Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:41, 8 June 2010

3RR

Your conduct at Lesbian kiss episode nears breaching the three revert rule. There are multiple and abundant sources that support the term "lesbian kiss episode". Rather than simply applying a non-applicable tag to the article, I strongly encourage you to review the thousands of sources that use the term. Simply slapping a "I'm unfamiliar with the term so it's made up despite the many sources for it" tag is non-productive. Otto4711 (talk) 13:07, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Fagbug

Will you be posting on the discussion page to support your placement of the notability and neologism tags on that article, or shall I remove them? Exploding Boy (talk) 15:50, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Supporters of traditional marriage in the United States

If it interests you to add to or change the title of the page Supporters of traditional marriage in the United States. The germ of the idea was to journal the political movement behind traditional marriage.Mrdthree (talk) 21:51, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Rollback on NoM

Please don't use the rollback feature for non-vandalism. APK that's not my name 02:32, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

September 2009

I've noticed you edit warring a bit to re-introduce content attributed to unreliable sources. Although you may not have initially added the source you become the editor responsible by reintroducing it. In the longer run you likely want your edits to stick, not just for the moment. The best way to do this is with NPOV writing and strong, reliable sources. -- Banjeboi 15:16, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

GLSEN

The sources that you insist on using for Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network are inappropriate. Onenewsnow actually has a filter on their site to change every instance of "gay" to "homosexual". Their bias is disgusting. And don't even get me started on WND (wing nut daily). Find better sources for the controversy section. I'm sure there are some out there. Also, since the section is so small you may want to try incorporating it into the article. That's probably not something you want to do though since it would make a gay article look better. Your bias is also disgusting. Tony877 (talk) 20:36, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Seriously dude, Misplaced Pages:Reliable Sources#Statements of opinion, read it and get back to me. We can use ONN and WND as sources for what ONN and WND think, also, take it easy on the personal stuff. - Schrandit (talk) 20:39, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

If you're so insistent on keeping them as refs, i would think that making note of them being right-wing conservative christian claims would help people understand why they're so 'controversial' (and help them understand the biased nature of the criticisms and reports, which in itself is controversial). As presented, the refs come across like the reports are merely a repetition of 'known facts', which is patently untrue. Hiroe (talk) 20:53, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

With terms like "Criticized" and "Allegedly" I don't see how any rational observer would see that as anything other than a criticism section, the fact that that section is labeled "Controversies" only furthers this portrait. If you think you can improve upon the language by my guest. - Schrandit (talk) 00:15, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I've been observing that edit war and those sources are not reliable. That is a far right extremist website/ref and is not appropriate on wikipedia. You wouldn't like a Keith Olbermann source for the Fox news channel, yes? So, let's be a little more realistic. Thank you Tdinatale (talk) 23:37, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Per Misplaced Pages:Reliable Sources#Statements of opinion I absolutely, positively would use a Keith Olberman source on a Fox news channel article in order to source an opinion of Mr. Olberman's. We have guidelines about these things you know. - Schrandit (talk) 00:15, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Edit war

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network. 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. HalfShadow 20:56, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I found some sources for controversy. The old "reliable source" is just a catch all to censor facts. Don't get discouraged. Bachcell (talk) 04:42, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Girlfag

Will you be posting on the discussion page to support your placement of the deletion tag on that article, or shall I remove it? Your placement of the tag is well within your repeated behavior of Disruptive editing; so without firm explanation of why you feel deletion is necessary, the assumption will be made that you tagged the article simply because it is not in line with your known personal bias. Hiroe (talk) 21:29, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Don't play that shit with me son. I play by the rules, if you think I don't then bring it ANI. Come at me with a personal attack like that again and I'll see you there. - Schrandit (talk) 00:15, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Why the COI tags on LGBT related articles?

Can you please explain why you put conflict of interest tags on several LGBT related articles, such as R Family Vacations and Dykes on Bikes? Scarykitty (talk) 21:40, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

addition of 'conflict of interest' tag to Hank Wilson

greetings:

you placed a conflict of interest tag to Hank Wilson. could you provide more information please? you mentioned nothing about this on the talk page. badmachine (talk) 04:49, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Peaches Christ

Despite my explanation on the talk page, see Talk:Peaches Christ, you decided to readd the COI tag to this article without explanation, rather than discuss. As I explained there, hardly any of the current information was added by Benjiboi, but most of it was already present before he ever touched the article. Therefore, there is no need for a COI tag. --Reinoutr (talk) 10:54, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Good work

Thanks for helping out with the Mass Safe Schools incident. I've massaged it a bit. Check out the Robert Wone story, but careful, a guy got topic banned in 12 hrs for stating that it was a LBGTQ on straight incident. Bachcell (talk) 16:29, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

October 2009

I'm disappointed you continued to edit war to reinsert contested material. I have asked for more eyes at Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#User:Schrandit and Soulforce .28organization.29. -- Banjeboi 18:09, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

And the same to you sir. - Schrandit (talk) 18:14, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I see that you have also been accused of running that new account. what's the next unfounded accusation going to be? That we are the same person? --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:07, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Changes

Thank you very much for your recent efforts to improve Misplaced Pages. Unfortunately, I felt it necessary to revert some of them because the explanations were either incomplete, misleading or missing. I hope you understand that this is in no way personal and your valued contributions are not being singled out. In the future, your changes are much more likely to be accepted if you explained them in the associated discussion pages in advance and obtained a consensus among interested editors. 69.121.221.174 (talk) 00:11, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

To: 69.121.221.174 and Schrandit

(copied to User talk:69.121.221.174, User talk:Schrandit, and User talk:Kevinkor2.)

