Misplaced Pages

Typo

Sorry for the slow reply re:Typo. I've been traveling for pleasure and not editing as much as possible. FloNight♥♥♥ 21:58, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Drudge Report

The Drudge Report has been changed, I think that the Matt Drudge page should reflect that. It was decided that it should be left to the reader to decide if Drudge Report was conservative. Soxwon (talk) 21:45, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Alright, as you could probably tell by my talk page, there has been quite a *ahem* "spirited" discussion over this so I don't want to start another lol. Soxwon (talk) 21:57, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Patrick Leahy

A recent edit you made to this article was reverted. Bearian (talk) 15:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I do not understand the purpose of this comment of yours. Could you please fill me in? Thanks! Xenophrenic (talk) 20:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC) (Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Bearian")

I was doing you the favor of telling you that an edit you made was reverted by another editor. Normally, the other editor should have alerted you to that fact. I "patrol" the Leahy article, and dozens of others, to keep track of such cases. The purpose is to alert you that you probably need to go to the talk page to resolve this issue, if you so desire. Bearian (talk) 21:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Documentary about Médecins Sans Frontières work

Hi, we seem to be working in parallel about this documentary! If you would like to discuss, let's meet up on the Médecins Sans Frontières Talk page. Thanks - Pointillist (talk) 22:16, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Sierra Vista, Arizona

I made a change to the page (Sierra Vista, Arizona) to reflect details from the cancer cluster summary reports. I see that you monitor and edit a variety of pages. It is interesting the many areas of interest that you follow. I would like to see the Sierra Vista, Arizona page reflect the real beauty of our local city and would like to work with you to make it a better page. I look forward to working with you. tgilbertson (talk) 14:03, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I undid the change because the write-up is opinion based. The articles you are citing are bias and the findings are what needs to be reflected. I would like to work with you to make sure that Sierra Vista, Arizona page reflects accurate unbias information. I look forward to working with you. tgilbertson (talk) 04:10, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Replied on user's talk page. Xenophrenic (talk) 01:16, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I added information in the history. I hope you take the time to review, comment and make changes. Tgilbertson (talk) 18:33, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Regarding your email

Sorry I hadn't checked in a few days... But I just got the email you sent me last Tuesday. Regarding the user in question, I am afraid he actually did not send me his IP address via email. The one he sent was the 127.0.0.1 Misplaced Pages Dummy IP address, and not a real IP address, so I was unable to find the source of his blocked IP problem. When I asked him to resend, he balked, citing "privacy concerns". He DID say that he contacted the admin that issued the block, and got it straightened out with him. I don't know who that admin was, however, so you may want to see if he contacted Avraham, as he issued the IP block on the possibly related IP address you inquired about. He also issued the WP:IPBE for the user in question, so he likely knows what IPs he was using. See for more information on the extent of the conversation we had on the matter. I hope this helps some... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 15:02, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for checking, Jayron32. I'm still waiting for a response and confirmation from Avraham. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:21, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I have just posted a request for an update to the list. As soon as I hear anything, I will let you know. Thank you very much for your patience! -- Avi (talk) 01:28, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Nate Silver

I have removed your section again and started a new talk section. Please remember that it is very easy to missuse statistics. You seem to not be seeing that Silver made a number of assumptions in his report. He assumed that he had most of the larger sites and cities, but there is no evidence that this is the case. He simply reported what he found. You cannot report his total with this assumption reported as factual. Once you go down that avenue you will have to expand the section greatly to include all of the assumptions that he made in his blog. Once you do that you go past the use of a blog as a reliable source. Simply report the factual information that he reported. He found 346 reported sites and total their estimates. There is no need to attempt to parse the report which results in a POV. Arzel (talk) 16:58, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your input on this. I've replied on the article talk page. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:08, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment

The articles didn't really provide significant amounts of space to the subject and many were local that didn't represent a widespread trend. Soxwon (talk) 20:23, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Then why did you leave the articles cited there, and move the content after them? Xenophrenic (talk) 20:28, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Per your lack of response, the content you deleted has been restored. Xenophrenic (talk) 15:06, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Wars & Kittens

TomCat4680 (talk) has given you a kitten! Kittens promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Kittens must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a kitten, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Spread the goodness of kittens by adding {{subst:Kitten}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

sorry it looked like an edit war to me. my mistake. TomCat4680 (talk) 02:10, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Not a problem, TomCat :) Looks like everything worked itself out. Stay well, Xenophrenic (talk) 04:22, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Tea Party Astroturfing

I'm assuming your comment meant you were for the new edit is that correct? Soxwon (talk) 21:45, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Correct, but it looks like I was late to the party. You guys appear to be mowing down the roadblocks and concerns at a good clip now. Xenophrenic (talk) 02:35, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

It's amazing what one can accomplish once you realize we're all here for the same reason :). Soxwon (talk) 02:43, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

