Misplaced Pages

User talk:68.231.26.111

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Spliff Joint Blunt (talk | contribs) at 22:22, 17 October 2015. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 22:22, 17 October 2015 by Spliff Joint Blunt (talk | contribs)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Portal talk, edit disagreement

We need to discuss this, the opening to NLRB item. I posted this morning (EDT). Please join in at https://en.wikipedia.org/Portal_talk:Current_events/2015_August_27. RaqiwasSushi (talk) 01:15, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

This still needs to be discussed. Please join in at the talk page linked above to help establish consensus compromise. Please explain why you believe it is most accurate or clear to attribute the NLRB actions to the Obama administration. Without understanding your stance better, I do not know how to further explain why the NLRB is not an agency that acts under the direction of the current executive administration. 50.89.166.63 (talk) 17:00, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

27 August 2015

I think it's plain to see in the case of the recent Labor Board decision at August 27th which version is a more clear and concise headline description of the event. Details about it being the Obama administration and their appointments is information already either widely known (in the case of Obama being president) or could be discovered within the article, like the appointment specificity. Waiting until days after the fact to try and change wording that's more specific and clear (standard versus definition for example) doesn't look good especially when you're claiming that you are making less biased edits and they seem more so. I never wanted to become an editor of wikipedia and I'm frankly in many ways less experienced than you. I'm sorry that I reverted your edit and that it seemed necessary, I just want sensible and honest news somewhere and have relied on wikipedia for that for a long time. Thank you for your patience. 50.89.166.63 (talk) 14:57, 29 August 2015 (UTC) I'm very sorry that you felt the need to revert to the point of it being officiated as an edit war. I'll let you know that you can feel celebratory for now in that I do not want to be as disruptive of a user and will not just continue to revert, though I am extremely disappointed in that despite all my attempts to discuss the issue, you had no interest in discussing it at all. 50.89.166.63 (talk) 19:26, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Short circuit - revised entry again in attempt for compromise and explained to 50.89.166.63. Notes included in latest entry to show W Post reference source and "attributing to "Obama Administration" is (overly) partisan ; "current board were appt & approved by Senate on 7/30/13 http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/314503-senate-votes-to-confirm-all-five-nlrb-members" Can't read what WSJ ref (exceeded WSJ limit) so can't tell if changes documented from news source. Note: Congress doesn't appeal NLRB orders; take legislative action. Facts "widely known" need to be documented. Through further investigation of NLRB website found all of board current terms started in 2013 and found news story explaining this.
News sources I found highlighting 'O Admin' were National Review and Daily Caller, both writing from a particular point of view. Objectivity is journalistic standard.
Finally, strongly suggest you register. IP only identification = who, why, etc. RaqiwasSushi (talk) 00:55, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
I don't know how to reach consensus with an editor who will just keep inserting his/her opinion without even any explanation. I've detailed my attempt to end things on a clean version in the summary and my talk page but I will not just be a repeat reverter like 68.231.26.111, "provide an edit summary if what you are doing is not vandalism" doesn't matter to this user. 50.89.166.63 (talk) 12:06, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Similar comment as 50.89.166.63. Changing lead wording again since the Obama administration appointed/re-appointed all 5 current board members. Opening phrase is technically incorrect http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/314503-senate-votes-to-confirm-all-five-nlrb-members. And, the National Review article which previously highlighted Obama admin, has eliminated this citation http://www.nationalreview.com/article/423261/nlrb-franchise-decision. ... No change to last sentence, an editorial choice. Don't think it's necessary, but ....
To 68.231.26.111 --- Please stop. Changes documented in hidden HTML
As stated above, 'obama admin' opening no longer appears in National Review; it had been used in the article originally published by NR, may be because (what I think) it reflects bias toward the current president that would stand if NLRB appts can be shown as malicious, as opposed to regular politics. ... RaqiwasSushi (talk) 13:59, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
See also Independent agencies of the United States government, the NLRB is outside of presidential control, and thus just like with any of the agencies listed there, their actions (unless corrupt ties can be specifically shown which would need further reliably sourced citation) are not actions taken by the executive administration. That's true of departments of the executive branch headed by cabinet secretaries, but not for independent agencies that only receive initial Senate confirmed Presidential appointments. These are commonly regulatory agencies that all sides are contentiously wary and possessive of. The fight over the membership of the NLRB was bitter but ended years ago. No matter how controversial that fight was, any action taken now by the NLRB is an action taken by its own members, having long had full approval and confirmation. To claim that their actions now are guided by any specific administration or other outside body you would need to demonstrate that influence clearly in citation. Thank you, please understand how your edits are being disruptive by claiming that it is biased to not include this one specific misinterpretation of the situation. 50.89.166.63 (talk) 16:00, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
From Misplaced Pages -- "The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) is an independent agency of the United States government charged with conducting elections for labor union representation and with investigating and remedying unfair labor practices. Unfair labor practices may involve union-related situations or instances of protected concerted activity. The NLRB is governed by a five-person board and a General Counsel, all of whom are appointed by the President with the consent of the Senate. Board members are appointed to five-year terms and the General Counsel is appointed to a four-year term.
President Obama appointed, and the Senate confirmed, all board members who participated in the Browning-Ferris case. "Two of the NLRB nominees confirmed were GOP picks — Johnson and Miscimarra — and Schiffer, Hirozawa and Pearce were Obama's nominees." http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/314503-senate-votes-to-confirm-all-five-nlrb-members
Yes President Obama appointed the Democrat majority. That's not unusual. President Reagan appointed 4 Republicans in 1981, giving the GOP an overwhelming majority. Between 1983 and 1985, Reagan appointed 2 members from each party and continued that balanced process throughout his presidency. President George HW Bush, 3-1. Clinton, 8-3. President G.W. Bush's first 7 appointments were Republican, the last 2 Democrat. Obama's, 7-4. Clinton and Obama appointments have favored Democrats; Reagan and both Bushes choices favored Republicans. A president will give his party the advantage during his term. https://www.nlrb.gov/who-we-are/board/board-members-1935.
The recess appointment issue with Block and Griffin is a moot point; their names were withdrawn as part of the compromise that resulted in these 5 appointments. It would not have happened if Senate Republicans didn't reach a compromise with Obama and Senate Democrats.
If it's been OK for Reagan, GHW Bush, Clinton, and GW Bush to have their party as the majority on the board, why does that not hold for Obama? The National Review article on this decision no longer includes the "Obama Administration" tag. http://www.nationalreview.com/article/423261/nlrb-franchise-decision.
While I may not agree with all of the wording in the rest of the entry, I've tried to look at it from your point of view, as it seems you have also.
The majority states it used a definition from a 1982 judicial ruling, which changed in 1984. NLRB ruling http://apps.nlrb.gov/link/document.aspx/09031d4581d99106 RaqiwasSushi (talk) 00:06, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Impasse. Each of us regards the other's content as biased, partisan, political, etc. I have decided to not edit. ... I think removing the phrase, "through its appointment of a majority of board members," would improve objectivity. As it is now, "Democratic-controlled," is redundant. RaqiwasSushi (talk) 18:34, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

