pages is usually done by an administrator, and even then only in cases of irrelevance or disruption. There is no way that a discussion which began today --- and which continued to attract numerous comments from numerous editors --- could be “stale” as you characterized it in your edit summary. There is also nothing “irrelevant” about briefly mentioning and quoting another Misplaced Pages article to illustrate proper implementation of Misplaced Pages editing policy. Some editors only had a chance to make one single comment before your closure. For example, Wasted Time R made one comment, and I asked him to clarify whether material from the article could be moved to another sub-article. But you closed the discussion before he could respond. Please try to be a bit less over-zealous about closing discussions. Thank you.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:33, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, FL, but by now this issue is kinda outdated and I don't see a need for a response to it. I do think I did the right thing closing that discussion and if similar happens again I'll comment on it when approached. If you have any other question(s) still up-to-date I'll try to answer in a reasonable time.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:35, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

It is kind of outdated now, but thanks for the response anyway. I hope my comment above didn't come across as harsh, but I'm a big believer in free speech, and didn't feel that the time had come to shut it down.Ferrylodge (talk) 05:55, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

RFC on JtP

You may be interested in this Talk:Joe_the_Plumber#RFC:_Career_and_LicesningMattnad (talk) 20:44, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Saw your reply today to Amwestover -- you are right, but as I learned, these guys never let the facts get in the way of their arguments.Mattnad (talk) 00:34, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks and yes I am indeed right about what I wrote. I used to be a contractor not that long ago (so what I know is not outdated) otherwise I would think about getting back into the same (what I'm seriously doing). I'm sure Amwestover commented in good faith but he just doesn't have the expertise in that case and should keep some doubt about his finding and listening to others to expand his view. It's always good to learn something new and WP certainly has some part in my expand of mind.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:55, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Still trying to get clarity on a point - care to contribute here? Mattnad (talk) 21:33, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

ANI

I responded to your question at ANI, but I think we both might still be confused.Die4Dixie (talk) 01:34, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I replied there too by now. I'm still "confused" but hope you're not anymore.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 04:06, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

we are cool . I have no attachment , emotional or otherwise , to the editor. The pieces he wants to use are no good. It is unfortunate that we both had issues at the same time so that it became difficult to seperate us. I wanted him to itemize his complaints so everyone could look at it. Hysterically screeching that it is biased without any solid support is not kosher for me either. If he doesn't change his style, then I promise I will let him hang himself out to dry. If he is a member of a think tank that poses a COI, then he should disclose it. Were I a director, I would be concerned that he might discredit the organization with his behaviour. I'd like to see him contribute constructively, but it's up to him. As you know, I'm very open about my leanings, but leanings be damned if he can't get with it. If not, maybe Conservapedia would make him happier.I hope this clears up my ' connection".Die4Dixie (talk) 05:33, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment D4D and yes, I guess we are cool. I also saw your latest edits regarding this issue and they reinforced my good faith in you.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:26, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Talk:George W. Bush

Oh, it's okay, Magnificent. Thanks for the note, though! My best, Happyme22 (talk) 02:42, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Request for help; Lack of consensus and compromise with CSloat

Hello Magnificent Clean-keeper,

I'm messaging you in regard to csloat and the John McCain presidential campaign, 2008 article. Things have gotten to the point that I'm on the brink of a 3RR since another editor has join in his revert war and I need help because this has gone too far. This has taught me two things: a.) csloat will not compromise and will not work towards consensus, and b.) I should've gotten outside help sooner.

I've asked some people who are third parties to help me out if they can with some pretty lengthy posts to their talk pages, here's one example; they've given me advice before and I wanted to make the situation as clear to them as possible. You're obviously not a third party to this, but you were part of initial talk on compromise and consensus.

I think CSloat is a disruptive editor, and that's the case that I made to the third parties that I contacted. I don't expect you to review what I wrote to them, but if you have the time I'd appreciate if you could review the case I've made in regard to me exhibiting compromise and him, well, not exhibiting compromise (or any chance as appeasing him) since you were involved initially.

Here's my original version and my most recent version, and the list of the compromises I've made:

1. Added information about a statistically insignificant margin for Laos in the 2nd paragraph; a slight modification of one of his edits.
2. Changed the lede sentence for the 3rd paragraph since it was not sourced with a more neutrally worded lede sentence; per his request.
3. Removed any reference to "apathy" and replaced with "no opinion" in the 3rd paragraph; per his request.
4. Provided separate sources from the main source for China, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Latin America because these poll results weren't specifically mentioned in the main source's summary; per his request (based on his wildly incorrect interpretation of WP:OR).

Here's CSloat's first edit/content removal and his most recent edit/content removal, and here's all that's changed:

1. After having it pointed out that his pasted quote was redundant with the first paragraph, he simply removed the first paragraph.
2. After pointing out the hypocrisy of him calling poll data about China, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Latin America "cherry picked" but condoning inclusion of data about the European Union, Africa, Canada, Australia, Japan, and South Korea which came from the same source, he simply removed everything and replaced the entire paragraph with his original pasted quote.
3. Per a token compromise that I never asked for and don't support, he pasted a sentence about China after the quote.

Your input on my interpretation of my compromises would be greatly appreciated. But there's another issue that I'd greatly appreciate your help with.

CSloat started an RFC two days ago where he listed his most recent problem, that since the source I was using was titled "World Citizens Prefer Obama to McCain by More Than 3-to-1" that citing information from the source that didn't specifically support the title violated WP:OR, which is just plain ridiculous. Hoping to finally put a close to this, I went and made the compromise and cited all of the material that he had an issue with using articles that had titles which support the material I was using (it's all the same Gallup poll data, just different summaries about significant responses). Well, 16 hours after making that edit, and after I publicly said in the RFC that I've addressed his last concern, he resorting to counting !votes (there were only two other opinions) and started revert warring again saying that he simply didn't like the edit. Someone else join in so now if I overturn his reverts I'd be in violation of 3RR. Could you please roll the section back to my last version and comment on the RFC?

