Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:36, 3 February 2010

ThinkEnemies (talk) 00:54, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Branchflower report edit

The "speculative POV" you deleted was a direct quote as referenced by The Washington Post. Why did you think that was "speculative"?Jimmuldrow (talk) 20:04, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I may be a tool

but I would have never watched another NFL game had rush become an owner. I watch at least one football game every weekend but my principles are more valuable to me than the NFL. i would simply watch college ball instead. read what rush has been saying the last two days to get an idea of what kind of owner he would have been and what kind of things he'd be saying on a daily basis. my hat's off to the NFL for saying no to rush poisoning the NFL. rush is a obese, drug addicted pig who appeals to people with marginal intelligence. his strength is manipulating those ignorant people and making himself out to be some sort of a victim. he's disgusting and for the record I tend to vote the republican ticket so don't write me off as some librull. you need not be a librull to see rush for what he is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.233.178.254 (talk) 21:15, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

This edit

What is the basis for your edit summary? --JohnnyB256 /_Contribs 23:58, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Please respond to this in the article talk page, in the appropriate section, here. Removing reliably sourced material is a serious matter. --JohnnyB256 /_Contribs 00:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Apparently you didn't have a valid reason to remove that text, and I have reverted. As I explained on the talk page, the text that you removed is an almost word-for-word quote from the Timnes article. Please don't remove reliably sourced text from Misplaced Pages articles. Thank you. --JohnnyB256 /_Contribs 00:40, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Please be mindful of the three-revert rule in your editing. See WP:3RR.--JohnnyB256 /_Contribs 00:55, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I am mindful of much, including Veiled Threats, and three-revert rule. I hope you settle down, and ask yourself why you are behaving like a child. You are without a doubt wrong on your edits, not the sources you based them on. If you can try to be objective, non-partisan, we'll all be better off. ThinkEnemies (talk) 01:03, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Please also be mindful of WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. Thanks, JohnnyB256 /_Contribs 01:06, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Please, sleep it off. Please do not spam my talk page. Please, be mindful of every Wiki Policy on the books, which you have adhered to none. Please, Johnny be good. ThinkEnemies (talk) 01:12, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I still don't understand the basis of your edit summaries claiming that this text that you removed was not in the Times article. Plainly it was. You haven't addressed that point. Can you please explain on the article talk page? Thanks, --JohnnyB256 /_Contribs 01:47, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

This edit , did not match what was stated in the source. I explained that to you on Talk:Fort Hood shooting. "Other federal officials" does not mean the "So far, (the) authorities". That was my premise for removing an intellectually dishonest edit. Will also post this on the Talk:Fort Hood shooting, since you asked this same question there. ThinkEnemies (talk) 22:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Then you removed entirely a passage that required, at the most, some changing in wording. You need to stop this kind of tendentious editing, as well as ratchet down the personal attacks and name-calling ("intellectually dishonest edit"). For the second time, I must ask you to stop the personal attacks and assume good faith on the part of other editors. If you continue to attack other editors, or engage in bad-faith editing (such as removing passages entirely without proper cause), you may be subject to being blocked. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 23:54, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Please, for the second time, do not threaten me. If you continue this spamming of my talk page, I will be forced to report you. Your edits were inconsistent with the source you presented, and I removed it, with explanations on the talk page. You stated to another editor that someone with "opposing POV," has removed that edit. So, not only did you accuse me of a POV reversion, which was justified, you also admitted that your edit was based on your POV, not per WP:NPOV. I apologize for calling you deceitful, and your edit to be intellectually dishonest, even though they appeared to be just that. Trust me, I will not be blocked from editing, you are the first to even attack my behavior or previous edits. ThinkEnemies (talk) 00:13, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

No one is "spamming" your talk page. "Spamming" means that someone is placing links to outside websites in Misplaced Pages, and that is not being done here. It was a formal warning, and I meant it. I appreciate your apology, and consider the matter closed. As for my remarks re "POV," it was without question a POV reversion, because, as you just indicated above, you removed entirely a quote without proper justification. That was an improper edit, and you reverted it several times. I am under no obligation to believe that you are acting in good faith when you repeatedly remove sourced material without good reason, and when all you had to do was to change a few words to meet your own objection.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 00:24, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

