Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:12, 1 April 2012

Ark-Hives
User talk:LedRush/Archive001 User talk:LedRush/Archive002 User talk:LedRush/Archive003 User talk:LedRush/Archive004 (Jan. 1 - Oct. 31 2011) -->

Easy Access to Sub-pages

• User:LedRush/Bucknell Pong
• User:LedRush/Amanda Knox
• http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/ec

Talk from Kiefer's page.

I didn't want to continue this on his page, but I did want to say that I agree things are calm when Miremare isn't there, and I always felt both you and Kiefer present a generally more elevated, logical approach to everything. I never felt that his presence disrupted much of anything. I admit his one comment of "stop arguing over semantics" felt out of place, but at the same time, it was still completely ignorable. I think you may have gotten the wrong impression when he tried to get between yourself and Miremare a couple months ago, and that can often happen when someone tries to be a moderator between two parties. At least Kiefer is on cool down and will get over things. I have a lot of respect for both of you, and I hope this situation just doesn't escalate further. : (

He at least called Miremare out on not getting his way, I was impressed with that.--SexyKick 16:45, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I have no doubt that Kiefer means well and is an excellent editor. I also have no doubt, as I have admitted in the past, I can be sharper than people want me to be. There is no need for me to rehash my opinions on why I'm annoyed at Kiefer and his posts, but I very much appreciate your comments here and on the discussion page.LedRush (talk) 16:55, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

An explanation, now that I've cooled off a bit

Hi LedRush. First off, I do owe you an apology for losing my cool. I generally pride myself on staying level-headed in adverse conditions, so when I fail to do that, it is truly a failing on my part, regardless of the circumstances. I'm sorry.

That said, I just wanted to give a quick explanation as to the nature of my comments, hopefully from a more level-headed viewpoint. In the talk-page discussion, I felt that the ongoing verbal battle between you and Chaos was starting to get out of hand, and both you and he had resorted to trading insults and making comments about each other that did little to further the discussion of the original topic. The comments had much more to do with attacking each other's character, mostly in at least one form of "You refuse to budge because you're X". In my experience, that sort of discussion is both counterproductive and highly disruptive, and I was trying, unsuccessfully, to nudge you both back on topic. In hindsight, I should have employed a different method to do that - all I ended up doing was making your tempers flare even more.

I want you to realize that I was not singling you out in that initial attempt to steer things back on topic - I was trying to be as clear as I could that my admonishment applied to Chaos as well, and more generally to everyone in the discussion. My attention turned more specifically to you when you got upset at me, and as I said earlier, I was getting personally angry and realized I needed to back off and cool down. But my intent throughout was not to make you out to be a bad guy, or to assume bad faith on your part. It was to try to minimize undue bickering.

The only thing I ask of you is to realize that criticism of your behavior isn't always a personal attack, nor is it meant to be. Tempted as I might have been at times, I've resisted the urge to call you names, directly accuse you of acting in bad faith, or do anything as an admin that would have been highly inappropriate. I lost my temper, I was impolite, and I said that you didn't deserve politeness. That was wrong. But just the same, I do not believe you are acting in bad faith, and I have no intention of attacking you personally. I simply want to help you by pointing out when your tactics are doing more harm than good - as someone who's worked in Wikiquette Alerts in the past, I've tried to do that with many people, in the interest of helping the community at large.

I'm going to stay away from the Mega Drive/Genesis naming debate for a while longer - it was a mistake for me to try contributing to that discussion again so soon. I wish you luck, and I hope that a decision is achieved soon that everyone can agree to live with. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 17:20, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your post and clarification. What I intended to do initially with Chaos was merely to state that despite tons and tons of comments on the subject, the sides hadn't changed their views. Rather than continue to make declaratory statements that you know the other side disagrees with, simple agree to disagree. When he came back with the attack on me for my commonname discussions, I felt it was both hypocritical and wrong. I could have been less pointy with my comments, but at the point I'm not sure that mattered. Your criticism of me, even though I entered that disagreement trying to cool things down, seemed misplaced and also hypocritical, as you were engaging in the very conduct for which you were criticizing me. That doesn't mean that your criticism had no merit or that I can't deal with the situation better, merely that I was annoyed by the manner and method you inserted yourself into the situation.LedRush (talk) 17:55, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Is it a bad thing?