Hi 69.121.221.174 and Schrandit,

Since I am monitoring the page, Focus on the Family, I noticed 69.121.221.174 making edits and Schrandit undoing them.

Because I was concerned about this, I looked at all of 69.121.221.174's recent changes. Some of his/her changes involved terminology about 'mother' vs. 'pregnant woman' for a person who is pregnant who has not given birth yet. Of these changes that 69.121.221.174 has made, most were undone by Schrandit.

• undone:
  • Pro-life movement
  • Abortion and mental health
  • Indirect abortion
  • Ethical aspects of abortion
  • Beginning of human personhood
• some not undone:
  • Christianity and abortion
  • Religion and abortion
  • Pro-choice

Some of 69.121.221.174 changes that did not involve this dispute were also undone by Schrandit:

• Same-sex marriage and the family
• Focus on the Family
• History of lesbianism

I recommend that the dispute, 'mother' vs. 'pregnant woman', be taken to the talk page of Religion and abortion.

I also recommend that Schrandit and 69.121.221.174 not change terminology in bulk until the dispute is resolved.

--Kevinkor2 (talk) 00:22, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to Misplaced Pages. The project's content policies require that all articles be written from a neutral point of view, and not introduce bias or give undue weight to viewpoints. Please bear this in mind when making edits such as your recent edit to Abortion and mental health. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 04:42, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

You know you've got the consensus behind you...

when someone reverts all of your recent edits, but you don't have to lift a finger to fix them. 69.121.221.174 (talk) 06:06, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually hun, I can punch the revert button just as fast as you can (probably faster because I have rollback) but I'd prefer to do this on the talk page, as[REDACTED] policy mandates. Don't worry about it though, everything is revertible, all in good time and good order. - Schrandit (talk) 06:10, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

It is my understanding that blocked users do not have the ability to revert. Thank you, though, for giving me such a good laugh by calling me "hun". Few things amuse me as much as failed attempts to get me to take the bait. 69.121.221.174 (talk) 06:14, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Can't edit while blocked, now that first hand do we? - Schrandit (talk) 06:16, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

It's what Jeff G.'s been talking about. Care to prove him wrong? 69.121.221.174 (talk) 06:17, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Please see talk page

Talk:Nativo_Lopez#NPOV_violation 69.121.221.174 (talk) 06:14, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

3RR warning

I don't care who is in the right. Edit warring is a form of disruptive editing (and wikistalking doesn't help). You both are well aware of this. DO NOT revert the other party. I am more than willing to block either or both sides if this continues. It MUST stop now. Please be the bigger of the two, and stop this madness. Staying under 3RR technically on half a dozen articles is gaming the system, especially because this has been going on since October 12. From my rough count, there have been 15-20 reverts from both sides in the past 24 hours alone. UNACCEPTABLE. There is no excuse for this. If it continues, you will be blocked.

For Schrandit, I saw this edit. Please keep in mind that rollback is not to be used in continuing an edit war. Rollback abuse may lead to you loosing that privilege.-Andrew c  20:59, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Note

I imagine that you have seen that I have an sockpuppet investigation against the 69.X IP because I think that it is Spotfixer avoiding his/her ban. This is a friendly notice that as a result of hearing about the content disputes, I will be looking at / weighing in on a number of the articles that have been edited by the two of you in recent days. This is because I don't want to be the blunt instrument that deals with one issue while ignoring the content. Hopefully there can be some reasonable resolution to a number of current issues, Awickert (talk) 08:59, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note on my talk; my input will be cut short a little because I am reasonably busy at work (for better or for worse), but I will do my best. As to the pregnant woman / mother issue, I honestly don't really care which word is used so long as it is supported by the source (and that the source is reliable), and this seems to be reflected on the talk pages. But then there are times when both are used, so that will take some figuring out. I promise I will try to be reasonable, but warn you that I'm going through a crumudgeoney streak :). Awickert (talk) 08:02, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

All right; in this you remove the lede and sprinkle fact tags, and here you remove a fact-tagged statement for which the source was available. I know WP:BURDEN, but it's generally more good faith-ey to try to find a source for a statement than wholesale deleting it. I don't know what went on with the lede in the other article; as a matter of fact, I probably shouldn't have jumped into this can of worms. But it appears that something that you do is to fact-tag things that you disagree with and later remove them, which is technically by the rules, but if the rules are applied in a slanted way, it is certainly not WP:NPOV. Anyway, those are my observations and feedback: 'twould be better to not delete ledes of articles and to find sources instead of deleting statements. Awickert (talk) 06:46, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

