Dashboulagh and User talk:CENSEI: Difference between pages

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 17:19, 10 October 2008

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, CENSEI, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Gary King (talk) 03:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. CENSEI (talk) 19:51, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

AFD

Please give a reason for your choice, per Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#Discussion. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

No. Now leave me alone. CENSEI (talk) 20:58, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Too funny. I want you to be mentor. It definitely helps to have a sense of humor here. :) (Wallamoose (talk) 04:24, 10 October 2008 (UTC))

Your edits to Glenn Greenwald. . .

Hi CENSEI, I have placed a notice of your recent edits to the Glenn Greenwald biography at the biography of living persons noticeboard (here). Please gain consensus before re-adding the same or like material, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Thanks, R. Baley (talk) 04:14, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Removal of referenced text from Hannity's book article

I reverted the changes you made to the article. Please be aware that there has been a consensus building process in the discussion page. Please discuss specific issues in the talk page or request for an RFC if you are not satisfied with the outcome of the discussion. Well, I happen to notice your previous talk about Glenn Greenwald. Docku^Hi 10:08, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I did not reinsert the material because the BLP policy would seem to indicate that when there is a legitimate dispute over whether or not content is appropriate it is up to the editors who want to see it included to make the case before the material can go in the article. That’s why the process went forward on the Greenwald article with the material not included. CENSEI (talk) 14:05, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Your removal of factual material from Brian Ross (journalist)

What are you saying here? That someone who uses a reporter to disseminate false information is a news source? — goethean ॐ 17:57, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

It is immaterial what you or I think, its Greenwald's opinion, and is not terribly notable in an article about Brian Ross. CENSEI (talk) 17:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Um, no, if the "source" is not a source of facts, but of fiction, that is absolutely central to whether the "source" should be ptotected. — goethean ॐ 18:04, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

And when a reliable enough source, or better yet several of them come to that conclusion, then it might be noteworthy. Right now all we have is one opinion from one marginally noteworthy person. CENSEI (talk) 18:07, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Right now all we have is one opinion from one marginally noteworthy person.

Yeah, versus...you. — goethean ॐ 18:15, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry guy, but its clear that you have to source it, the source has to be notable on that topic, and it has to be a significant enough event to include it in the article. These are the rules, as I am quickly coming to understand them, and I will enforce them where I encounter them being broken. CENSEI (talk) 18:18, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Editing

CENSEI wrote: "I have been going through a lot of the articles you have contributed to and I just have to say ..... not cool." Please CENSEI refrain from WP:STALK. Seriously, your edits are sloppy, you are confrontational, your edit summaries are often misleading and you are focusing on removing left-leaning criticism while boost up right-leaning criticism. This isn't NPOV editing, it is merely partisan editing, not an effort to improve Wikipedia. Bring up your concerns with Goethean on the WP:RS talk page and get others involved otherwise you are violating WP:STALK and creating a disturbance. Wikipedia should not be a contest of wills, no matter how strongly you feel about things. --John Bahrain (talk) 01:19, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Reading another user's contribution log is not in itself harassment; those logs are public for good reason. In particular, proper use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing errors or violations of Wikipedia policy or correcting related problems on multiple articles

, so I certainly dispute the stalking accusation. My edits may be sloppy for now, but I am a quick learner. Please point to an example where I removed left leaning criticism and boosted right leaning criticism? All I have done so far is to decreas all criticism, especialy when it violates policy. CENSEI (talk) 01:22, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll repeat myself: bring in others and aim for consensus. Wikipedia isn't a contest of wills and if you just go around reverting Goethean's edits in a sloppy fashion while treathening and berating him, you are just creating an unpleasant atmosphere that isn't going to conclusively solve things. I think your removal of Goethean's unsourced addition to the Brian Ross article earlier was a good one since it wasn't at all sourced. But arguing about WP:WEIGHT is not a clear-cut battle and saying that TPM and Glenn Greenwald aren't valid sources is I think going too far. I think you are editing too fast in the case of Milbank as there were good sources that supported that material, including Politico, but you were just removing it wholesale while being confrontational with Goethean. You aren't aiming for consensus, you are trying to dominate via a contest of wills, just what I was saying that Goethean shouldn't try to do earlier. --John Bahrain (talk) 01:38, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I removed nothing from the Milbank article, I just trimmed it down to an approproate length, as pwe WP:WEIGHT. Consensus does not trump policy. CENSEI (talk) 01:41, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure? This is what I am referring to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dana_Milbank&diff=230028885&oldid=230026286 --John Bahrain (talk) 01:48, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