Is it a bad thing that when I saw a discussion on ANI about a user named MrRhythm that my first thought was "Oh. A Rush / Neil Peart fan"? Ravensfire (talk) 18:29, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

It's mystical. ;)
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 21:38, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the delayed response, but it is never a bad thing to think about Peart. The sad thing is, I just spent a few seconds on deciding whether or not I should carve out "being in bed" from that statement, and decided against it. Berean, good catches on the Rush article...thanks for keeping it clean!LedRush (talk) 15:08, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. I try to keep things clean but the mongol horde of schoolchildren are a relentless force.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 15:22, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

RM discussion you might be interested in.

Multi-RM really I guess.--SexyKick 21:04, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Give it a rest

Some of us are capable of having a disagreement without throwing insults around. I'm trying my best to ignore you, but the next time you poke your nose into a conversation you weren't involved in to call me a liar I will just pass it to WP:ANI. I couldn't care less about being called most things (as an admin you get used to it, especially when you administrate the MoMK page) but I am not a liar. Clear? Black Kite (t) 08:24, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

You have indeed lied. On top of that, you have made ad hominem attacks (unprovoked), you have disrupted conversations, and you have made threats (much like this one). Your most recent lie was in this uncivil attack on B2C where you stated "Since you clearly can't read, I'll say it again. Do not do that again. If you can't cope with a civil agrument, don't get into one to begin with, and then try to hide it when you don't like the outcome." You know for a fact this is not what happened, as has been pointed out to you the last time this came up. He hatted the comments because they were off topic sniping that distract from the core discussion. There was no outcome of which to speak, and there was certainly nothing in it that would indicate that he had some vested interest in hiding the conversation as you claim. Your statements are clearly untrue (on top of personal attacks and disruptive) and, as such, are correctly classified as lies.LedRush (talk) 13:04, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and another recent lie was when you called me an SPA (and further insulted me by talking about my bad faith motivations for being a part of the project), despite the fact that that is demonstrably untrue.LedRush (talk) 13:38, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but there is a big difference between "a difference of opinion" and a lie. If I do something you disagree with, and then comment on it, you can't call it a lie because it differs from your opinion. Also, when the vast majority of your edits are to a single article or talk page, then that makes you a SPA. You may have expanded your range since then, but that's irrelevant. You are allowed to disagree with me, but you are not allowed to call me a liar by saying "Black Kite said X, and I disagree with it, therefore he's wrong, therefore he's a liar". And since you've repeated it above, this is a final warning. Black Kite (t) 18:19, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Here are the facts. I became a user about 3.5 years ago. I've started several articles, watch about 300, and focus my editing on subjects which interest me, often putting focus on one at a time. I made my first edit on MoMK less than 11 months ago. Since the article has stabilized and is no longer the POV mess it was when I got there, the last month or so have seen me make a majority of my edits on other articles. These are not opinions, they are facts. You know this, because of the SPA conversations which happened on MoMK talk page showed that I wasn't an SPA and that I had a rather active account for years. When you call me an SPA (in the middle of otherwise insulting me), you are making an untrue statement, and one that is demonstrably false (not an opinion). Therefore, you have lied. Does one lie make you a liar? Everyone lies from time to time, myself included. Perhaps you are not a habitual liar, perhaps you are. I really don't know and I don't care. You, however, have been caught in a lie here and rather than just say "Sorry, I thought you were an SPA based on a concentration of edits from several months ago and I forgot the details", you've decided the best course of action is to further insult and attempt to humiliate me, while threatening administrative action against me.

Your second falsehood, the one about B2C, also seems to fall into the definition of "lie" ("something intended or serving to convey a false impression"). You made a statement that he kept hatting your comments because he didn't like the outcome of the conversation. Firstly, he only hatted them once. Secondly, he did it because it was an off topic personal attack made by you, and he wanted to focus the conversation on the reading of the policy, not about whether your attack was ad hominem and what his editing history was. It is true that in order to conclude that someone lied, you need to make a decision about the person's motivation for making falsehoods. This case is less clear than the one above, but is proven sufficiently for me to call it a lie.LedRush (talk) 19:18, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

In short, in my opinion, I believe that you lied because I believe that you (1) know that I'm not an SPA but still hurl the term at me as a personal attack; and (2) know that B2C hatted the comments because they were off topic yet you accuse him of doing it because he didn't like the outcome of the discussion, and that such action should be reported as vandalism. I don't know if your comment below is a lie yet because I haven't heard your explanation for it.LedRush (talk) 19:32, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

The following is a summary of BlackKite's recent actions on the Yoghurt talk page, which led to the discussion above: "B2C tried to hat the conversation so we could get back on topic , but Blackkite reverted and took the opportunity to threaten B2C with admin action, and invent obviously untrue motivations for B2C's actions (while sprinkling in more personal attacks). Hopefully we can just get back to the policy discussions."LedRush (talk) 15:29, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

