Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:53, 1 December 2009

Talk freely.*

*void where prohibited

Archives

/Archive 1 /Archive 2 /Sandbox - -

- -

barack obama presidencial primary

You know, I made a recent edit on that page that should highlight my objections to a source. Could you check the section that deals with his name on that page ( or check my edit history) and see if you think that Salon is a reliable source? ThanksDie4Dixie (talk) 22:37, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

POV/bias etc.----- false/wrong?

Trilemma; If you wish contact me about "bias" (yours?/mine?) by e-mail. Maybe we can work this out this way. I'm making this offer while reading an edit of yours in which I'm not involved at all (w/o including any details here). It's up to you to take and respond to my offer (or not). --Floridianed (talk) 00:43, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette alerts

Reminder: If you file a complain about User:Loonymonkey you should not forget to give him a courtesy notice about it. --Floridianed (talk) 01:52, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I did notify him that I'd be filing the report, on the talk page of the article that caused the issue. I understand though that since it's not on his talk page it's not necessarily apparent, so I don't object to the notice. Trilemma (talk) 02:01, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

OK. Sorry, I missed that --Floridianed (talk) 02:15, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Political positions of Barack Obama

Now that's an uncontoversial NPOV edit (if you care about my opinion and a little praise). --Floridianed (talk) 02:42, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm always happy to take praise and good reviews ;) Trilemma (talk) 13:15, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree. As I said on the discussion page there, I have no problem with including that information it just needs to be properly sourced. You could have saved us both a lot of time and grief by going straight to google for a better ref, rather than jumping right to the personal attacks, assumptions of bad faith, and, most ridiculously, the filing of a wikiquette complaint that had no merit. --Loonymonkey (talk) 00:15, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello Trilemma

Are you still around or gone for good? Just wondering a bit. Regards, --Floridianed (talk) 04:25, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Obama familiarity

Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the Obama page. I have hundreds of edits on it, and thousands on it's associated talk page. Your inclusion of Wright in that paragraph is totally unnecessary, as is the statement about him previously "non-religious". Everyone is non-religious at birth, and only acquire their religiosity from later indoctrination. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:42, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

The facts are not in dispute. The issue here is that you are trying to shoehorn these details into an article about Obama's cultural and political image, and who specifically brought him into the Christian fold has nothing to do with that. This particular paragraph is about the perception by many that Obama is a Muslim. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:54, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

It is a sub heading, with the main heading being the title of the page. It is about his religion with respect to his cultural and political image, not about his religion - that is covered in the main biography. Furthermore, campaign-specific aspects belong in the campaign articles, not the daughter articles of the summary style BLP. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:02, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

hey

Don't listen to Scjesseys bullsh*t, he's a totally biased editor. QuirkyAndSuch (talk) 15:16, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of George Matta II

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article George Matta II, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Misplaced Pages is not" and Misplaced Pages's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. --Sarcasticninja (talk) 21:09, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Freely talking

On 13 August, 2009, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article Gregoire Ndahimana, which you created. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the In the news candidates page.

--Master of Puppets - _{Call me MoP! :D} 08:18, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Abrasive

attack, attack, attack, attack, attack. Is it possible for you to not be so abrasive and hostile? Everything to you is PR propaganda. You have continually re added a blogspamed off hand reference to a internet, unscientific poll to the Alan Grayson article without any check of its substance. You also seem to think that you can read peoples minds. Grayson has had two high editorials in the WSJ and Vanity Fair, both of which are in the article, and yet on the talk page you seem to not have read the article, or even my comments.Scientus (talk) 23:26, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Scientus, I'd encourage you to initiate conversations in a more civil manner. I find little to actually respond to in that message. The point of the article is to provide an encyclopedic summary of Alan Grayson. There were some rather blatant shortcomings in the article as it stood before I made some edits. It appears that we've narrowed the scope of our disagreements, and hopefully the remaining ones will be resolved. Trilemma (talk) 00:10, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

attackScientus (talk) 12:24, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

3RR note.

Please take care on the Alan Grayson article, you are close to a 3RR violation, ta. Off2riorob (talk) 13:02, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Any alteration to a good faith edit from another user is a revert, please take a little time to read the revert article WP:3RR , ta. Off2riorob (talk) 13:04, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

FYI

A page you have been involved in editing is under discussion here. ta. Off2riorob (talk) 13:02, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Citations

You should not just include bare links in citations. You should use {{cite news}} or {{cite web}} see WP:CITEScientus (talk) 13:29, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

re: I've opened up a section. . .

on the Grayson talk page to discuss the changes I would like to see in the section you reverted. You're welcome to contribute to the discussion. Trilemma (talk) 18:12, 19 October 2009 (UTC)==

Anyone is welcome to contribute to anything on Misplaced Pages, as I understand it. W E Hill (talk) 18:22, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

A8UDI talk 13:36, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

not "irrelevent"

Hello, I'm ]. Misplaced Pages is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on ]. Thank you.

Attempting to silence an official response to an allegation by the accused party, dismissing it as "irrelevent"--this is disgraceful. Do not push your point of view on Misplaced Pages. Thank You Scientus (talk) 04:45, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Removing references

Welcome to Misplaced Pages. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Alan Grayson. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Don't remove references.Scientus (talk) 11:35, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

It is OK to remove referenced content if someone were to feel it is off subject or excessive coverage, just with an article with opposing editors as we have at the Grayson article, removal of cited content is best always first discussed on the talk page to see what objections are there, this simple step reduces the tit for tat removal and replacements that create instability in the article, I can be classed as neutral to the subject so there is always the chance of suggestions finding support on the talk page, best regards. Off2riorob (talk) 12:20, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I have started a discussion regarding one of your recent removals on the talk page Talk:Alan_Grayson#Health_care_section would you go there and perhaps give a details explaination as to why you think it is better removed, or a link to where it was previously decided that it was excessive detail. thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 15:36, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Minor edits

"Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if the edit concerns a single word, and it is improper to mark such an edit as minor.". Scientus (talk) 17:13, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Discussion is the way forward

What we could do is ask for third opinion as regards a specific edit, I rather try to find an agreeable edit to all parties, it is endless, I do know exactly what you are saying, I will give it a little consideration, best regards and thank you for not escalating the situation. Off2riorob (talk) 21:09, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Calling your edits laughable and accusations of pov pushing are not ok at all, I have not looked today, it is interminable, if you like as a first base, I will say to him that it is not OK, and ask him to assume good faith and remind him to use the talk page more, after that if it continues then there will be more of a case of repeated behaviour after a polite request to desist in the behaviour. Off2riorob (talk) 21:16, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Tenacious editing, WP:ATTACK

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Alan_Grayson&diff=327750364&oldid=327599233 Scientus (talk) 03:28, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Edit Warring on Alan Grayson, WP:ATTACK

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. This is your second warning for edit warring against consensus.

Scientus (talk) 07:00, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Dislike of criticism

Instead of removing documentation of your incivility, you might want to work on changing your ways.Scientus (talk) 13:21, 1 December 2009 (UTC)