To answer your earlier question, here is an edit that I felt boosted up a right-leaning take on things.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mark_Halperin&diff=next&oldid=230050033

Notice how you emphasized the "reinforce long standing beliefs of media bias" based on a reference for which the text isn't even available online. That struck me as strange. You are doing some research for some positions. You just said yourself that you come from Conservapedia. You are also removing TPM and Gleen Greenwald links, which are left leaning sources (and I've seen you remove DailyKos links, but that is more understandable and it is an open blogging site.) You are also ridiculing MMFA. This is unfortunately partisan talk. --John Bahrain (talk) 01:47, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

The whole sentence I added, not just the section above will provides it with the needed context Halperin was criticized by conservatives who used the memo to reinforce long standing beliefs of media bias.. I thought I was being clear that is was conservatives, cited fro Ponnuru and the Washington Times that were linking this to thier own perceptions of bias. CENSEI (talk) 15:31, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

"BLP board"

Can you please provide a link to the specific section so I can participate in that discussion? Thank you. Gamaliel (talk) 00:55, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule at Nedra Pickler. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Papa November (talk) 11:08, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Unblock

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

CENSEI (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Yeago follows me around my edits undoing them and I get blocked? He remvoes a tag on an article when he clearly knows there is an issue with iy and I get blocked? No one sees anything wrong with that? CENSEI (talk) 13:15, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Yeago has been blocked as well. In any event, you clearly violated 3RR. And if posting unblock requests in the future, remember to talk about yourself, not others. — Daniel Case (talk) 13:26, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

ANI-notice

Hello, CENSEI. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — goethean ॐ 18:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

At this time, I've blocked your account from editing for 48 hours; the editor you were revert warring with has been blocked for 24 hours. Please note that further edit warring in the near future may result in further blocks of escalating length; I'd instead encourage you to make appropriate use of talk pages and Wikipedia's dispute resolution process to better develop consensus regarding the most appropriate article versions. I appreciate that you're approaching this issue with the best of intentions, and should emphasize that this block is not a punishment -- should you convincingly commit to stop reverting and instead discuss issues (note: "instead" rather than "also"), I'd be happy to consider an unblock request on that condition. Obviously you're welcome to appeal this, as I see you've done with your other recent block. Take care. – Luna Santin (talk) 18:24, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Unblock

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

CENSEI (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was blocked for edit warring on and article and vandalism. WP:RPA would suggest that I have the right to remove a personal attack against me, as Goethean made over at ANI, and the IP editor who called me “a racist, sexist right wing nut job”. I would be more than happy to explain all my edits on talk, as I have done before, and if I am not unblocked for editing, I would like to be unblocked so that I can defend myself over at ANI. Thank you. CENSEI (talk) 18:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Please address your actions not the actions of other, also it may help to take a peak at this guide to requesting unblocks — Tiptoety ^talk 18:38, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I did replace the {{vandal}} template with {{userlinks}} (they're functionally identical, but most people are more familiar with the former -- I'm not sure if they meant anything by it; they may have just thought it would be a useful template). I can't do anything about an edit summary, unfortunately, but if anything you judge to be an attack remains on a talk page, please point it out. You're welcome to respond on this talk page, in the meantime. – Luna Santin (talk) 18:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Its not about removing the edit summary, I feel as if I was treated unfairly and that no one will take a personal attacks, or even policy issues seriously around here. After complaing about edit warring Goethian's first edit is a revision on the article. [1]. CENSEI (talk) 18:40, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, in all fairness, the user who called you a "racist, sexist right wing nut job" is blocked (by me), and you're free to let admins know if that sort of verbal abuse continues. More than anything, the behavior we're hoping for here is discussion (hopefully the civil, consensus-building variety). – Luna Santin (talk) 18:44, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, in all fairness, three editors are enaged in edit warring: one is blocked for 2 days, one is blocked for one day (and has made peronal attacks), and the other is not blocked at all? How the hell is that fair? CENSEI (talk) 18:45, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Has the aforementioned third user violated the three-revert rule? – Luna Santin (talk) 20:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