CfD

Should this and this be moved to speedy deletion? Was I a bit too fast?Soxwon (talk) 03:42, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Revolutions of 2009 can and should be scrapped (unless the Beatles should somehow reform and sing about it). Not only are there not enough events to qualify for a whole category; the ones presently being inserted aren't really applicable. The 21st-century revolutions category has the potential to be useful, 90 years from now, as it is much broader. Are there really that many events that qualify as "revolutions"? I'll watch and see what others think, but I am leaning toward the "Delete and revisit after you can populate the category" side right now. Xenophrenic (talk) 04:16, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Tea Party protests

IF you insist on using Google as a reference, that is fine with me. But don't censor other references in the article. The Squicks (talk) 19:47, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Censorship? Thank you for your admission that your personal attack was unfounded. Not in so many polite words, of course, but through your response here, which is good enough for me. I, too, shall consider the matter closed. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:36, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I insist on using complete sources, and not replacing them with inferior sources that do not contain the pertinent content. No references have been censored -- you are refering to an edit that you lost during an edit conflict as you kept reinserting your reference in rapid-fire manner without review. It appears to be fine now. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Early childhood

Hey Xenophrenic. I'm still embarassed about the content I removed saying the link didn't work. It really didn't when I tried it a couple times, but I know it doesn't look good so I just wanted to thank you for catching my error. I should have been more deliberative and maybe discussed it anyway. I did look for a date in the ref, because then the link wouldn't necessarily have to have worked, but there was only an accessed on date.

I've tried to add the publication date, but I don't use the long form cite format, so I'm not sure exactly how, but I think it would be a good tweak. Links do go dead and if there's only an accessed on date, that's not really good enough (although I suppose it could still be tracked down. I was confused on the source so I think I was tired at the time anyway).

I still think that section from one source is pretty negative and violates BLP guidelines, but after my mistake I've been to embarassed to mess with it. Anyway, have a good weekend, and I'm sorry if I left the impression that I was misrepresenting my removal. I'm not sure why the links didn't work at that time, they work fine now (as you stated) and it may have just been a CPU related issue on my end. These things happen sometimes. Oh well. Gulp. Very embarassing. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:53, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Howdy, ChildofMidnight. There is certainly no need for you to apologize for what was most certainly a glich with the interwebs. I do, however, appreciate you taking the time to follow up on the matter -- that's considerate, and unfortunately uncommon in these parts.

The source in question is used for several sections of content in that article, and I noticed it contains both critical and complimentary information about the living person. The section you removed is definitely not flattering, but I believe the content meets BLP sourcing and reference quality standards, which is why I interjected. That doesn't mean you can't make a case against that content on other BLP grounds; for instance, is that unflattering content relevant to the subject's notability? If a reasonable case along those lines can be made, you won't find me arguing against it. Where BLPs are concerned, I'm of the opinion that only the most relevant and pertinent negative information should be included, regardless of my opinion of the subject.

I will definitely have an enjoyable weekend, and I wish you the same. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:23, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks for your response and understanding. I appreciate it. The "psychiatric treatment" bit in particular seems rather pointy. Did he see a counselor? was he insitutionalized? It just seems kind of mean spirited to include the way its written as it insinuates things without offering any indication of significance or relevance (in my opinion). Lots of kid whose parents go through divorces meet with a psychiatrist. I don't see the relevance.

To me, the content in the source shows he was from a broken home and had a difficult childhood at times, between his academic struggles and the disputes and difficulties of his parents and their antagonism to one another. Beyond that I don't see why the more salacious details are relevant or worth including.

Anyway, I only edited it because I saw the section get re-added on my watchlist after an anon (if I remember right) took it out. I didn't check to see how long it had been in the article or if it was added, but it seemed kind of pointy, and then the link didn't work, and I misread the ref (couldn't figure out it's source for some reason which I see now is NY Magazine) and couldn't find a date, so I removed that section. I think it's appropriate to include some of the bits, but it can focus on biographical details and what's notable and relevant rather than trying to cherry pick parts of the guy's childhood to make him look bad, as it seems to do.

The whole gay section seems to have that kind of innuendo feel to it also. I'm not really that interested in the subject, but ideally I think it would all be made more encyclopedic and the enquirer type scandals and salacious details would be toned down to a few sentences stating the issues more encyclopedically. Anyway, I'm not going to bother with it. I'm taking the problem with the link I had as a sign. :) Take care. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:59, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

The whole thing reminds me of a "He was born penniless and illiterate" line I fell for in another biography. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:00, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