Thank you, and I appreciate your time. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 04:09, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but I didn't had time to examine the whole thing and give a clear comment about it yet, but my thought is to condense this section, having the lead as in your edit although it could be CS's part or a "split" on that since both are basically similar. or the rest I would suggest to right it in a NPOV that neither (ex)candidate becomes favorite treatment. Just summarize the rest of it. Readers can ]read the sources if they are further interested.

I certainly can't roll back to your preferred version since I'm not really in favor of either and therefore would call for improper canvassing.

I'm watching this page but unless I have some time on hand I'll stay out it as much as I can for obvious reasons .

Hope you'll understand and thanks for your trust, --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:41, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

PS: Feel free to copy and paste my comment wherever it fits if you want to. Just keep it in context. Thanks.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:51, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Suffice to say that the above is a complete misrepresentation of my position by Amwestover -- it is such a distortion that it borders on sheer sophistry. Other editors have seen this pretty clearly, as the discussion has shown that the only other editors who have shown an interest preferred the version that I've suggested rather than Amwestover's. I've tried several times to suggest that Amwestover read such gems as WP:AGF and stick to arguing the issues rather than hurling accusations of "disruptive editing." I've been more than reasonable in the discussion, and the version that is currently in place has the virtue of being supported by consensus. That said, I'm happy to look at any new version suggested by the Magnificent Clean-Keeper or anyone else. But I implore Amwestover, please stop running around Misplaced Pages attacking me as some kind of disruptive editor or vandal when you know very well that neither of those things is true. If you don't want to discuss the issues in talk, please don't engage me at all. I have been very restrained about reporting your behavior -- you blatantly violated 3RR a few times now, and you have laced nearly every comment to me with sometimes vicious personal attacks, and you even filed a phony AN/I report on me and used part of your userspace to host an attack page setting up for another phony AN/I, and yet I have held back from reporting this behavior in the hopes that you would eventually realize the virtue of civil discussion. I ask you once more, please stop turning everything into an attack on my character. Thanks. csloat (talk) 18:57, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Talk:George W. Bush

Shoe Throwing incident- Sorry if I came Across Rude I was just asking. Best---It's Me :) O Yea its me.. Washington95 (talk) 14:48, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

No worries. I didn't see your comment as rude at all but maybe my response could be seen as a little harsh even so it was not my intention ;) --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 14:10, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

And to you!

I saw your holiday wishes on Ferrylodge's talk page - Merry Christmas to you, and thank you! Kelly 20:44, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Merry X-mas to you too  :) --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:57, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Obama citizenship conspiracy theories

Please check the discussion page before deleting whole statements. When you said to "take it to talk", it already had been recently discussed. Part of the confusion you may be experiencing is the two users Markdandrea and Mdandrea. We are not one and the same. Furthermore, I have never submitted any biased articles but it appears that you may have some political leanings, thus it would behoove you to do the gentlemanly thing and dismiss yourself from this argument over any possible conspiracy here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Markdandrea (talk • contribs) 02:23, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

• I'll respond further when I have some spare time and nothing better to do than commenting on silly troll accusations. Meanwhile:

"04:20, December 21, 2008 Protonk (Talk | contribs) blocked Markdandrea (Talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 2 months ‎ (Abusing multiple accounts: Edit warring on Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories, an article under probation as well as using a WP:SOCK account (User:Mdandrea) to edit war.)

04:19, December 21, 2008 Protonk (Talk | contribs) blocked Mdandrea (Talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (Abusing multiple accounts: Account used for edit warring on Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories, an article under community probation and 1RR rule.)"

--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:21, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: Revert at John McCain presidential campaign, 2008

Hello Clean-keeper, could you please roll back your revert? I do not support this version since it gives undue weight. This version gives what is basically an unscientific guestimate from a barely notable organization as much weight as a worldwide scientific poll from Gallup. I believe the only way to put this discussion to rest is to have as minimal a section as possible since CSloat objections have always revolved around details. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 16:25, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

A minimal section that includes the al-Qaeda information is fine with me, as you know. Please do not blame me for your intransigence. Thanks! csloat (talk) 17:58, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Do you have to reply to every single post I put on other user's talk pages? Seriously, get a life. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 01:18, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of reference to Andy Martin from Obama article

Dear Magnificent..,
      I have placed the info regarding the conspiracy theorists on Obama's main page due to the fact that these people seem to have such traction and are so well known. I have run across such theorists in my church, and throughout the community that I live in. To choose to completely ignore their existence on the main page of Obama's main article would only seem to me to only empower them. To make a short but clear reference to their inherent inaccuracy there seems to me to be helpful, informative, and noteworthy, especially to those seeking the truth regarding such things.

Thanks,
Scott P. (talk) 18:12, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Apologies for not having responded earlier but by the time I could have you already had more specific reasons for the reverse of your edit. Thanks for your very polite written inquire, --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 02:30, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Editorials

I am not sure I understand your last comment at ANI. I think the question is germane to the conversation. It appeared that some admins think the crossed Israeli flag is "racist" and thus cannot be used in userspaces. I think that if it comes with anisemetic comments, then it would be the comments that were problematic, but not the image. I guess what I was asking for was clarification about the flag issue. If that was not the right place to ask, please direct me to the proper venue. How was this editorializing?Die4Dixie (talk) 01:52, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I was referring to a post of yours further up which led to your last one. But please, don't start a ANI-based discussion here on my talk page and no matter where you stand, try being open-minded for other peoples opinion. Thanks.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 02:23, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