According to the block log, you blocked me for edit warring, and not for 3RR. If I was guilty of edit warring (which in retrospect, I agree that I was) were not all users who were engaged in reverting without talking also guilty of edit warring, it was the same behavior for all users involve din that article for the past several days, including an administrator. And if it was only because I crossed the 3RR boundary, why was I not warned of this instead of going right to the block? All I want is consistency. CENSEI (talk) 20:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring describes a general behavior, while 3RR describes both a specific violation and what is commonly referred to as an "electric fence". You've been linked to both policies, over the past few days, and are presumably aware of them. As far as consistency, if police see three cars speeding, two of which are going nearly double the limit and one of which is slightly over, which car(s) do you think are most likely to be pulled over? – Luna Santin (talk) 20:36, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring does describe a certain behavior, a behavior that 4 editors were behaving in, and only 2 of them were punished. Your analogy doesn’t really work because you don’t have to deliberate whom you apply the rules to, you pick and choose who to apply the rules to. So lets try another, more apt analogy. A policeman mans a DUI checkpoint, and is supposed to check the sobriety of every driver that passes him. The first person he sees driving up is his friend, and he waves him through. The second guy he sees, he pulls to the side and smelling alcohol on his breath asks how much he has had to drink, but lets him go through without a breathalyzer. The third guy is pulled to the side given a breathalyzer and blows over the limit and is belligerent to boot, he goes to jail for a day. The last guy is pulled over, and he too blows over the limit, and goes to jail for 2 days. All the analogies do not get around the fact that this was handled selectively and disproportionately. Consistency ….. pass it on. CENSEI (talk) 13:23, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Not a very good analogy for you, either, I'm afraid. In this case, all of the "drivers" were checked, and all of those above the "legal limit" were blocked. What's unfair about that? – Luna Santin (talk) 00:55, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I suppose we will have to agree to disagree. CENSEI (talk) 01:42, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

It was my racing that led us both past this legal limit. I apologize for this. But fair is fair; 3RR is 3RR. The other editors of the article are doing no such racing--they are innocuous contributers who deserve the benefit of the doubt.Yeago (talk) 01:08, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

McMaster-Carr

I am fully aware that McMaster-Carr is not the cheapest place in the world, but it is extremely convenient because one of their warehouses is in chicago and I can get same day delivery for the price of UPS ground. Note only that, but they usually carry just about anything I need in stock (although I do wish they had a fuller metric hardware selection...but you can't have everything). For all of our production requirements we definitely use distributors to help with the cost, supply, and management. McMaster is also great for getting onesies and twosies for prototypes =) --Wizard191 (talk) 01:59, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Elmhurst actually :) I sent one of my engineers out there, and he passed it 5 times trying to find it ... how someone missed a 3 million squarefoot solid brick building is beyond me. McMaster Carr has saved my ass before as well. Where else can I order a hasteloy gearpump and be 100% confident that I can pick it up 40 minutes after I call them. CENSEI (talk) 02:03, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Article probation notice

Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, that an article to which you have recently contributed, Talk:Barack Obama, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Talk:Barack Obama/Article probation. Please accept this as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that you have violated the probation terms. Thank you. - Wikidemo (talk) 04:35, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry

Although we are evidently coming from different political perspectives, I want to apologize for accusing you of a POV rv on the TON article. It was a true lapse on my part, but a good faith mistake. Aloha, Arjuna (talk) 02:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

