User talk:107.214.30.15: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 16:38, 4 November 2013 editTiller54 (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users34,770 edits →November 2013 ← Previous edit		Revision as of 10:43, 8 November 2013 edit undo107.214.30.15 (talk) →November 2013: doneNext edit →
Line 55:		Line 55:

	:::And then you go an accuse me of "lying"? Or do you just have no idea what you're doing? Because you do not seem to be familiar with ] either, which states quite specifically that information should ''not'' be removed because a link is dead. But, are 3 of the 4 links actually dead? Of course, if you really were familiar with ], you'd be aware of http://archive.org, with which one of the three dead links can . As for the others? One is , which if you were familiar with ], you would know should not be removed just because it requires payment to access it. And the last one? This was the most tricky of all. That required the incredibly complicated task of searching for the article's title. And oh, . But, actually doing that would require you do something other than just lazily hit the "delete" button. Which is also why instead of looking for new sources to see what came of his plans, you just deleted them. ] (]) 16:38, 4 November 2013 (UTC)		:::And then you go an accuse me of "lying"? Or do you just have no idea what you're doing? Because you do not seem to be familiar with ] either, which states quite specifically that information should ''not'' be removed because a link is dead. But, are 3 of the 4 links actually dead? Of course, if you really were familiar with ], you'd be aware of http://archive.org, with which one of the three dead links can . As for the others? One is , which if you were familiar with ], you would know should not be removed just because it requires payment to access it. And the last one? This was the most tricky of all. That required the incredibly complicated task of searching for the article's title. And oh, . But, actually doing that would require you do something other than just lazily hit the "delete" button. Which is also why instead of looking for new sources to see what came of his plans, you just deleted them. ] (]) 16:38, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

			::::* Especially just days after all this ]. Well, the article is fine now, but your edit history speaks volumes. Enough said. ] (]) 10:43, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

	] Hello, and ]. You appear to be engaged in an ] with one or more editors. Although repeatedly ] another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Misplaced Pages this is usually seen as obstructing the ], and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please try to reach a ] on the ].		] Hello, and ]. You appear to be engaged in an ] with one or more editors. Although repeatedly ] another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Misplaced Pages this is usually seen as obstructing the ], and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please try to reach a ] on the ].

Revision as of 10:43, 8 November 2013

Welcome to Misplaced Pages!

Hello, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might like to see:

You are welcome to continue editing without logging in, but you may want to consider creating an account. Doing so is free, requires no personal information, and provides several benefits such as the ability to create articles. For a full outline and explanation of the benefits that come with creating an account, please see this page. If you edit without a username, your IP address (107.214.30.15) is used to identify you instead.

In any case, I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your comments on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your IP address (or username if you're logged in) and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on this page. Again, welcome! PrairieKid (talk) 15:18, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

October 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Togo D. West, Jr. may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Field Artillery Corps from 1965–68 and the Army Judge Advocate General's Corps from 1969-73.<ref>[[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/govt/admin/west.htm Togo D. West

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:28, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Andrew Lord Lloyd-Webber

No matter how esteemed, Debrett's is a secondary source; another highly-esteemed secondary source, Who's Who 2013 lists LLOYD-WEBBER, Baron (Andrew Lloyd Webber) (Lloyd-Webber. "Lloyd-Webber, Baron". Who's Who. Vol. 2013 (December 2012 online ed.). A & C Black. {{cite encyclopedia}}: Unknown parameter |accessed= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |othernames= ignored (help) (Subscription or UK public library membership required.)). Read about territorial designations and read the primary source: "No. 54689". The London Gazette. 25 February 1997. D B D 21:12, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Ok, let's change tack. Compare what you've done to Lloyd-Webber's article with any other life peer. Here are a few:

And a few more who acquired a hyphen into their title:

You should also thoroughly read WP:PEER for our guidelines on writing about peers (such as Lloyd-Webber.) D B D 21:53, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

See responses on your talk page. 107.214.30.15 (talk) 22:12, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

November 2013

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 Scott Tipton, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. Tiller54 (talk) 12:56, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

There are FOUR sources provided for that section that is one sentences long. That is in no way "unsourced" or "poorly sourced". Tiller54 (talk) 00:01, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

- The following response was posted on your talk page. It is reposted below in it's entirety, in case you come here first:

I posted your 3RR warning on your page, because that's where it belonged. Before edit-warring, had you bothered to read either the BLP tag atop the article, OR WP:BLP itself, as I suggested, you would have learned that "unsourced and poorly sourced material must be removed immediately" from BLPs. Just as you would have known there are circumstances where BLP edits are immune to 3RR. Just as, had you really been familiar with WP:DE, you would have encountered WP:HEAR, and reviewed my legitimate objections. Also per DE, rather than reverting, you would have opened a discussion at the BLP's Talk and tried consensus. You did none of that. Instead you tried to bully by incessantly reverting; threaten with your ill-advised and ill-informed 3RR tag; then ran to a Noticeboard when your efforts to intimidate me failed. Had you really been familiar with the policies you referenced, you certainly would not have insisted that another editor do your research for you and update sources - for you - that you wanted! That is a whole new level of balls that I haven't seen here before.