PS: The "right" place to ask (since you're asking about my opinion) would be talk pages of articles or users.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 02:23, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I had assumed we had a basis for a working relationship/friendly discussion based on our dialogue above here on your talkpage. Sorry if I have given you the impression that I wanted to start an ANI thread on your page. I shan't trouble you again.I wish you a Happy New Year, full of prosperity for you and yours.Die4Dixie (talk) 02:28, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

No trouble at all. Wish you the best for this (most likely) very interesting new year and may it be as prosper for you as I wish it to be for myself *smile*.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 02:39, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Ayers

I'm noit sure what the communication problem stems from. The quote is from the article on Misplaced Pages, The problem is we have praise in the criticism section. The last part of the last post doesn't belong in the criticism section is my point. It is praise, not criticism. I wonder if you have read the article or the section to which I refering, as our conversation has a surreal, twilight zone feel to it.Die4Dixie (talk) 04:54, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

At that time of the day it's always surreal and I might be gone at any time (but I'll be back of course). I just converted your links at the talk page. If you put a link on the talk page just leave out the <ref>.......</ref> and it'll work. Talk to you later tonight or if not I guess tomorrow and hopefully I had the time to check out your link(s) and give you my input which would be my opinion about your initial question. So till then, --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 05:07, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

ACORN

Re ACORN I left you a message on my user talk page. Syntacticus (talk) 02:42, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

(FMI: Comments/discussion here )

Bad faith uses of Misplaced Pages

Please read EI exclusive: a pro-Israel group's plan to rewrite history on Misplaced Pages. Ignore the particular topic, but note the methods suggested to be used. That's what I'm seeing in several political articles. More recently, there's Gaza: secondary war being fought on the internet which isn't necessarily bad faith, just using cyberspace. Flatterworld (talk) 01:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Flagged Revs

Hi,

I noticed you voted oppose in the flag revs straw pole and would like to ask if you would mind adding User:Promethean/No to your user or talk page to make your position clear to people who visit your page :) - Thanks to Neurolysis for the template   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 07:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Darth Arafat

Do you find it offensive?--Cerejota (talk) 00:22, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

No, not at all but I'm not "everybody else".--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:32, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

What is going on here?

Why are you saying that I edited a comment after there were already 15 responses to it? That is false. Here is a diff showing my comment and every subsequent edit I made to it. There were no intervening responses.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:50, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Gosh, I responded to your add-on-edit in the first place and didn't expect anything else but a response to my comment on the issue or none. For sure I didn't expect you to be offended by my comment but this is your problem, not mine. Apologies for sounding disrespectful; It is not my intention but I think it's time to put this unfortunate conversation that seems to go nowhere to rest.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 02:19, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Look, this is not rocket science. Whether you agree or not, one of the worst and most disruptive things that a Misplaced Pages editor can possibly do is to edit a comment after others have already responded to it. And that is exactly what you have repeatedly accused me of doing, whether you meant to or not.

You said, "Since you just changed your comment I have to squeeze my response in here."

You also said, "I count 15 responses after your initial comment before your latest edit to it."

The simple fact is that I did not change my comment after anyone responded to it.As I said above, here is a diff showing my comment and every subsequent edit I made to it, without any intervening edits.

If you did not mean to accuse me of editing a comment after others had already responded to it, then I have difficulty understanding what you did mean. Did you mean that I should not make comments in a talk page section except at the very bottom of the talk page section? That makes absolutely no sense to me.

Being offended by your comments is not "my problem". It's also "your problem". You don't seem to be able to acknowledge how rotten it would be to edit a talk-page comment after someone has already responded to it, and you also don't seem to be able to acknowledge that I did no such thing.

"Altering a comment after it has been replied to robs the reply of its original context." Ferrylodge (talk) 02:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• I did not alter your edit and I made it very clear in my edit that I'm squeezing mine in in between yours to respond to your alteration which I wanted to comment on. I never did this before but like I said, I made it very very clear that I'm "squeezing in", didn't I? Furthermore, (again), I think this conversation leads to nothing but further misunderstanding and therefore I'm "closing" this thread if you don't mind. No hard feelings whatsoever, regards, --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 03:03, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

PS: No need to "lecture me" with your links and words.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 03:03, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I never said that you altered my edit. And you would be well-advised to actually consider my links and words, rather than rudely dismissing them as "lecturing."Ferrylodge (talk) 03:05, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

""Altering a comment after it has been replied to robs the reply of its original context." Ferrylodge (talk) 02:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)"

????????--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 03:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

If you'd like me to leave your talk page, then I'd be glad to. But, I gather that you're asking me a question, so I'll answer it.

There is a Misplaced Pages policy that says, "Altering a comment after it has been replied to robs the reply of its original context." This is a critical Misplaced Pages policy, because it would be dishonest and disruptive for an editor to alter his own comment after there have already been responses to it. And, you have repeatedly accused me of doing exactly that. You intentionally or unintentionally accused me of violating that Misplaced Pages policy here, and again here (I gave you the full quotes above). The article in question is subject to probation, and therefore if your accusation were correct, then I could be blocked or banned from Misplaced Pages. That's why I got upset about it.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:16, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Now you're overdoing it (a looot). You wouldn't be banned or else for this. Why are you making an issue out of this???? I told you, I just wanted to respond to your addition of your comment. That's all!!!! Really, that's all. And I don't "ban" editors of my talk page (and certainly not you); but I choose to respond or not. FL, can we put this non-issue to rest? It's not worth the time, yours and mine.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 03:34, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Quote:"You wouldn't be banned or else for this."