No problem, but whats the TON article? CENSEI (talk) 14:14, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't watching this page, and would have replied earlier. TON = The Obama Nation. Anyway, it was my bad and sorry again. Arjuna (talk) 00:51, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm inviting your comment

Here (and also, if possible, here?) $\sim$ Justmeherenow ( ) 05:21, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Your rant

You know, you could say the same thing about you, showing up at the Helen Thomas and Joseph C. Wilson articles shortly after my edits there. But we are all free to edit whatever article we want to. Wikipedia isn't a battleground, it's a collaboration, and if you did more collaborating and less fighting, you might find your time here more productive and fulfilling. Gamaliel (talk) 18:42, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Thats all probably true ... no, all of that is true, no doubt about it. But I have seem many many editors follow me around to articles I have been editing and worse I have seen indiviiduals they are friendly with me around to articles I have been editing so don’t piss on my back and tell me its raining. CENSEI (talk) 18:53, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks and an appeal for support

I thank you for supporting my Milbank edits. You might take a look at a little problem I'm having with the description of Keith Olbermann's "special comment" of August 18, 2008. Best regards! Badmintonhist (talk) 21:27, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

NP, it was a good edit. I'll take a look at Olby CENSEI (talk) 21:36, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Sourcewatch

I offer no opinion on whether Sourcewatch is an appropriate external link for the Wilson article, but your edit summary here is technically mistaken. Wikis can be appropriate external links if they have "a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors." (WP:EL). Obviously, these terms are subjective, but there is no blanket prohibition in wikis as external links. MastCell ^Talk 23:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I was unaware of that, Thanks. CENSEI (talk) 16:30, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Mark Halperin and Helen Thomas

I find it interesting that you take the point of view that one commentator is not notable at Mark Halperin, but is notable at Helen Thomas. Gamaliel (talk) 16:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Put some perspective on it. Multiple commentators over Thomas’ carrier have accused here of having an anti-Israeli/pro-Palestinian bias, I cited several sources. Thomas’ article is 17K bytes and the Halperin article is 1/3rd the size, one sentence on Thomas’ anti-Israeli agenda, considering it has been made multiple times over many years by multiple RS’s gives it some weight and notability and nothing indicates any longterm or widespread notability for the one sentence Halperin made.

In short, I do not find it interesting that you don’t see the difference, I see it as typical from you. CENSEI (talk) 16:28, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, one column plus a link to newsbusters is not a well-cited section. If you want to find real sources, we can craft a section on conservative views about Thomas, but using a crank blog and a discredited attack column to label someone "anti-Israel" doesn't measure up. Gamaliel (talk) 16:31, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

It was the MRC, not Newsbusters ... and Tom Shales .... and the Seattle Post-Intelligencer and perhaps a half dozen other sources I have ferreted out today (which I would be more than happy to provide, Commentary has a wonderful article from the late 90's on Thomas). But I am sorry as well, sorry that you feel that MMFA is a reliable enough source for entire sections in articles, and it conservative equivalent is not reliable enough for even a supporting footnote. Foot meet mouth. CENSEI (talk) 18:36, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't see them as equivalent just because one is progressive and one is conservative. Just stating it doesn't make it so. There are plenty of reliable conservative sources (Commentary, for example), but Newsbusters/MRC (NB is the MRC's blog) is not one of them. You are welcome to add appropriate sources to the Thomas article. Gamaliel (talk) 18:42, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I realize you don’t see them as equivalent, that’s the point and it is what makes many people think you are such a hypocrite. CENSEI (talk) 19:53, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Ever since my first day on Wikipedia I've been accused of any number of biases and hypocrisies. I'm pretty indifferent to such insults at this point, as I see them as standard operating procedure for people unable to debate on the facts and merits of issues. I don't see them as equivalent because they are not equivalent, just like I don't see CNN and Fox as the same thing, or apples and oranges, or white and wheat bread. Just because other people make an arbitrary connection between two things does not require me to do so as well, and not accepting that arbitrary equivalence hardly makes me a hypocrite. Gamaliel (talk) 19:55, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Well good for you, keep telling yourself how "fair" you are and maybe one day you might convince yourself of it. CENSEI (talk) 20:43, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

