Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:26, 30 June 2013

Welcome!

Welcome to Misplaced Pages, the 💕! You don't have to log in to read or edit articles on Misplaced Pages, but if you wish to acquire additional privileges, you can simply create an account. It's free, requires no personal information, and lets you:

• Create new pages, and customize the appearance and behavior of the website
• Rename pages
• Edit semi-protected pages
• Upload images
• Have your own watchlist, which shows when articles you are interested in have changed
• Utilize a vast array of editing tools

In addition, your IP address will no longer be visible to other users.

Happy editing! Epeefleche (talk) 23:57, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

What are you talking about?

I haven't communicated with Legacypac since he was blocked. I have avoided participating in the threads where he is still throwing mud at me. My major concern was always his breaches of BLP, and obviously they have stopped (apart from his attacks upon me). Yet you write "This feud between Legacy and HiLo needs to end now. Both have behaved poorly. They need to cease initiating any contact with or about the other." You are not paying attention. HiLo48 (talk) 23:43, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

You are apparently referring to this discussion on Legacy's talk page, and this comment in particular. Apparently, you didn't read my message carefully. I suggest you re-read the last sentence, which refers to both of you needing to "cease initiating any contact with or about each other". While you may not have initatied any contact with him, the problem is that you have yet to stop initiating contact about him. To put it simply, you keep talking about him to other editors. For proof, see the following diffs. I included only the 12 most recent ones.

23:30, 15 May 2013

08:32, 15 May 2013

08:21, 15 May 2013

08:17, 15 May 2013

05:55, 15 May 2013

01:19, 15 May 2013

00:54, 15 May 2013

00:02, 15 May 2013

23:57, 14 May 2013

23:55, 14 May 2013

09:31, 14 May 2013

09:22, 14 May 2013

I'll repeat to you a great piece of advice that admin Drmies gave to Legacy (regarding you): "it's time to stop concerning yourself with him". Move on. Legacy received a harassment warning for making negative comments about you, and the same thing is going to happen to you if you don't stop. I don't want to see either one of you getting blocked. I have no idea how all of this hostility between the two of you developed, and really don't want to know, but many editors are unfortunately very familiar with both of you. For the wrong reasons. An editor's reputation is everything on here. And you both now have the opportunity to fix that. Editing on Misplaced Pages should be a pleasant experience. I wish you the best of luck. 76.189.109.155 (talk) 01:18, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• If you don't mind, I'll endorse and add to this. HiLo, I made the comments I made to Legacypac because at that time you weren't invoking their name everywhere--or at least I wasn't aware of it. IP76 is entirely right--I will warn you also for this plethora of edits which adds up to harassment, and if you don't stop making them you might find yourself blocked as well. I had really hoped that this would be over by now; as far as I can tell Legacypac was going to leave you alone and I thought you'd be doing the same. IP76, thanks for the note and for allowing me to use this beautiful talk page of yours. Drmies (talk) 01:30, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I didn't report Legacypac to AN/I and cop a Boommerang block. He reported me, and got blocked. I didn't start the sock puppet case (nor even comment there) which gave Legacypac another opportunity to throw mud at me. I have done absolutely nothing wrong in this case. All I did was defend articles against his blatant BLP breaches, for which he has now been blocked. He appears unable to accept the reality that he is in the wrong here. I HAVE DONE NOTHING WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!! He continues to condemn and attack me, and he suffers no consequences. How can that be right. To say "I have no idea how all of this hostility between the two of you developed, and really don't want to know" is not being a very wise judge. It really does matter who did or did not do something. I DID NOTHING WRONG! I will stop now. My intention right from the start was to defend Misplaced Pages. I can see your point on that front. But the justice system on Misplaced Pages is appalling. (See my User page for further thoughts on the matter if you wish.) HiLo48 (talk) 01:37, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• HiLo, I'm very disappointed in your response. Beyond the inappropriate tone (caps, exclamation points, anger, etc.), you unfortunately disregarded the most vital point, which was that "it's time to stop concerning yourself with him". The fact that you came back here and yet again posted hostile comments about the other editor, just seven minutes after an administrator issued an explicit harassment warning to you about doing that, honestly amazes me. The mistakes by the other editor are irrelevant at this point. The issue now is about the future, not the past. You cannot control the actions of other editors; you can only control your own. My other concern is your apparent inability, or perhaps unwillingness, to accept or admit to your own inappropriate actions. To insist three times - twice by shouting - that you have done absolutely nothing wrong is an indication that you're likely to continue having problems with other editors going forward. For starters, I'd refer you to the list of diffs above. Regarding your statement that I am not "a very wise judge", I don't take offense to that because I have no interest in being a judge, nor in issuing some type of scorecard for the two of you. This is not a boxing match. For the record, you made a serious allegation that the other editor "continues to condemn and attack" you. If that's in fact the case, I'm sure Drimes would be interested in seeing the diffs that support your claim. With regard to your user page, you seem to have quite a bit of anger and frustration with regard to the project. I hope that things change for you in a way that will allow editing to be a happy experience for you. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 03:21, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh, Drmies knows about a lot of them, but I'm not going down that path any more. And all those diffs above came after I was inappropriately reported, and were attempts on my part to either defend myself, or express despair at the inability of Misplaced Pages to control an out of control editor. I won't apologise, but I've stopped. This all leads back to where it all started. An editor was doing something wrong on the BLP front, in both articles and on Talk pages. I was one of several to try to stop him. I don't think I did it significantly differently from the others. But it led to him reporting just me, wrongly. It led to this. Now I am wondering about the future. (I do that when things turn pear shaped. I can be quite reflective.) I will see future breaches of policy. I will be tempted to attempt to stop them. I probably won't be able to help myself. Those I try to stop breaking the rules may get cranky again, and blame me publicly for their troubles. Will the cycle just continue? Should I give up on defending Misplaced Pages? HiLo48 (talk) 03:41, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