To clarify: Because you didn't disobey the rules in any serious matter, ok?--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 03:39, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

(undent) Clean-Keeper, thank you for your obviously sincere effort to discuss this matter further and put it to rest. Like you, I am not a fan of making a big deal out of small matters. But I want to clearly explain to you that I have been blocked and banned at Misplaced Pages before for much, much smaller stuff than this. While you may not view anything I did as particularly inappropriate, others can cite your words (and diffs) as evidence of my being disruptive. I'm just asking you to please be careful, that's all. As you know, your criticism about me came on the heels of an accusation by LotLE that I had made an article edit that “was extremely inappropriate (and sanctionable) behavior” (his words at the talk page). Not everyone at Misplaced Pages is nice, unfortunately. At Misplaced Pages, a "comment" ends with a signature. Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:49, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Even so I don't agree with Lotle a lot I agreed in removal of the template but this is a small issue for me . Besides that, let me assure you that if my recent (non) accusation would lead to a potential block of yours I would stand behind you to clear it up. I'm a nice and (I think) fair person. Cheer up and just in case you get in "trouble" because of this (what I don't believe) let me know and I throw my 2$ in for you. Hope we are in good terms now (with a healthy disagreement), best regards, --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 04:12, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

PS: I get your point ;) --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 04:12, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Possibly there is a misunderstanding over how comments are responded to. For example:

Comment 1

Response to comment 1

Response to response of comment 1

Another response to comment 1 (but not a response to the above response)

Some may view responses to a comment as "anything below" a comment. Technically this is false, but in pratice here, it's falseness is of little value. What is more useful is to view the time stamp of an alteration in relation to the time stamps of surrounding responses. If the alteration is not immediate and is made after (by comparing timestamps) ANY subsequent posts (regardless of their position), I think it wise practice to strike rather than simply alter. Maybe that helps. If not, then nevermind and I'll crawl back under my rock. JBarta (talk) 21:46, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• There is no help needed so you can "crawl back" under your rock. Thanks anyway.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:52, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

My Bad

Hey, my bad about jumping the gun with those president-elect Obama edits. You were right to reverse them as he wasn't president yet. I had the time all messed up. I'm located in Micronesia, you see, and I didn't calculate the time differences correctly. But I thought I had waited till the proper hour to make the changes. Anyhow my bad. Douglemeister (talk) 22:32, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I thought so and didn't consider your edits "bad faith" at all. It was an exiting day for many and you're not the only one that jumped ahead without doing the time-zone-math. I'm on EST so I could skip the math; "smile". Regards,--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:55, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the kind words about me at Talk:Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories. Praise is rare in this endeavor and it's always appreciated! Wasted Time R (talk) 04:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome and you deserve it. You're one of the best here (and I'm not overstating).--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 04:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

BDS: CDS

Please, someone, work with me — help me understand with English text why CDS doesn't belong (yet PDS does?), or show me where this was previously discussed in the Talk page.
All I see are two comments on why there isn't a CDS article, but I see no discussion of why there shouldn't be an entry in Variants. It is a documented variant, so what's the problem? Thanks.
—EqualRights (talk) 02:42, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Already explained by CWC by now.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 14:41, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

It is at commons

http://commons.wikimedia.org/File:Female_Urination.jpg Please CSD.--Cerejota (talk) 05:04, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

You're correct and reversed myself. For some reason the file didn't pop up for me yesterday.Thanks for the note, --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 13:57, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

My crap

Hi, I was just making a suggestion. I'm sorry if it upset you, but your reply was totally out of proportion. Perhaps you would care to refactor your comment at Talk:Barack Obama? siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 04:45, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. I'm kinda in a bad mood right now for other reasons but I added this over there.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 04:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Alright, don't sweat it. I'm sorry to hear that your bummed out. Best wishes, siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 04:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Wow! Thanks for such a rare caring comment. Best regards, --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 05:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Sergey Brin

Hi TMCK, I see that you reverted the Brin article to the "long" lead version. Could you please comment on the talk page and maybe help craft a "reasonable" intro? Anyways, --Tom 00:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Tom. Thanks for contacting me here.I don't think I can help crafting a good intro because of time issues and no strong feelings about it but I'll keep watching the article including the talk page and kick in if I think I can be of any help there. As you might've seen in my edit history, I'm mostly "policing" pages of interest and very rarely edited those for quite a while (besides reversing or slight corrections). Let's say I leave it mostly to others and occasionally put my 2 cents in. So said, I'll keep my eye on this.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:16, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. The article as it stands, includes way to much minutia(in the lead), imho, compared to most bios. I am not immune to crafting a "better" more consise lead, but we will see if the other editor who disagrees will compromise. No biggie as always, cheers, --Tom 13:31, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008

Hello.

Regarding your recent edit to Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 - Why do you think the way the bailout money is being spent is not relevant to the article on the bailout? Every source that I cited talked about the bailout, so how can you say it's not relevant to the bailout?

Grundle2600 (talk) 15:45, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello Grundle,

Please keep question related to the article on it's talk page where other editors can read and respond to it. Thus, I'm not answering your question here as you where given already some answers amd reasons on the talk page mentioned but I would like to ask you for your own good to get familiar with wp:3rr since you already could be blocked for violating this policy. Also I recomend wp:BRD. Those disputed edits of yours should be resolved by gaining consensus and if you feel the need for try a wp:rfc. Just edit warring is not an option even if you feel you're right.

Hope this helps you understanding the rules and prevents you from getting into such kind of "trouble" now and in the future.

Regards, --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 16:00, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I have already asked the question multiple times on the article's talk page, but no one has answered it. Why haven't you answered the question on the article's talk page? Grundle2600 (talk) 16:26, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Because as I pointed out above it was already answered. Maybe not directly but if you read it again you might realize this. Also you by yourself didn't clearly respond to the answers you where given, even here. Please stop being so insistent and try what I recommended to you in the first place. Thanks.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 16:44, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

No one has explained how an article about the bailout is not about the bailout. Grundle2600 (talk) 17:33, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

An article might be about the bailout but not necessarily suitable for an encyclopedia, just to give you a general answer to it.