Please cease your disruptive editing. I suggest that you actually understand Misplaced Pages guidelines before making edits. You have violated WP:OR multiple times now. Drovethrughosts (talk) 21:06, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

no actually you are invlolved in an edit war do i need to take it to admins?--68.231.26.111 (talk) 21:07, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Are you unable to comprehend WP:OR? Drovethrughosts (talk) 21:08, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
not only is OR incorrect is this instance but also you clearly do not understannd 3rr.--68.231.26.111 (talk) 21:09, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Are you unable to comprehend WP:OR? You are editing war too and have violated 3RR too. Halt and Catch Fire is not a documentary, it's fiction, we don't just link fictional subjects to real-world subjects based on similarity, that is WP:OR. Unless you have a WP:RS that confirms that writers intend on those actually beging those real-world subjects, then that's fine; it not, then no, we just don't make leaps that like. Please stop your disruptive edits that are in violation of Misplaced Pages guidelines. Drovethrughosts (talk) 21:08, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

August 2015

Hello, I'm ToonLucas22. I noticed that you made a change to an article, List of Halt and Catch Fire episodes, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. TL22 (talk) 21:12, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Information icon Hello, I'm Garchy. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Misplaced Pages with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Garchy (talk) 20:12, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Information icon Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Misplaced Pages, as you did at Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 370. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed.