HiLo48 (talk) 03:45, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

A cupcake for you!

Thanks for improving Bryton James! -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:52, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Yum, I love cupcakes. Thanks for the kind gesture. :) --76.189.109.155 (talk) 03:23, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Wow, that is gross! Haha. I just lost my appetite, Drmies. :p 76.189.109.155 (talk) 01:35, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I tell you what, the real thing isn't nearly half as disgusting as it may seem from the recipe. Very strange. You can ask Kelapstick, who made one and provided pictures for in the article. Drmies (talk) 01:38, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Deface warning

Don’t deface other’s User page. If you post to AN/I, then you are an experienced user and should understand that a User: page it is not the place for postings. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 05:14, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Wow, I didn't realize I did that. I clicked the wrong button. Thanks for letting me know! And please remember WP:AGF, I certainly didn't intend to put it on the wrong page. I have posted it on the editor's talk page and apologized for the error. I must be very tired. ;) --76.189.109.155 (talk) 05:20, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Btw, I see that you've had disputes with a number of other editors who have warned you about not assuming good faith, making personal attacks, and posting insensitive and other uncivil comments. Here are a few examples: I hope you will treat other editors in a more respectful manner. And if you feel that someone has violated any polices or guidelines and is not willing to discuss it with you, then report it at the proper venue. Thanks. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 07:32, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad to see that an admin intervened in this matter. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 21:07, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

For making me laugh at User talk:Yunshui#Move-protected article

Matticusmadness has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

For both the above and for making me laugh at User talk:Yunshui#Move-protected article. MM (Report findings) 10:54, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Welcome! Interested in becoming a regular contributor to Misplaced Pages? Create an account! Your IP address, 76.189.109.155, is part of a pool of dynamically allocated addresses and is registered to a Road Runner subscriber in Cleveland, Ohio. It may be shared by multiple users, so you might receive messages on this page that were not intended for you. To have your own user pages, keep track of articles you've edited in a watchlist, and have access to a few other special features, please consider registering an account! It's fast and free. (Note: Sometimes, due to vandalism, you may be temporarily unable to register). Applying an indefinite block to this IP is not appropriate, unless it is a soft block, because the IP address will later be reallocated to a different, unrelated, and unsuspecting user, thereby impairing access to Misplaced Pages in an inappropriate fashion. Caution should be used when blocking this IP or reverting its contributions without checking. The best approach is to determine the CIDR IP numerical address range and make a higher-level decision to soft-block the entire range. http://www.arin.net/ (for approximately North America) and related sites can help to identify that range. Caution is advised when applying a range block as other Wikipedians, both registered and otherwise, may be affected. In the event of vandalism from this IP address, abuse reports can be sent to its network administrator for investigation. Review contributions carefully if blocking this IP address or reverting its contributions. If a block is needed, administrators should consider a soft block using Template:Anonblock. Network administrators, to monitor this IP address for vandalism, can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.