TDC

Again? I believe I only marked it as closed once. -- Avi (talk) 05:10, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I forwarded the e-mail to them AND sent a reminder. They have not contacted you? Perhaps send an e-mail straight to ArbCom-l -- Avi (talk) 05:12, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I forwarded it again to func-l and arbcom-l saying that you're still patiently waiting :) -- Avi (talk) 05:44, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Vassyana has reviewed the evidence you submitted and feels that, without much doubt, all the accounts and IPs are related. As such, I've tagged all the accounts as socks of TDC. We're currently working to see if a range block could be implemented. Thank you for your patience over the past few months with this case. Cheers, Icestorm815 • Talk 17:42, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Garafalo and Olbermann on the Tea Parties

I think you're being a little disingenuous in your explanation of a recent revert. While Olbermann is sitting in the interviewer's chair, he's hardly an unbiased party and essentially agrees with Garafalo's statements, smiling and nodding along with Garafalo's attempted witticism regarding the brain structure and pressure on the frontal lobes of Republicans, conservatives,etc. I think the recent edit by an anonymous IP is reasonable and should be left alone. Thanks -- Rydra Wong (talk) 22:06, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I never said he was unbiased. I also never said that he disagrees with Garafalo. Yes, he nods, and smiles a lot -- just as he does with most of his guests. He never specifically states his agreement, and to interject that assumption is WP:OR.

I appreciate your view, but if you still disagree, perhaps the article talk page would be a better place to continue this conversation. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:14, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Dalton Trumbo

I have again removed the link to the official site for the movie adaptation as source for the information. The other link to Spark Notes should be sufficient. Web sites to promote a motion picture do not tend to be examples of original research, and simply compile information from other sources, and due to it's purpose (to promote the film) information can not be taken as non biased. We certainly would not cite most commercial websites that promote a product as impartial entities. It is not my intent to start an edit war, and I hope you understand this. If you would like to discuss this feel free to contact me.

Thank You(75.69.241.91 (talk) 23:43, 22 July 2009 (UTC))

Talkback

Irbisgreif (talk) 23:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

MSF FAR

I have nominated Médecins Sans Frontières for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Jclemens (talk) 05:40, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Userbox offer

Considering the statement on your user page's "COMPLAINTS DEPARTMENT", section #2 "Xenophrenic is not assuming good faith!" I offer you this user box in good faith. You can bend/edit it to reflect your views as I did for mine. Hope you have use for it and enjoy it as I did on my userpage.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:39, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I thank you for your offer. While I did get a chuckle out of your modified user box, I'm afraid I must pass - I'm trying to avoid the use of all such descriptors and labels. I find them to be too brief and narrow to represent my actual views, feelings and traits, which are usually far more complicated and nuanced.

I'll trust your words that your offer was made in good faith, despite recent comments that might indicate the edited user box you display is less than accurate; it does use the qualifier "usually", after all. Best regards to you, Xenophrenic (talk) 01:10, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I must say that I dislike userboxes too, only that this one I found quite intriguing and couldn't resist. As for the "usually", of course there are always occasions where doubt comes in, yet at the end it is or can be resolved even w/o talking but rather watching. Guess you can agree on the latter (and yes, it was honestly in good faith). I stand to my comments yet my comments don't have to stay. Best, --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:31, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I, too, stand by my comments, even when their usefulness eludes less perceptive readers. As for lists; if I were to keep a "trust list", it would start blank and only be populated by those that earned their way onto it -- by that same standard, I'm confident I am on every list I desire to be on. Here's hoping all our future interactions land us on our respective A-lists. Xenophrenic (talk) 04:22, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

ACORN

I see that you are a regular contributer to the page , and thought this might be helpful. I would have snt it to Eyesocket, but he hasn´t been active in a while. Cheers.--Die4Dixie (talk) 22:59, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for cleaning up after me in the best spirit of collaboration :) - Wikidemon (talk) 18:33, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, you removed my change and labled it vandalism. On 11/23/09 Wade Rathke did a book signing and lecture at the University of Memphis (Memphis, TN). During the Q&A he was asked who paid the bulk of the money back to ACORN that had been embezzled by his brother Dale. Wade said that Dale had paid back some of the money over the seven years but when the matter became public the rest of the repayment was made by their father's estate. The gentleman had already deceased and the estate was about to be settled when the theft became common knowledge. (The article had suggested the money was paid by an unknown donor) Rathke also said (at the Q&A) the auditors informed him there was a problem. At this point he did not know if it was $5 or $500,000. He said when he found out the problem was Dale and the amount was $948,000 it blew his mind. The change made to the page was not vandalism. How you can think that is beyond me. If you want to confirm Wade Rathke's remarks there were 40 to 50 people present at the time including the department head. I also have Wade's email address. How many vandals do you know who will give you the subject's email for confirmation?? E. Zach Lee-Wright —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.177.9.38 (talk) 06:06, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello, E. Zach Lee-Wright,

I have removed edits of yours, but I did not label them as vandalism. This is what my edit summary said: (rem unsourced addition; returned wording to that conveyed by the cited source)

I am not doubting that you heard Rathke speak in Memphis, or that he answered questions about ACORN, but Misplaced Pages articles cannot contain that information unless it comes from a reliable source. You can click on this link for an explanation of what Misplaced Pages requires of its reliable sources. Among the 50 people in attendance, is it possible that one of them may have worked for a local newspaper or media outlet, and run a story on his lecture? Press articles, or possibly third-party recordings of the event might be usable as sources, but personal recollections by attendees can not be used. Email correspondence is problematic as well; do you know if Wade has published similar information on his blog or in newsletters, instead?