But as I see now, trying to help you only leads to more unwarranted accusations from your side and thus I ban you from my talk page , asking you not to post here any further unless it is directly related to me and also made yourself familiar with the rules/links I pointed out to you. From now on I will just remove any comment that don't fit into this description. Thanks, --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 17:54, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry

Sorry for inadvertantly blanking your remark.Kjaer (talk) 21:40, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Message from D4D

Sorry. I´ll be back tomorrow when I feel less contrary.Die4Dixie (talk) 05:10, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

No worries. I had fun tonight :) --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 05:33, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Election articles

Thank you. The discussion to which you alerted me is very interesting. Penthamontar (talk) 22:10, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. Even so we seem not to agree on the other issue I thougt I should point out this somehow related discussion to you. --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:18, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

-Help Requested- Once again there is a user putting parts of the info box in bold (Popular votes/%/states carried). As of last time I checked this was not the agreed format (granted changes are being discussed), if this has changed please lent me know. I wanted to give you a heads up since you've had some dealings with the user Airview95 (talk) and have helped with this very problem in the past (several users almost all unregistered). Hope we can work together in monitoring the situation. I also wanted to lent you know that I appreciate your vigilance in tracking down and reverting vandalism throughout Misplaced Pages. Thanks Highground79 (talk) 04:06, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Since you commented before or are otherwise involved, please take a look at Template talk:Infobox Election#Popular vote winner in bold?, . (will post this also on your talk page and thanks for letting me know that this silly issue is still "out there")--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 04:28, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Obama lead section

User:Brothejr deleted it at 16:02, 7 February 2009 with this edit: . I did find a brief discussion about it in the archives here: . You actually replied once in it. I disagree with his arguments in that discussion because the lead should summarize main parts of the article and a large portion, a couple sections, is about his political positions and what he did as a senator. It might cause debate what positions or actions to include but some need to be summarized in the lead somehow considering the lead should be a nice summary of 3-4 paragraphs. LonelyMarble (talk) 03:45, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your message and effort. I just read it and replied at talk Obama.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 03:54, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

vandalism

um...i wasn't trying to vandalise. Just tell people that she's not what she says she is...and defend my faith? I don't try to vandalise...and just because you don't agree with it, please don't DELETE it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.226.79.168 (talk) 05:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Sure, you had the best intentions, swimmerfreak94. Try to read your IP talk page.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:05, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

PS: What to do with "sh*t"? Well, you sure don't keep it. Point taken? --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:09, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

construction worked lied, his air died.

Call Hannity to verify whether he said or not. That was his bread and butter and slogan. You cannot delete the discussions. Let the consensus decide.

Glunnbuck (talk) 23:57, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

You're missing the point. It doesn't matter if it's true or not, you have to back it up with a WP:RS or WP can get in legal trouble . I'm not saying you can't edit what you did but I'm telling you (again) that you have to backup such edits or they will and have to be just reversed. My advise: Don't present anything like you did as a fact at the article and neither at the talk page. You can present it as your personal opinion but even then you might be reverted if you don't provide a RS. Please read WP:BLP as it is besides other guidelines and policies the most important one for every biography on WP.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:37, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I forget

I forget that there is a general lack of apprectiation of sarcasm on wikipedia. Maybe you forgot that the Hillary Clinton campaign made the dealer insinuation just before the NH primary. In any case, it might be better that it's gone. No sense in drawing more unbalanced people into the discussion. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:35, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I took it as sarcassm but some wouldn't as you said.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 02:41, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

ANI, Need help with article patrollers

Well said, here, and I'm sorry if my subsequent note to the section seems to ignore it. For some reason, though I paused to fix lunch in the middle of my note, it didn't give me an edit conflict. :) --Moonriddengirl 17:32, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the catch

Embarrassing, editing the main page instead of the talk. Thanks for catching it! CouldOughta (talk) 01:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Ammo

The bigger shops (Bass Pro Shops, Wal-mart etc) have a lot of empty space for handgun ammo. The smaller ones aren't as bad. Some of the places I order from are sold out. But the gun show I was at 2 weeks ago had plenty of everything. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:40, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Howdy!

Hello, how are you, sir? -THE MATTY! TALK! 11:26, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Talk back

Newguy34 (talk) 03:06, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Earth Hour

Yeh, I forgot about that, thanks for the correction. On another note, going on the computer whilst the lights are out is really bad for my eyes. Anyway, thanks Spitfire 22:01, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I forgot for two days to adjust my clocks for daylight savings time. Imagine the consequences.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 22:07, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Fritzl

Thanks for letting me know. Also, check out the recent discussion at Jimbo's talk page (permanent link) Johnny from Bronx (talk) 22:28, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your notice. I'm following the whole thing even so I'm not commenting on every (senseless?) comment made there and other places.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:50, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

What does your name mean?

What does The Magnificent Clean-keeper mean? It sounds like a cleaning product (no offense ;) ). SMP0328. (talk) 01:27, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I am just a cleaning product sweeping around WP. But who knows for sure? :) --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:34, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

You can see me as one who attempts to impersonate "Mr. Proper" "lol".--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:45, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

OK

I did what you requested on my talk page. Grundle2600 (talk) 01:56, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll send you my (short) e-mail in a moment.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 02:02, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Jtodesdude

Hi Toddy. I just re-formatted the users talk page to separate your edit and the "April 2009, warning" section. His/her first two edits where clearly "joke edits" (assuming at least some good fait) and therefore I gave the editor just a low level warning. BTW, this is the link s/he added twice: . Just an innocent mistake by the editor? I don't think so :) . Best, --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:48, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - the reason I wrote what I did in User talk:Jtodesdude was because another low level warning would have been ineffective, but writing to him and explaining properly might persuade him to behave better. I thought that since my reason for deleting his text was probably unobvious to someone not used to citations it was worth explaining nicely.