No, I removed text that was not supported in the source provided, and I justified with the actual text in the source, and what you wrote, which was not what the NYT published. And yes, I know about plagiarism concerns, but it in no way justifies misrepresentations of the facts. No, the POV is what you admitted, when you assumed I was of different, or "opposing POV," your words, not mine. I stand by my edit, which was undoubtedly in good faith. Yes, I could have changed the your wording to fit the source, but so could've you. You chose not to, instead spending time bickering. Also, the location of the text in question, should not have been in the lead, I would've been obligated to move it. I see no point in arguing the definition of spamming, or how I used it. I am done with this, too much time has been wasted. ThinkEnemies (talk) 00:37, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I think you really need to understand the crucial point here, which is that you don't remove an entire passage because you don't like the way it's phrased. Removing text without good cause is a POV edit. You were the one who had a problem with the way it was worded, not me, so if you wanted it rewritten it was your obligation to do so. I saw no problem with the wording. People disagree with phraseology all the time. The proper response is to rewrite, not remove entirely. As for POV, I already explained to you that I happen to share your POV on that particular passage. I think the word I used is "rubbish."--JohnnyB256 (talk) 00:50, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

re: Hannah Giles Discussion

Hi ThinkEnemies. I hope this message finds you well.

I am removing our discussion from the Giles page because it's more personal than anything else. Also, there are several credible resources that have criticized the methodology of the ACORN video execution and release, including Frank Taranto, a Wall Street Journal contributor who is actually an associate of Breitbart's. Taranto has called the methodology of the videos "grossly unethical", and has pointed out that Breitbart has merely orchestrated sparse and limited access to information for those among his fellow journalists who he criticizes. The Colombia Journalism Review has offered far more scathing, but equally valid criticism. I dont want to waste your time with a laundry list of links that make the point, but if you really want them I'll be happy to provide.

Finally, as far as credible sources go, one the most credible sources on ACORN, as per the allegations which you have advanced, is the study completed by Drs. Martin and Drier (http://www.uni.edu/martinc/acornstudy.html). This is a study completed by non-partisan and fully accredited experts on the subjects of journalism and politics. Their works have been referenced not only in universities, but in the senate as well. They provide far more credibility than most of the hot-air flying around the blogo-sphere, or politically interested spin-doctors. You might want to read it.

BTW, there are no vandals to worry about, and people on here wouldnt tolerate that anyway.Ceemow (talk) 03:24, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Heads up

Just wanted to let you know that I reported Jimintheatl at WP:BLPN, as it is starting to get out of hand. Just figured you might want to see what happens, as you have reverted a few examples of his POV. J DIGGITY (U ¢ ME) 05:58, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Josh. I look forward to watching it play out. Some of his edits were just unbelievably blatant POV. ThinkEnemies (talk) 22:37, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

More heads up

Just a word of caution about your recent edits to the Tea Party protests article. Your three reverts of my edits plus your reverts of another editor constitute a technical breach of WP:3RR. I won't be reporting it - partly because I agree with your 4th revert; partly because the wording of the 3RR policy seems to morph every few weeks. This week, even reverts of completely unrelated edits within the same article are added cumulatively when determining if you've crossed the bright line. Just sayin', Xenophrenic (talk) 04:38, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I wanted to wait a day to edit that article, guess I couldn't help it. It's funny how the policy is constantly changing. Misplaced Pages articles are meant for evolution, policy should probably be set in stone. ThinkEnemies (talk) 06:16, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Palin Edit

Your edit on the Palin article is factually incomplete. Please don't remove the comment made by her spokeswoman regarding the resale of the purchased books. Thanks. Scribner (talk) 03:52, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

My edit was a flip-flop of the sources. Sarah Palin had a detailed version of the source, while Going Rogue: An American Life had a summary of the source. I flipped them because the Sarah Palin article has a summary of the book Going Rogue. According to WP:SS, I used the summary of Going Rogue, in the WP:BLP of Sarah Palin. ThinkEnemies (talk) 04:32, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Personal attack warning

If you continue with your personal attacks you'll be blocked from editing. Scribner (talk) 04:36, 3 February 2010 (UTC)