You may notice that I'm talking to the IP again, who now has what I consider to be a reasonable alibi that she is not a sock. Whether that turns out to produce the status quo (ban) or causes the removal of the ban, I'll still be watching the articles that you (possibly you two) edit and will try my best to remain neutral. Awickert (talk) 09:20, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: your comment on my talk, I find it obvious that it was the word may is unnecessary. As same-sex unions are illegalized per references later in the article, homosexuals do face legal challenges. I see that now the article has the word "may" removed. But removing the lede due to disagreement with a word seems silly to me. Awickert (talk) 17:23, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Sorry - I should have notified you about the AN/I post about the 69.X IP as you were a party to the dispute and were involved with Spotfixer , but it seems that you've found it. My only defense is that I've been on the 4-6-hour-a-night sleep schedule (about to change, it's Friday!), and so haven't been doing as thorough a job of things as I'd like to. So my apologies about that, Awickert (talk) 20:04, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

help

Hi, I noticed that you have also come across this article of mufti ebrahim desai and reverted the ongoing vandalism. I am at a loss for what to do, as one user keeps deleting and now is inserting irrelvant information into the article. I have tried communicating with the user as to why their repeated insertions is irrelvant and and their repeated deletions vandalism and offered a reasonable solution based on their argumentation, but this has been ignored and although, I asked the article not be amended any further due to missing consensus, they went ahead and amended it anyways. I was wondering, if you could offer any help/guidance in this matter? Thanks Fragma08 (talk) 11:08, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Howdy again:-) Thanks for your reply, help and offer to help. Indeed I still have lots to learn. I have been going through the[REDACTED] guidlines whenever I have time, but still have questions as sometimes they are grey zones. Just a couple of questions off the top of my head, am I allowed to insert/use personal blog/website of the person who the wiki article relates to? Generally, I am aware one can not use personal blogs for reference purposes. Also say there have been 3 changes made to an article. Is it then possible to revert only the first change or must one go through each of the amendments made in order to restore an article Just find it a bit tedious. Many thanks and have a good day! Fragma08 (talk) 17:55, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey there, Thanks for your reply. Very helpful. I am probably a bit too inexperienced to apply that for the time being. But no worries, it is good to know for future reference. Another question, do you know if, say, copy/pasting the entirety of a website into a wikipedian particle is allowed? Furthermore, the article from earlier is still vandalised and all sorts of informations most of which can not be referenced nor accessed unless perhaps if one is that person himself or an associate/student hereof. I also don't understand how a person's work/opinions can be libelous to his/her article. Fragma08 (talk) 09:37, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Could you kindly look into the article of ED as just an hour ago it has come to my attention that major part of the biography was in conflict with copyright of a website. So that has been removed leaving only a stub. But another editor has removed the work of the mufti which was derived from the mufti's own fatwa website calling it defamatory and libellous. That makes no sense but I sense bias here. It makes no sense to further call the article coatrack only minutes after the major parts have been removed. Not allowing for the article to be rebuilt. I would appreciate your immediatel assistance.Fragma08 (talk) 22:00, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Indirect abortion

There has been bit of back and forth on the talk page for Indirect abortion over whether to use the term "mother" or "pregnant woman" and we're trying to work something out but haven’t really arrived at a conclusion yet and could use more opinions. Please stop by if you've got time. - Schrandit (talk) 15:25, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

When I first used the term, I had in mind the concept of gestational mother (or mère-porteuse as they say in French). This means to say that even if a pregnant woman is not literally the genetic mother of the child, it is still a valid scientific usage to call that woman a surrogate mother. ADM (talk) 16:08, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Moved here.

(Outdent) Out of curiosity, are you saying you know spotfixer? - Schrandit (talk) 15:05, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

No. They left months before I got here. But you know that already. CarolineWH (talk) 15:26, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

How could I claim to have any knowledge of Spotfixer's whereabouts? And by that token, how can you? How do you know they months before you got where ever it is that you are? - Schrandit (talk) 18:28, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I always find it strange when people ask questions that they already know the answer to. CarolineWH (talk) 19:22, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Look, seriously chief, I have never met or had any form of contact with Spotfixer. There is no way I could possibly know where he/she is or is not, so, how is it that you have come to know? - Schrandit (talk) 19:49, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

If you call me "chief" again, I will report you again. CarolineWH (talk) 21:06, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Cool, any chance you will answer my question? - Schrandit (talk) 22:00, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Is there any chance you'll remember that the question was answered and settled? CarolineWH (talk) 00:56, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

You say you know that Spotfixer has left where ever it is you are. I ask you how you know that. You say that I already know. There is no earthly way I would have that information. With that in mind, how do you know? - Schrandit (talk) 03:49, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello Schrandit and CarolineWH,

I have been watching this discussion ever since the changes on the Religion and abortion page. Hopefully, this letter will be taken as a voice of mediation.