The first wikipedia edit I ever did was to create a new page about a 'model'. I wrote it because the model in question asked me to write it. Unfortunately she was not deemed notable and the page was deleted within 36 hours (which b.t.w. was the right thing to happen). But the person who marked the page for deletion handled the matter well, explaining what he was doing and why, and what I must do if I have legitimate reasons for wanting the page kept. Because he handled it well, I did not feel bad about my page being deleted, even though I had spent most of a day learning about how Misplaced Pages before I created it.--Toddy1 (talk) 06:10, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Issues with editing: George Bush

Sorry about that. My sister wanted me to edit something to prove to her class that wikipedia was editable. She had to pick a protected artice of all things, too. Usually if I edit something that I'm unsure of, I typically use atleast some sources to back up what I'm saying. Although that still gets considered disruptive, sometimes.Bulmabriefs144 (talk) 23:04, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

You should restrain yourself from such editing in any case. WP is not here for you to proof a point to your sister (if I can believe you which takes quite some good faith from my side).--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:31, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

And these unreferenced edits make me loose any good faith in you as an editor. Go play somewhere else.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:37, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Blanking of Talk:Pickup truck‎

Could you explain why you blanked Talk:Pickup truck‎ ? I can't see any obvious reason why it should have been blanked, you left no comment on why and I can see plenty of reasons why it should remain. Cheers. Stepho-wrs (talk) 00:30, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Please check the edit hystory and you'll see that I reversed to the last good version after some IP vandalism. Did I made some technical mistake? I guess not but of course it is possible. But I did not blank anything (unless it was blanked before). Best, --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 06:12, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, it seems like you are correct. In my defence, when I compared your version to the previous version it showed a massive list of deletions. I'm not sure why it showed me this (and continues to show me this for your versions) but the actual page is correct. A bit baffling but I'm sorry for the aggravation caused. Stepho-wrs (talk) 10:04, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Collect RFC

Hi, there's an ongoing RFC on User:Collect . You've been an editor on Joe the Plumber so your perspective might be helpful.Mattnad (talk) 15:20, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Late reply. I was aware of it but decided not to comment. Thanks anyway. Regards, --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 04:48, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:911ct supporters

Template:911ct supporters has been nominated for deletion by Ice Cold Beer. As this TfD nomination includes objections to the same list of people that is currently in use in Template:911ct, I am inviting you to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. (I am sending this message to you as a current or former editor of Willie Nelson, following the guideline on multiple messages.) Regards —  Cs32en  11:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. I took a look at it but will substain to comment (at least for now). Regards, --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 04:44, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

User: Chowa001

Hey.

This user is a definate sockmaster of AlviDC. The actual user is an individual in my school who's edits include uploading images of other minors from the school, such as his additions to the Adolf Hitler page, and minor vandalism. I can confirm that AlviDC is a sockpuppet of Chowa001, but the problem is, if a checkuser is ran, the steward, due to complicated reasons (e.g the ISP for my country, Qatar, is awful) may encounter that the IP address traced is the IP address for every computer in the state of Qatar. --Onevalefan 06:23, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I'll get further into this when I have more time on hand but one question I do have: Can you provide proof about the images as I checked the school's site but as a "guest" I just could verify the "school uniforms" which both individuals in the uploaded pics are wearing. Do you have any direct-link that can be seen and verified by everybody? That would help a lot to at least erase the images.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 22:27, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Levi Johnston

FYI: Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2009 May 7#Levi Johnston.   Will Beback  talk  20:13, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I was aware of it but anyways, thanks for pointing it out to me. --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 22:19, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Need Your Help Again!

There is a user User talk:134.245.108.65 who despite repeated warnings and removal of there material (by several editors) continues to add non-notable info to presidential election articles. The user repeatedly has added a list of states where the margin of victory was between 5-10%. The user also has added and re-added list of the candidates best states by percentage. This is happening to:

United States presidential election, 1980 United States presidential election, 1992 United States presidential election, 1996 United States presidential election, 2004 United States presidential election, 2008

Despite repeatedly being told that there re-additions are considered edit-waring and vandalism the user continues with the behavior. If you could somehow help to get this user temporarily blocked I think that the user would stop there non-constructive editing. Thank you in advance.Highground79 (talk) 19:05, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

P.S. = If there is someone else who may be better suited to deal with the problem please lent me know who to contact (administrators who follow the presidential election articles). That being said your help with the election articles has always been appreciated thank you for your time.

Will keep an eye on it and try to resond more specific in the next few days. Regards,--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 07:15, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Just another quick reply. (Guess I have to do this with "baby steps" whenever I have some time :) ).

The issue you're pointing out might be more a content dispute than plain vandalism although edit warring can be applied to this editor even if he doesn't brake the wp:3rr rule. On the other hand he seems to have started to engage in a discussion with Hamiltonstone which I see as a good sign. Remember to always AGF.

For what you consider Vandalism you can always report him at WP:AIV. For edit warring at wp:3RRN. You can also contact an admin that you see active at those boards directly if you think you have a clear case that needs immediate attention.