  • If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Misplaced Pages's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
  • If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Misplaced Pages's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Garchy (talk) 20:13, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Stop icon This is your only warning; if you remove or blank page contents or templates from Misplaced Pages again, as you did at Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 370, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Garchy (talk) 20:14, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Warning icon Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 370, you may be blocked from editing. -- Rsrikanth05 (talk) 20:16, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Gemma Chan article

Regarding this and this, see WP:BLP. Flyer22 (talk) 00:51, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

no idea what you are saying article says itself that she has a legal degree from Oxford!--68.231.26.111 (talk) 01:12, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
That does not make "lawyer" her occupation. And since you are WP:Edit warring over this, I will take the matter to the WP:BLP noticeboard. Flyer22 (talk) 01:26, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
that was a clear threat - which is a violation of wiki rules Misplaced Pages:Harassment - as for edit war the article supports the change with citation your changes do not!--68.231.26.111 (talk) 01:30, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Wrong on both accounts (if it's a threat, it's a threat well within Misplaced Pages's acceptance). And, as promised, I've taken the matter to that noticeboard: Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Gemma Chan article. A WP:Permalink is here. Flyer22 (talk) 02:55, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Information icon 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. The thread is Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:68.231.26.111 reported by User:Garchy (Result: ). Thank you. Garchy (talk) 01:35, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

August 2015

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Portal:Current events/2015 August 27 shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. — JJMC89 (T·C) 19:03, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

WP:AN

Information icon This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:47, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

The thread is here: Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive274#Edit warring - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:47, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

September 2015

Stop icon with clock
Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 60 hours for edit warring. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  Drmies (talk) 17:15, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.
  • It usually takes two to tango, and in this case there were three--you against another IP editor and a registered account, both of whom tried to talk this over much more better than you, which is why you are blocked and they are not, though all y'all were warring. Drmies (talk) 17:17, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
right so One guy is a clearly a sock puppet and the other guy is clearly the sock puppet owner - great job Drmies!--68.231.26.111 (talk) 18:32, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
great job Drmies you are certainly blessed with no brain! - I notice that an ANI was begun against me and YET I was given no notice to plead my case there - damn how FAIR is that! A sockpuppet user got to post to ANI and you FELL FOR IT Drmies!--68.231.26.111 (talk) 18:41, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Drmies you say "it usually takes two to tango but this time there was three" there was only one other and that guy is clearly a sockpuppet user. The anon you mention consists of a total of 22 edits - 21 of which were all edit war behavior - NEVER AND I MEAN NEVER did that anon attempt to assist wiki in any activity such as new article, syntax correction, new citation - NOT ONE DAMN USEFULL THING - and yet you Drmies exclaim that there were two in consensus against me - clearly the anon was a sockpuppet for a banned user HOW MUCH MORE OBVIOUS CAN THAT BE!--68.231.26.111 (talk) 18:53, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
50.89.166.63 anon came out of nowhere, warred, and then evaporated AND YOU FELL FOR IT Drmies!--68.231.26.111 (talk) 18:59, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Drmies you say the so called users both tried to "tried to talk this over much more better than you" - why should I bother to talk to a sockpuppet user with his henchman sock - there is no point - does Arthur Rubin bother to talk to the "Michigan kid" - NO because it is a total waste of time - hell it is just FEED THE TROLL--68.231.26.111 (talk) 19:06, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Yeah, yelling at me about having no brain really warms me up to your case. Drmies (talk) 19:17, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
  • I hope it isn't considered uncivil or inappropriate for me to add to this thread now. I am a new editor, and I've only made two edits so far not logged in that were completely unrelated to any edit of 68.231.26.111: unblanking a Portal Current Events day, and adding an additional link to the discussion thread about paid access only news sites. Though I have used Misplaced Pages for nearly as long as it has existed, I was too afraid to edit it. Unblanking that one news day was the first ever edit I made to Misplaced Pages as a human being. Shortly after that I created an account, which I have barely used (only to work on the user page and add one current events headline, reverting no one), and since then have only tried to wrap up my edit record on August 27th and 18th to show that I was working toward consensus and not a revert vandal or sockpuppet, both of which 68.231.26.111 has claimed I am, before completing switching to only using the account I've already made and ceasing all anonymous editing. 50.89.166.63 (talk) 19:21, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Jennifer lien story

AP story didn't state that this was an 8/31 incident and she was arrested 9/3. Huff Post does http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/jennifer-lien-indecent-exposure_55f95acbe4b0e333e54be09d

Disruptive editing

Please cease your disruptive editing. I suggest that you actually understand Misplaced Pages guidelines before making edits. 17:35, 2 October 2015 (UTC)178.135.80.111 (talk)

October 2015

Warning icon Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Misplaced Pages, as you did at Portal:Current events/2015 October 17‎, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. Gizmocorot (talk) 22:08, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

WP:Signature forgery, please stop using my signature Gizmocorot (talk) 22:22, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

User infoThis is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address.