CarolineWH, I am assuming that you are the same person as the one involved in this Wikiquette alert and response.

Schrandit, you might not be aware that 69.121.221.174 was cleared of sockpuppet allegations as of this version. 69.121.221.174 is the IP for student housing. Spotfixer stayed at student housing, but he/she has moved on now. The current person who is staying at the house was motivated by a journalism class given twice a year that brings up the "mother" propaganda and explicitly mentions Misplaced Pages.

Now, about "hun", "love", "chief":

• In my personal history, while I was going to university, I stayed at a place with room and board. There, the mother referred to me with the endearing term of bugger. I knew what the literal meaning of the term was, but I also assumed that the mother did not mean it literally, so I chose not to take offense.
• I imagine that there are places in the U.S. where using endearing terms is a method for defusing a confrontation rather than escalating it.
• (putting on my mind-reading hat) Schrandit, I predict that you used "chief" in your edit so that:
  • If CarolineWH responded the same way as 69.121.221.174, this would confirm she was 69.121.221.174.
  • Otherwise, CarolineWH would probably assume good faith and take no offense at your comment.
• Schrandit, I suggest you not use endearing terms in your comments.
• CarolineWH, I suggest that you not take offense to endearing terms. They might not have been intended to reveal your identity or sexuality, but instead to defuse a confrontation.

--Kevinkor2 (talk) 17:11, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Kevin, I don't think Schrandit was necessarily using these terms on a diagnostic basis. Rather, these are terms that a reasonable person might be offended by, so he was quite likely using them in order to offend. After assuming good faith, I conclude this tentatively only because he continues to use these terms even after being asked repeatedly to stop. CarolineWH (talk) 17:22, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

What would I gain by going out of my way to offend you? - Schrandit (talk) 17:24, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

It wouldn't be right for me to delve into your motives. I'll let you speak for yourself. CarolineWH (talk) 17:25, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

"he was quite likely using them in order to offend." CarolineWH (talk) 17:22, 24 November 2009 (UTC) no, you seem to be making a go of it already, might as well finish. - Schrandit (talk) 17:28, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Sexist, homophobic, and racist terms such as "hun," "love," "bugger," and "chief" are always demeaning and never "endearing." Telling the victim not to be offended is also sexist/homophobic/racist. --Dr.enh (talk) 17:54, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

A bunch of this started on my talk, so I will butt in. Caroline (above), please cool it and respond to Schrandit's inquiry nicely; deciding what people know for them is never nice, and it was a simple request (e.g., yep, Spotfixer left a few months before I arrived, so people told me"), and done. I dispute that those terms are always demeaning. Schrandit, you're welcome to call me "chief" or "hun", though I'm a guy and "hun" would be a little weird, but Caroline doesn't like those terms so it looks like it's time to stop using them with her. Awickert (talk) 18:07, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

So noted, chief. If I may, is there a public answer to how/why we know spotfixer is not at that location. If the answer is private I can accept that but if it is public I would rather know. - Schrandit (talk) 18:10, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Best I could tell from my talk and interactions with Caroline is that Spotfixer used to be there and left probably in the spring of this year, and Caroline probably arrived in the fall. Which is probably nothing more or less than what you know. Awickert (talk) 18:44, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Andrew, the problem is that I have responded previously and gone on record. Except for the names of places, I am unable to add anything signficant to your accurate summary. As for endearments from people who are not particularly dear to me, they're simply unwelcome. CarolineWH (talk) 18:58, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Just so we are clear, the only evidence that we have to believe that you are not a sockpuppet is that you say you are not a sockpuppet? - Schrandit (talk) 16:09, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Just to be clear, Schrandit, how is that any less evidence than that you are not a sock puppet? If you have some actual evidence to put forth in a sock puppet investigation, then that's where you should take it. If you have nothing to go forward with, please stop haranguing her, apologize for your lapses in civility, and move on. - Nat Gertler (talk) 16:41, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Another user already did but the block was lifted on good faith that the user was telling the truth about not being spotfixer. - Schrandit (talk) 16:52, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

No, that is not an investigation of CarolineWH. But even if it were, unless you have further evidence to put forward to override that decision, that should put an end to your accusations and insinuations. - Nat Gertler (talk) 17:11, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

No, that was/is Caroline. - Schrandit (talk) 17:15, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

That turns out not to be the case. CarolineWH (talk) 17:39, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, what of what I said is wrong? - Schrandit (talk) 17:42, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

America must be a strange place, where ordinary endearments can be considered sexist/homophobic/racist (nobody's ever called me "chief", but I've never seen or taken any offense at any of the others). --Paularblaster (talk) 18:55, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Isn't Misplaced Pages educational? CarolineWH (talk) 18:58, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

"Indeed," says Teal'c. --Kevinkor2 (talk) 23:55, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

If only Teal'c were real, I'm sure he'd have something to contribute to this ongoing debate about pregnancy and motherhood. CarolineWH (talk) 23:59, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