Anyways, as I said before, I'll try to keep an eye on this as other editors are too. Regards, --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:19, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

notices

thanks for letting me know about the talk-page guidlines... I had at first thought that the talk page guidlines applied to articles only, not users. On user talk-pages I thought you were allowed a discussion...my bad. Sorry! won't happen again 98.226.79.168 (talk) 04:49, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

The (not a forum) rule applies to article talk pages and of course the article itself. On user talk pages you have more freedom to voice your opinion but be aware of restrictions (like WP:BLP) that are applied to all pages on WP. Regards, --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 07:09, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

thanks

thanks again!!!! 98.226.79.168 (talk) 16:45, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:21, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

ChildofMidnight

Please review the edit history of their page. I've attempted to comment on the EW/NPA/3RR situation but they just keep making counter-accusations and deleting my comments. ChildofMidnight is not at 4RR but they are edit warring, making accusattions, etc. You can see what I mean if you review their talk page, User talk:Bigtimepeace, Talk:Presidency of Barack Obama. Bigtimepeace, who has been watching over this, is on vacation now. If ChildofMidnight continues and no administrator intervenes I'll have to report it to AN/I, which if history is repeated will trigger nasty made-up counter-accusations and drama. If you care about this, then perhaps you might file a report if it comes to it. Wikidemon (talk) 21:35, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I responded to WIkidemon's false accusation pointing out that the diffs he provided were to two totally different and unrelated bits of content. See his talk page history (he immediately removed my response calling it nonsense). I prefer to spend my time improving the encyclopedia rather than responding to more of his personal attacks and false accusations against me. So hopefully he'll stop telling falsehoods and trying to smear me. Thanks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:12, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Diffs please

I only see two additions of the well sourced and NPOV content I restored to the article. Am I missing another? I've self reverted anyway as I'm under attack by another editor who is a notorious POV pusher. Lots of admins can't be bothered to discern the actions of a good faith editor who makes every effort to abide by policy from those of a well documented and toxic abuser of our policies. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:02, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

The three diffs are as documented in my original warning, which ChildofMidnight deleted from his talk page. The middle one is two edits that count as a single reversion for 3RR purposes because they were made in succession. ChildofMidnight, as I have said elsewhere, misunderstands 3RR policy in thinking that edits to different material do not count. Edit warring on the Obama pages, while accusing others there of censorship, vandalism, POV pushing, etc., is a separate issue irrespective of whether there is a technical 3RR violation. ChildofMidnight was, indeed, revert warring recently to insert two separate pieces of tangential nonconsensus derogatory material about Obama. The accusations are a behavioral problem that's best not carried to the talk pages of uninvolved editors. Wikidemon (talk) 22:25, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

• Please keep this personal discussion out of my talk page. Comment removed by --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:14, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

You can find diffs in the article's history and yes, all edits count towards 3rr even if they're not all about the same (content dispute) material. I see you rv. yourself and I appreciate it although you want to reread wp:3rr as it deals (like the wp:3RRNboard) with edit warring in general and may block even when one did not brake the (3rr) rule

You might try using a nice note next time. You might be unfamiliar with the civility policies, but regardless it might help you to consider how best to treat other editors. I suggest basics like common courtesy. This appraoch also applies to providing diffs when they're requested. Common sense also applies. Cheers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:41, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I used a neutral note as I usually do and try to keep my "feelings" out of any comment or when templating editors. The template I posted was in this spirit of mine and it seems like it did it's job, preventing you from a potential block. Cheers, --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 22:52, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

• That's enough. Bad faith assumption removed by --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:08, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

An AfD

Would you mind taking a look at this AfD and see if you agree with me: Thanks. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:26, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Obama?

I will take up your offer and write in German. Ich verstehe, daß Du anti-left-wing POV annimmst, aber die Frage nach den Eltern von Ayers war wirklich ernst gemeint. Die Ayers sind eine reiche und politisch sehr einflußreiche Chicagoer Familie? Ich meine natürlich nicht, daß man meine Vermutung in den Artikel schreiben soll! Ich kann schon Misplaced Pages von Rush L. unterscheiden. Verurteilt oder nicht, gut und schön, aber Ayers und Dhorn waren so Weatherman, wie Baader und Ensslin raf waren. Die Taten des WeatherUnderground interessieren mich wenig, ihre Geschichte und Ideologie schon eher. Ice (1970) ist ein schwarzer Film über eine Gruppe Revolutionäre in der Zukunft eines faschistischen Polizeistaates. Einzelne Weather Leute spielten auch mit, vielleicht auch Ayers. It was the first Spielfilm (featurefilm) from 1960s left wing activist documentary (Newsreel group) film director Robert Kramer (lived his last 20 years in France and died there). Kramer has a very good website. There is also a short entry on german Misplaced Pages. Ice was reviewed at the time and ebated hotly. It is a very disturbing movie: one of the heroes is castrated (not shown in a gory way, but frightening nevertheless). The Arsenal in Berlin showed the film from time to time and it provided a disturbing experience.--Radh (talk) 07:05, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I didn't see the movie and besides that I must admit that I forgot to reply. I don't have that much time lately and just make small edits, not keeping track of daily changes on my watch list as I usually do. Please accept my apology for that and the following very short kept statement.

You think I assume(d) "anti-leftwing-POV"? How comes? I'm trying to stick to the known facts no matter if I like them or not and those facts need to come from reliable sources. Guess that summarizes it quite clear and simple. But your header indeed suggests a certain POV from your side since this is about Ayers, not Obama, right?

Regards, --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for answering, but now I am in a bit of a hole. I guess you may be simply right in your criticism of my POV. I also think it is absolutely impossible mot to have a certain bias if one thinks about political "hot" topics. The facts nevertheless must be got right of course and one also has to accept criticism. I had to leave Berlin to care for my parents, but hope to be back soon, and I will try to improve my work at wikipedia soon. I hope we can then talk about Kramer and Ice, even about Ayers and the Weathermen. I have some strong reservations about Ayers, but do not think Obama is therefore a priori disqualified. People knew about it and voted for him and that is that.--Radh (talk) 20:11, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Hope your parents are fine. We'll see about the rest when the time comes. Kindest regards, --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:04, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

A study on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies

Hi. I have emailed you to ask whether you would agree to participate in a short survey on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies in articles pertaining to global warming and climate change (survey described here). If interested, please email me Encyclopaedia21 (talk) 21:10, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but I usually don't anticipate in surveys. Thanks anyway, --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:45, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Help Needed with user (user claims ownership of articles)

recently I've had some problems with User:Jerzeykydd on the articles for the state results of united states presidential elections for the years 2000, 2004, 2008. (example United States presidential election in Iowa, 2004)

The user changed section labeling removing "election results" and changing it to "Statewide" & "County Results" when I changed it back to "Election Results" and "Results by County" I explained that the only result was the statewide and that the county was a subsection of that result, since the statewide is how electoral votes are awarded. The user quickly reverted my edits as vandalism and sent me the message listed below on my talk page, in which he claims a form of ownership over the articles.