• Ironic that you say I threatened him with admin action when I didn't, isn't it? Usually we call that a "lie". See my point now? Black Kite (t) 18:22, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Is this a third lie? Diff of threat: . It seems odd that you would forget that you threatened to make a report against him at the administrator intervention against vandalism (despite the fact that hatting an off topic conversation which contains personal attacks is not even remotely vandalism) right after you made the threat.LedRush (talk) 19:18, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion closed

An arbitration case regarding all articles related to the subject of Abortion has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

• All articles related to the subject of Abortion:

1. shall be semi-protected until November 28, 2014;
2. shall not be moved absent a demonstrable community consensus;
3. are authorized to be placed on Standard discretionary sanctions;

In addition:

1. Editors are reminded to remain neutral while editing;
2. Structured discussion is to take place on names of articles currently located at Opposition to the legalization of abortion and Support for the legalization of abortion, with a binding vote taken one month after the opening of the discussion;
3. User:Orangemarlin is instructed to contact the Arbitration Committee before returning to edit affected articles;
4. User:Michael C Price, User:Anythingyouwant, User:Haymaker, User:Geremia, User:DMSBel are all indefinitely topic-banned; User:Michael C Price and User:Haymaker may appeal their topic bans in one year;
5. User:Gandydancer and User:NYyankees51 are reminded to maintain tones appropriate for collaboration in a sensitive topic area.

For the Arbitration Committee,
- Penwhale | 04:16, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion

Resolved by motion at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification that: The Abortion case is supplemented as follows:

Remedy 1 of Abortion is amended to the following:

• Any uninvolved administrator may semi-protect articles relating to Abortion and their corresponding talk pages, at his or her discretion, for a period of up to three years from 7 December 2011. Pages semi-protected under this provision are to be logged.

For the Arbitration Committee, Salvio 12:22, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Discuss this

Warning users on Beer pong

Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made to Beer pong: you may already know about them, but you might find Misplaced Pages:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. --AW (talk) 18:49, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

		Happy 2012 !!!
		Dear LedRush, May the Year to Come Bring You Great Happiness. Very Best Wishes, SuperMarioMan 02:35, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Abortion amendment request

Hello. I have made a request to the Arbitration Committee to amend the Abortion case, in relation to the structured discussion that was to take place. The request can be found here. Regards, Steven Zhang 04:08, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Union Busting

I'd love to work on this with you. I have read back in the talk page and I see you have been very active and i appreciate that you responded to my interest. But I've also noted that Goldzjatn and Richard Meyers seem to own the page. I imagine they will jump in as well. The more the merrier. But I hope everyone agrees that sometimes editors need to step back and let new blood into the mix for objectivity. I believe that Misplaced Pages is great source for students and lay persons to research material and I would very much like to bring some objective scholarship to the page. As it is currently written it is just awful. Their are about 4-5 sections that use Confessions of a Union Buster as the ONLY source citation! Yikes. There is a site called Confessions of a Union Organizer too. But I don't believe it is truthful to paint entire organizations based on one person's activities. I would like to bring levity, honesty, and objectivity not to mention FACTS into the article as well as modernism. Most of the article is a reiteration of the Levitt book which was published in 1994 and described his activities in the 1970's before computers existed! Example:

In 1980, most union busters acquired clients through a network of labor lawyers. Some companies keep labor relations consultants and attorneys on retainer. Others may monitor government NLRB offices where NLRB petitions for recognition or elections are filed by unions which reveal organizing drives before management knows about them. Advertising through websites and direct mail are additional means of contact. Historically, some agencies sent secret operatives into a prospective client's factory without permission. A report was prepared and submitted to the manager, revealing conspiracies of sabotage and union activities. Such aggressive and disreputable tactics no longer seem common, nor necessary, in order for labor relations specialists to find clients.::cn}}

Really? NLRB petitions are public record. No surprise that labor consultants would watch them. And don't most unions also keep labor counsel on retainer? This paragraph describes items then at the end says essentially "but it doesn't happen anymore". So let's describe what DOES happen?

Here's another that is so 1970's: A labor consultant may advise the company to provide nothing more than the very minimum necessary legal address requirements, which do not include zip codes, apartment numbers, or street designations such as Street, Avenue, Drive, or Place. The union is forced to spend significant resources to translate the minimal required legal addresses into usable addresses, and may therefore fail to contact many potential members.