When CWH kept saying "I'm one of the editors who ..." I assumed she was referring to an on-wiki group that I wasn't aware of. This conversation suggests an off-wiki claque who come to the project with an agenda picked up in journalism class. Have I misunderstood that? --Paularblaster (talk) 11:57, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I caution you to assume good faith, which starts by asking me instead of making hostile assumptions. As it happens, I'm referring to unrelated editors who all agree on this topic and have independently supported the removal of "mother" in places where it is biased. If you'd like, I could provide links. CarolineWH (talk) 13:52, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there is some merit to Paul's view, in this diff the user said that she was receiving advice on how to edit Misplaced Pages and would not be "tricked" into reveling who gave her that advice. - Schrandit (talk) 16:09, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

RFC discussion of User:CarolineWH

A request for comments has been filed concerning the conduct of CarolineWH (talk · contribs). You are invited to comment on the discussion at ]. -- Paularblaster (talk) 15:09, 25 November 2009 (UTC) Thought you might like to comment. --Paularblaster (talk) 15:09, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

RE: Talk page

I can only reinstate what Kevinkor2 has said:
"Schrandit, you might not be aware that 69.121.221.174 was cleared of sockpuppet allegations as of this version. 69.121.221.174 is the IP for student housing. Spotfixer stayed at student housing, but he/she has moved on now. The current person who is staying at the house was motivated by a journalism class given twice a year that brings up the "mother" propaganda and explicitly mentions Misplaced Pages."
Regards, Spitfire 16:33, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

PS: such comments should be added to the talk page of the RfC in future, kind regards, Spitfire 16:36, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

The issue at RfC is not old suspicions of sockpuppeting, but new suspicions of what looks very like meatpuppeting (for want of a less distasteful term). --Paularblaster (talk) 16:45, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Incivility.

Schrandit, you are grossly violating WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. Stop now, redact your insults and apologize. CarolineWH (talk) 09:13, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Look, I don't really care what you think of me or my religion or whatever but following me around and blindly reverting my edits is childish and when you do to the point where you are inserting categorically false material that damages the encyclopedia I'm not going to feel bad about saying so. - Schrandit (talk) 09:49, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

The first link shows that you were so hasty in removing the part about Jewish pro-life organizations that you left the sentence as a fragment. When I eventually did my own research, I carefully removed that part and left the sentence grammatically correct. The fact that I changed my mind shows that it's not personal, at least not for me.

Not one bit of this excuses your incivility. Are you going to redact and apologize or just edit-war and insult? CarolineWH (talk) 15:59, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

For the record, as of right this moment, Schrandit has not apologized, much less redacted, and shows no willingness to do so. AGF cannot apply any longer. CarolineWH (talk) 18:06, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

NOM article

Hi, I wondered if you could visit the NOM article talk page and give me constructive criticism on how I am handling the situation there. I am trying to assume good faith, but Outerlimits has misrepresented me a couple of times and is not assuming good faith in the discussion. I mentioned this on the NOM talk page and now wonder if I should have asked him to be more polite on his talk page, instead of the NOM talk page. On the other hand, since he misrepresented me on the NOM talk page, I feel like it should be part of the same discussion.

Any advice you have on how to handle this (or things I need to correct, or the proper protocol for correcting things without editing my own comments inappropriately) would be helpful to me; I'm obviously inexperienced at these sort of disagreements on Wiki, usually I just correct minor vandalisms. I haven't had to deal with anyone uncivil or who didn't grasp the NPOV meta goal, and it looked like you had dealt with Outerlimits before.

It would also help to have a another editor participating in the substantive discussion of my issue with the article whenever you are able to get back to it. Thank you. Teaforthetillerman (talk) 00:55, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

On a humorous note, I just noticed that in your previous disagreement with Outerlimits, he wrote "labelling is POV-pushing, and pretty clearly in bad faith when it's based on nothing but your personal intuition." Funny because here he's pushing labeling, based (apparently) on his intuition that the allegations about NOM being a Mormon conspiracy are true. Heh. Teaforthetillerman (talk) 00:57, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh no! Poor me! I feel misrepresented! Should I speak to the person who has committed this terrible crime against me? No, of course not. I think I'll just spam my accusations against them on the talk pages of those I feel will side with me against them. That will certainly de-escalate the situation. - Outerlimits (talk) 10:45, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I hate myself for saying "on a humorous note." What an obnoxious, stilted phrase. Teaforthetillerman (talk) 01:04, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		I'm awarding you this barnstar for your extraordinary scrutiny, precision and community service to wikipedia. South Bay (talk) 05:47, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

cite requests

You appear to be continuing a pattern of requesting cites inappropriately with your recent edit of Transsexual News Telegraph. Please respect a concensus that tagging articles with cite requests, then revisiting the articles to delete useful material, and doing so only on articles on topics that offend you, is NPOV. Anniepoo (talk) 17:13, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I respect your concern, rest assured that this potential has been discussed before and I have the best interests of the project at heart. - Schrandit (talk)

