Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Anythingyouwant (talk | contribs) at 01:33, 10 December 2008 (→Fox News Poll: closing discussions). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

warning

Thanks for reminding me to sign my edit warring warning. The warning was not out of line because yours was about non-constructive edits, and mine is about edit warring. I know he only made 2 edits, but you don't need 3 to have an edit war, and because he's new I thought it would be better to warn him early.LedRush (talk) 01:34, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

If you want to bring a canon to a pistol fight, that's fine with me. :)--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:44, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

neutral version?

Please explain on the Talk page why your preferred version of the Project Vote page is the "neutral" version. What is neutral is, of course, precisely the question at issue, hence it does not advance the dispute towards any resolution to just claim that one perspective is the "neutral" one without any argument or evidence.Bdell555 (talk) 16:52, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Your bold change is disputed and therefore I reverted to the "original" consensus version which seems to me neutral enough to call it so. Furthermore, may I suggest WP:BRD as part of the solution to avoid an edit war?--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 17:04, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, the version you reverted to is obviously disputed as well (by me), "therefore" I changed it! But that's not very convincing, is it? What I dispute is your contention that there was any consensus for the previous version; as I've noted, there was no discussion on the Talk page supporting the "Since 1994" language that I removed. If you read the entirety of the Talk page, you'd also see that there is a great deal of evidence for the contention that there are sources alleging a affiliate/arm/offshoot relationship. Whatever the case, I'm just suggesting that a valid reason be attached to your edit summaries, or better yet, precede it with a Talk page contribution. Claiming to revert to the "neutral" version is ultimately no reason, because one can take the opposite view and claim the exact same reason!Bdell555 (talk) 17:22, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, then just go ahead and start an edit war. I don't care and won't hold you back. End of discussion?--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 17:31, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm interested in AVOIDING an edit war. To do that, everyone involved needs to talk/explain/reason as opposed to just reverting each other. If you don't want to participate in the latter, you certainly don't have to, I am just suggesting that the latter (talk/explain) should be engaged in by anyone, such as yourself, who takes it upon him or herself to revert someone else (i.e. "edit war").Bdell555 (talk) 17:41, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Your userpage

I noticed you had a blue username, and I clicked on it. I like it! Digital 23:26, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I finally found something suitable, thanks to you and our "chicken vs. egg" exchange. Thanks for your input. I do appreciate it. :)--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:18, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

RFC on McCain campaign

There's a discussion going on in regard to the jihadist comments that some editors want included in the John McCain 2008 presidential campaign article here: Talk:John_McCain_presidential_campaign,_2008#RfC_on_al-Qaeda_.22endorsement.22. The discussion is starting to go in circles, and it's quite frankly tiring me. A fresh opinion would be appreciated if you have the time. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 17:11, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

John McCain presidential campaign, 2008

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/John McCain presidential campaign, 2008, and indicate whether you agree or disagree to mediation. If you are unfamiliar with mediation on Misplaced Pages, please refer to Misplaced Pages:Mediation. Please note there is a seven-day time limit on all parties responding to the request with their agreement or disagreement to mediation. Thanks, Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 06:16, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Request for mediation not accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/John McCain presidential campaign, 2008. For the Mediation Committee, WJBscribe (talk) 00:25, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Help Needed re Joe the Plumber warning

Hi The Magnificent Clean-keeper - Is this the appropriate place ask about the "edit war" warning I received for edits I made to the "Joe the Plumber" entry? Please let me know, thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.35.118.176 (talk) 00:52, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Not really. I just wanted to give you a heads-up to prevent you from getting in "trouble". You might want to look up the link provided in that "warning" I gave you about (WP:3RR). Warning sounds somehow negative but it's like I said just a heads up (and standard template).

A note on the side: Remember to add new sections always at the bottom of any talk page. The easiest way to do so is to click "new section" at the top of the screen (or edit screen) of the page you want to place a new edit. I moved your posting to the bottom but you'll still be able to find it easily.

Also remember to sign your posts. There is also a button for it at the same place you'll find the "new section" one (at the edit screen). Happy editing, --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:08, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

edit summary cut short

My edit summary was "Please try pushing this in Talk" which should sound a lot less angry, I hope! I have been having weird problems editing in WP today, and some pages take forever to load. Think they have server problems? In any case, I apologize if my comment sounded mean-spirited in the least! Collect (talk) 15:42, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

No offense taken. And no, for me WP is running smooth :) . so I guess it just depends on the page you're trying to load.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 16:02, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

PS: A good edit summary can prevent reintroducing of the same.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 16:06, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Powell a conservative?