The editing and sourcing requirements may seem cumbersome, but those are the rules. Your edit was reverted due to sourcing requirements, and not because of vandalism. Perhaps you mistakenly read the edit summary for an edit by someone else. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 07:21, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

This is getting stranger and stranger... this user also left a complaint about the ACORN article on my user talk page, but according to Sinebot was using yet a different IP address... How many IP addresses does this person have? Whisperwolf (talk) 07:59, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I saw the note he left to you on your talk page, Whisperwolf. I assume (E. Zach Lee-Wright) = (98.66.2.104) = (74.177.9.38). Both of the IPs geolocate to Memphis, TN, so it does appear to be the same person — maybe one is home, and another is from work or the University? As for being called a vandal, he is mistaken and probably misread the edit histories; neither of us called his edits vandalism. Xenophrenic (talk) 15:22, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Sock Farm......

I thought you might have a little input in this user. I have a strong belief he is a sockpuppeteer you may have had prior dealings with. User:Iadmitmybiaswhycantyou?, User:Fight the bias. Their is an Ani conversation over a quote they attribute to you at ]. If you are aware of the root account it would def help. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 04:31, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Winter Soldier Discussions

Hi!

The issue that I have is not necessarily the reference (which I can't find, but I'm not that resourceful) would be the language used in the wording should the source be kept. Undue weight is very heavy there. Do as you please, of course, but we really should work on how the information is presented. Keegan (talk) 04:25, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Please familiarize yourself with WP:BLP before adding the information again. Specifically this section which says that such potentially negative information should be "corroborated by multiple, highly reliable sources". I don't see multiple, highly reliable sources there. - Rjd0060 (talk) 14:27, 16 September 2009 (UTC) :To be perfectly honest, your blatant disregard to the BLP policy is appalling. When you have an admin, in your case two admins, telling you something - especially as we're both OTRS members so you clearly don't know the full story - it's best to ask questions, and stop reverting. I see that you're not interested in logical discussion so I won't waste my time. If you want information, instead of reverting and ignoring one of the most important policies that we have, let me know. - Rjd0060 (talk) 20:12, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

And with regards to your other changes which you made while reverting my edit, I apologize for missing that. I'll be happy to request on the protected article's talk page that that information be re-added. - Rjd0060 (talk) 20:28, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

OK - you should probably confirm this before an admin makes the changes. - Rjd0060 (talk) 20:35, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Regarding your comment; you're right. I've struck my above comments (if you'd prefer I remove them entirely, let me know). I did not mean to come off so rude however this is a situation where I believe we should have discussed things, rather than reverted. I've commented on the article's talk page and would hope you can follow up there. You're welcome to "take this situation to noticeboards" if you feel that will be beneficial. I have not willfully ignored any of your comments - and the other content that I removed was just an oversight, for which I apologized for. At this point, reviewing the four sources you've added, I think a case can be made for leaving them. Though some of your comments in edit summaries and talk pages were, at first read, only attempts at making a bigger issue than necessary. I think we both got a little carried away here. I apologize for my part in it and will shortly be leaving a comment for the admin who protected the article asking him to unprotect it, when you could (if you want) restore your edit. I wont do anything until I get word back from you, however. - Rjd0060 (talk) 20:58, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

ChildofMidnight back at ArbCom

You are mentioned (implicitly) here. PhGustaf (talk) 01:54, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I believe your comment over at the ArbCom discussion of Law's reversal of Sandstein's block is slightly inaccurate. On the basic idea that CoM is interested in ACORN in precisely ways that violate his Obama topic ban, I could not agree more. However, it is not the case that ACORN has endorsed only one candidate. The organization has made lots of endorsements over time, though indeed Obama is the most prominent one, and the one mainly motivating CoM. LotLE×talk 19:42, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Press release