So much for discussing the facts and merits of issues. Gamaliel (talk) 21:00, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

You didnt come here for a discussion of the "facts and merits" of the issue, you came here to troll for an argument. CENSEI (talk) 21:45, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

If I was interested in trolling, I certainly found the right place for it. Gamaliel (talk) 21:52, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you should refresh yourself with this essay, looks like you could use the remedial lesson. CENSEI (talk) 22:58, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, silly me, because everyone is rude and offensive but you. Gamaliel (talk) 23:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I thought I told you not to come back here untill you read that essay. Now go forth and be schooled young padawan. CENSEI (talk) 23:30, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Please clear something up at Obama-Ayers controversy talk page

You recently edited the Obama-Ayers controversy page. Could you comment at Talk:Obama–Ayers controversy#Removal of "Warren criticized Smith" passage and clear up whether you support inclusion of the quote as reported by Ben Smith? Wikidemon is saying (a) that the quote tells us nothing; I say it shows Ayers and Dohrn were supporting Obama at that point, not just giving him a forum (something we have from no other source); (b) Wikidemon says Ben Smith is an unreliable source; I say that should be proven before dismissing him. A quick comment by a third editor might clear up where the consensus is on using the quote. Incidentally, I think that once we can footnote the quote to Ben Smith, and we can, it does no harm to link to the blog as well, but that issue is not important to me. -- Noroton (talk) 20:10, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

FYI

Thought you might find this interesting. [2] Arzel (talk) 04:25, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

August 2008

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. CIreland (talk) 04:59, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

CENSEI (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

While block durations are up to the discretion of the blocking admin, a 1 week block for this is unfair since there was some agreement that the material I was removing was in violation of WP:BLP sourcing requirements. I admit that I should not have violated 3RR without making my reason more clear on the appropriate notice board and/or talk page and I apologize for that. I pledge from here on out not to make a revert for any reason (excluding obvious vandalism), including WP:BLP, without discussing it on the talk page first. I am requesting that my block duration be lowered to the standard 24 hour length or lifted all together. CENSEI (talk) 14:16, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Block lengths generally increase after each violation of the three revert rule. This is to further discourage people from becoming persistent offenders. This is your third violation in 20 days - the block, unfortunately, stands.— Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 14:38, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

User unblocked per an understanding e-mail discussion - the above block is 'in the past', provided edit-warring does not continue. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 16:12, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Still blocked ... I saw my log and I am assuming something with the IP didnt work right? CENSEI (talk) 16:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I have cleared the autoblock. Try now. CIreland (talk) 18:00, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!. CENSEI (talk) 18:29, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Friendly notification

This is a courtesy notice to tell you I have requested third-party advice regarding our recent discourse. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

That would be agreeable. CENSEI (talk) 13:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Just to be clear, third party advice means advice from a third party - not more intimidation, incivility and commentary about unrelated arguments you have had with other editors. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I must apologize ... I didnt think it was a forum where you could lie about me and not allow me to rebut. My bad.CENSEI (talk) 00:11, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I like this one too. (Wallamoose (talk) 04:46, 10 October 2008 (UTC))

Mark Kirk

Please discuss major edits before making them. Some of the "unsourced" info you removed citing the BLP policies were sourced. I note you've been warned for this and similar things before; please use caution next time. Ironho lds 03:52, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

See the article's talk page. CENSEI (talk) 13:41, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I have; see the response by Shsilver. Ironho lds 17:09, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

BLP vio

Please stop revert warring to include material against consensus[3][4] that has been opposed on BLP grounds. This addition accuses Bernadine Dohrn of murder. You were tendentious to include it in the first place and never had consensus. Now cut it out. Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 22:30, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Huh? Everything is sourced to an RS right? What else do I neede? And BTW, where is this consensus, please provide a link to the relevant discussion. CENSEI (talk) 02:57, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