Computers exist now. All employee names are readily available. Facebook, twitter etc. This reveals how so much of that article was merely copy/pasted from the book and no one disputed that it was entirely outdated. OK, don't get me started. Let's try to improve the article.EcFitzsimmons (talk) 02:49, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

When I originally got to the article is was one huge mess. I tried to tone down the POV, but you correctly state that Gld and Rich have exerted ownership of the article. Other than POV, you are correct that much of the article comes from a book. I've noticed that several parts in the past were taken verbatim from a book, which is a copyright violation. While I've removed some pieces for this reason, I suspect that much more of the article (and the related ones) is in violation of WP:Copyvio. I don't have too much time to devote to the project now, and I am not an expert in this field, but I will try and collaborate with you as much as I can to make this article less of a mess.LedRush (talk) 14:57, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Well done

		The Resilient Barnstar
		For professionalism and adherence to consensus even when you don't agree with it. ElKevbo (talk) 22:16, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Please

...follow BRD and cease. I'm hoping that we strive for stability first and foremost which requires letting things rest during discussion even if it means keeping the wrong version. Changing things prematurely before editors reach collective consensus encourages the wrong thing. I'm hoping that we all find a way to work together.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 21:03, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Um...I am boldly making changes. If you revert, I will discuss. However, you and TMCk are not 100% right here and I am trying to find a middle ground. Seeing as this is really a case-by-case example, it seems the best way is to change the article and see what you guys think.

I hope that you will look to the actual arguments and contents of my changes, though, before reverting en masse.LedRush (talk) 21:07, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Nobody is usually 100% right, and that counts especially for a certain editor with ownership issues that makes it hard to work on the article. Not just for me but for everybody.TMCk (talk) 01:22, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
BTW, I don't have any problem with your changes you've made today, I only prefer rewrites and restructure of sentences that avoid words like "alleged" entirely w/o loosing any meaning or introduce some POV (which would be counter productive considering the intent.)TMCk (talk) 01:38, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I would rather not revert you. :) My tone was more one of haste to get you to stop momentarily to discuss. I'm actually looking forward to your help and glad you arrived at the article. I was trying to neutralize that article to avert an edit war which was going on...it is important to me to try to get the editors on board about behavior and how we might work together to find an agreement or at least consensus. Suppose the next editor comes along and reverts you rather than participating in the discussion...you would rather they conversed with you (us) first, right? That is what I hope to accomplish. My edits in this matter were in an effort to reach a tenable compromise with neutral language while discussion was ongoing. With an active thread going on, being bold isn't usually a good thing.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 21:21, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

With the nature of the edits, it is cumbersome and inefficient to discuss them individually on the talk page. I didn't revert anyone, and I was already discussing on the talk page, so your implication that I wasn't following BRD was simply incorrect. If I wanted to get technical, it would seem that any changes that you and TMCk made after Overagainst's reversion would not be following BRD. But it seems unfruitful to go down that path. I laid out my philosophy on the talk page and then enacted a compromise (with some grammatical and factual fixes that were not being discussed) in the article. In this way it should be quite easy to narrow down the scope of the disagreement. Assuming TMCk and Overagainst can control themselves and try and engage the discussion with just a little bit of good faith.LedRush (talk) 21:30, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Are you seriously saying I didn't control myself? Did you check my edit history for the last few month at this article? Better address that to single purpose Overagainst who reverts pretty much everyone making changes to his edits. Please check and think about it.TMCk (talk) 01:30, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

You are reading too much into what amounts to my plea above. I'm not leveling any accusations against you. I was trying to get you to discuss more but not change anything quite yet. I'm measuring this BRD cycle from reversions that happened yesterday...we were hopefully past the B and the R and into the D. 8^D As for my part, I'm the one that started the discussion...so I could revert beforehand right? In my mind, I have one actual measured revert against Overagainst who was reverting me before I had enough time to finish what I was doing this morning. To put your mind at ease, I have no intention of reverting you...nor do I necessarily disagree with your edits.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 21:48, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Abortion article titles notification

Hey LedRush. This is just a notification that a binding, structured community discussion has been opened by myself and Steven Zhang on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. As you were named as a involved party in the Abortion case, you may already know that remedy 5.1 called for a "systematic discussion and voting on article names". This remedy is now being fulfilled with this discussion. If you would like to participate, the discussion is taking place at WP:RFC/AAT. All the best, Whenaxis talk · contribs | DR goes to Wikimania! 22:53, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Led_Zeppelin#Led_Zeppelin_is_NOT_HEAVY_METAL

need your contribution in the discussion please.HasperHunter (talk) 19:14, 11 March 2012 (UTC)`

April 2012

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.