Please explain how a press release from a notable organization on said organizations website is less reliable than the same press release picked up by another organization? It isn't. If you want to make an argument that the contents shouldn't be on the page for another reason, please feel free to do so. By claiming that it isn't a reliable source pertaining the view AIM is not a valid claim. The criticism about it being a reliable source would be valid if it weren't for the attribution or if the group were not one of the pre-eminent Native American Rights organizations in the country, but as the reference is to the stance of AIM it is perfectly a reliable source.---Balloonman 01:41, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Answered on the article talk page. The short answer is: It's a gross violation of WP:BLP, which requires reliable second and third-party sources for disparaging content. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 01:51, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Just so you know, if you had cited BLP originally instead of RS, I probably would have looked at the edit and moved on. I disagree with you about the primary sources, I think they add value, and context (if somebody reads them they will see that AIM has an ax to grind, which is lost in the secondary source.) But frankly, I don't care enough about this article or Ward Churchill. You'll probably note that I've made all of a dozen edits on the WC page in the past 2 or 3 years. I'm actually surprised that Churchill survived my watchlist purge... but I've taken care of that now.---Balloonman 03:26, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

Do you think that User:NYsullivan is a sockpuppet for User:Balloonman? I'm not quite sure, but the creation of the new account at exactly the moment when doing so would apparently avoid 3RR for the latter looks suspicious to me. LotLE×talk 21:05, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, with the addition of brand new User:CU1989, I am entirely certain these are sockpuppets. Aaghh! Going through WP:SSP is way too much work :-(. LotLE×talk 22:46, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Possible, I guess. My assumption would be that User:168.103.215.166 (geolocated to Colorado ... home of the controversy) added the content to the article first, then registered an account name, User:NYsullivan, with which to continue editing that article 10 minutes later. Balloonman came in much later, and is probably unrelated. New User:CU1989 is much more likely to be related to 168.103.215.166/NYsullivan. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:52, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm... maybe you're right. I added that IP address to the report at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet_investigations#Report_date_October_9_2009.2C_22:56_.28UTC.29. I'm sure I filled out that report wrong in some respect(s), but maybe someone better familiar with the procedure can sort it out. LotLE×talk 23:02, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Xeno for the common sense... if a user is going to use Socks, they are either going to start out with their main account, or they are going to avoid using their Admin Account all together bu starting out with Socks and stay with Socks. Plus, it doesn't make much sense for a user to goto the talk page and then use a Sock unless you really are out to assume bad faith.---Balloonman 03:36, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

ROFLMFAO!---Balloonman 03:23, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Notice

FYI - I responded to you comments on my talk page. Gustnado (talk) 02:34, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Need your opinion on some photographs

Hi. Can you provide you opinion on this matter? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 01:45, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm reporting you to ANI

{wink}↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 17:19, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! My life is now complete. You have restored my self-confidence and my faith that I, too, might someday be part of the "in crowd". I promise not to waste this opportunity. But first, I must contact my drama coach for some brush-up... Xenophrenic (talk) 18:33, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Lol!↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 18:50, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

The Churchill-related article

My opinion is that you aren't really being helpful or constructive. You're setting up hoops and saying, "Jump through these." If you want to improve the article, then offer a revised paragraph that resolves all of your concerns. If your purpose isn't to improve the article, then what is your purpose? Thanks. 71.57.8.103 (talk) 21:18, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion. I obviously disagree. The hoops (we call them Misplaced Pages Policies around here) must be jumped through, unfortunately. I agree that jumping through these hoops can be tedious and annoying, and that it would be much more fun to be able to add absolutely anything to articles without these requirements -- but that is not the reality of our situation here. As for me offering a revised paragraph, my version is already implemented in the article. The paragraph we are now discussing was introduced by Phoenix. I hope that clears things up for you. Oh, and as for your final leading question, it doesn't make any sense to me. Could you please rephrase? Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 21:40, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

It just seems a little like baiting to me, and as we've seen at WP:ANI, 64/Phoenix is a little excitable. You might be more successful if you try editing his proposed paragraph to comply with your strict interpretation of policy. Evidently you insist on unimpeachably reliable source like the New York Times cited after each and every period or comma, or you're going to keep reverting. Does that cover it? 71.57.8.103 (talk) 21:52, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

You misunderstand. It is not I that insists on reliable sources, it is Misplaced Pages. We are all constrained by that same annoying yoke. I might be able to edit his suggested paragraph if I only knew where he was getting the content he put in it. Perhaps he will enlighten us in his response. The article already conveys that Churchill issued a challenge to have his scholarship examined; conveys that it was; conveys the results. Perhaps you can tell me what it is Phoenix would like to convey with his new paragraph? (I examined your contributions to that same article for examples of productivity - that didn't cover it.) Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 22:12, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

The trouble is that when the article conveys all those things, it doesn't cite any sources. It's a clear violation of WP:OR and WP:RS according to your standards of enforcement. But you have no objection to the unsourced passages where the article "conveys that Churchill issued a challenge to have his scholarship examined; conveys that it was; conveys the results." You only object to that addition of further details, clarifying that it was the right-wing media that responded (and very effectively) to Churchill's challenge. I've reactivated this discussion on the article Talk page where it belongs, so that others may participate. Please don't delete it again. Thanks. 71.57.8.103 (talk) 02:36, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I've not deleted any discussions; perhaps you have me confused with another editor. I have, however, continued discussions on our personal talk pages when the content is inappropriate for article talk pages - see above. I've responded on the article talk page and your talk page as well. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 04:33, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I look forward to either your apology, or your embarassed silence, regarding the addition of the word "conservative." Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 23:01, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