Clarification

Hi, 76., long time. I hesitate to post this message, but I wanted to clarify one piece of the imbroglio at ANI because it seems to have gotten lost in the shuffle. You can feel free to remove this if you wish, and if others besides you and me become involved (hopefully not), I will probably bow out because it is not my intention to reopen the ANI discussion on your talk page. You don't even have to read this if you don't want to as it's quite detailed. I won't be offended.

First, I wanted to thank you for your participation at ANI. I may not agree with everything you said, but you made a valiant effort to be even-handed, and, even more important, you didn't bother me on my talk page. :-)

The key thing I want to clarify is that when the IP came to ANI, his (I am going to use the male gender - I don't know the gender of the IP) talk page was not protected:

• The IP's block expired at 15:37 on June 7. ()
• His talk page protection expired at 16:31 on June 7. () When I protected the page on May 24, I tried to synchronize the expiration of protection with the expiration of the block, but I wasn't particularly concerned if it wasn't exact as it didn't seem that important to me.
• The IP's first edit after expiration of the block was at 21:40 on June 7, hours after protection of his talk page expired, and it was the opening of the discussion at ANI. (contribution history and edit to ANI)
• The IP's second edit was at 22:13 on June 7, when he edited his own talk page. ().
• My first (and not very friendly) comment at ANI was after the IP had edited their own talk page. It was at 22:24 on June 7. ()
• Because the IP's request was to unprotect his talk page and because it was clear the talk page was unprotected, I closed the discussion two minutes later at 22:26 on June 7. ()
• Another admin reopened the topic, and the rest of the discussion isn't part of this clarification.

The one thing missing from this timeline is whether the IP knew his talk page was unprotected. As I mentioned, his first post to ANI was hours after it was unprotected. However, it is possible that sometime between the block expiration and the protection expiration (less than an hour), the IP saw he couldn't edit his own talk page but didn't check again until after he posted to ANI. At the point the IP next posted to ANI, the page was re-protected, but I don't understand why the IP never acknowledged that he could edit his own talk page earlier, at least once.

If you got this far, I hope all of the above is understandable and that you can see all the links (I don't think there are any that only admins can see). Take care.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:08, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Bbb. Thank you. Yes, I tried my best to even-handed at the AN/I and I thank you for recognizing that. Perhaps the most important point missed or misunderstood in all of my participation over the past few weeks is that I never condoned any of 68's behavior when it has been uncivil, which I realize has been often. In fact, it has been my biggest frustration with him. Trying to help someone when they're not trying to help themselves is a very difficult position to be in. I stated my thoughts on this repeatedly, not only to 68 directly but also to all of the editors involved.

However, I did (and still do) agree with 68 on a few of the important policy and sanction issues, and about the fact that other editors at times were clearly uncivil or overly-harsh with him. In terms of the way he was being treated sometimes, my primary concern was that all those involved were well aware of the fact that 68 is extremely sensitive and has a very short fuse, which typically results in him being very defensive and seeing all issues as black and white; basically, that's he's right about the selective issues he chooses to focus on and everyone else is wrong. And for those points by other editors with which he may actually agree, he simply chooses not to acknowledge them rather than taking a balanced approach and letting others know when he thinks they've said something fair and accurate. So, if everyone was extremely familiar with his temperment, I don't understand why so many editors, especially admins, sometimes chose not to de-intensify their approach when dealing with him and try to calm things down. Frankly, it boggled my mind how some appeared to purposely push his buttons when they knew exactly what the reaction and result would be. There are times when it's very important to rise above the inappropriate behavior of someone else, particularly when they already see the entire world as being against them, so that there will be a much better chance for resolving the matter peacefully.