You need to follow WP:BLP: "It is not Wikipedia's purpose to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. When writing about a person notable only for one or two events, including every detail can lead to problems, even when the material is well-sourced." Also, if there is not consensus for an action, the default is to, surprise, not do the action! There doesn't need to be consensus for keeping the status quo if there is no consensus to change it. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 01:03, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

You've Been Mentioned in the Milk Talk Page

The prior section on Milk and the Peoples Temple to which you commented upon has been deleted. A short sentence was re-added. That has since been deleted, by two of the same 3 editors as before.

SandyGeorge stated that you made prior comments. I noted your prior quote ("I think this is worthy of a paragraph and perhaps a short subsection in the article. Milk was heavily involved in the People's Temple (as well as a number of other well known activists who would also like not to be remembered for it), there appears to be plenty of documentation on this, and it would certainly appear to be notable and noteworthy."

Because both SandyGeorge and I raised your name, I thought I'd inform you that the discussion is occurring [5].Mosedschurte (talk) 23:57, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:FAR for Barack Obama

Barack Obama has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.

I have nominated Barack Obama for Featured Article Review. You are welcome to participate in the discussion. Curious bystander (talk) 00:11, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Check your email

you've got one from me. -- Noroton (talk) 14:40, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Your edit to Elizabeth Bentley

I wonder if you'd care to explain your reasoning behind this edit. To my thinking, the reference quotes you are replacing repeat information that's already in the article text, and are therefor valueless, especially considering that the references are rather frivolous and unnecessary in the first place, in that they don't document a quote, "information about living persons" or anything "likely to be challenged".

I look forward to your response. Once you have explained the value of the material in question, I'll drop my opposition to it. RedSpruce (talk) 13:57, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

The material is relevant to the article and undersocres information from the source that is relevant to the subject. No further explanation needed. CENSEI (talk) 15:33, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. "Underscores" is an interesting euphemism for "pointlessly repeats". Anyway, I'm gratified to see that you have no (rational) response, and that I my initial opinion about the incorrectness of your edit was correct. RedSpruce (talk) 10:56, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, that was certainly snotty of you. Anyhoo, not like it matters, any change you make to the article will be undone. Thansk for playing :) CENSEI (talk) 12:52, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I think you'll find this interesting

Top of the front page, The New York Times, October 4: Obama and '60s Bomber: A Look Into Crossed Paths by Scott Shane. Article continues to page A14, where it covers that entire page, with five pictures. No scoops, just a lot of important coverage with obvious implications for our coverage. -- Noroton (talk) 14:56, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

NPOV citation found

Now that an NPOV citation comparing "An American Carol" with "Religulous" has been found at http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/ent/stories/DN-carol_1003gl.ART.State.Edition1.2699bd1.html can we stop the edit warring? Steelbeard1 (talk) 18:35, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you would have put a source there in the first place I wouldnt have had to undo your ridcuolsly NPOV and OR ridden edit in the first place, now would I? CENSEI (talk) 18:46, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

They were put there with the weekend box office results. You disputed the validity of the comparisons which is now moot. Steelbeard1 (talk) 18:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

The comparison issue is most certainly not moot. Take this to the appropriate talk page. CENSEI (talk) 18:51, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

=

Wikidemon et all on ANI

If you have anything to add, then it would be greatly appreciated. I'm sure you know how these people keep in contact with each other and "gangbang," for lack of a better term, anyone who they disagree with.TheGoodLocust (talk) 04:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

stop disruping Barack Obama

You have been warned multiple times, and are the subject of a current AN/I report, yet you have reverted three times a claim that Obama went to a Muslim school. Your ongoing and repeated disruption of Barack Obama and related articles subjects you to a block or ban from these articles. Stop this now. Wikidemon (talk) 17:06, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

October 2008

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Barack Obama. 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 a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 17:09, 10 October 2008 (UTC)