| Revision as of 06:45, 5 March 2014 editSteeletrap (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users10,937 edits rmv false (and even if s/he disagrees, hypocritical) allegations of stalking← Previous edit | Revision as of 02:38, 13 March 2014 edit undoSrich32977 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers300,320 edits →RP Newsletter edits: new sectionNext edit → | ||
| Line 58: | Line 58: | ||
| Comments about user block logs are not advisable on article talk pages. – ] (]) 16:00, 3 March 2014 (UTC) | Comments about user block logs are not advisable on article talk pages. – ] (]) 16:00, 3 March 2014 (UTC) | ||
| :Also, Srich, it was poor judgment for you to encourage that editor on his talk page recently. That editor is stepping into a discussion without regard to its history and is repeatedly reverting the stable version rather than engaging in talk. ]] 16:04, 3 March 2014 (UTC) | :Also, Srich, it was poor judgment for you to encourage that editor on his talk page recently. That editor is stepping into a discussion without regard to its history and is repeatedly reverting the stable version rather than engaging in talk. ]] 16:04, 3 March 2014 (UTC) | ||
| == RP Newsletter edits == | |||
| Six of your seven recent edits on ] were problematic. 1. Here you tried to add an additional, unneeded wikilink on Rockwell, but only succeeded in creating a redlink. 2. Here you "editorialized" by adding the descriptive term "dedicated". 3. Here you added a ] comment "supposedly". 4. Here you cleaned up an "allegedly" problem, but you added editorial comment that was confusing and contained grammatical errors ("authored authored"). 5. This one is good. You fixed a CLAIM problem. 6. Here you added editorial language ("scandal broke"). And you fixed a syntax problem. 7. Here you added info about the "Animals" comment that was already part of the article, but which actually is not supported by the reference (e.g., the Animals comment is about urban conditions and not African Americans in particular.) And it was ungrammatical ("Another newsletters..."). In the 7 edits, only 2 had edit summaries and 1 of the 2 was to editorialize about Ron Paul's lack of eloquence. IMO, your last edit shows you were more driven by POV than by desire to improve Misplaced Pages. Please note that 25 subsequent edits by myself and another editor did a lot to clean up the lousy referencing on the article. If you had taken the effort to do that cleanup, I'd be praising you. Instead I must simply say I am disappointed. Thank you. – ] (]) 02:38, 13 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 02:38, 13 March 2014
| This is Steeletrap's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments. |
|
| Archives: 1, 2 |
Tu ne cede malis
|
The Austria Barnstar of National Merit | |
| Presented to User Steeletrap.
For tireless editing to improve difficult articles on WP SPECIFICO talk 21:31, 4 May 2013 (UTC) |
A cupcake for you!
|
Happy Halloween back at you. :) Arzel (talk) 02:47, 1 November 2013 (UTC) |
- Thank you very much Arzel. I will have to break my diet to eat your treat! Steeletrap (talk) 03:36, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
A kitten for you!
I hope you like kitty. Thanks for your sweet Halloween surprise, Steele.
SPECIFICO talk 03:24, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
- Kitty is adorable. I will take good care of her. Steeletrap (talk) 03:34, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
And one for Caroldc
This is for Carolmooredc, leaving it here for pickup.. I hope you enjoy this pussy cat!
SPECIFICO talk 03:42, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Happy Halloween Carol Moore!
 |
Trick or Treat! Happy Halloween User:Carolmooredc! I am out of baked goods but I brought you this Jack-o-Lantern. I am banned from your page but you should come over here and pick it up! I hope you enjoyed your night and picked out a good costume.Steeletrap (talk) 02:54, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
|
A barnstar for you!
|
The Civility Barnstar |
| Congratulations indeed, and thanks for your civil service here at WP. Personally, I think this is one of the ugliest barnstars there is, but what the hell? Enjoy it in good health. SPECIFICO talk 22:21, 25 November 2013 (UTC) |
Article talk page comments
Comments about user block logs are not advisable on article talk pages. – S. Rich (talk) 16:00, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
- Also, Srich, it was poor judgment for you to encourage that editor on his talk page recently. That editor is stepping into a discussion without regard to its history and is repeatedly reverting the stable version rather than engaging in talk. SPECIFICO talk 16:04, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
RP Newsletter edits
Six of your seven recent edits on Ron Paul newsletters were problematic. 1. Here you tried to add an additional, unneeded wikilink on Rockwell, but only succeeded in creating a redlink. 2. Here you "editorialized" by adding the descriptive term "dedicated". 3. Here you added a WP:CLAIM comment "supposedly". 4. Here you cleaned up an "allegedly" problem, but you added editorial comment that was confusing and contained grammatical errors ("authored authored"). 5. This one is good. You fixed a CLAIM problem. 6. Here you added editorial language ("scandal broke"). And you fixed a syntax problem. 7. Here you added info about the "Animals" comment that was already part of the article, but which actually is not supported by the reference (e.g., the Animals comment is about urban conditions and not African Americans in particular.) And it was ungrammatical ("Another newsletters..."). In the 7 edits, only 2 had edit summaries and 1 of the 2 was to editorialize about Ron Paul's lack of eloquence. IMO, your last edit shows you were more driven by POV than by desire to improve Misplaced Pages. Please note that 25 subsequent edits by myself and another editor did a lot to clean up the lousy referencing on the article. If you had taken the effort to do that cleanup, I'd be praising you. Instead I must simply say I am disappointed. Thank you. – S. Rich (talk) 02:38, 13 March 2014 (UTC)