Huh? Who has ever called Powell a conservative? And you reinstated this, claiming that it's OR to say he's not?! Haven't you got that backwards? -- Zsero (talk) 02:09, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you try stop alienating editors who are basically on your side , at least mostly? Yes, that's what you're doing even if you're not aware of it.

Powell a "liberal Republican"? Is that what you're saying? If so, I'm respectfully not responding further to your "out-of-line" comment besides the following since you took out "Republican" in your last edit.

So Powell is not a Republican anymore? Guess someone tried that before (probably because s/he was "pissed" about his endorsement for Obama) and made him a Democrat. Going by that standard Joe Lieberman would be a Republican, or would he? No, he's not and Powell is still a longtime Republican, like it or not.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 03:28, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I didn't take out Republican; I moved it up to the beginning of the sentence. The sentence includes both conservatives and Republicans; Powell is the latter but nobody has ever suggested that he's the former, and it's OR to claim that he is. -- Zsero (talk) 03:46, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I just made a minor change. See below my response to SchutteGod (or his IP?).

"Powell is the latter but nobody has ever suggested that he's the former, and it's OR to claim that he is."

Actually someone did. I could find it but believe me someone did. It made me laugh :) --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 05:15, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

• Remark on the side: I like working with you. Seems to me we're getting there, little by little, step by step.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 05:53, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Colin Powell the 'conservative'

Colin_Powell#Political_views SchutteGod (talk) 02:19, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Never cite WP for WP-articles (and arguments). If there is a citation which confirms your statement you could and should cite it (as you could also cite it to the Palin paragraph in question). After Zsero's edit Frum is still there and I guess it's up to him to cite it, even so I doubt he'll do anything in this regard. He seems to have made up his mind without even thinking that he might be wrong. At least his edit is just a sign of seeing WP as a "battleground" for his own POW. Sadly he sees editors who don't agree with him 100% as "enemies". Wrong approach, big time.

Back to the initial 'dispute" between us: Can you give me a non-WP citation for Powell or/and could we otherwise just say "conservatives and Republicans" (or switch it around if you'd like). The way it stands now (if it hasn't changed while I'm writing) would require to "label" all persons that are mentioned and hat would be all but a BLP "homerun".--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 03:30, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Zsero's edit is fine with me. --SchutteGod 70.181.171.159 (talk) 04:49, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I just made a minor change. Please take a look at it and tell me what you think. I'm still and always open for improvements.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 05:07, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that was my IP. Sorry about that. It looks fine. SchutteGod (talk) 17:12, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

No problem. IP or user name, I thought it was you; who else other than you could have been? Anyway, fine that you're approving the result (even so it did get a little makeover from another editor later). Thanks for your feedback, --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:23, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Moving your comment

The only reason I moved your comment at the ACORN Talk page was to keep all "votes" together, in one place. It is a protected article and (probably) an admin who has never seen the Talk page before will respond to the {{editprotected}} template. I'm only trying to help that unfamiliar admin to see clearly, whether there is consensus or not. Please do not take offense at these good faith efforts. 300wackerdrive (talk) 14:02, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Sure, and now you're blocked indef. for such and other...! Fare well.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 18:18, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Lame-duck needs a citation?

A lame-duck session is, by definition, one that takes place after an election and before the new Congress is sworn in, and includes members who have lost re-election or chose not to run. The link to the term "lame duck" should have been explaination enough. Just found it puzzling why it should need to be cited, esp. since it has been called just that in the media (ex:If the Senate Reconvenes, Two Seats May Be Empty, NY Times).Fredmdbud (talk) 06:54, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

With regard the OR tag

1. Shouldn't it have gone on before the article's speculative claims were removed?
2. Even so, while I don't agree that coverage given to opinion when it's labeled as such would not comprise original research, I do allow that it's best to leave speculation qua speculation out that's hasn't become sufficiently notable in its own right.
3. In any case, at this point, its handful of listed names remaining are all confirmed by G.B. Rob'ts. (Here.)  〜Justmeherenow (  ) 15:43, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually true. I didn't check further and just assumed the remaining entries are from same (or even lesser?) quality. I'll take the template back out.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 15:50, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Uhm, you just did already so. Good.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 15:52, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