That turns out not to be the case. Here you added three citation requests and deleted a paragraph as uncited, but subsequent edits proved that the deleted paragraph was already fully supported by an existing citation, and the new requests were addressed by other parts of the same web site. Likewise, you deleted a paragraph as uncited, and also deleted the citation that was there all along. Your edit comments lie, like this one about deleting a politican when you actually deleted four others without explanation, or this one where you claimed you were removing an unsourced statement, but also made a change that was POV. You consistently tag articles about homosexuality, abortion and immigration for citations, hoping to get them cut down and erased, like Pink Saturday. The gig is up, Tommy boy. You have been a disappointment to your alma mata Sam S. White (talk) 22:04, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

2010 - New year, same pattern of NPOV editing behavior. One only needs to look at your list of contributions and click through the Diff links to see exactly how you operate: January 2 - "suggested a merger" of White Crane (gay literature) articles here, here, and here, with a good sprinkling cite requests. January 11 - "marked a dead link" and "requested cites" on LGBT articles here, here, here, here, and here, and "removed unsourced statement" here. Granted, you did revert two unwelcome edits, and effect three other minor spelling/grammatical fixes to non-gay articles during that time; but the majority of your efforts have been towards tagging articles about homosexuality. I've called you on this before, and i'm not afraid to do it again. If you seriously want someone to open an abuse report about your behavior (rather than just trying to talk to you about it directly), that can be arranged. I'm sure there's enough proof in your edit history to get you topic-banned. Is that what needs to be done? Hiroe (talk) 17:10, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I took three poorly sources articles on the same subject and suggested that they be merged. If you really have an objection to that happening bring it up on the discussion page. Nothing that I have done can be catagorized as abuse. - Schrandit (talk) 10:11, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually I would say everything you do is abusive and violated the spirit of the rules while just tip-toeing within the letter of the rules. Instead of actually fixing a deadlink - again, on only topics you apparently disapprove - you litter the article with deadlink alerts and citation needed requests. Regardless if a particular statement is in any way exceptional and any reasonable reader would actually question it. Like the gem of you insisting on a citation that Halloween is marked to both children and adults. This is the nth time I've seen you disrupting and littering articles and absent a more rational explanation what we have is that you are pushing a POV and systematically disrupting articles to push an agenda. Consider this an invitation to desist and instead work on articles on subjects you apparently do approve. We are here to build content not undermine other editors. -- Banjeboi 04:02, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Shrandit, thank you so much for your work on Audre Lorde Project, but while I'm certain you meant the very best, your edits were counterproductive. Instead of removing dead links, we need you to spend just a minute to look up the new URL's. Otherwise, you might as well leave the links in place so that others can update them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alorde (talk • contribs) 07:27, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Templates

Looks like every statistics article has that table hard-coded into the page. So where can I propose the forging of a global template? Timmie.merc (talk) 08:00, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

ACC

I have requested an account. - Schrandit (talk) 20:57, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for applying to access the account creation tool. I have approved your request so welcome to the team. You may now access the tool here. Before you do so, please read the tool's guide to familiarize yourself with the process. You may also want to join #wikipedia-en-accounts on IRC where a bot informs us when new account requests come in as well as the mailing list.

Currently you are allowed to create up to six accounts per day (a day being from 0:00 UTC to 23:59 UTC), although you won't be able to create an account with a similar name to that of another user; these requests are marked "Account Creator Needed". However, if you reach the limit frequently, you can request the account creator permission at WP:PERM.

Please keep in mind that the ACC tool is a powerful program, and misuse may result in your access being suspended by a tool administrator. Don't hesitate to get in touch with me if you have any questions. Thank you for participating in the account creation process. Again welcome! ---- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 11:30, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Tagging sockpuppets

Hi, I noticed that you recently tagged a bunch of spotfixer related socks. Please do not tag both the userpage, and user talkpage, as we do not need two entries for the same user in the category. It makes it easier to track how many socks they have.— Dædαlus 05:54, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about taking so long to reply to this. Anyway, it would be better to use {{Uw-socksuspect}} for alerting users of the sock case.— Dædαlus 03:43, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Concerned Women of America CAT" LGBT rights opposition

Hi, I see you removed the category listing from Concerned Women for America because this category "seems like a biased category". LGBT rights opposition is simply stating a fact, not in any way a pejorative. There is no category listing called "anti-gay marriage" and even if there were, CW of A not only opposes same-sex marriage, they oppose ANY recognition of same sex couples, marriage, civil unions or domestic partners, they oppose ending DADT (dont ask dont tell), they are oppose Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), they have accused same-sex partners of those killed in 9/11 of "trying to hijack the moral capital of marriage".

I appreciate your kind and rational understanding--DCX (talk) 22:04, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

And I appreciate your sarcasm. I left no such edit summary, I reverted a pejorative category added by a troublesome ip. - Schrandit (talk) 22:07, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

My comments were not intended to be sarcastic and the category is not intended to be pejorative, it is merely stating the fact--DCX (talk) 22:10, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Intent to be pejorative and is pejorative can be two different things. - Schrandit (talk) 22:12, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I understand you feel very strongly about your opinion that no logical or rational discussion will change.--DCX (talk) 22:28, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you ever met me. - Schrandit (talk) 22:29, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Warning

Hello, I received a warning from you for vandalism but I didn't even edit a page. I have no idea what you are talking about.