And I look forward to your response to the many unanswered queries that remain on the article talk page. Xenophrenic (talk) 23:05, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Nearly all have been adequately answered. Your dissatisfaction with the answers is noted. By the way, I notice that in an edit summary, you characterized John Fritch as a "student debater." This is inaccurate. He's an associate professor with a PhD, and head of communications studies; the photo doesn't suggest that he was a student at the time of publication. Also, please read WP:WEASEL. The word "claimed" is cited as an example of weasel wording (not once, but twice) in the infobox on the right. Skoal. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 18:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Most of the issues were addressed by LotLE, correct. What gives you the misperception that I am dissatisfied? Sticking to reliable sources isn't that hard after all, is it? (Note: there are still 2 fact tags that need addressing...) Thank you for the info on Fritch - the "student" description was intended to be applicable to the debate project, not the individual. Not that someone of his age couldn't also be a student. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 18:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I've read WP:WEASEL. What is your specific point? Xenophrenic (talk) 18:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

What part of "weasel wording" don't you understand? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 18:58, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

You aren't going to tell me what your specific point is? I have to guess? I see the word "claimed" in the infobox, but I am not sure what relevance that has to our article. (Wait... are you confusing the weasel verb "claimed" with the nouns "claim" and "expose"?) Please read the guideline again, instead of just doing word searches.  :) Claims is the appropriate word to describe the claims; as "exposé" automatically implies discredited claims. You are using the weasel word. Would you like to make the correction? Xenophrenic (talk) 19:11, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind - I see another editor has already removed your use of "exposé"; problem solved. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:02, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to the sock drawer

Apparently you an I are sockpuppets of each other. One of our anon trouble-makers of late has discovered a brand new administrative page, it seems: Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet_investigations/SOCKMASTER#Lulu_of_the_Lotus-Eaters_-SPI_check_user. Make of it as you see fit. LotLE×talk 21:18, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed. He even templated my page. My first instinct was to just let the checkuser run its course, watch the anon-IP eat some crow and then move on. But on second thought, this isn't his first attempt at harassment and personal attacks, so I may end up biting back. (BTW, if you really are me, will you please stop disagreeing with me on talk pages and edit summaries? Get with the program!) Xenophrenic (talk) 21:32, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Did you happen to see this latest bit from our shoeless friends: Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Admitted sockpuppetry by LotLE? They really do get annoying. I guess I really shouldn't even bother posting any clarification at all. Sometimes I don't bother, but I guess I'm in a bad mood about it today :-(. LotLE×talk 21:52, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I corrected the heading he posted under. Would you mind if I interjected myself into that discussion, or would you rather I not? Also, since socking seems to be the topic of the day, I recall the 71.* editor and 64/Phoenix both being previously accused of socking by Bali, Tarc, Scjessey and others -- did anyone ever follow up on that? Some of the accusers seemed really convinced. Editor 71.* geolocates to Illinois, near Chicago. So did Bryan and TDC/CENSEI. Also, 71.* went to the Free Republic article on his very first day of editing - an article (along with ACORN) frequently edited by these other puppeteers. All three edit from the same point of view, and all three spend far too much time dragging other editors that stand up to them through the various admin noticeboards. There may be a connection; or maybe there's just something in the Chicago water. I just wonder if it is something worth looking into more closely. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:29, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Feel free, I would appreciate your input. LotLE×talk 22:39, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in (but i will anyway). Fellow is reasonably competent at using different IPs (at least he was) and I would assume the old SPI stuff would be stale.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:55, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

CEC

I saw the anon Fast food edit too, and as much as i hate it. it is on the template, i am reverting for now. i am checking with the original creator of the template for his\her logic on including it. I'll see if he/she will remove CEC and peter piper pizza from it. the other pizza places clearly belong but these clearly don't. i would do it myself but some editor get pretty possessive of their work. Weaponbb7 (talk) 04:44, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I removed CEC from the template, as it clearly doesn't qualify - and I'll be updating the article to reflect that. I don't know enough about Peter Piper to make the same change, so I'll leave that to you. I don't think it was the template creator that added CEC. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 07:09, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Tygart issue has been archived

Massive rewrite/vandalism(?) at Tea Party movement

This is an FYI, I suppose, but there has been some substantial rewriting attempted at the old Tea Party protests page, now moved to the Tea Party movement. It also split off a daughter article, Tea Party protests, 2009. Instead of freeing up editors to keep the moved page more topical and keep the '09 protests paired with all the historic info and developments, a concerted effort has emerged that in my view is not much more than page blanking and deleting anything that seems to paint things in a negative light.--Happysomeone (talk) 21:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I've been watching that since earlier this morning. Some of what you described is indeed happening, but there are several editors involved and I've been sitting on the sidelines and waiting to see where it goes. There is some significant and highly relevant content that won't remain scrubbed from those articles by POV editing, but I've been holding off editing until a basic framework develops for each of those articles. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:13, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