"I believe election articles should be distinguished between statewide, county, and congressional district. If it just say election results, it could be anything. It has to be specific. I made every presidential election article that way I am planning on keeping it that way."

I have tried to deal with the user on his talk page pointing out some inaccuracies and POV wording as well as thanking them for there contributions. Now that the user clearly is stating a form of ownership over the articles (I made every presidential election article that way I am planning on keeping it that way) I feel I need some help in the matter thanks for your time Highground79 (talk) 04:08, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Highground. As you can see in my edit history I don't have much time lately and although being on your side regarding this issue (as I had the same opinion regarding the nation wide election articles and this shouldn't be handled different IMO), I only can give you some short advise. No matter what your point of view is, it is a content dispute where the other editor who acted in good faith should be making aware of WP:BRD (also the "rv. vandalism" edits are out of line and his/her statement on your talk page about "doing it anyway" shows some WP:OWN and/or just ignorance. Yet, please keep assuming good faith. You still can file a report at WP:ANI if needed. Another suggestion would be to contact user:Timmeh as s/he was involved previously in election articles. Maybe s/he can help. Regards, --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:05, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

While I know you do not have much time as of late and if you do not have the time it is no big deal (since I'm following you advice and I am contacting Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents). But since I contacted you before I thoufht I'd lent you know what is going on now. Since the last time I left a message User:Jerzeykydd has restarted his edit warring because of his personal feelings of ownership ("I made every presidential election article that way I am planning on keeping it that way" part of message left on my talk page) related to a number of election articles. The user has also engaged in threatening behavior on my talk page User talk:Highground79 ("don't push it or I'll get pissed off") (comment came as part of message left on my talk page on 00:14, 1 July 2009). Since I have been on wikipedia only briefly the last few days I hadn't paid attention to it till now. While I am in now way frightened by the user there threat is not appropriate for wikipedia and I believe someone other then myself needs to make the user aware of this. Highground79 (talk) 04:16, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

At least I could give you a good link hint, although I might not be able to help you much further. I just don't have much time on hand. Timmeh, who you already contacted, can be much more helpful as he seems to be online more constantly besides that he deals with election articles anyways. I'm just doing my best when I can. Good luck and don't get into any kind of edit war trouble over this, --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:57, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the link to the Template

Thank you for sending me the link to the Template talk:Infobox Election#Popular vote winner in bold?. I knew the template existeded but I could not think of where to look and allowed myself to get somewhat overwellmed by the body of work needed to be done on the United States Presidential election state results pages for 2000, 2004, 2008. I greatly respect the work you do on election pages and would appreciate some help with the articles in question if you have the time. Overall the articles have issues with formatting / exclusion / and bias (both POV and things as simple as putting county results in the order of Gore's best results by county/ which clearly lacks NPOV). If you don't have the time I understand, either way thanks for the Template link. 02:06, 1 July 2009 (UTC) Highground79 (talk) 04:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Lye roll assertion "doubtful"?

Why do you say it's doubtful? - Denimadept (talk) 19:12, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, it is not only doubtful but plain wrong. See the Pretzel article which is correct in regards of how Pretzels are most commonly served. BTW, both articles are in "desperate" need of sourcing. Regards, --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 19:54, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

It says "they eat pretzels for breakfast, with Weisswurst sausage," in the pretzel article too. Are you in Germany or of German descent? I'm looking for sources. All the ones online I've seen so far are reflections of our article, unfortunately. - Denimadept (talk) 01:40, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll get back at you on this when I have the time. I'm right now just trying to catch up with several things, not only on WP. Meanwhile this article might give you more info regarding the issue. Please feel free to post your sources here so I can go over them. Regards, --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:42, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Editing survey

Hi The Magnificent Clean Keeepr. My name is Mike Lyons and I am a doctoral student at Indiana University. I am conducting research on the writing and editing of high traffic “current events” articles on Misplaced Pages. I have noticed in the talk page archives at Barack Obama that you have contributed to the editing or maintenance of the article. I was hoping you would agree to fill out a brief survey about your experience. This study aims to help expand our thinking about collaborative knowledge production. Believe me I share your likely disdain for surveys but your participation would be immensely helpful in making the study a success. A link to the survey is included below.

Link to the survey: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=P6r2MmP9rbFMuDigYielAQ_3d_3d

Thanks and best regards, Mike Lyons lyonspen | (talk) 13:34, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but I usually don't anticipate in surveys. Thanks anyway, --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:45, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

You are invited and welcome to join us!

Greetings! Please come and join us for the Misplaced Pages:The Great Misplaced Pages Dramaout Grundle2600 (talk) 19:24, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

No thanks but thanks anyways.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 14:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

pdf

hey magnificent, I read on the help page you needed help finding a pdf software. Although its not used for that sort of thing, i use to have this problem often. I use a software now called primo pdf (see the wiki article Nitro PDF) to print word files, or web pages for pdf documents (Like wiki documents). Its pretty helpful and you can download it off the web. The last time i downloaded it was free so it should work. however it doesnt edit existing pdfs. Hope that helps. Later Ottawa4ever (talk) 23:55, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your effort,Ottawa but I need to scan and send (legal) paper work as PDF. Don't think Nitro's free version will do that for me although I'll take another look at they're site. Again, thanks for taking the time. Best, --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:13, 23 July 2009 (UTC)