<Justme smiles and tips hat, then -- upon thought about what would signal the most gender neutrality -- curtsies>  〜Justmeherenow (  ) 16:23, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Stephen Colbert

Hi The Magnificent Clean-keeper, you reverted my edit with the edit summary "Huh, no", which was not needed. Please use the talk page and see WP:ALSO. Thanks, --Tom 13:57, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

"Bad faith editor" and that on Thanksgiving day? You might want to distance yourself from such "bad faith" statements. See you after the long Holyday-weekend if not sooner.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:10, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Tom: I appreciate much of your edits but naturally not all of them. Since different issues piled up I'll respond to all of them here (and placing a links to this section on you talk).

• Stephen Colbert:

By now you've already explained your edit on the article talk page and your own and corrected your recent edit that I was not conform with. So no need to get into that further because now you made your point clear and left the 2nd (see also) entrance standing to either be left there or worked into the main body. I agree 100% with you now and besides I must admit that I didn't see the link to the Stephen Colbert (character)"bio" at the top at the page. Guess it was to obvious.

• "Bad faith editor":

The 2nd edit of mine (at your talk page) was unnecessary, out of line and I shouldn't have made it and therefore apologize for doing so. But I still wonder why you took out the 1st one . If you have such impression about me in the first place you should've addressed it to me personally. I don't think it is polite in any way to hack on an editor like this after one edit that we disagreed on at the time. I really would've like top get a response from you about it and still do.

• "About talk pages":

I was mostly referring to this edit of yours (which was reversed by another editor). I agree with you about all those "forum-edits" and such but blanking an edit of an established editor doesn't fall (usually) under those strict criteria's and as you said by yourself, "...one man's attack can be another man's praise or something like that" and I think it those cases it's not for us to decide. The simple and easy way to approach this without scrutiny is to inform the editor (either on the "affected" talk page or his/her talk). I certainly wouldn't like it if some would just erase a talk page edit of mine unless it is a clear controversial and senseless "output" from my side (that I kinda expect anyway to be erased quickly even so that didn't happen on article's pages yet).

By the way: This edit I see as appropriate. It happens rarely that the editor wants to keep it and can do so with ease. I recently undid a vandal on your main page. Don't know if you noticed.

Did I leave anything out? In that case tell me and I'll address it after being back from going back to my Holyday-break (even so I'll look into WP off and on).

As for you now, "trick or treat"? Let me know. Thanks, --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:30, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

PS: Don't know if I can give you this " I am also wishing for World peace for my Xmas gift :)." as a treat but I'll try ;) .--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:30, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Another PS: I do read policies and guideline ;)--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:36, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey The Magnificent Clean-keeper, in this age of instant gratification and quick responses, you sure go into great detail :). Anyways, everything looks pretty good with your responses. I have a pretty short memory around here when dealing with editors which is good I think since I try not to hold grudges and just push forward. I am actually pretty busy with real life right now so this is a quick note. Cheers, --Tom 14:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Fox News Poll

Should this be added to the FNC article?

The tone of Fox News Channel's nightly "Special Report" is both more balanced and more negative than the broadcast network shows. On FOX, McCain and Palin combined have received 39% favorable and 61% unfavorable comments, compared to 28% favorable and 72% unfavorable comments about Obama and Biden.166.217.198.228 (talk) 13:47, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's gotta wait.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:39, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Closing discussions

Your discussion closure posture seems to be heavy-handed. Closing a discussion where that type of resolution is not customary sometimes turns out to be incendiary rather than productive. Moreover, closure at article talk pages is usually done by an administrator, and even then only in cases of irrelevance or disruption. There is no way that a discussion which began today --- and which continued to attract numerous comments from numerous editors --- could be “stale” as you characterized it in your edit summary. There is also nothing “irrelevant” about briefly mentioning and quoting another Misplaced Pages article to illustrate proper implementation of Misplaced Pages editing policy. Some editors only had a chance to make one single comment before your closure. For example, Wasted Time R made one comment, and I asked him to clarify whether material from the article could be moved to another sub-article. But you closed the discussion before he could respond. Please try to be a bit less over-zealous about closing discussions. Thank you.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:33, 10 December 2008 (UTC)