I definitely do not want to rehash the entire AN/I, but I'll briefly clarify a few points myself. First, my understanding was that 68 started the AN/I solely to have the protection removed from his talk page which was preventing other IP editors, not himself, from commenting there. Although I had no intention of posting on his talk page again, I did check to see if I would be able to. I was not. There was no edit button. Surely, if you or another admin had simply removed the protection to begin with, last night's newest war never would've happened. However, as I said to 68 in the AN/I, I don't understand why he chose to go straight to AN/I (his first edit after his block expired), instead of just politely asking you to remove the protection.

As you indicated, 68 started the AN/I at 21:40, 7 June 2013, many hours after the talk protection was supposed to end. I didn't even become aware of the AN/I until around 02:00, 8 June 2013. At that point, 68's talk page was indeed protected against IP editing. I hadn't look at the log history; all I knew was that the edit button was not there and IPs were inexplicably being prevented from communicating with 68 even though his block was long over.

Your timeline above ended with the other admin (Toddst1) re-opening the AN/I two minutes after you had closed it. So here are a few diffs, beginning at that point, which bring up a few questions:

• 22:28, 7 June 2013, Toddst1, (→‎My Talk Page Needs To Be Unprotected: unarchive - sorry BBB)
• 22:31, 7 June 2013, Toddst1, (restoring shared IP info, improperly removed per WP:BLANKING)
• 22:34, 7 June 2013, Toddst1 (Undid revision 554177652 by Zzuuzz (talk) - can't see any consensus for this - quite some opposition)
• 22:39, 7 June 2013, Bbb23, m (Protected User talk:68.50.128.91: WP:BLANKING (removing shared templates) ( (expires 22:39, 14 June 2013 (UTC)) (expires 22:39, 14 June 2013 (UTC))))
• 22:54, 7 June 2013, Bbb23, (→‎My Talk Page Needs To Be Unprotected: protection comment)

For those last two diffs, I don't understand why you (a) re-added the talk page protection, and (b) said "If any admin wants to lift the protection I imposed on the IP's talk page because of the confusion, feel free", instead of just simply doing it yourself and putting an end to the unnecessary drama.

I am also troubled by the fact that Toddst1 restored the shared IP template on 68's talk page - as if 68 did something wrong - and then, amazingly, added (back) the shared IP template exclusion to WP:BLANKING three minutes later. Obviously, when 68 removed the template, WP:BLANKING allowed it. Some might easily assume that Todd was purposely being surreptitious, based on the chronology of those two edits. Todd's edit summary to 68 said "restoring shared IP info, improperly removed per WP:BLANKING" even though it was not true at the time he posted it. And even if Todd assumed that the shared IP template exclusion was contained in WP:BLANKING when he posted that edit summary, why didn't he go back to 68 after he (Todd) edited WP:BLANKING and fully disclose what he had done? He should have said to 68 something like, "I realize that WP:BLANKING appeared to allow you to remove that template at the time you did it, so you didn't do anything wrong. However, I just discovered that another editor inappropriately removed that exclusion from WP:BLANKING a few weeks ago; therefore, I just restored it."

In any case, I'm sad to say that based on 68's ongoing behavior pattern, I believe if he continues editing as an IP it will eventually result in an extremely long or even indefinite ban from editing. I sincerely believe that it is indeed possible for an IP editor to have such a damaged reputation, that it would be nearly impossible to repair it. I think registered editors have a much better chance at redeeming themselves with other editors if they change their bad ways because they don't have that huge "IP stigma" attached to them. IPs are behind the eight ball to begin with. Registered editors are not.