I believe this is probably why he warned you... mauler90 (talk) 22:57, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Mauler was right on the money, sorry if that was a shared public ip and the warning caused confusion. - Schrandit (talk) 18:00, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Toddst1 (talk) 21:30, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Prod removed from Neopenis

I have redirected Neopenis to Sex reassignment surgery (female-to-male) instead of deletion. Cnilep (talk) 19:28, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Makes sense, good call. - Schrandit (talk) 19:30, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Federation of Expellees - number of members

Any proves that the Federation of Expellees has 2 000 000 members? Xx236 (talk) 07:34, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

http://www.bund-der-vertriebenen.de/derbdv/struktur-1.php3

In another words - Erika Steinbach says. Is Erika Steinbach a reliable source of informations about Erika Steinbach?Xx236 (talk) 10:34, 7 May 2010 (UTC) "Der für die Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung arbeitende Historiker und Autor Erich Später sieht in dem Festhalten an der zwei Millionen Mitgliederzahl „einen Versuch, die Öffentlichkeit für dumm zu verkaufen“, yep! Xx236 (talk) 11:02, 7 May 2010 (UTC) The autor about himself : "Misplaced Pages - Ich schreibe Beiträge für die deutschsprachige Misplaced Pages." Unfortunately he doesn't read de:Bund der Vertiriebenen, where the problem of the alleged 2 000 000 of members is discussed.Xx236 (talk) 11:11, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Truly, I have no idea what you are on about. - Schrandit (talk) 12:21, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

You insists that the BdV has 2 000 000 members. Would you be so kind to read de:Bund der Vertiriebenen? Organzations financed by governments tend to overestimate their membership in many countries. The same newspapers claim they sell more copies, so the statistics are verified by independend bodies.

If you don't like my edits, please discuss them rather than removing them without any explanation. Xx236 (talk) 08:12, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Right, so the article says they have 2,000,000 members. I check the source, the source says they have 2,000,000 members. I have no reason to doubt the source so re-add that the Federation has 2,000,000 members. Now stop haranguing me and go on about something productive. - Schrandit (talk) 17:23, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Please don't remove sourced informations. Xx236 (talk) 17:45, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that I ever have but thanks for the advice. - Schrandit (talk) 17:51, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you have. "Nur" means "only" and you have removed the "only" ignoring the quoted article.Xx236 (talk) 17:55, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Were you quoting the source? - Schrandit (talk) 17:59, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

BTW I am a strong supporter of the BdV, you may find this video clip of interest. Apparently the younger generation and teachers in Germany are poorly informed on the fate of the Expellees, Steinbach as leader of the BdV is working to increase awareness of this important episode in German history.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DF5ECX0qOR0&feature=PlayList&p=2AD2217FB66BD94A&playnext_from=PL&playnext=1&index=2

--Woogie10w (talk) 22:10, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Bob McDonnell

Please try to use the talk page more to express your concerns about the article so that we can work to find a mutually agreeable lead section. I posted a proposed wording and the only comment suggested changing "centrist" to "pragmatist", which I did prior to posting it to the main article. What are your concerns which lead you to reverting the change? Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 19:42, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

GOCE Newsletter

Greetings from the Guild of Copy Editors Backlog Elimination Drive! We have now reached the halfway point, and here's what has happened so far. Requests Report - Good news! The number of special requests waiting to be edited has been reduced drastically, with almost all of the remaining items having editors committed to getting them done. Good work, people! Target Report - ɳorɑfʈ's initial target of reducing the backlog of articles for copy edit turned out to be unrealistic insane, so a new target was set: we hope to reduce the to backlog to less than 7,500 items in the queue by the end of the month. The number in the queue was 7,950 as of close of business yesterday. If we "concentrate our firepower" we can wipe out Jan, Feb, and March 2008, meaning the drive will have cleared four months off the backlog queue. Please consider copyediting from one of these months. Rewards Report - We now have some clear leaders on the board in all three Gold Star categories, and many people have qualified for the various barnstars. It is not too late to participate, as it takes just 2,000 words (pre-edit) to qualify for a barnstar! Don't wait! Start participating today. Remember, the ultimate winner is Misplaced Pages. Notice to Participants - For those who have indicated that you will be working on certain articles on the drive page in your respective tally box, please ensure that you complete these copyedits as soon as possible. Thank you very much for your participation so far! - Coordinator: ɳorɑfʈ Co-coordinators: Diannaa and S Masters (talk) This newsletter by Diannaa (writer) and SMasters (writer and typesetter). Thrown onto your doorstep by ɳorɑfʈ on a red Huffy bike.

Survey

Hi Schrandit,

I am a PhD student at the Open University of Catalonia. I am currently preparing a research project about the governance processes in online collaborative communities, and I would like to kindly ask for your collaboration based on your experience in Misplaced Pages. Interested in participating? Please drop me a note in my talk page. This would take around 20 of your time.