How about your view on whether the Tea Party movement is "grassroots" or not?--Happysomeone (talk) 19:22, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Swiftboating

I wonder if its time to take this one up a level? --Snowded 20:40, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Hannah Giles

Hi Xeno. Would you mind taking a look at the Hannah Giles article history? An anonymous IP has three times changed the language that the videos "appeared to show" ACORN employees advising illegal activity to "showed," which ignores the fact that the edited videos are disputed and the only law enforcement investigation to examine the unedited copies concluded there was no illegality and that the tapes had been edited to support an agenda.--AzureCitizen (talk) 21:20, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

It looks like it has settled down for now. I think once the video conspiracies article is improved and cleaned up, the related linked-articles like Giles, O'Keefe, ACORN, etc., can be brought in line for conformity. Xenophrenic (talk) 01:21, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

WorldNetDaily RS/N

I have recently referenced your comments offered in the RS/N discussion(s) on WorldNetDaily WP:RS considerations within a related issue being discussed in the RS/N "talk" page. This message is to notify you of that reference and to both solicit and encourage any contribution you might have in this matter. Thanks. --JakeInJoisey (talk) 18:14, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

I appreciate the fact that you removed my name from that section title at the Talk:Tea Party movement page. That made me happy.--Happysomeone (talk) 22:29, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

You might find this interesting as well

This may also make it difficult to determine who is actualy responsible for what. Arzel (talk) 04:05, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Well done

I have Coffee Party USA on my watchlist, so I've seen how much work you do 'minding' that article. Thank you for doing that. (If I looked hard enough, I'd probably find something I could quibble about, but that is not important. Keeping a contentious article in good shape is important to Misplaced Pages, and you've done that very well.) Cheers, CWC 09:06, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Not much more than vandal patrol, really. Political articles tend to draw more activity of that nature, it seems. Thanks for the thanks, though. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 21:20, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Ellie Light

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Ellie Light (2nd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:10, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Collapsing thread to keep the peace

I'm going to put back the entire thread and then collapse it. I'm having a bit of trouble with the code for collapsing a thread. If you know it, please let me know. I tried it earlier and it collapsed everything from our thread on down which I don't want. Suggestions?Malke2010 01:06, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Malke. To collapse a section of text, you can put {{collapse top|Description of the collapsed content}} before the section of text to be collapsed, and insert a {{collapse bottom}} at the end of the section of text to be collapsed.

It would look something like this on your edit screen:

{{collapse top|Annoying discussion with Xenophrenic}}

Discussion...

More discussion...

Even more discussion...
{{collapse bottom}}

I see you've also been asking around about how to archive talk page content, and also how to set up an infobox that will display the subject's religion -- I can't help you with those. I've been messing with this for many years, and I still screw those up. I can probably hunt down the procedures though, if no one else has been able to help you yet. Xenophrenic (talk) 04:54, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thanks, for the above. I couldn't figure that out. Gwen Gale has collapsed the thread. Hoping to archive it, though. My bot isn't working again. That's another issue. The infobox is hard. The scientist infobox has had the religion bit deleted. Don't know why they decided that. So adding it back for Dr. Farmer would involve code, etc. I tried substituting the Info Person template but that excludes his work, etc. Can't win on that one. Can't seem to find the procedures for fixing it anywhere. And I spent a lot of time yesterday looking.Malke2010 11:37, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I've been meaning to tell you, I thought this edit summary was hilarious . XD Malke2010 17:35, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I thought you might :) By the way, while I didn't say it in so many words, I did appreciate your "Collapsing thread to keep the peace" initiative above. Thanks for offering that olive branch. You and I have different perspectives on things, so we are destined to have our disagreements and even arguments -- but there is no reason we can't still remain civil. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 17:57, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely. And judging by recent edits, we're not all that far apart on perspectives. :) Malke2010 17:58, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Tea Party Movement