--76.189.109.155 (talk) 16:03, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the reason the edit button wasn't there when you looked was because I reimposed protection. I just wanted you to understand that it wasn't protected when the IP came to ANI. As for what Todd did, what the IP did, and what I did, I don't want to get into that. I understand you have concerns, but it's too complicated for me to explain, and if I didn't feel like explaining it at ANI (hence, my letting other admins know that they could remove the protection - and there were a lot of admins watching), I really don't want to go into it here. I hope you understand. Thanks for taking the time to read everything I wrote.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:32, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Oz

That's twice you've been right today and twice I've been wrong. What a world ... when IPs are right and admins are wrong. I'm melting, I'm melting. BTW, no aspersions against Bishonen, please, who is an outstanding admin.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:05, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Haha! Don't worry, you've worked hard all week so you get to slack off a little on the weekend. And IPs get to be right up to three times per month, so I have one more to go. I understand Bishonen's response; she just misunderstood and was rightly trying to protect you. I'm sure she's a great admin. :) --76.189.109.155 (talk) 00:24, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Admin Board Submission

There is an submission to Admin Notice boards that concerns you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CSDarrow (talk • contribs) 02:42, 11 June 2013‎(UTC)

I see things did not work out well for you, as I had advised you ahead of time. In the future, don't make inapprorpriate edits and then go around falsely calling admins bullies when they are simply doing their jobs. Also, please remember to always sign your comments on talk pages and other discussion pages. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 16:05, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

wow

has it really been 7 years? sheesh... and I'm about to file my first DYK, for Kristin Beck - take a look if you like and wanna help improve... --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 06:18, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Haha, I figured you didn't even realize it was your Wikianniversary. Nice going! Btw, I noticed that in those seven years, you've never been blocked. That's very impressive and gives you a lot of credibility. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 15:58, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I intend to keep it that way. Had a few close shaves... :) --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:12, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Totally understandable. Being on for a such a long time will certainly guarantee that you'll get into at least a few scuffles. Haha. Anyway, congratulations my friend. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 16:41, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

cheers. Mind if I ask why the ip? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:45, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

No, I don't mind at all. If I get to the point where editing routinely becomes a very pleasant experience for me, then I'll be much more likely to create an account. Often, it is. But there's also way too much unnecessary drama and hostility, as you well know. Interestingly, I've come across numerous (static) IPs who have been editing beautifully for years, while also seeing many registered users who are very disruptive. WP:HUMAN, an essay that I feel is really important, says that "while most vandalism (80%) is generated by IP editors, over 80% of edits by unregistered users were not vandalism". I think that's a very intriguing statistic. So it's really about the person who's editing, not the type of account they have. Sadly, though, the reality is that unregistered editors, generally speaking, are treated much less favorably than registered ones. If I haven't already done so by then, I promise to register for an account on your 10th anniversary. But if you ever get blocked, then it'll be on your 11th. By then, you'll be an admin. :) --76.189.109.155 (talk) 17:18, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

ok - I think IPs maybe get treated a bit less well because they can just disappear, they aren't really committing to an identity. They're also hard to remember, so its harder to build a relationship and then recall that your best friend is 67.58 while your worst enemy is 67.34....etc. Anyway, I hope you do register someday, but I probably won't be an admin, not really a path that interests me, plus I've crossed swords with some powerful dragons in the past and they'd probably kill my chances... Perhaps you could put up an identifiable image/logo/somethign on your talk, so when people comeby they remember it's you and not some other random ip? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:13, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Haha, I loved your comment, "its harder to build a relationship and then recall that your best friend is 67.58 while your worst enemy is 67.34". That really made me laugh. It's a good point, though. :) --76.189.109.155 (talk) 21:16, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Black Forest fire

Thanks for the help at Black Forest fire! You might have a look at WP:CITECLUTTER, which explains why I don't think adding a bunch of extra inline citations after one claim really adds anything to the article, especially when most of them simply repeat the same information provided by local sources. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 06:38, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

1. You removed several mainstream reliable sources and used this invalid edit summary to explain why: "Five citations for this is a bit excessive, and these are not the best quality sources, but several local news sources already cited elsewhere in the article also post the claim."
2. Any time a a major claim is made in an article - such as "It is the most destructive fire in the state's history" - it necessitates numerous reliable sources to verify it. Many articles include numerous cites to verify major claims; some far more than five. For example, Roger Federer properly uses 13 cites to verify the lead sentence that says, "Many commentators and former and current players regard Federer as the greatest tennis player of all time." I used just five.
3. Per WP:LEADCITE, even if particular content is sourced in the body of the article, is still needs to be properly sourced in the lead if challenged or requested by an editor.
4. WP:CITECLUTTER, which you referenced, is merely an essay, not a policy or even guideline. It contains opinions, which in this case are not widespread viewspoints. Many articles use five (or even more) cites to verify major claims.
5. Because there was numerous cites (five), I created a footnote to eliminate the clutter. So no clutter problem even existed, which makes your inexplicable removal of the footnote very perplexing.
6. Your implication that "local news sources" are better than national or international mainstream sources is simply false and certainly not a majority view.
7. Your claim that the Chicago Sun-Times, Associated Press, New York Times, and Washington Times "are not the best quality sources" is - for lack of a better descritpion - ludicrous.
8. Please do not remove valid, mainstream sources from an article that are used to verify important content.
9. You left this edit summary for another editor. It is highly inappropriate, so please do not do that again.
10. If you want to discuss this matter further, please do so on the article's talk page, not on my talk page.