Thanks! Aresj (talk) 10:33, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Saints Sergius & Bacchus

I agree with you that placing Saints Sergius & Bacchus in LGBT people would be "highly contestable", but figures are placed in LGBT history because perceptions of their gender status have something to say about the time periods in which those perceptions were made. Placing these figures in LGBT history in no way says that they were gay, which is, of course, anachronistic, especially for figures whose very existence could be considered highly contestable. The fact that a whole section of the article deals with later perceptions of their sexuality, however, justifies their inclusion in the category. I would think you'd have reverted the category Homosexuality and Christianity instead, considering that linking these saints to homosexuality is far more contestable than linking them to later historical perceptions of their sexuality. Markwiki (talk) 17:35, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I see what you're saying and the more I think about it at present it is reasonable, I suppose I'm looking at the insinuations being made and they're so recent and tenuous I don't even know if they deserve mention. That is the real issue and I'll look into that. - Schrandit (talk) 21:07, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

3rr

Hey just a friendly reminder. You're violating 3rr on Abstinence-only sex education. Whether the content belongs or doesn't, it's not obviously vandalism so please be careful. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 20:15, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Proposition 8

Hi Schrandit, I was thinking of uploading a short 5 sec fair use video clip of the "Whether You Like it or Not" commercial where Newsom utters the famous words, and putting it in the "'Whether You Like It or Not' advertisement" section of the article. Before I go through all the work, do you think it would withstand a POV challenge? Lionelt (talk) 01:20, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Geert Wilders

You're doing some seriously unethical 'work' here; if you have evidence that shows all Jews are unanimous in hatred of Islam, that Wilders's unlikely travel claims are true (like a copy of his passport, etc), please share. Otherwise, please leave the work done on this article alone. Thanks and have a great day. 98.88.88.100 (talk) 20:01, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I reversed your POV edit warring again

Removing sources, deleting categories and content while slapping on numerous clean-up tags is dubious at best. Please stop degrading articles by deleting content that you don't like. Other Catholics seem to edit here without a chip on their shoulder, they do so above board. 71.139.7.28 (talk) 10:53, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Backlog Elimination Drive Wrap-up

Thanks very much to all who helped with the Guild of Copy Editors Backlog Elimination Drive. We were very close to meeting our target of 7,500 articles remaining in the backlog. Our most shining success is the incredible reduction in the backlog of Special Requests. That part of the project saw a drop from 62 articles in the queue, some dating back to February of 2009, down to a stunning THREE, all of which were being edited at the close of the drive. The Special Requests page will now be a great resource for people looking to tidy up their article in advance of a GA or FA nomination, instead of a place where articles go to die. Moving forward The drive has not only forced a great leap forward in reducing the backlog. It has helped promote the Guild, and led to a greater awareness of the level of vigilance required to keep the backlog manageable. Ideas such as charts, graphs, and barnstars helped motivate editors, and meeting other users helped quell any feelings gnomish editors may have had in the past that they were toiling all alone. Keep up the good work people!! Stats Almost everyone who participated will receive a barnstar. We will be handing these out over the next week or so. Five people will receive the highest award for word count (80,000 or more), the Most Excellent Order of the Caretaker's Star: Bullock, Diannaa, NielsenGW, S Masters, and Torchiest. The Order of the Superior Scribe (40,000+) goes to Auntieruth55, Bobnorwal, Kojozone, Lfstevens, and Mlpearc. fds wins the Modern Guild of Copy Editors Barnstar (30,000+). The Old School League of Copyeditors Barnstar for 20,000+ is awarded to A. Parrot, mono, Truthkeeper88, and The Utahraptor. the Tireless Conributor Barnstar (12,000+) goes to dtgriffith, Laurinavicius, and Quinxorin. Buggie111, Brickie, cymru lass, liquidluck, noraft, and Yellow Monkey get the Cleanup Barnstar for 8,000+ words. The Working Man's Barnstar for 4,000+ words goes to Annalise and fetchcomms. The Modest Barnstar is awarded to Theo10011 and The Tito. Gold Star Award The Gold Star Award goes to the top editor in three challenges: Number of special requests fulfilled, number of articles edited, and number of words. Here are the final results. Final results: Gold Star Award: Requests Articles Words 1. SMasters (17) Torchiest (250) NielsenGW (150,360) 2. Bobnorwal (13) Diannaa (212) Diannaa (136,200) 3. Bullock (9) kojozone (76) Torchiest (125,000) Coordinator: ɳorɑfʈ Co-coordinators: Diannaa and S Masters (talk)

Blocked

Your history shows a chronic issue with edit warring, particularly with getting involved in an edit war that is ongoing. This is disruptive and, considering the amount of time you've been on Misplaced Pages, you ought to know better. You recently made the seventh revert in an edit war at Abortion apparently because you don't "prefer" the other version. The purpose of this block is make it clear that this conduct cannot continue and will not be tolerated. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 12:41, 8 June 2010 (UTC)