Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:34, 24 September 2018

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		"happy that we finally got a 'self-described neutral observer'" - that made me laugh. That was a positive add. Rockypedia (talk) 00:02, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

AE discussion

Please see this. 15:00, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Don't get carried away

Hi VM, you are usually precise in your prose, so I was quite surprised to see you as the author of this over-the-top misrepresentation of facts. I fixed it. Please be more careful next time. — JFG 00:12, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Good catch. Thanks.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:35, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

John McCain

I just left you a message on Talk:John_McCain. If you decide to reply, please reply there. --Mox La Push (talk) 05:16, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring. Thank you. --Mox La Push (talk) 04:22, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Watts family

Re this edit summary, I wondered myself: how come we don't have an article on this crime? So I created one: Death of the Watts family. Surprisingly, there were no demands to immediately change the name to the "Murder of..."; no heated discussions about it, in five parts; etc. </sarcasm>.

I think you would appreciate this addition: . It literally says that it's "white dudes" who commit these types of crimes. I was looking for the material on "family annihilation"; I was not fishing for ethnic makeup of these killers. Pretty chilling... --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:07, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Yup. And what's particularly glaring is that there's actually a TON of weird ass editors on Misplaced Pages who SPECIALIZE in sensationalist murders. Yet, no one had created this one. Volunteer Marek 06:21, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Discretionary Sanctions - Kavenaugh

My edits to Kavanaugh have been made in good faith to provide facts per RS and NPOV. I understand your strong feelings here, but the article’s integrity is the first priori. I have been envolved in so many heated discussions over the years, as you have. For everyone’s benefit, please take a breath. Remember what we’ve been taught—direct comments to the contribution, not the contributor. Hang in there Pal. Hoppyh (talk) 01:47, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Your edits were not perfect (you may have added some original research or cited wrong sources), but VM's edit summary in this edit was really uncalled for. VM removed well-sourced material "registered Democrat" that was reported in The Washington Post (the cited source), so it's absurd to imply that the party affiliation is some kind of horrible smear. In Kavanaugh's bio VM removed two citations to heavy.com saying "not RS" and in the nomination article VM edit warred the second heavy.com source to that article.

And what the heck is this obfuscation: "committed by Kavanaugh"? Politrukki (talk) 09:49, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

DS violations

You recently violated discretionary sanctions (consensus required provision or 1RR) on several pages:

Brett Kavanaugh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• 16:07, 18 September – challenge

Too late to self-revert your violation now, but this was really egregious violation as you very well knew I was removing unsourced material per BLP.

Trump–Russia dossier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

1. 16:02, 18 September – First revert
2. 16:05, 18 September – Second revert and violation of both 1RR and "consensus required" page restriction. Challenges (where I challenged some edits in full or partially):
   • (and this is the second time you edit war same or similar edit into the article, in violation of DS)
   • , and

Please self-revert.

You also removed helpful inline maintenance tags without fixing or addressing any of the obvious problems, which is not in violation of DS per se, but is unconstructive. Politrukki (talk) 09:11, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Those aren't two reverts. It's one reverts. And it's me challenging YOUR removal of long standing text. You got it backwards buddy. Volunteer Marek 13:53, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

(There might be one exception there in your edits in term of new material, hold on let me look at it again). Volunteer Marek 13:57, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

This is a challenge to your POV WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT removal. Volunteer Marek 16:07, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Poppycock. Did you read my edit summary? I was very clear that I was removing original research. Try assuming good faith or prove me wrong citing a policy.

What I don't like is that someone conducts original research to push their POV. Brennan's statement is in no way a reaction to the dossier, hence it does not belong to Trump–Russia dossier#Reactions. It is also not directly related to the dossier, hence it would be original research to use it in the dossier article. The connection must be made explicitly in the source. If you cannot answer a simple question "What does this source say about the Steele dossier?", the source should not be used in the article. Why something so obvious has to explained to you?

Even if you were right that this is long-standing content, and you are not, you should not game the system to push non-policy compliant content to the article. Compare this to your reaction when someone else adds OR and invokes discretionary sanctions: #1, #2 Politrukki (talk) 18:34, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

This is actually YOU violating the DS restriction by removing text even though the removal has been challenged. Volunteer Marek 16:11, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Nice distraction. There was never consensus to include this material. You did not even to bother to participate the conversation when this was discussed. Politrukki (talk) 18:34, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

I guess the only possible DS restriction violation by me would be this, since that was added recently, but even that's not clear, since it wasn't that recently. And even there, you not only removed that paragraph but you got sneaky and had previously removed another sentence (" with the notable exception of Putin's answer at the July 2018 Helsinki summit,") which had been in the article for quite awhile and which addressed the same topic. So it very much looked like you were removing long standing content, even though some of it was indeed more recent. Anyway, I restored the original version. Volunteer Marek 16:16, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Your allegations are simply false. "some of it was indeed more recent" can only mean a September 12 edit by BullRangifer, which adds original research (that you liked so much that you just had to knee-jerk revert the content back into the article when I removed it) and correctly removes unsourced content "with the notable exception of Putin's answer at the July 2018 Helsinki summit" (what does this even mean?).

By reinstating the content BullRangifer challenged, you just committed another violation of the page restrictions. And now you contact me with your vexatious accusations. Will nothing stop this disruption? Politrukki (talk) 18:34, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

"Restore"?

https://en.wikipedia.org/Special:MobileDiff/860283558

BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 17:33, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

See above. It's confusing. Volunteer Marek 17:48, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Ah! I see now. So what's the end of this going to be? We should at least keep the sources. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:43, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Alfa server

https://en.wikipedia.org/Special:MobileDiff/860142150

Not minor. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 17:40, 19 September 2018 (UTC)