Thank you. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 16:51, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Join Misplaced Pages!

You should really join Misplaced Pages. You have every skill that an editor needs, and you could have a good chance at becoming an admin. If you are unsure why, look at WP:WCAA. 71.251.170.71 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:56, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Uh, thanks. I think. But I'm confused. You're an IP too and your very first edit is to tell me to create an account. Am I on Candid Camera? Haha. And if you want to know more about why I have not registered, you can read this thread from above. ;) --76.189.109.155 (talk) 01:05, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

My account isn't working, so I'm stuck on my IP. You can see my regular account here. User:Buffbills7701 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.251.172.116 (talk) 16:26, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh, now I understand! Thanks for the update. :) --76.189.109.155 (talk) 19:17, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Nadal

Go to his talk page, I have sandboxed a new version to see if you like it.HotHat (talk) 02:41, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know, my friend. I have replied on the Nadal talk page and put my suggested changes in your sandbox. :) --76.189.109.155 (talk) 04:22, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Just let me know if you need anymore changes to the article in question or another article if needed. I have posted it, but I will make changes if you change anything on my sandbox page.HotHat (talk) 06:26, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I have fixed it to the ATP change.HotHat (talk) 06:32, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you so much, HH. Everything looks great! --76.189.109.155 (talk) 06:34, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Ed Markey page

I wrote:

"From 1976 to 2013 he served as the U.S. Representative for Massachusetts's 5th and 7th ditricts, which includes most of Boston's northern and western suburbs, such as Medford, and Framingham."

Now, please tell me where 2013 appears twice in the same sentence.

I hate getting into edit wars with other contributors, but I think I'm right. Billmckern (talk) 13:27, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

First, although I'm sure your edit was well intended, the edit was improper first and foremost because Markey is still officially a member of the House of Representatives, which was explained to you in the original revert. The text cannot be changed to say it was in the past until that actually happens. You also spelled "districts" incorrectly in this edit; you typed "ditricts". Now, as far as you using 2013 twice in the same sentence, I gave you the exact time and date in this edit summary to show you where you did it. Apparently, you didn't notice the redundancy, so I'll show it to you now (with the two 2013 mentions bolded), from this edit you made. Before you changed it, the sentence said, "Since 1976, he has served as the U.S. Representative for Massachusetts's 5th congressional district (the 7th district until 2013), which includes most of Boston's northern and western suburbs, such as Medford and Framingham." You changed it to, "From 1976 to 2013 he served as the U.S. Representative for Massachusetts's 5th congressional district (the 7th district until 2013), which includes most of Boston's northern and western suburbs, such as Medford and Framingham." So 2013 was already mentioned in the middle of the original sentence, but you added it again at the beginning of the sentence. For any further discussion about the article, please use the article's talk page. Thanks. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 13:47, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

That's not redundant at all. It's a distinction between the numbers of the House districts he represented Billmckern (talk) 14:14, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

First you claimed that you didn't include 2013 twice in the same sentence. And now that I've shown that you did, you're now inexplicably giving an explanation of why. The original/current sentence already says "Since 1976", which obviously means "to the present", and the use of 2013 in the middle explains when the district changed from the 7th to the 5th. We've spent far too much time on this issue already; it was already clearly explained via edit summaries. Please do not post on my talk page about this matter any more. I've already asked you to please use the article's talk page from now on to discuss article content. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 14:24, 26 June 2013 (UTC)