But finally, this is where your tendentious editing is exposed and the lie is revealed. In your 3RR "warning" on my talk page, you said: "There are FOUR sources provided for that section that is one sentences (sic) long". Really? Let's see. Here's the sentence as it appears in the article:

"With Representatives Laura Bradford and Frank McNulty, Tipton planned on re-introducing a version of Jessica's Law to establish minimum sentences for child sex offenders, sponsoring bills to create a full-time judge position in Montrose and to simplify water rights filing."

Had you bothered to check those sources, or made any effort to read them to verify that their content was consistent with what the edit claimed, you would have discovered that 3 of the 4 are deadlinks. You also would have learned that the one remaining source doesn't even mention Laura Bradford or Frank McNulty. And as I've said repeatedly, that source doesn't state any action that was ever taken. It's just 3 year old speculation on what a newly-elected, freshman state rep "plans" to do. That is not encyclopedic. WP is not a newspaper: see WP:NOTNEWS; or a crystal ball: see WP:SPECULATION.

So I will not play your games. Once the article protection is lifted, I'll give you a brief, but reasonable, opportunity to update the links and content - if you want the sentence to stay. Otherwise I'll report it and it will be removed for you. 107.214.30.15 (talk) 21:05, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I know what WP:BLP says, thank you. You, on the other hand, don't. You go ahead and make all sorts of grammatical changes to the article, including to the first two sections, "Early life" and "Early political career". And yet, despite the fact that both sections have no sources whatsoever and have tags requesting that sources be added, you don't go and add any. Neither do you delete the information for being "unsourced", as you could have rightly done. No, instead you proceed to delete another section entirely, one that is completely sourced. Had you deleted the first two sections, I wouldn't have restored them. In fact, you did remove some unreferenced information from said sections. Did I restore it? No. What I did object to was you removing properly sourced information on the grounds that it was unsourced and, in another case, "irrev". Really? What committees he served on in the Colorado House was "irrelevant" to the section on his tenure in the Colorado House? And when you deleted the information about his tenure and said "Did he or didn't he? Source doesn't say", I made the not unreasonable request that you look to update the sources and information instead of just deleting them. So yes, I was really ballsy by asking you to not be lazy wasn't I?

And then you go an accuse me of "lying"? Or do you just have no idea what you're doing? Because you do not seem to be familiar with WP:LINKROT either, which states quite specifically that information should not be removed because a link is dead. But, are 3 of the 4 links actually dead? Of course, if you really were familiar with WP:LINKROT, you'd be aware of http://archive.org, with which one of the three dead links can easily be found. As for the others? One is behind a paywall, which if you were familiar with WP:PAYWALL, you would know should not be removed just because it requires payment to access it. And the last one? This was the most tricky of all. That required the incredibly complicated task of searching for the article's title. And oh, here it is. But, actually doing that would require you do something other than just lazily hit the "delete" button. Which is also why instead of looking for new sources to see what came of his plans, you just deleted them. Tiller54 (talk) 16:38, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Look familiar? So who was lazy here? Not to mention, hypocritical. Especially just days after all this Sturm und Drang. Well, the article is fine now, but your edit history speaks volumes. Enough said. 107.214.30.15 (talk) 10:43, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Misplaced Pages. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Misplaced Pages this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Misplaced Pages is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. —Darkwind (talk) 03:00, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Please see above and at your talk. Thank you. 107.214.30.15 (talk) 21:41, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, 107.214.30.15. You have new messages at Darkwind's talk page.
Message added 23:54, 3 November 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—Darkwind (talk) 23:54, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Anderson, Emily (25 November 2008). "Jessica's Law bill gets state sponsors". Grand Junction Free Press. Retrieved 2008-11-25.
Hanel, Joe (24 December 2008). "Rep. Tipton's issues include roads, sexual assault, education". Cortez Journal. Retrieved 2008-12-27.
Mason, K.C. (7 January 2009). "Budget Woes Will Handcuff Colorado Legislature". Telluride Watch. Retrieved 2009-01-10.
Capps, Reilly (12 January 2009). "Ahern may give it another go". Telluride Daily Planet. Retrieved 2009-02-04.