Please go to talk page and vote for section title. Thanks. Malke2010 18:51, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I commented, but as usual... it ballooned into quite a lengthy essay. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:58, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I think that's a good solution. Should we give it a try?Malke2010 18:05, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Check email.Malke2010 06:25, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I read it. Did you know that I have family that consider themselves Tea Partiers? A couple of them have even gotten off their keesters and attended some rallies. Are they racist? Not at all. Do I think the Tea Party movement is racist? Of course not. But that isn't what we are discussing. We're not trying to figure out how we can make the movement look racist. We're trying to figure out how we can address the public perception and media narrative about "racism and the Tea Party movement" in the article, because it really is a big thing. It does need to be addressed, because editors are going to continue to insert stuff about this incident or that incident if it isn't first addressed in a fair and encyclopedic manner. I'm stepping out for a wee bit. More later, Xenophrenic (talk) 06:43, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe this is Tea Partiers. I think this is the media cherry picking signs and protesters and giving it the tea party label. And the fact that the tea party movement leaders are having to hire security, etc., to get separate out the fringe says a lot about how the media isn't covering the whole story. I did not know they were doing that because it doesn't appear in the mainstream media. But they never fail to photograph the fringers. And this is my concern for the article. It will become bloated with incidents like that but without any mention of who is really doing it. The Tea Party protesters will get painted with the same brush. They're concerns are financial. They are against the policies, not the man. And demonizing Bush during protests was never seen as racist or a problem by the media. It's too easy to claim racism because Obama's black and the nut brigade is showing up.Malke2010 12:33, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Tea party Breitbart thing

Did you mean to also remove the Breitbart reference from the "Incidents" section? Have I missed a meeting? Malke2010 17:03, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I did -- that was one of the primary reasons for my revert of Freedom Fan's / Arzel's edit. Please see the the section on the talk page titled: Clarification for Arzel and read the 3 links there for my explanation. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 17:11, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I looked at your diffs, but I didn't check out what they were inserting/half deleting. And there's nothing about it on the Tea Party Protests. Maybe we should abbreviate what's there a bit more so it doesn't get added again?Malke2010 18:46, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm okay with either having the complete Breitbart stuff in the article (which means it includes Trumka's direct response, and the AP follow-up story that shows Breitbart cites non-relevant videos as proof) OR with having the Breitbart stuff removed completely (since TE and Cptnono also removed it) as irrelevant (because Breitbart wasn't there; wasn't involved; was stupidly trying to "prove a negative" that the incident didn't happen, which can't be done; and he was just political grandstanding). Complete NPOV content insertion is fine; complete removal is fine. Freedom Fan's partial, incomplete, skewed POV version (along with numerous inaccuracies he has since tacked on) is not fine -- and that is what I keep reverting. The links show that this has been an issue since April 16, yet Freedom Fan has not discussed and resolved his problematic edits on the talk page. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 19:59, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, no need for it then. Probably should wait a bit for trimming anything else. What about the Obama race thing? I've been going over a lot of articles and a couple of videos off and on today and it's looking like the Obama comment about race had do to with the Congressman yelling out "Liar" that Jimmy Carter commented on. And then, the Today show video seems to be more about the fringers. I'm not sure now how the connection with race specifically against Obama is a valid one.Malke2010 21:26, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Obama's opinion, as conveyed by Gibbs, was sparked by the "You lie!" outburst, but some of the sources covering it have extrapolated that to cover a much wider range of criticism of Obama ... which may or may not include the tea partiers, depending on the source.

On a related note, I see you are stripping away just half of the Breitbart content again, leaving an unbalanced remainder in the article. Changes like that really should be discussed, and agreed upon, on the talk page first. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 23:35, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

The article should not take sources from one incident and apply them to other situations. That's OR. The Breitbart thing seems to have taken care of itself. I think it got deleted again and last I checked, nobody's added back. May it R.I.P.Malke2010 00:11, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Bah, it's back again. If you'd like to remove Breitbart (and take the Trumka, and "wrong video" stuff with it), I won't fight you on it. You can leave the blurb about the Nat'l TP Federation letter requesting that the CBC provide any addional evidence they may have about the incidents in the article if you want, as well. Xenophrenic (talk) 04:24, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Xeno, what are you doing with the 'outrageous' thing? It's POV. Don't put that in. And BTW, we've got an IP putting an advert for tea party funding into the astroturfing section. He's up to 5 reverts today, not including his own self-reverts. I left a message on his talk page.Malke2010 18:04, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

The "outrageous" wording comes straight from the cited source. In fact, Williams was asked about those things he says specifically because they were outrageous, so it goes to the core of what was being conveyed by the source. You could always put it in quotation marks, I guess. I didn't even realize you had edited it out ... I was trying to fix a broken citation I had messed up. As for the IP reverting beyond 3 times, I would probably list him at the 3RR noticeboard if he persists. That place is already too much of a battleground :( Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 18:12, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, well use quotes. Otherwise it looks like Misplaced Pages is saying he's outrageous. Something like, "the Washington Post called his comments outrageous, etc." I had already fixed the cite. The IP has backed off so I didn't go to 3RR/N. I think it's 'outrageous' that the IP is advertising a website that funds tea parties. XDMalke2010 20:33, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok, sorry I don't know how to make a new section but I just wanted to say to Xenophrenic: I admire your technical communication skills :)Cozzycovers (talk) 09:24, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Astroturfing

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Astroturfing . Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. --Ronz (talk) 02:58, 5 June 2010 (UTC)